If you listened to today's crop of neo-atheists, you'd think our culture's ideas about God are remarkably adolescent: a 6000-year-old Earth? A God who punishes the wicked? This sort of thing might have been convincing long ago -- but not to anyone who uses the Internet.
Sophisticated religionists have long had more subtle conceptions of their religions, of course, without the fideistic claptrap rightly derided (but wrongly labeled "religion") by today's detractors. For example, many progressive religionists understand God not as some old man in the sky, but as a name we give the reality of all of being, a God that does not "exist" but is, indeed, Existence itself. Others understand Scripture as myth -- its literal truth is no more relevant than whether Hamlet really lived in Denmark. The point is its meaning and its purpose. And so on.
Of course, this is not the stuff you learn in Sunday School -- but that's a good thing. Imagine if your education in literature ended with Tom Sawyer and the last math you learned was pre-algebra. (That many not be such a stretch of the imagination for many of us, perhaps...) You wouldn't take seriously the possibility that literature can be transformative or that good math can put men on the moon. But that's exactly the situation when it comes to most religious thought today. People learn the simple stuff as children, and then, unsurprisingly, regard religion as childish.
Much of the problem stems from a certain misunderstanding about the purpose of religious belief. Believers and disbelievers alike seem convinced that religious beliefs are about explanations of how things are: the age of the Earth, what happens after we die, etc. Yet this is obviously not the case. A believer doesn't become convinced of the existence of the afterlife because of philosophical argument -- she becomes convinced because of grief. Eventually, more and more ideas accreted, and more and more solace, meaning, community, and perhaps even experiences of the sacred became attached to them. But it was never about the ideas; it was about the pain of living and the healing one finds in religion.
This is why it is so difficult to talk about religion in America today, why we fight wars about it, why we condemn and even kill one another about it: because it gets us in our guts, and stays there. Religions do offer theological doctrine, but what they really offer is solace, love, sanctity, and value -- all of them inchoate, all of them dear.
Really, why should anyone care so much about the age of the Earth, the parting of unscientific sham the Red Sea, or the resurrection of Christ? Do we really suppose that the most ardent of religionists are committed to ontology and history?
No -- these doctrines are only important because of the deep desires to which religion caters. Fundamentalisms and orthodoxies may say they are about the content of theological propositions, but the reason it's impossible to argue with them is that their adherents have so much at stake in their being right that they'll say or do anything to make it all work out. What's at stake? If the Torah isn't literally true, then something in my life is wrong. If Jesus didn't die for my sins, then I am not okay.
The trouble is that, for many people, the intense feelings that religion touches become translated into beliefs and opinions. America's religious right has intense religious experiences and associates them with Biblical literalism. The Islamic world's religious right has intense religious experiences and associates them with keeping the umma pure of corruption and decay. Israel's religious right has intense religious experiences and associates them with notions of chosenness, and holy land. In this way, fervent hope leads to fervent ideology.
Here in America, hundreds of millions of people believe in Intelligent Design, in life beginning at conception, and in a notion of a retributive God. Why? Not because of science, truthseeking, or logical inquiry. They "believe in" these things (notice the locution) because they think religion is at the core of their lives. Our political debates are not about evolutionary biology, civil liberties, or pre-existing conditions; they are about a terrified minority, afraid that society is slipping away from all it holds dear.
And religion is dear. Just imagine the grief of a young boy whose father has died. And imagine the hope, the consolation, when that boy is taught that at the Rapture, he'll meet his dad again. All of a sudden, Biblical inerrancy is no longer a hermeneutical proposition; it is necessary for the dearest of dreams to be true.
This is why otherwise intelligent people make absurd, ridiculous claims that fly in the face of the scientific revolution -- you know, the folks who brought you the airplane, the computer, and the artificial heart. That evolution, among the most successful explanations of facts that has ever been propounded, is somehow incomplete or inaccurate. That a fetus is a baby. That a blastocyst is a baby. None of this is about science; it's about primal human needs. The mind stuff is just window dressing.
If unreflective atheists mistake the window dressing for the view outside, unreflective religionists get too attached to the architecture of the window. Personally, I am a religious person, in love with God, and a mystic. As my readers know, I think spiritual and contemplative practice makes us better people, and makes life worth living. But when those spiritual states become wedded to ideology, they become dangerous. Already, a third of our country believes itself to be at war not only with Islam but also domestically, in what used to be called the "Culture Wars." Our lunatic fringe has grown in size as the bulwarks of its society have begun to crumble (a black man is president, homosexuals are getting married), and, whether explicitly religious or not, the rage they display is the same fundamentalism as that which motivates their Islamist enemies.
And we are all implicated by their fury. If I make a political decision based on an irrational or subjective value I hold privately dear, because of the emotional connections I associate with it, I am committing the same sin as they are. Those of us who are religious bear a heightened burden to question our motivations.
How not to believe in God? By confusing the Mystery with our all-too-human attempts to explain it. By confusing the finger that points at the Moon with the Moon itself. And by confusing the reasons why we believe with the content of our belief systems -- by thinking that it was ever about "belief" in the first place.
Follow Jay Michaelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaymichaelson
I do disagree with some points you make, including the one that as a matter of science a fetus is really not a baby, however. Many mystics have noted that the dimension of time (P. Ouspensky's "fourth dimension") is a reality, but one of which we as human beings are not always aware. So taking time as a physical space, the seed of today is the soybean of tomorrow and the component of some future veggie burger. But they are all plant material during every point in time. Science has supported this idea.
Considering that most of us regard human life as precious, why indeed should a blastocyst, which holds the potential to become a birth (although statistically many blastocysts do not proceed to that state in nature) be treated as inherently less valuable in some way than a live baby? It is illogical to contend that because some children die before reaching adulthood, they are not as human as a man of 80. So by the same fourth dimension reasoning, a human blastocyst is a fetus is a baby.
Of course, the blastocyst's quality of life possibly differs from that of a full term baby in many important respects. But perhaps "science" and not simply mysticism indicates they are potentially the same being.
I think I first saw that used by Alan Watts in a book about Zen back in 1970.
But at least your material comes from a good source.
The religionist who sees In God we trust on every coin , a State sponcered prayer begining each session of "our" governments business.Sees money funneled to Church Groups for building parking lots in La. that never got built. The religionist who belongs to a group of neo-believers who comprize about 96 % of the population with polititians kissing their hands for a vote.
Or is the terrified minority the less than 4% of the population Atheist and thats counting neo-atheist.
Who see all of the above and a frightning merging of Church and State. Prayer in school, Intelligent design as science, A president who calls Rev Haggart for advice.
Again Who is terrified of who ?
Michaelson's article is a twisty piece. As Jared Johnston mentioned and others, what is this "better" way to believe in god, and what has the title got to do with the article? Taking a step back, the article encourages a game called 'Lets You and Him fight.' Why is a Jewish mystic emphasizing hot button differences between Christians and atheists? Michealson's article implies that atheists need to fear the "fury of hundreds of millions of lunatic fringe god believers."
I would have to guess that it's not really about a "better" way to believe, but the Old Testament/Torah way. If you can't get the "fear of god" into those darn "neo-athiests," maybe Michaelson next best substitute is fear of god believers.
Another problem is that there is and always will be a certain group of people that need to believe in some kind of afterlife because they cannot handle the thought of death---so therefore it is necessary for them to create an alternate reality. We see that in folks who so easily jump from religion to religion. You can't tell me that one can so easily change such differing belief systems so easily and rapidly---and actually believe it with whole heart and soul. I think the supernatural aspect of it is only secondary for alot of people. They just feel it necessary to believe in something. They just need their warm fuzzy.
Please disregard my comment, it was meant to blake.
But I also agree with your comment that indoctrination is the deep-rooted cause. The reason for this endless propagation is, in my opinion, lack of combatants. Seculars are preoccupy in debating the existence of god and the faith of the faithful and nothing else. We need a new approach to deal with this insanity. We need to focus on the real enemy, the churches. We need to somehow catalog these institutions and expose their crimes. Any suggestions?
Lara Jane
Founder of the Ultimate Lifestyle Project
Faith does not come from an outside force, but from within. Yet there are those who allow others to dictate every facet of their lives will strictly adhere to the teachings of intolerance without question or skepticism which is what defines their 'faith' while simultaneously relinquishing free-will. While it is "human" to want to shift blame for the ills that befall us onto "god" or the "devil" it allows us to ignore our own responsibility in whatever role we play in the drama of life therein our capacity to understand the deeper meaning of a given experience is lost in the confines of fear and the bondage of religious intolerance.
When we are no longer held captive by extemporaneous beliefs our understanding avails us to an inner-peace where faith is guided by love, unconditional love and the meaning of a purpose-filled life is reflected in all that we do.
PARAGRAPH 1:
Neo-atheists are the bad guys [not Christians].
MIDDLE SECTION:
"In America, hundreds of millions of people believe in Intelligent Design."
"Our lunatic fringe has grown in size . . . the rage they display. . . And we are all implicated by their fury."
The beliefs of the cult of the invisible man who lives in the sky might seem a little strange to some, BUT they are Very Very Angry, and there's a whole bunch of them [peculiarly dressed in funny looking costumes; initial estimates in the hundreds of millions, but more recent less exaggerated count from nonprofits' is only around 67,000].
CONCLUSION:
"...the bulwarks of [American] society have begun to crumble (a black man is president, homosexuals are getting married) . . ."
They are mad as hell, you better make way for their beliefs; in particular THEY DON'T LIKE BLACK PRESIDENTS, and THEY HATE GAYS GETTING MARRIED.
SIGNED:
"Personally, I am a religious person, in love with God, and a mystic."
Notice this does not say, ‘I love gays, colored, and atheists.’
Religion can be a source of good; BUT, is using religion as a tool of fear to promote bigotry and hatred against atheists, colored, and gays - goodness?
"...the bulwarks of [American] society have begun to crumble (a black man is president, homosexuals are getting married) . . ."
How about our government is more partisan that it has been since probably the civil war, theres like a million gallons of crude being pumped along our shores, Chicago is dealing with a major crime wave, AZ has gone extra extra crazy, and so has Texas. Way to assume the worst about this guy though.
Thee are two saying, "the darkest hour is before dawn" and "it must reach rock bottom before beginning to change", relating to conditions here in the US. There is also an historical fact, "many powerful nations fell from internal corruption" so what you are witnessing is the fact the US is on its way out. The one thing said about this nation in prophecy is it goes into "perdition" or is totally eliminated not to rise again until another material civilization comes to this place in time. I give it no more than 5 years, possibly less, before it comes, that is the purpose for all the things happening in and around this nation.
Yes, and rational people call existence existence, and God God. I can decide to call all banana's oranges, and then chastise people who call banana's a banana, but it would be silly. If you want a slippery word that means everything and tells you nothing go for spiritual.