Do the New Atheists Misunderstand Spirituality?

I’ve read here and there through the works of a few of the New Atheists. The most prominent New Atheists are Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. I’ve skimmed the work of each of these authors, and am most familiar with Hitchens and Dawkins. I’ve not yet read anything by these authors that refutes what I have to say below.

Obviously, for a purely “rational” atheist whom believes in science, the idea that there is some kind of thing out there called “God,” that no one can't see, hear, touch, or feel, is absurd. To compound the matter, this alleged thing is supposedly omnipotent and eternal. The purely rational atheist takes a look at religion and confidently files it alongside superstitions and fairy tales.

I believe that when atheists do this, they are making a mistake. I don’t believe that religion’s language is the same as the language of the scientist. To do so is to misunderstand religion. The language of religion is the language of poetry, of metaphor and allegory. The language of science is that of literal explanation. Religion and science both get at different aspects of the real world, and they do it in two completely different ways. Religion can’t, and shouldn’t, provide explanations for how the world works. Similarly, science can’t provide explanations for artistic experiences or a process for our growth as people.

An example of a religious "truth" sounds like this: "forgiveness can fix the problems of your past." This is obviously different than a scientific truth.

Why does Dawkins spend so much time lumping ALL of religion together, when he has actually met people, such as Francis Collins and Alastair McGrath, that are religious and that often agree with him about literalist theologies? Is it cognitive bias?

Why is it necessary to speak as if he has never heard these arguments, and to constantly state that all religious people appear to believe in things that can’t be true? In the interest of being accurate, more distinction needs to be made. This is really the crux of my argument when I say that the New Atheists don’t seem to understand spirituality.

Richard Dawkins has said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” But Darwin didn’t provide any ammunition against religion or God. Not in my opinion. Darwin only did away with Natural Theology. Natural theology is pointless, counter productive, and in my opinion, has little to do with personal spiritual growth, letting go of our egos, our learned behaviors and prejudices, or enhancing our sense of community.

Dawkins is an incredibly gifted writer ... about science. He’s a poor philosopher if he thinks (in this day and age) that William Paley is cutting edge. I haven’t seen many living theologists that are primarily preoccupied with refuting the work of a largely discredited and discarded old fossil, have you?

In actual fact, Darwin’s theory hasn’t made it possible to to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Darwin’s theory only refutes Paley, not all religion. Darwin makes it possible to easily disbelieve in Natural Theology.

Anyone that believes that Natural Theology can be true, or is religion, in light of all the evidence we now have, is delusional. I can agree with that. But likewise, anyone that believes that Natural Theology is religion, is also delusional.

From the introduction to Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker:

”The watchmaker of my title is borrowed from a famous treatise by the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley. His Natural Theology--or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, published in 1802, is the best-known exposition of the 'Argument from Design', ...

Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.”

What Dawkins’ doesn’t tell you, perhaps because he doesn’t know, is that Paley’s Natural Theology has already been dismissed by theologians living during, and since, Paley’s time.

Here’s an example of a famous critic of Paley: John Henry Newman.

John Henry Newman wrote these words in the 19th century:

What, on the contrary, are those special Attributes, which are the immediate correlatives of religious sentiment? Sanctity, omniscience, justice, mercy, faithfulness. What does Physical Theology, what does the Argument from Design, what do fine disquisitions about final causes, teach us, except very indirectly, faintly, enigmatically, of these transcendently important, these essential portions of the idea of Religion? ... What does Physical Theology tell us of duty and conscience? Of a particular providence? ... what does it teach us even of the four last things, death, judgment, heaven, and hell, the mere elements of Christianity? ... I say Physical Theology cannot, from the nature of the case, tell us one word about Christianity proper; it cannot be Christian, in any true sense, at all ... How can that be a real substantive Theology, though it takes the name, which is but an abstraction, a particular aspect of the whole truth, and is dumb almost as regards the moral attributes of the Creator, and utterly so as regards the evangelical?

More: Studies in the History of Science and Christianity

An Anglican priest, about a hundred and fifty years ago, was explaining to us that Natural Theology isn’t really Christianity. Why haven’t Dawkins, or even the IDer’s, noticed? Human beings tend to believe whatever they wish to, eh?

Religion, or spirituality, when it is practiced as I believe it should be, and has been by millions of people, isn’t used in place of science or in place of reason. It’s used for something else, namely, self-improvement, as a moral guide, and community.

To me, spirituality is religion. It might be true that religion isn’t always spirituality. But spirituality is a religious experience, and, as such, I present my explanation of spirituality as a rebuttal of the work of the New Atheists. I have seen no evidence that the New Atheists actually understand it, as practiced by “moderate” Christians or other religious people. As I explained earlier, anyone that seeks to empirically test spirituality, or claim that spirituality can be empirically tested, doesn’t understand spirituality.

(I dislike the label “moderate.” It relates beliefs like my own with those whom I believe are mistaken or even blatantly wrong. The beliefs of religious “moderates” aren’t a diluted version of the beliefs of Fundamentalists. It tends to be an almost altogether different set of beliefs, that sort of sound the same, to anyone that doesn't know.)

I’ve noticed that whenever any of these authors makes a statement about religion in general, you can always reply (and I do mean to say that absolutely) by pointing out that it is true, some of the time, but not always. This is evidence of a misunderstanding of religion. Here are six examples.

EXHIBIT A

“Religion is, and always has been, a means of control.” – Christopher Hitchens

Religion gets used, or rather, abused, that way, I agree with Hitchens. But, 100% of the time? Not true. False teachings often attempt to control others. And this may even be the predominant pattern. But was Jesus’ actual ministry about control? Hitchens’ book neglects to provide any evidence for that. I would go so far as to say that Hitchens has never considered the true implications of Jesus’ ministry. If he had, he would have included his thoughts on it in his book. Instead he seems to have missed the point, hence, his conclusions. He has only railed against the Natural Theology of his former school teacher and various misguided souls throughout history. Actual religious people have done the very same thing as Hitchens. His book is no more an argument against religion than this one.

In his chapter on the New Testament in God is Not Great, Hitchens basically writes that the “evil” of the New Testament is that it can’t be literally true. Compare what I’ve written, regarding what I believe religion is, and what religious truths are, with this statement:

”Either the gospels are in some sense literal truth, or the whole thing is essentially a fraud…” – Christopher Hitchens

Does that sound like an argument against “moderate” Christianity? He never makes one. He doesn’t think there can be one, or he never would have written that. Hitchens only briefly mentions “moderate” religion in his book, and spends nearly all of his time dealing with fundamentalism.

EXHIBIT B

“Indeed, religion is as much a living spring of violence today as it was at any time in the past.” – Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 26

... only if we exclude the actual teachings of Jesus. The movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. Gandhi. The lives of Monks and renunciants everywhere for thousands of years. The Dalai Lama. As well as the actions of most people that are religious. Harris doesn’t differentiate (here) between an introspective spirituality and a fundamentalist radical version of “religion.” It’s an important distinction, and one that the New Atheists often forget to make.

Anyone who claims that religion is a source, or the source of human violence does not know very much about human nature. The evidence for this, is that violence is often carried out for reasons other than religion. Human beings are intensely tribal creatures. It’s an innate part of our nature to protect members of the tribe like us, and to want to harm those not like us. Religion gets used to incite others to carry this out. There are various symbols of social authority. Religion is merely one of these. And then, there are always those whom lash out for not being part of a tribe themselves. (example)

The New Atheists neglect to say much about localized tribal worldviews, and their role in inspiring violence. Instead, they make convenient arguments. Radical Islamism is part of a worldview that is both political and “religious.” It is more accurate to say that it is a bastardization or a hijacking of religion. Even Harris is confused about Islamism. Not all Muslims share the Islamist worldview. Likewise, some “Christians” would like nothing better than to blow Muslims away, “in the name of the Lord.” I call them “Christianists.” They possess a worldview not shared by all Christians. Some may even claim that “atheism” can lead to violence, and cite the example of the movement in Russia that sought to eradicate religion, early in the 20th century, as evidence. This too is mistaken. It wasn’t “atheism,” or “secularism” that did that. It was a localized tribal worldview which caught on at the time. These movements can be religious, or not. This essential concept seems lost on the New Atheists. Or, was it expressed somewhere, and did I miss it? Not meaning to sound facetious. I ask sincerely.

EXHIBIT C

”And yet—the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything.” – Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great, p. 10

Do all believers claim to know…”everything?” Hitchens seems to believe that all believers are adherents to Natural Theology, the same mistake Dawkins makes.

EXHIBIT D

On p. 166 of The God Delusion, Dawkins writes:

Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian explanation.

But is there a universal definition of religion? Is religion universal? Is it the same, or even similar, everywhere you go? Dawkins wasn’t considering Buddhism, or the similarities between it, and how I explained my take on Christianity, when he wrote this.

Does Dawkins ever define “religion,” differentiating it from a “belief in God?” Does Dawkins ever define religion in a way that isn’t easily refuted or contradicted?

EXHIBIT E

“The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside. The moderation we see among nonfundamentalists is not some sign that faith itself has evolved; it is, rather, the product of the many hammer blows of modernity that have exposed certain tenets of faith to doubt.” – Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp. 18-19

Harris appears to have never heard of St. Augustine, aka Augustine of Hippo:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

... With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

From The Literal Interpretation of Genesis [AD 408]

EXHIBIT F

”Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago: either that or it mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism…” – Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

I challenge anyone to explain how Jesus’ ministry is incompatible with the “nebulous humanism” described, ... well, by me. If religion has “mutated” into a nebulous humanism, it is only because some have led it astray onto false paths, and that Christ’s religion was meant to be a “nebulous humanism” to begin with, if all else can be demonstrated to be false. Hitchens is right to call it admirable. In my opinion Christianity began as a nebulous humanism. It never should have mutated. And if it ever did, the mistake was exposed, so that the true essence of it may carry on.

+++++

I believe it is fair of me to focus on the occasions when “religion” is spoken about the New Atheists as if it were a homogenous, monolithic, simple thing. In light of the above anecdotes, aren’t these, then, examples of a misunderstanding of spirituality and/or religion? There are many, many more quotes that only address a fundamentalist literal “Natural Theology” version of religion, and not the way that I and many prominent theologians understand it.

“Religion is a scientific theory.” - Richard Dawkins

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” - Richard Dawkins

“One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all.” - Richard Dawkins

”One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.” – Richard Dawkins

“What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?” - Richard Dawkins

I could go on all day about them, because such misunderstandings thoroughly permeate the poorly written books of the New Atheists. If the New Atheists have any “arguments” against the claims of fundamentalist and backwards religious people, so have nonfundamentalist religious people, for hundreds of years.

A common theme of the New Atheists is that religion resembles superstition. Religion does not equal superstition, and I’ll explain why.

Our brains seem wired for allegory and parables. A “deeper,” non-literal meaning resides in these things. We get “turned on” by myths, metaphor, allusions, and symbols. This is the language of religion.

Often, throughout history, religion has been used to provide scientific answers or explanations. It’s my opinion that when this has been done, to do so was to go against the very purpose of religion. And, I’m not alone in this.

Religion has also been used throughout history as a means to deceive, manipulate or utilize other people. This is incredibly unfortunate, and I also believe that it isn’t the essence of religion. Science is not blamed for those whom practice it poorly, and so should religion not be, either, regardless of whether or not it is commonplace.

All of the major religions in existence today, in essence, are trying to get at the same thing. The point is to lose learned behaviors that are counter to our pure nature as human beings. Religious texts describe transcendent things. Anyone that has never had a transcendent experience, or that especially doesn’t prefer to look for it in a religious text, will never get, or ever have a use for, religion.

What do I mean by “transcendent?” When we were young children, we hadn’t yet learned about prejudices and negative behaviors. Some negative behaviors are on a societal level and some are on a personal level. Human beings are intensely tribal creatures. Some tribal behavior is necessary and beneficial, but other behaviors are negative and lead to everything undesirable, including war. Negative, personal, learned behaviors will cause us to lie in order to protect our egos, deceive others in order to get ahead, or to greedily keep things for ourselves when we don’t need everything we have. Transcendence in a spiritual sense, is to move beyond these learned or assumed behaviors.

Unfortunately, religion often gets used to reinforce, not lose, negative tribal behavior. Religion itself can become a false idol, warned about in scripture.

+++++

Of the New Atheists, I do like Sam Harris the best, but I ran out of much steam before I got to him. I’ve been interested in the “new wave” of atheist literature. So I read (actually, suffered through) all of The God Delusion. And since then, I have progressively read less and less of the other authors, as I’ve worked through them. So much of what they have to say rehashes the same old points and is of very little use to me. Still, so much of what Sam has to say, is very distasteful and too overly generalized. His arguments are great, against fundamentalism. How is anything about what he says about “spirituality” any different that of any other naturalist? I’ve heard it all before.

“While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. Religious moderation is the produce of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance—it has no bona fides, in religious terms, to put it on a par with fundamentalism.” – Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp. 20-21

Harris seems to think that “moderates” must be tolerant of every one. I’ve provided several examples of “moderates” critiquing fundamentalism and religious literalism. I myself do it all the time. I've done it here. And I’ve also provided examples of “religious moderation” which is not a product of secular knowledge or advancements. Harris seems to think religious moderation is unsupportable by scripture. But only a religious literalist could make such a statement. I've already explained the difference between the language of religion and the language of science.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15332.html
(Please note in the article in the above link, that Harris quotes no one. Curious.)

“... religious moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness to fully submit to God’s law. By failing to live by the letter of the texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious moderates betray faith and reason equally.” – Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 21

”Living by the letter”... according to Harris, (and Dawkins, and Hitchens), only a spiritual literalist is truly religious. Never mind, that the “moderates” tend to be the ones that actually take Christ’s advice, while the fundamentalists typically don’t. Scientific minds seek literal explanations, and in so doing, misunderstand spirituality.

Here's an interesting talk by Harris, where he hits on many of his usual memes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM

When Sam Harris discusses “how religious belief effects our world,” in the above link, I (a religious believer) share all the concerns that Harris does. I believe that when “religionists” use (or abuse) religion to promote negative tribal behaviors, it arguably isn’t spiritual and it isn’t a religion that is defendable by any theologians that I have read much of. I fail to see how this talk by Harris refutes anything that I’ve had to say, or how I haven’t presented valid criticism.

Harris’s talk would have been accurate if he had spoken about how scriptural literalism can’t possibly be true, and how localized tribal worldviews hijack religions. I actually share almost all of his concerns. But Harris mistakes it all, for religion itself.

Harris says that “faith is a conversation stopper.” Have I not posted examples of religious people critiquing beliefs they thought were false?

Harris says that “religious moderation” is a “dead end,” because it gives “cover to fundamentalism,” and that fundamentalists and literalists cannot be criticized. This is crazy. Have I not done it myself? Does it not happen all the time?

Harris says that “religious moderation” is “intellectually bankrupt” because they must always respect others’ beliefs. Harris doesn’t seem to realize that many scientists are also religious moderates. Harris doesn’t seem to understand the difference between the language of religion and the language of science.

Harris says that “religious moderation” is also “theologically bankrupt.” He says that fundamentalists have actually read the books, and implies that moderates haven’t! Harris underlines his confusion when he says he believes that Leviticus has implications for Christians. But Christians aren’t Levites.

Harris says that “moderates” are “blinded by their own moderation.” He says that a religious “moderate” watching a suicide bomber blowing themself up on TV, would deny that it’s about religion. Harris seems to have never heard about this study:

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Harris’ arguments are actually poor, and it’s quite telling that he quotes no one at all. He names no names, except the most extreme examples he can think of: Osama bin Laden and Jerry Falwell. He often uses statements like “seems like,” and “tends to.”

+++++

So, to get at the heart of the matter, what is God? I believe that God is something that essentially transcends words. But I think it’s basically the thing that holds everything together. The similar feelings we all have as people, regardless of nationality. The thing that makes you shiver when you hear good music. It’s all of these things. It’s something I can’t explain. Only metaphors and allegory can get at it.

I do believe that there is some overlap, because after all, we live in the world, and religion and science are two valid, but very different, ways of looking at the world. I think that God is actually the processes that are in natural selection. The reason that stuff in nature “spirals.” The way that veins, river systems, and lightning all kinda look alike. But don’t mistake what I’ve just said for natural theology. I won’t attempt to offer an explanation for these things using the language of religion. To do so would be a mistake. Religion is about allegory. Allegories that are also real. The language of science will offer explanations for those phenomena, which are meaningful and enlightening. It is a mistake to give explanations for these phenomena with the language of religion. At the same time, I think that science can get at our mental processes, but that it would be a mistake to use the language of science to describe “the feeling you get when you look to the west,” “déjà vu,” or the way an innocent question by a child makes you smile.

I have a friend, a generally non-religious person, whom has a habit of saying that whatever tickles his fancy “is god.” “Dude, Stevie Ray is god.” “This beer is god.” I know exactly what he means. It’s a silly example, but he’s saying that something about the stuff he enjoys is transcendent. The really good stuff is void of personal hang-ups, ego, flaws, or what-have-you. It is “god.” It is perfect. It is something that we strive for.

And this is what prayer is about. Prayer is not “wish making.” It’s a state that we place ourselves in, where we make ourselves humble to the thing that is common in all of us, and that was there before we were born and will linger after we are dead.

Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is within us.

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:20-21

Here is an example from scripture, which I think illustrates the point of religion pretty well:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.” – Matthew 16:21-27

Christ’s example can inform our daily lives. The Gospels are rich with symbolism. The stories are “true” in this sense. We all have “crosses” that we must bear. And we have things that we must put behind us, just as Jesus puts Peter’s words, i.e. “Satan,” behind him. In the passage, Peter doesn’t understand why Jesus must do what he needs to do. Peter wants Jesus to do the thing that is comfortable. But in order to grow as a person, to “come after” Jesus, we must “deny” ourselves, our assumed, learned personalities, and not forfeit our souls. We can’t always do the comfortable, easy thing.

What is meant by “raised to life” in the above passage? What is meant by “life?” If we take it literally, the passage can’t instruct us, or be an example for us here today. If the word is understood in a metaphorical sense, then the passage is filled with symbolism and meaning. The words are metaphorical, but they hint at things that are real. They instruct our lives and can be very thought-provoking and a springboard for ruminations or meditation.

It seems obvious to me that people whose favorite pastimes are deriding others and immersing themselves in the literalness of things, would find no use for religion or spirituality. Religion is about neither.

I believe many get it wrong. I believe that Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al, are correct to criticize much of what is wrong with “religion.” I actually reject many of the same versions of religion that they do, and I’m vocal about it, also. Much religion has had it coming, and much of the work the New Atheists are doing is helpful in this regard. But I also believe the mistake is to regard all religion this way, and to not make note of the distinction between a spirituality like I have tried to describe, which exists for thousands, if not millions of people, and the religion of crackpots, creationists, religionists, and cultists. They may smell the same, but they really are worlds apart. A distinction deserves to be made, because the distinction exists.

Have any of the New Atheists done that yet? Accurately?

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.” - Isaiah 55:8 [Thanks, Ron]

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith ..." - 1 Timothy 4:1