We humans have come up with many, many ways to cultivate a life of connection with something larger and longer-lived than ourselves, something to provide rudder and keel for our short voyages on the rough seas of embodied existence. That "something" may be a belief in the potential of humanity to evolve a collective commitment to social justice and sustainable life-ways for all. It may be contemplative and engaged attention to interconnection itself. And then there are the many kinds of relationships with ultimate being/s conceived of as singular, multiple, ineffable, personal, wrathful, compassionate, and the various combinations thereof. One's rudder and keel may be the development of understanding and skill itself, devotion to a particular aspect of the material world or to "the sciences" broadly understood, or devotion to a human art or the arts in general. Any quest to navigate with real skill and grace involves ongoing efforts to understand and gain control of oneself, one's field of cultivation, and one's medium.
As far back as we can view the efforts of our species, humans seem to have been fascinated by one medium in particular: the control of other lives, human and non-human. (According to the Upaniṣads, the reflexive relationship of eater and eaten is the dawn of the known universe, but let's stay focussed on very recent history.) Our means of control have proliferated exponentially over the last two centuries, always with the amplification of effects we cannot control. We are living through a global cultural revolution, involved in daily battles over the ever-increasing reach and complexity of the medium known as the market, in shell-shock due to the effects of market volatility and the related hysteria of fear-based legislation, and constantly bombarded with new information and misinformation -- not to mention suffering the effects, with varying degrees of immediacy, of ordinary wars over resources and geo-political control.
In these rough seas, who can afford the time and effort needed to understand oneself and one's conditions? We could all benefit from longer perspectives, but the political and ideological excesses of our times have polarized discourse about evolution, human history, and the possibility of immaterial connection. In reaction against the vocal dogmatism of fundamentalist religious groups, scientists increasingly disavow any possibility of middle ground, retreating to strict and equally dogmatic materialism. Religious fundamentalism, market fundamentalism, and materialist fundamentalism are arrayed in a "clash of the titans" over the meaning of life on earth, sometimes forging alliances. With all due awareness of the limits of my own perspective, I am seeing an unholy alliance between corporations as persons and persons as corporations who are wealthy enough to make and break state's laws, scientists willing to have their calling defined by the development of marketable technologies, and religionists whose fear and hatred can be tapped and channeled.
Our political and economic struggles are analysed daily, with greater specificity, by other Huffington Post writers. In the sphere of public discourse, my personal heroes are Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, and Elinor Ostrom. But what I am concerned with here is my medium of choice -- religions. Both my partner and I have chosen to devote our lives to studying, thinking about, and practicing different forms of the relationship between material and non-material fields. As I wrote about in an earlier post, we've taken very different paths, and yet we've managed to develop a dialogue about our differences. This is what Nash wrote to me recently about his own dismay over the fate of God:
I am a believer. I believe in God. But I am not religious, and I am not alone. The recent U.K. census sparked a lively discussion among those who wanted to identify themselves as "spiritual but not religious" but were given no box to tick.We are not a minority, but we don't have institutions or institutes to back us up and make us visible. We are a forgotten majority in the clash between the likes of Richard Dawkins on one hand, and the likes of Ann Widdecombe on the other. Both sides are getting more and more radicalised. Stephen Hawking, who wrote in his first bestseller that the ultimate triumph of science would be to know the mind of God, in a recent book denounced not only God but philosophy and more or less everything that is not strictly materialist science. At the same time, the marching drums of the "religious right" are beating louder and louder, especially in the U.S. This all may appear to be a necessary consequence of democratic freedom of expression. But history teaches us that the most horrible episodes in human experience have started from polarisation of worthwhile perspectives and ideals. We cannot hold Darwin or Marx responsible for eugenics and gulags, anymore than we can hold Jesus and Mohamed responsible for the Crusades and suicide bombers. Those who make dogmas out of inspired reflections and scapegoating slogans out of complex ideas are to blame.
The real divide is not really between believers and non-believers, but between those who burn bridges and those who are willing to build them. I believe that in order to build these immaterial but nonetheless important bridges, we need to appeal to reason. Reasoning is certainly not the only way, and possibly is not the best way to approach the truth, but it seems to me to be the best way to understand and communicate to each other our diverse experiences. Reason helped us to build the ground of our beliefs, but belief systems tend to disregard reason if they are allowed to solidify.
It is ironic that Dawkins, who likes to position reason against belief in God, himself seems to sacrifice good reasoning when it doesn't fit his ideological framework. For example, he describes living organisms in terms of mechanisms, replicators and robots -- but mechanisms and robots are artefacts designed with a purpose in mind. How does this fit with his atheism? A more serious example is Dawkin's insistence on directionless evolution, in spite of overwhelming evidence that evolution tends toward greater complexity (see, for example, Michael Denton's Nature's Destiny). There is also Dawkin's famous claim that the driving force of evolution is "selfish" self-reproduction and competition. However, Lynn Margulis and others demonstrated that the process of evolving complex organisms meant that some cells and even some individual organisms gave up the option to reproduce themselves. Margulis characterised "competition" dogmatists as "a minor 20th century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."
On the other hand, the voices of religion are often so irrational that it becomes easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yet should we do so? If religions cling to irrational, anachronistic and intolerant views, must it mean that the very idea of God must be irrational? I would argue no, not necessarily. Religionists, social theorists, and even scientists tend to point out that any construct, constrained as all constructs are by historical and cultural conditions, is simply inadequate to capture ultimate reality, whether God or quantum strings. Perhaps the God hypothesis can contribute to our understanding, but almost certainly ideas of God that would be consistent with the way we live now and with what we have learned would be very different from the ways of talking about God that are familiar.
If we really want to understand our world and ourselves we need to move on. Science, spirituality, common sense and philosophy need to work together and not against one another. Rigid allegiance to a simplified version of an old system allows believers, whether religionists or strict materialists, to avoid responsibility. I am not arguing that we should simply jettison our various religious heritages -- only that we should not be slaves to them. We still respect Aristotle and Newton, but we have revised and developed their ideas. It is hard to imagine what the world look like now if we hadn't. I argue that we need to take the same approach to our spiritual heritages. After all, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Socrates, Nietzsche and Freud all have something in common with Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Mohamed. They all revolutionised our views of the world. We are betraying them if we revere them but do not follow their examples.
Many people throughout history have prepared for the end of the world. Yet the end of the world has so far refused to arrive -- unless we are now bringing it upon ourselves. If we choose to believe in a future we will need to abandon both scientific dogma and religious dogma and start talking and listening to one another. Strict materialism does not seem to be able to provide a coherent view of reality, but our relation to and understanding of the immaterial must evolve as well.
It may be that belief in engagement with the transcendent and scientific inquiry are not ultimately incompatible. To find out if this is the case we need first to ask ourselves what is more important, God or religion. We also need to ask whether we are faithful to the principles of scientific inquiry, or to the comforting boundaries of the ideology of materialism. Only if we work together may we get closer to understanding the meaning of God. What is certain is that if we do so it will be a different God from the one we usually hear about now.
Dawkins refers to robots in describing biological processes. So scientists aren't allowed to use metaphors?
Dawkins talks about directionless evolution, yet there is evolution toward greater complexity. Do you think Dawkins doesn't know this? Of course he knows it. What Dawkins means by "directionless" isn't what you think. He simply means that there is no end point that is determined in advance.
It is hard to take seriously people who can't understand the basics of what they are criticizing.
Yes, we require extensive dialogue if we wish to understand one another, especially across religious divides. My interest is in philosophy and I cannot keep up with the growing list of words whose usefulness now is in doubt: e.g., consciousness, self, mind, time, space, etc. I have a problem with "transcendent," especially if it is associated with eternal or immortal. I require that assertions of truth accept and conform to the limits of finitude. That can still leave room for the invisible and the unsayable but not for "the night in which all cows are black," as Hegel described Schelling's panentheism.
I believe the process of reconsidering religious conceptions in accord with a universe that is shapeless (no edge and no center) has barely begun. Yet if we can avoid a major catastrophe, both eastern and western civilizations (a dialogue where only now have we begun to scratch that surface) have much wisdom to teach. But time is no longer on our side, as had been the case when resources were easily available. We require education and mutual respect. Only time will tell if we can make the future once again into a promise.
It either needs a better definition or it needs to go away. Words that cannot define themselves are a waste of everyones time.
'It's a stupid name enough!' Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. 'What does it mean?'
'Must a name mean something?' Alice asked doubtfully.
'Of course it must,' Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: 'my name means the shape I am — and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.'
And whatever 'control' we think we have is looking more or a mirage on the horizon that anything real. As for 'reason', if that rudder has any real effect on our course and direction, we would not be facing an environmental crisis of sustainability at this very moment. The reality is that as a species, we are aspirational. That's the good part. The problem is that human nature is without a moral foundation or anchor to guide. And without that, we will continue sailing around in theological circles.
Seeking out a moral foundation will require 'engagement with the transcendent on a wholly new level if we are to survive, to reach out for those highest aspirations will require "realigning our human moral compass and "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries."
Easier done than said! http://www.energon.org.uk
Dawkins explicitly denies that there is an intelligent designer, even involved in evolution, (see the last few chapters of The Greatest Show on Earth for Dawkins' argument) and has made it his life's work to educate the public on that. When he talks of mechanisms and replication, he is talking about biological processes like DNA replication that involve no designer. When it talks of robots that is probably an analogy to communicate an idea. Dawkins does NOT think nor say biology is the consequence of purposeful intent from an intelligent mind and to say so it just ignorance.
Evolution is directionless in that it lacks foresight. Adaptations don't evolve because they might one day come in use. Early dinosaurs didn't evolve with any foresight that some adaptions might be handy for when they evolve into flying birds.
Lynn Margulis' view that symbiotic relationships introduce genetic variation is generally regarded as a fringe idea. Quoting a fringe idea does not refute Dawkins' reasoning.
Of course the idea that religion is bad doesn't imply there is no God! No more than people arguing for the utility of religion proves there is a God. Atheists commonly acknowledge this. They have different arguments for religion being bad and God not existing.
Why the heck does major awards matter? Why are you appealing to authority here? That's a logic fallacy and a particularly boneheaded one to use when appealing to a scientist. Lots of highly respected and well-awarded scientists and other academics have some fringe and otherwise wrong ideas. Einstein spent years trying to prove quantum mechanics wrong. Some scientists and mathematicians have been obsessed with numerology and said crazy things. Getting awards just means you have one or a few very very good ideas. That doesn't mean you don't have one or two crackpot ideas as well. Just because one is a trained scientist and/or genius doesn't mean they are immune to having stupid ideas and that you should listen to everything they say. You should respect that scientists know more than you, but goodness you are allowed to question and disagree with them! The point of science isn't to just blindly listen to authority, you are supposed to question and scrutinize scientific authorities. Just do so like a scientifically literate adult who appreciates they know more than you do.
Atheist are NOT in a relationship with any ultimate being via science. Atheists don't think there is an ultimate being. Atheists don't claim to be in a relationship with ultimate beings in any way. Some atheists may meditate or have spiritual experiences, but they don't think that has anything to do a relationship with some ultimate being. Moreover, science is not a form of a relationship with any ultimate being. Science is simply a way of studying and understanding the world. The approach of science is very very different from the approach of religion or mysticism.
Religious fundamentalism and market fundamentalism are not in any sort of alliance with atheists. Just because you see all three as bad guys doesn't mean they are in cahoots. It is true that some atheists are Ann Rand libertarians. Most atheists and skeptics decry Ann Rand and are completely opposed to all Republican politics. Atheists are just not in an alliance with those crazy conservatives.
Yes, maybe the term "unholy alliance" was a bit provocative. But isn't it interesting that Dawkins has become the voice of a scientific view of our origins at a time when our culture is defined by competition and the disposability of those who don't make the cut?
No, it's not. You know the ignorant stuff I condemn and those accusations you were talking about... this is a perfect example of that! Dawkins in the last weeks has repeatedly said in TV debates and interviews that he wouldn't want to promote a social Darwinism morality. Evolution is a cautionary tale for how much suffering such Darwinian approaches causes. In The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins argues that eugenics just wouldn't work because it would reduce the genetic variation that is so important to survival. Dawkins thoroughly rejects social Darwinism and has publicly shown how a proper understanding of evolution show make one understand how bad an idea social Darwinism is. Social Darwinism abuses evolutionary science. Moreover, Dawkins is not the voice of our origins, he does not study cosmology or abiogenesis and everything he says about such matters is pure speculation. As a scientist who talks with other scientists, he can say some interesting things about the Big Bang or abiogenesis, but he's openly no expert on the matter. Dawkins is just the public voice on evolution.
That you think Dawkins is remotely associated with social Darwinist and those crazy Republicans is beyond absurd!
I am a "spiritual but not religious" and yet there was no box to tick in the UK census - despite there being many people who hold this position.
I believe in a Higher Power yet I am not part of an organized religion. My views are in between Wendi and Nash's view. I am a non-religious Theist which I believe is the way forward for faith but I also think highly of the other religions - they all have common underlying spiritual truths - faith, hope, love and the belief in something bigger than oneself. I also think the history and culture of these religions have had a very strong impact on the world today and this must be recognized and appreciated. Also organized religion remains a strong spiritual crutch for those who need a starting point. I even believe there are truths to atheism, for instance the Deity we believe may be more abstract then we think and atheists might think of the belief as "practical atheism" - this is a known perspective when looking at views such as Deism or Pantheism.
I find terms like "spiritual" or things like "higher power" horrible vague, and they seem to be purposefully vague so they are malleable to contradiction.
There is nothing wrong with vagueness. If a Higher Power exists - knowledge on the nature of a Higher Power would be probably incomprehensible. I mean most people could never understand some of the theories that go beyond the standard model in particle physics for instance - which helps explain origins of the universe. I'd say to have a straight definition would be intellectually arrogant, especially when unknowable either way.
As for people interpreting messages of meaning to their own ends, you mean like religious liberals interpreting Jesus as us wanting to care for the poor and show love and tolerance. We never call the religious liberals out for doing the exact same things as religious conservatives. I like caring for the poor and tolerance too, but interpreting messages to suit an end is interpreting messages to suit an end. How am I to deal with these people reference the authority of the Divine as justification for their own ends?
"You don't need religion to be a person who has empathy and integrity."
Gee, didn't know that! I only am good without god and without religion every day of my life! (I'm being hard on you here. I completely agree that you are right. I just think this should go without saying.)
Note that atheists don't spend all their time arguing over religion. Atheists do form friendships, political alliances, and behave at dinner parties.
Well, no, atheism isn't an ideology. Dictionary atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity. If that's an ideology, it is the simplest and most boring ideology ever as absolutely nothing about how to view the world or live life follows from that atheism. Atheism in its large connotation of the atheism of people like Richard Dawkins is primarily a social change movement and a collection of philosophical perspectives. Atheists don't agree with those philosophical perspectives ideologically, as if they were assumed to be true just because atheists think they are true. Atheists have come to accept these philosophical perspective based on logic, evidence, and debate. In fact, amongst atheists themselves (or just the Dawkins supporters) there is a lot of debate and controversy about what strategies for social change are best or which philosophical perspectives are correct (as there are more than one and some of them disagree a bit).
Firstly, this shouldn't be about sides. Certainly there are sides with different views, but this should be primarily about determining what is true and what is best for our society. I have an honest disagreement about what is true and best with the people on "the other sides" and am willing to have an honest discussion about it. If you can show me I am mistaken, I will concede it.
Regarding building bridges, I'm worried that what you mean by that we should build bridges between for example science and religion. We don't. Religion is generally ridiculous nonsense. We don't need to build bridges from good things like science to nonsense, that just harms science. As for science, good philosophy (so not theology), and serious spirituality (meditation and retreats, not religion and theism), I welcome that. Many atheists, especially Sam Harris and including Richard Dawkins, openly welcome it. Science, philosophy, and spiritual experience are good things and where bridges naturally exist we should recognize them.
Unfortunately, there is no stereotype of the angry Christian or angry Hindu the way there is the stereotype of the angry atheist. I was trying to address such misconceptions ;-)
Not only do atheists and theists not fight over fancy dinners, they also routinely cooperate over political issues and in doing charity. Only nearly all atheists and most theists do such things as people trying to contribute to society, not as members of a particular religious/irreligious group.
God cannot be left to religion because God was here long before religion and God is not religion. God is the Word of God. Man created religion. God did not create religion. God gave us His Word.
- http://www.deathandlife.org/god.html
Which probably means it's correct.
I think the source of the trouble is that most people forget that religion and science alike are just collective descriptions of our experience of the universe. Both are valid, but only to their own VERY particular and separate contexts. They are both tools of investigation and organization, but of different aspects of our existence, and excluding one in favor of the other is like owning only one screwdriver.