My last post, "Anatomy of an Angry Atheist," was atypical for me. My book, writings, and teachings try to focus on spiritual, practical insights that can help others to lead happier, more effective and passionate lives. They spring from my personal experiences and struggles, and although I often use historical information, my approach is not "scholarly" but comes from the heart as much as possible. I am not by nature a fighter and, for a variety of personal reasons, am uncomfortable with conflict. Instead, I try to find common ground, with the assumption that all human beings essentially desire the same things: a feeling of purpose, a loving community, health, and growth.
"Anatomy of an Angry Atheist," though, strayed from this into the combat arena and was my response to recent, often brutal attacks on much that I deeply love and know is essentially good: God, faith, and religion. I was responding to books that call for an end of faith; label God a delusion; claim that religion poisons everything; and tell parents that teaching religion to children is akin to child abuse, that faith is an evolutionary aberration, and that the world would be better off if billions of people dropped the crutch of religion.
In my experience as one who came to faith later in life -- and is now a rabbi -- I know that many of these positions are based on stereotyped generalities that simply raise the level of anger and intolerance on both sides. I was attempting to call out the errors and inaccuracies, and to set the stage for presenting some thoughts about this phenomenon, based on my own experience. I had tried to be clear that I was addressing specific books and positions by several prominent spokesmen, not all atheists by any means.
This blog brought many responses (many not posted on HuffPo), and I soon realized that there seems to be some essential misunderstandings and assumptions about what I was getting at, which, I'm sure, is largely due to my lack of clarity, and to my unfamiliarity and discomfort with such positional writing. I was stopped in my tracks, though, by the response from a rabbi whom I deeply respect (but who does not know me personally). He picked up on an ugly implication in my blog and wrote, "I think you've identified some important lapses -- always the case when people think psychology accounts for the other guy's argument but not their own."
Ouch!!
If this is the perception from such a perceptive person, then it's time to take a big step back and try to re-frame the conversation. Moreover, this is the beginning of the Jewish month of Elul, a time for introspection and forgiveness, so I apologize for personal insult to any of you. Please let me begin by attempting to clearly state my positions on atheism, religion, and science:
Atheism
Religion:
Science:
Although some of these positions fly in the face of the generalized vision of a religious person, these are held by many other people of faith. Perhaps this angers some who are mainly interested in taking a loud, oppositional position. As another rabbi wrote to me, "The only thing that a non-conformist hates more than a conformist is another nonconformist who does not conform to their standard of non-conformity."
I have no interest of being a "non-conformist," and this is not about me but about the fact that religion, faith, and God can not be so easily categorized. The moderate, progressive religious position is not a "cover" for extremists, but is in fact the true religious stance, beginning with the Prophets who railed against the abuses in their own religion and whose call for justice and compassion radically changed Judaism, and later informed early Christianity.
As I mentioned, I was an atheist for the first four decades of my life (which upset some readers, some of whom claimed that I am lying, judging, or trying to convert others), until I had a direct experience of spirit. This has brought me to a different understanding of God and religion, and I realized that my prior notion of religion and God (I could not imagine how any intelligent person could possibly believe in some kind of "all-powerful being" in the sky or accept the archaic restrictions and limitations of religious doctrine, which, I had thought, only led to prejudice, persecution, and closed-mindedness) needed to be rejected.
Faith and religion exist on many levels. The first level is blind adherence to dogma and rules, and the belief that one holds absolute truth about the workings of a mind-boggling universe. This leads any thoughtful person to the next level: rejection of such beliefs and institutions. If one is willing, this state can create an opening for a real experience of transcendence, which may or may not lead back to religion, and which understands religion not at the "rules" level but in a way that truly expands, transforms, and leads to reconciliation. This is not arrogance; it is simply a description of the way this works. (I recommend James Fowler's Stages of Faith for an in-depth investigation of this dynamic.)
As stated earlier, religion is a repository of humanity's struggles to understand itself, with the knowledge that there is more to our lives than mere survival. Religion has often gotten it very wrong and has been hijacked by men who have sought to use it to control and dominate others. But the very essence of religion is an experience of the mystery of being and the determination to incorporate practices in order to become a better human being. Religion points inward. As soon as religion is used to point to and condemn others, it has been distorted and dangerous. And for forcefully making this point, I am grateful to the so-called New Atheists.
Let's see if we can have a respectful dialogue of true inquiry. The next post will continue this thread.
Eboo Patel: Religion Today: Bomb, Barrier or Bridge?
If you don't believe that God is a being with a will that we can determine, then guess what? You don't really believe in the same "God" as the believers the angry atheists are angry with. A case could be made that you don't believe in a god at all.
You probably don't believe that God is a being with a will we can determine because you looked at the available facts and realized that this is a really, really far-fetched idea. This puts you strongly in the same camp as the "angry atheists." The difference is that they actually fight against the hugely damaging actions that people who DO believe in God take in the name of their God, and they fight against those actions is a very sensible way -- by pointing out how deeply illogical the reasoning is behind them.
If you don't believe that God is a being whose will we can determine, you should have the nerve to stand up, speak this opinion out loud and work WITH the "angry atheists" to undo the harm this dangerous idea causes every day.
Thank you for your thoughts; I look forward to your subsequent posts on the subject. I'm sorry you have to endure the internet-hate, but unfortunately it goes with the territory. For what it's worth, this Anglican clergyman stands with you.
Blessings,
Chris
Good to hear from you, and thank you for your kind comments.
Blessing to you,
Alan
I never have a problem with others believing in their gods, except when the religious among us try to impose their "beliefs" by legislation. This makes me very angry.
I have been told many times that I will "go to hell". I have been told endlessly that I am a corrupting influence on children. (children who have no idea what I do or do not "believe") I have been attacked so many times by "believers" that I could never remember them all. (and I most certainly do not go around "announcing" that I am an atheist. I just disagree with them)
So, I decided that if they could dish it out, they ought to be able to take it. Suddenly, I am one of the "angry atheists". What about all of those "angry religious folks" who never miss a chance to condemn? These are not "radicals". This is what is taught in every religion. These people do not look at atheists as people who do not believe in gods; they see us as the personification of their "devils".
That pisses me off, too.
Religious people are ALWAYS trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else. It's what they do. They thrive on 'them" and "us". Religion divides people. That's how they make their money.
I think you are dead on about how suddenly you are an "angry atheist" if you dare to speak out. Consider "under God" in the Pledge. You can either keep your mouth shut and omit two works from your own country Pledge and endure the infringement upon the 1st Amendment. Or you can speak to suggest changing the Pledge, a modest suggestion, and immediately you are an angry atheist. Even secular humanists have called the bus ads saying that it is okay to be "good without god" and advertising their atheist group have been call offensive. Doesn't take much for us to get labeled "angry atheists".
What state do you live in (if you don't mind me asking)? I currently live in California, so I find myself somewhat insulated from people telling me I will go to hell and am corrupting children. It sounds like you are in a more conservative state. Note that I am well away of people treating my fellow atheists like you have been treated and find such behavior against atheists as inappropriate.
there are today 4 major denominations in Judaism: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist, and there are also a few other newer ones, including Renewal. These distinctions are relatively recent, and are essentially based on theological views of the Torah, and how to integrate modern life with tradition (and I imagine that someone out there will argue with or correct me about this quick overview...) My ordination is not associated with any of these in particular and is "traditional", in that I studied for many years, met with a Bet Din (3 ordained Rabbis), was tested, and ordained.
I am not a full-time Rabbi, and I am also a licensed Architect, and work at a commercial real esate firm in New York City.
Hope this helps.
Alan
Thanks!
To be honest? I really don't care one way or the other. Most people seem to own strong feelings about religion/atheism, but it's just too much stress/time/pondering for me. Live and let live.
If that is true, then religion is indistinguishable from, and worthy of no greater respect than, philosophy and ethics.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/?hp
For example, you have the problem of determining what is literal and what is allegory. Then you have to answer, "allegory for what?" Please explain the allegorical significance of Exodus 21, Leviticus 14, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 10-11, etc. While the atheist in your first story was out of line, he was right that it's a horrible book you're yoked yourself to, and you can't get out of that by saying that you have a "complex" relationship with it.
I don't see how you get away with calling the literal word of God (according to the Bible) allegory and metaphor just because you don't like the message of a specific passage because, for example, you don't think that God would really force you to eat your children if you disobeyed (Deut. 28:53), or you don't think that God really meant for you to sell your daughters into slavery (Ex. 21:7).
But if you say that they tanakh is written solely by men, and that God didn't really say such things, then you have a worse problem. On what do you base your Judaism? What can be trusted as true, only the parts you like?
And if you want to convince an atheist, try using empirical evidence and eschew logical fallacies.
I find your mention of personal experience disturbingly reminiscent of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's essay, "The Perimeter of Ignorance," where he describes scientists throughout history who attribute the unknown to God. Of course, we know now that they were wrong, and it's an interesting comparison to the "god of the gaps" arguments commonly used against evolution. My point being that any experience with the "mysterious" reveals nothing but that person's ignorance. First person or third makes no difference.
"As I mentioned, I was an atheist for the first four decades of my life (which upset some readers, some of whom claimed that I am lying, judging, or trying to convert others), until I had a direct experience of spirit."
If you're going to apparently attribute the complete overturning of your theological worldview to such an "experience of spirit" then explaining and justifying it might be a good place to begin. Lacking that you might as well have just said "and then one day I changed my mind, atheism is wrong now".
As astronomer Neil Tyson DeGrasse said,
"We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk
I agree that atheism - which is nothing but a disbelief in any deity - lacks a spirituality that is needed by many humans. Many atheists don't understand that spirituality can be naturalistic.
What do you mean by "oceanic experience"? I never heard of or experienced one of these (I think).
Your last two sentences open up to an important discussion. What do you mean by spirituality and spiritual needs?
Oceanic experience = transcendence hallucination.
Dan, there is no difference between a 5-alarm orgasm and an 'oceanic experience'. Folks generally have about 3 of these during their lifetime, as an adolescent (when it is confused with orgasm or a drug 'high'), in midlife as a result of some crisis or beauty-of-nature (ekstasis), and around age 60 (as death or thinking about life during a terminal illness).
The oceanic experience is jumbled up in sex addicts, gamblers, and pedophile priests, etc.
It is the source of mysticism, which is, like a 'high' from LSD, etc., an intense focus on one's inner sensorium, to the exclusion of outer stimuli. It sometimes feels like a drifting or a rocking too and fro (think seasick).
See a comment, a few clicks down re 'religious hallucination'. Barnes, p. 269, "...the variation in the types of NOETIC experiences, the part played by the predisposition of the subject, the difficulty of distinguishing between “mystic elements” and those HALLUCINOGENIC aspects, which are clearly the result of a disordered nervous system (e.g., drugs)…the discrepancy between the subjective sense of heightened precision in awareness and the measurable lack of fine discrimination, and the intensification of suggestibility in the subject…..ekstasis…FEEL a blissful sense of release from the restrictions of body and personality and that somehow this experience involves the active realization of one’s connection with the basic energy (or spirit) of which the universe is composed
The fact of the matter is that war (just like religion) is all about power and money.
Just as the Moses tales outlined in Deuteronomy and Numbers was the beginning of the greatest grift of all time. It set up the priest class and put them at the top of the pyramid scheme. The christians continued to work using the same scheme and again was spun off by Islam.
Now the woo-woo new-agers have "life coaches" and Deepak Chopra to replace the old cons.
It will never end. Where there lies gullibility will be a story for prophet(Profit).