The ongoing debate between the so-called "new atheists" and men and women of faith is fascinating and entertaining, stimulating and touching, and funny and serious. But it is time to move on. The atheism-vs.-religion industry is distracting us from the issues we should really be thinking about, issues related to the health and vibrancy of community. And it's not simply a temporary distraction, it's an eternal one. Because by its very nature, the debate cannot be settled.
A recent incarnation of the exchange came in the form of a four-way conversation between authors and atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris on one side, and Rabbis David J. Wolpe and Bradley Shavit Artson on the other. Hosted by the American Jewish University, the
Put simply, believers are asking the question, "Can a commitment to contemplating the sacred help us better appreciate the everyday?" (They reply yes.) And atheists are asking the question, "Is the existence of God plausible from the standpoint of reason?" (They reply no.)
However well-intentioned and well-executed, debating whether the world is solely material, social and psychological, or whether it is also imbued with divine force, is ultimately a dialogue of the deaf. Instead, what we all should be asking is: How can we improve the experience of membership within our various communities and across them -- whether religious or secular?
At their core, communities are collections of individuals looking for meaning and connection. Both types of communities try to make sense of the world. But secular communities are held together by the glue of reason and intellect, while religious communities add symbols and practices that attempt to transmit a sense of awe.
Watching effective religious leaders galvanize congregants or Facebook followers or readers, one thing is clear. People are craving human recognition and authentic connection. Houses of worship are one locus for potentially meaningful connection. But there are many others. Neighborhoods anchored by vibrant community centers, well-funded public libraries, public schools with committed parent bodies, recreational heritage sites with enthusiastic staff and volunteers, well-tended public parks -- even the local cafe where people gather to eat, drink, talk and work -- can be important sites for forging relationships, sites that don't rely on the notion of the divine.
When debating Hitchens in the Munk Debates last fall, Tony Blair may well have thought to acknowledge this point and saved himself a lashing from one of the best debaters on the planet. Instead of asking "is religion a force for good?" as the Munk Debates asked, Blair and Hitchens could have poured each other a drink and talked about how to build more effective communities: Blair as a statesman and Hitchens as a man of letters. Democratic politicians need voters; writers need readers. How can we improve a sense of civic obligation? How can we improve broad public literacy? Neither men are clergy, but both are intimately engaged in a form of civic and communal dialogue, a dialogue that when it works, can seem as sublime as any sacred rite.
Religious communities need to ask whether their adherents are treated universally with respect and dignity. Are women treated as equals? Do gay and lesbians have a place where they can express both their faith and their sexual identity? Secular communities, for their part, need to inculcate a sufficient spirit of civic engagement to motivate people to give of their time and resources, and of their hearts, so that those who seek connection are not left to go bowling alone. And all communities need to reach across their constructed boundaries and embrace the stranger in their midst.
In a recent (public) Facebook posting, Rabbi Wolpe seemed to declare that perhaps the time has indeed come to respectfully move on from this debate. "When debating about God or with one another," Wolpe wrote, "analysis carries us only so far. There are things not subject to argument; hearts have the final say. In Shakespeare's King Lear, the King, standing on the heath, asks Gloucester who is blind, 'How do you see the world?' He answers, 'I see it feelingly.'"
So debating whether God exists may ultimately be beside the point. Whether through thought or feeling, reason or emotion, or science or scripture, there is a common cause that binds us. Ultimately it is through collective action that we realize our best selves, and through social identity that we understand who we are. The question is whether our communities are sufficiently nourishing our social selves with dignity and recognition.
Follow Mira Sucharov on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sucharov
YouTube - Christopher Hitchens vs Tony Blair Debate: Is Religion A ...
Christopher Hitchens 1-0 Tony Blair | World news | guardian.co.uk
Tony Blair, Christopher Hitchens Debate Religion
Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens Debate Religion - C-SPAN Video ...
New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Atheism has five distinctive doctrines | Comment is free ...
Thanks for commenting.
Meditation 1) is used, as a healing ‘glue’, to magnetically PULL things together, thus 2) meditation needs to be more like mom holding a family together in the sense that it preserves culture because society as materialistic maleness is like a car engine flying apart from too much centrifugal force. Some people believe that, every 26,000 years, the earth passes through a place in space where a magnetic field 'erases' our memory disc and tribal hunter/gatherers result. Even if this place doesn't actually exist, the end result, in an ever-faster society, will be the same. We must ‘grow a soul’ that survives the death experience. The right type of meditation (recapitulation of past personal unpleasantness)—balancing ‘dread’(SK) -produces a 'glue' that holds us together as we pass over the dividing line between life and death, as in the goal of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, to stay in the flash of light immediately at death. JG Bennett calls this 'glue' 'conscience', which is the yes-no choice of moral absolutes, a choice of one's ‘own’ path, every day. He has a special meaning for 'conscience'.
Lauri Lumby
Authentic Freedom Ministries
http:/yourspiritualtruth.com
the very same thing can be said for those that hold materialistic beliefs. oh to find one fundamentalist religious person or one materialist that can see that aspect of their mode of being in the world of rejecting evidence even before investigation, just one, that is not too much to ask is it.
There are two downsides to religion, in my view. The first is that any group that has members also defines itself by those who are not members and religions are notorious for devaluing people who through choice or circumstance are outside the circle drawn by the religion.
The second problem with religion in my view is that it actually impairs how people think about, percieve and relate to the world. The entire concept of religious belief is antithetical to rational thought because basically the conclusion comes first and evidence which contradicts this conclusion is discarded.
People like their superstitions and they like to sneer at the superstitions of others so religion will always be with us.
I agree that these are important problems with religion. As to your point #1, all social categories do this to a degree. And despite the best efforts of many humanists, humans seem to gravitate to social categories that serve to include and exclude (namely, but not exclusively, nation-states) -- that are not necessarily religious in nature. Not sure if it's possible to transcend this seemingly inherent way we have developed of organizing social existence.
LOL. If that were the path to knowledge we'd be torn into 10,000 pieces. As a whole, the consensus perception is a collection of sometimes weird beliefs and superstitions only pertinent to the individuals holding them. They are adopted for various reasons, mostly to enforce their thoughts to conform to a large number of others. To tell the truth, I don't think truth or reality has but a small part to play with most of us. The will to belong is stronger than the will to perceive reality. For a lot of us the world has to collapse in on us. This breaks the spell and forces our minds to start seeking. No suffering, no change.
I will keep speaking out against religion as long as people continue to let religion cripple their thinking.
"Ultimately it is through collective action that we realize our best selves, and through social identity that we understand who we are."
Whether theist or atheist, belief about our origins, our purpose for being alive and active in community, and our ultimate destiny informs the system of ethics by which each of us lives. To claim that we realize our destiny through community is to say to the theist, "Sorry, but you are wasting our time." Contrary to her claim otherwise, Sucharov has taken a side in the debate she claims may be beside the point.
I think I mostly agree with your comment. We are social creatures. We cannot neglect the effects our social affiliations have on our identities. Where it falls short for me is in the context of the existence of God. In my view, we cannot divorce what we believe (or not) about God from who we are any more than we can jettison the social forces you referred to. In other words, we are defined by more than our social affiliations, our social affiliations may not be the dominant force in that definition, and I don't see how removing the subject of God's existence is fair or helpful. It could be that it is my affiliation with God that helps me realize my best self, best helps me to understand who I am, and enables me to make a more positive contribution to the world than any measure of community would.
I would prefer that we disagree in a respectful way over making a rule that says I can't bring a large, important part of what defines me to the table. (Yes, I read comments... Respect is often difficult to find...)
Thank you for taking time to respond.
oh what an interesting statement. the atheist boundries are materialism and scientism. and they are powerful very powerful.
true believers exist on both sides and once our beliefs become thee beliefs it is pretty much over. the seeking that is; except within one's own existing paradigm.
these materialistic and religious paradigms are hidden from our view, we dont even know they exist as how we see reality. stand between materialism and religion and oh it is interesting what one can observe.
neither side has a clue they can only see what their paradigm allows them to see. will this paradigm always create such a filter? no, an event in our lives can shake it loose but it will be painful. the ego will fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from seeing outside their cherished beliefs.
its pride and honor and intellect is all tied up in these cherished beliefs. this is why we attack others when they say something that does not agree with our beliefs. the ego is in constant fear of losing the one thing it thinks it knows and others do not know unless of course they think like us.
like attracts like for a very good reason. self confirmation. ie ego thing.
Really, I would love to see someone tell their doctor about scientism after the doctor tells them "we don't know what's wrong with you yet but we'll run more test to find out". Do you do that Researcher? Does Beatnik59 lecture the doctor on the limits of science and about humility? I doubt it. But when we turn to the topic of god, then science is a dirty word and atheists are committing scientism.
Treat the claim that god exists the same as you would any other claim.
when someone over reacts like you just did that is not rational thought that is the reaction of a true believer. once a true believer of anything rational thought pretty much goes out the door and paradigm paralysis takes over one's thoughts, often at a sub consciousness level.
and if you read close which you did not; I did not even mention the word god. the word god has so much baggage no airline in the world would book god. ok that was a joke but I suspect you are not in a mood for a joke.
the atheists are as touchy about their beliefs as the religious folks. two sides of the same coin called unawareness. materialistic beliefs lead to scientism for most scientists and most doctors.
in fact the more education we have there is a good chance the more powerful these paradigms are in our life. ie we already know. ie human thing.
materialism beliefs are huge boundaries to cross, history tells us again and again the boundaries scientists have created for themselves.
The New Athiests through thier fight against religion have done more service than any civic center could ever do. They have awakened a generation of athiests to the reality that they are not alone and they do not have to stand back and let religion punch them in the mouth.
Ouch. Sorry to hear about that.
No, you aren't alone. There are lots of atheists out there, including myself.
"The New Athiests through thier fight against religion have done more service than any civic center could ever do."
I love this line and the story behind it; so true. Best response to the article. Faved.
This article soft pedals religion and minimizes its negative impact in politics and subsequent consequences on society (discrimination, subjugation, misogyny,..), is it any wonder that the author calls twice to "move on from this debate?"
The debate cannot be settled, because both sides refuse to acknowledge the facet that is shared between them: the elusive search for certainty.
Atheists, at least the ones I've read recently, do little to acknowledge the limitations of science. The fact, though rarely acknowledged by religiously-minded folk, is that science abandoned the search for certainty a long time ago. The best they can come up with are more probable explanations (which are assumed to be fact) and less probable ones (which are assumed to be deviations or outliers).
Indeed, the more I read science (especially the science concerning human things, like political science), the less I am convinced that the 'evidence' science gives us is important for the ordering of our lives.
That's not to say that religion, by default, is better. But at least the theologians are honest about human limitations regarding certainty. They assume that human beings are limited creatures without a full possession of the faculties to ever be certain about anything. Thus, it is a given that human beings have to augment their reality with assumptions based on faith to establish the certainty they don't have.
The problem comes in when religion fails to practice the tentant it teaches the best: humility. When the transcendent truths accepted on faith fail to take into account man's failings, hypocrisy ensues.
Most importantly, no one claims with absolute certainty that god does not exist. Rather, there is no such thing as absolute certainty (Matt Dillahunt of the Atheist Experience frequently says this) as all knowledge is tentative and only known to 99% certainty. We are as certain god does not exist as we are about gravity, that is to say based on the available evidence it is 99% certain there is no god.
However, just because science has limits doesn't mean we give up on science. Science has discovered things we never thought possible.
Note that the social sciences are not rigorous science in the same way biology or physics is.
What religion tries to do is pretend that since science has limits and we are uncertain, we have free license to believe in the supernatural. To suggest that due to uncertainty we can accept things as true without evidence. That's not humility, that's just deliberate ignorance and isn't a positive thing.
Did you get this fact from a Fox supported News site? Logically the debate was settled with Pascal.
Science does not deal in certainty, it deals in probability. To demand certainty from science is a disingenuous position. Learn about science then come back please.
No.
"Logically the debate was settled with Pascal."
Then why are you and I still debating this?
"Science does not deal in certainty, it deals in probability."
Umm...what did I say that contradicted this?
"To demand certainty from science is a disingenuous position."
How can I demand something that it cannot provide?
"Learn about science then come back please."
I'm back...But I'm still wondering why, exactly, I was told to go away in the first place.
You know, we can engage in more than one debate at once. Just because atheists are debating the existence of God at some times, what makes you think atheists aren't discussing improving civic engagement at other times?
Why do you think I would engage in these issues as an atheist? As opposed to a human being or an American. Atheism is not a religion. It is not atheism's responsibility to "inculcate a sufficient spirit of civic engagement to motivate people to give of their time and resources, and of their hearts". Nor would I find motivation for civic engagement in atheism. Firstly, because I can think for myself and I would only donate time and money because I choose to, not because some atheist leader told me to. Secondly, I find my sense of civic duty in other things, namely the fact that I am a person and an American. In my community and when doing public service, I wish to be regarded as a person, not simply a member of the secular community. To think that the "secular community" needs to inculcate a sense of civic engagement is to fundamentally misunderstand what atheism is.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/18172046/detail.html
I keep on hearing how atheism isn't a religion. And yet, if it isn't a religion, why does it do things that religions do?
I mean, for a belief system that you claim gives no impetus towards civic engagement, these atheists certainly do seem rather civically engaged...specifically in terms of proselytizing.
Indeed, atheists when organized exhibit all of the worst traits of the believers they condemn when the believers are organized.
And yet, why is it that I have not seen atheists organize any soup kitchens? Or substance abuse programs? Or charity drives?
It stems from, I suspect, a mischaracterization of what belief is. Even Nietzsche observed that everybody, atheists included, believe in something. This belief often exhibits itself in the will to power, or the will to shape the world as the individual's beliefs would have it.
If atheism, by your understanding, is not about inculcating a sense of civic engagement, then what is it about? I suspect it has to do with your claim that "I can think for myself and I would only donate time and money because I choose to." This implies, as in your example, that believers don't donate time and money because they choose to.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but atheism to you is a way of determining your own obligations, yes?
Humility.
The FFRF is trying to have atheism be equally represented in society. If you have the right to practice religion, you also have the right to practice no religion. If religions are going to sell themselves in society, people should also be told about having no religion. If society is going to have holiday displays where religious groups are represented, those of us who aren't religious should also be represented as we are members of society too.
"And yet, if it isn't a religion, why does it do things that religions do?"
Like what? Build a church? Have special rituals for weddings and funerals? Declare various items and sites sacred? Atheism to my knowledge does no such things. Thus atheism is not a religion.
To the extent that atheists have organized, it is either as skeptics or humanists or it is simply to fight for church-state separation and to promote awareness and tolerance of atheism. Gnu atheism is a social movement, consisting of lawsuits and out campaigns (sort of like the gay rights movement), it isn't a religion.
As for atheist charity, again I think this comes from a misunderstand of atheism as a religion which it isn't. Also, atheists do do charity. Consider http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
Atheism isn't a way of anything. Atheism isn't an ideology or doctrine. It is simply an opinion that God's existence is unlikely. Yes, I determine my own obligations. But not because of atheism. Because I simply am a person who thinks for himself.
Even if I thought there was a large body of evidence for a god, I wouldn't donate money merely because my pastor said so. I would ask for evidence of how he knew god wanted me to donate. I would make the final decision for myself whether to denote. I'm not just some fool who does whatever others tell me. Are you?
But atheism isn't a religious community in the same sense that a religious congregation is. Atheism is not a religion. The atheism and the atheist community only truly exist as a contrast with the popularity of religion in the world. If no one believed in god, the notion of a atheist community would be meaningless. Why don't you speak of the pressing tasks of the aunicornist community.
To the extent that there is an atheist community, it is to respond to the situation created by the unpopularity and sometimes bigotry against atheism. Atheists groups provide a community to those without a religious community and who either confront intolerance, are interested in things like skepticism or are struggling to have a community in a world where too much of our social infrastructure is in religion (and shouldn't be). There are various campaigns like the A Week campaign to raise awareness that atheists aren't along. Dawkins and Hitchens debating people and selling books also lets atheists know they aren't along and can speak out. What more do you want? But let's be clear this is a social movement in contrast with the popularity of religion. This doesn't go much further than protecting atheists' interests. If I want to do civic engagement, I do so as a person, not an atheist.
As far as secular communities, we all have that. Work communities, school communities, neighborhoods, families, etc. How secular communities like these increase civic engagement is irrelevant to the God/No God debate. Why would you expect Dawkins or Hitchens to discuss this?
Religion pretends to have the truth and then rationalizes inconsistency in order to preserve its pathetic existence.