Atheist organizations are now unleashing a barrage of ads in various media, escalating their struggle against their faith-based enemies. According to Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times, the campaign is both an attempt to neutralize the perceived stigma attached to atheism and an effort to recruit allies to the side of reason.
I'm all for denouncing religious fanaticism and debunking biblical literalism, but I have two problems with the plan. First, the more acerbic ads will only be taken as proof that atheists can be just as irrational, unreasonable and obnoxious as the true believers they mock. Second, and more important, it perpetuates the false proposition that there are only two sides in the religious debate: conservative Bible-thumpers and radical anti-religionists. What about the rest of us?
The predominance of religious zealots in the media says more about their volume than their actual numbers. And, given the profiles of Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris et al, it's not as if radical atheism is being left out of the conversation. The real voiceless ones belong to neither of those two camps. I'm referring to the enormous number of people who actively engage in some form of what my colleagues in the Forge Institute call "sane spirituality." These are people who recognize that we're part of a transcendent something -- a no-thing, really -- and that connecting to, or uniting with, that infinite ineffable wholeness is natural and beneficial.
This diverse, unorganized mish-mash of open-minded seekers tends to approach spirituality in a reasonable, rational and pragmatic manner. A large percentage of them are in the fastest-growing religious category in America: spiritual but not religious (SBNR). Many practice methodologies derived from ancient traditions born in India, which we've come to call Hinduism and Buddhism, although very few Western practitioners call themselves Hindus or Buddhists. Also in the group are people whose world views are secular and who view practices such as meditation as the applied components of a science of consciousness, or simply as ways to enhance well-being. Finally, the voiceless include many people who appear to be conventionally religious, in that they attend worship services, celebrate religious holidays and teach their children about their religious heritage. But they participate on their own terms: They don't believe everything that staunch atheists assume they believe; they don't accept all religious dogma as revealed truth; and if they value scripture at all they do so selectively and read it metaphorically, not as history or as an infallible guide to morality.
The sanely spiritual do not suppress their doubts; they think logically and accept the testimony of science. Their likely answer to the query "Do you believe in God?" is, "It depends on what you mean by that term." They're wary of the G-word because it's come to be associated with belief in an anthropomorphic father figure in the sky, whereas they're more inclined to postulate a formless, creative power that would not seem out of place in a physics seminar. In short, they are rational, reasonable individuals who regard the spiritual dimension of life as a central feature of human development and pursue it in the spirit of good old American pragmatism. They do what works, placing direct experience and observation over ideology or doctrine. To the degree that they have faith in something, it is the kind of faith that proceeds from evidence and reason, like a scientist's faith in the outcome of an experiment.
This practical, autonomous, experience-driven spirituality recognizes that there are many ways to define the sacred and many pathways to it (as sages have told us for millennia, ever since the Rig Veda was first formulated). It is a down-to-earth antidote to the screaming ideologues and fanatics who falsely polarize religious discussions. And, judging from the survey data I came across when researching my book, American Veda, it clearly represents the future.
And guess who can be counted among the sanely spiritual: Sam Harris. The lead singer in the American atheist choir ever since his bestseller The End of Faith, Harris was outed, if that's the right word, in a recent Newsweek article by Lisa Miller. It turns out that he acknowledges the distinction between unthinking religious belief and sensible spirituality. In fact, he's a long-time meditation practitioner himself, having spent time in India and Nepal as a youthful seeker. "I see nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions," he says.
Precisely. Those states of mind have been shown, scientifically, to be beneficial to health, happiness and the cultivation of qualities we hold to desirable, like compassion. Why didn't you tell us sooner, Sam? Actually, if you read him carefully, he said it all along. But the media evidently can't handle nuance. Maybe Harris can now help us move beyond the clamorous tag-team matches that place faith and religion in one corner and reason and atheism in the other, relegating the sanely spiritual to the bleachers.
The fanatics who believe that their way -- their God, their prophet, their book -- is the one true way are on the wrong end of history. They're bound to wreak a lot of havoc on their way out, but mockery is not the antidote and logic alone won't change many minds. The urge to transcend, to connect deeply, to penetrate the great cosmic mysteries and elevate mundane life to the level of the sacred has always been with us and it always will be. That impulse, sensibly pursued, is the heartbeat of healthy religion, and it's the best remedy for the madness of extremism.
Follow Philip Goldberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/phil_amveda
Is Religion Sane? | Spirituality & Health Magazine
Paul Raushenbush: Dear Religious (And Sane) America
Sam Harris (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com
I am an educated, young American who is not afraid of spiritual wisdom. Neither Pat Robertson nor Richard Dawkins speak for me and I am tired of the ever-increasing push to shove me into either category. Again, thanks!
It is true that we must all, to some degree, understand God in human terms, but we must also keep in mind that we are so much less than God that any understanding is, of necessity, stunted and incomplete.
But why is it that you dedicated your post modern language games to culturally enforced Abrahamic invention of monotheism you grew up with?
We should worship the Olympic Gods, Aztec Cihuacoatyl, and Isis!
Gods, as they have always been, are simply a product of the human imagination, an external proxy for the believer's ego.
Human desire is what leads people to create and discover. The completely rational, emotionally-detached scientist is as much of an imaginary ideal as the father in the sky.
Those who claim that there are no higher powers, yet applaud their own consciousness, are just elevating themselves into the gods they so detest. They have the same faith in themselves and their own convictions as the much maligned "true" believers.
There was no science at that time,as we understand it today.
Modern science really came into its known when naturalists ( for the lack of a better word) developed and adopted Scientific Method as M.O. thus separating themselves from philosophers and theologians. Th astonishing success of scientific approach is self-evident--- you're using the Net.
Failure of other approaches is just as evident in devolution of the Islamic civilization which failed to adopt the scientific method and suppress its fundamentalists.
Philosophers and theologians like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were scientist too. As are many of us. I use writing, but that does not make me a secretary or tech writer.
Science is not a self fulfilling prophesy, it is but a tool and method. Not and end unto itself. Yogi's have used physical exercise to promote different state of health and physical conditioning, used breath control to calm the mind creating concentration, and meditation to free the spirit from within and let it out of the body and mind. This is physical and metaphysical science. Has not changed in 4000 years. I realise Hatha Yoga, Karate, Kung Foo are exiting to create pain, while for others they are a discipline and scientific progression to perfecting body, mind and soul.
Fundamentalism is simply a reaction of the West setting up Puppet Governments, stealing assets from the ME and hence the ME reaction. Cause and Effect of no prosperity and a desperate attempt to fight back. Violence is not the way as Gandhi showed by example. But if you do not think the USA following Britain and France have not been wreaking havoc stealing land and assets since 1948 in Korea, VB, Iraq, Afghanistan, Study. Wake up in the Waking State. KARMA is raining down.
What did science know 6000 or 2000 years ago. Scientist like Einstein had know problem with these early writing and as I say the word are relative unless you have a bone to pick.
There was no "science" 6,000 years ago.
"Science began with the WHOLESALE adaptation of the Scientific Method as late as the 18th century. Up until then, there were only isolated instances of its application. With corresponding lack of progress in knowledge. Only separation between theology and inquiry freed human knowledge to expand to such an amazing extent.
I speak a lot of Christ because He was so misunderstood to me. Although I had glimses of his spiritual side, Sermon on the Mount, etc.. It was not until I became a yogi and followed my Christian Yogi teach that I understood how the entire New Testament is spiritual for all mankind. Very Buddhist, Krishna and Mohammad. Not the old testament at all. So I over speak Christ because none of us knew what I see in his direct speech. So much of these word as few as are spoken today were simply used to control instead of inspire or daily live. The true living Spirit.
Notice I leave Moses off. That is not Yogananda, but me. I see no teaching in the Old Testament. Simple Dogma Only without a method to achieve enlightenment. But then maybe it written incorrectly or hidden form the rest of us. It also distorts the battle of EVIL (dark side) and GOOD (the light). But this would not be the first time MAN took what he wanted for his SELFISH desires. Look around the USA today. DarthVader LIVES in the material body
There's a degree of truth in that statement.
But it is beyond debate that scientists know more ( a lot more) of reality than those who rely on 3,000 year old myths and fairy-tales ( to a modern person) explicated in the Bible and the Koran That is beyond debate too.
You said, "It is precisely this kind of neo -liberal dissimulation that we struggle against."
Why this didn't get posted I don't know. I certainly don't take offense, though I would like to answer you.
A pantheist like myself makes many of the same arguments against a personal god as do atheists. The nuances present in sufficiently old belief systems, or non-belief systems if you prefer, such as pantheism and atheism preclude making any general statements beyond the obvious: pantheists believe in some sort of God and atheists do not.
If by neo-liberal dissimulation you mean giving credence to esoteric sixteenth Dutch philosophers such as Spinoza I must register some confusion. It was upon the back of Spinoza that much of atheist philosophy was built.
An exciting example is if you look at the similarities of the major religious philosophies of Krishna, Buddha, Mohammad and Christ. 7 candle sticks and 7 chakras, Om SAT TAT and Father, Son and Holy Ghost with 4000 years between Krishna and Christ. Buddha live "Now and not yesterday or tomorrow" and Christ "Take No thought for Tomorrow". So much more than the bipolar Atheist arguments the post addresses
And Reality Itself Is the Only God There Is.
Real (Acausal) God Is
the Intrinsically Self-Evident Reality-Resort of all-and-All —
and the Ultimate Potential and Possibility of all-and-All.
The scientific description of light as an appearance characterized by both "particles" and "waves" is further explained (and unified) if light is understood (and observed) to be always in a spiral (or helix) form—like the material form of DNA (which is, itself, a direct materialization of the structure of light).
If a spiral-form is seen at its point of rotation (or its crossover joint), it is observable as a "particle"—and if the same spiralform is seen with reference to its limbs of rotation it is observable as a "wave".
So, also, light is observable as both "particle" and "wave"—depending on which phase of its process is observed by attention (or "point of view", or ego-"I") in time and space.
Nevertheless, whether light is observed as a "particle" or as a "wave" or as a "string", that observation is, itself, an act of "perspectival objectification", wherein and whereby Reality Itself is reduced—by the very act of observation, or understanding, or mental fabrication—to a relation of attention, or "point of view", or ego-"I".
Reality Itself Is Not In The Middle
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm”
What a world if life, liberty and pursuit of happiness began and ended with the individual spirit. What I read from Jefferson constantly in the Declaration of Independence and subsequent writings.
Sometimes I don't like the reflection, have to check myself out or the reflection is warped.
Worse the reflection is pleasing and everyone agrees with me THEN I Really have to recheck myself. And there are no churches that would tolerate me.
If you are going to be of benefit to anyone else, then you must ultimately say SOMETHING.
Where people lose the thread is not that they speak....but believe that anything that they would say is Absolute Truth. Those who speak---and believe that anything that comes out of their mouths is Truth----don't know.
Those who speak---and realize that whatever they say will ultimately miss the mark---can be of service in helping others to find their own way to the experience of that is True.
It only be reached through intense personal introspection. Bantering and/or debating about personal spiritual development is of marginal help, at best.
Moderation in one's beliefs is about how one relates to what one believes....and how one relates to what one believes is the foundation of what one believes is acceptable to do with one's beliefs.
If one starts out believeing that NO single system of thought has a monopoly on the truth (which is the source of moderation) one is very unlikely to believe that one has a right (or need) to impose that view upon others.
I came across an interview with Sam Harris years ago where he discussed his meditation practice. He seemed to feel that it's important to change the terminology to disassociate it from its Buddhist roots (which of course has its roots in Hinduism). He still manages to demean Buddhists while practicing Buddhist meditation, showing no tolerance for any religion in The End of Faith. My beliefs have evolved dramatically over the years because of meditation and I have reason to believe that they will continue to evolve. It will be interesting to see where Sam Harris ends up.
Many, but not all people who profess to be "atheists" don't bother to distinguish between the Dharmas and the Monotheisms when they insist on lumping them together under the rubric of "religions". Unfairly, the non-dual, inclusive, synchretic Dharmas are not distinguished from the dualistic, exclusivist, supremecist monotheisms, not to mention the canyon like gulf between these two as to the violence, forced conversions, dogma, destruction of others' sacred sites and places of worship carried out in history. These "atheists" should educate themselves, and they would find that their oppressors are not the Dharmas, that the Dharmas too have been historically, but to some extent even now, been denigrated by the official power structure of the monotheisms, for the reason that the Dharmas exhort the individual to "see for themselves" rather than kow-tow to belief/dogma/authority.
I find a consonance between the Dharmic call to "see for oneself" and the Western Enlightenment's motto "Dare to know".
The media is constantly say we all and polls to propagandize their or payer's point of view, the selling point.
Not unlike you seem to think you fit into a COMMON slot of society. I doubt your accuracy, but respect you point of view. In either case I would attribute to what I just said about play 1 and 2 people do not exercise their will to understand themselves through self study as to what is their nature. Including mind and body, let alone soul. Otherwise they would know not the text book but the methods of all great teachers to find their starting point to begin their journey.
Believe me it is not having a philosophy of a ROCK or flesh of body and mind only or a Name thing. Science and experience will teach anyone by the time they are 20 there is much more than nothing. Not saying Buddhism or Tibetan Buddhism both are valid and true paths. As is NomYoHoRingayCoiy or Fulan Guang among so many others. I am sure you are fine, just don't be so limiting to yourself
What I think is common in society is a relaxed view on spirituality, I don't believe my particular path is common but it's growing as the article under discussion has illustrated pretty well. I believe that most people don't really care about having their beliefs validated and a lot of people are willing to explore any practice that makes them feel more connected, the media only paints a very sensationalist picture, with extremists on both sides insulting one another.
Doesn't this harken back to "God's Will" and other dualistic ideas like determinism? A non-dual framework understands the inner voices, transcendent experiences etc as potentially an awakening to one's true nature, rather than communing with a God who is separate from its creation, and thus is also potentially like a puppetmaster whose will must be divined and obeyed. The non-dual Dharmas ask that we recognize that we are all potentially saviours/bodhisattvas, rather than waiting for God to show up. The idea of saviour is a monotheistic one, where the number of saviours is restricted to one, whether God's ONLY son, or the LAST prophet. The non-dual Dharmas seek instead to maximize the number of saviours/bodhisattvas. I think the word "God" gets us into trouble as its a holdover from a dualistic framework, a monotheistic framework. This God that forever seems never to get in the way of toddlers becoming harmed by others, which according to a theistic determinism are only experiencing the harm from another because "they are supposed to be, at this time.".
---Seng T'san.
Any concept--at the end of the day--is simply shorthand for referring to a particular experience. As long as one remains in clear connection with what it is that the concept is referring to, then the concept is potentially helpful. Especially when one is trying to communicate.
If one loses that connection....then neither the concept....nor its opposite...is helpful. It conceals as much as it reveals.
Non-attachment and non-duality are guides to getting past the human tendency to experience one's IDEAS about reality, rather than to directly experience reality itself. Avoid falling into the trap that they are any more "reality" than is Duality.
Just like the lenses in a pair of eyeglasses correct misperception....but do not show reality as it really is.
Opposed to theistic determinism or a materialist determinism is the notion of causes and conditions being behind whatever is happening right now. If these causes and conditions can be seen, understood then one can attempt to change the causes and conditions and thus lead to desired changes.
In the Dharmas, rather than determinism (God's will), there is instead the notion of Karma. Karma does not refer to destiny, but free will. It means that whatever happens is due to causes and conditions, whether known or unknown. The Dharmas pronounce that free will, rather than determinism or randomness is the correct understanding of how and why things happen they way they do. Thus, there is no "supposed to be this way, right now", unless this is understood as "it was inevitable things are they way they are, given the the causes and conditions in place, which we had/have the ability to change.".