Help
Sign In
belief
December 2009 
Should Integralists Storm the Religious Battlefield?
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
I just finished reading this Newsweek article entitled, Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield. There are a couple of important points from the article that I want to highlight:
1) Although the article didn't completely concede "victory" to the (New) atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens), it recognized their achievements for they have "emphatically (and correctly) argued that nonbelievers have the same rights under the Constitution as believers do." As a case in point, Mitt Romney's speech on faith was a "testament to the power of the atheists that he [Romney] had to answer to them all." In short, thanks to the "loud and intransigent rhetoric" of the (New) atheists, conversations on religion, science, belief, faith are catapulted into mainstream media.
2) Moderate voices are now rising up to the challenge. Rev. Timothy Keller's upcoming book, The Reason for God, and Bart Ehrman's God's Problem are two books cited in the article. [Note: Too bad the article didn't mention Thank God for Evolution! by Michael Dowd since that book is out already.]
I've been covering the New Atheists on my blog (since the middle of 2006) way before the "New Atheist" label was in fashion. I even collectively criticized them and called their ideas FLAT. Looking back to my previous criticisms of the New Atheists, I admit that I was too quick on the draw. My bad. I've made a cardinal mistake of treating them as a leviathan with three heads [Dawkins, Dennett, Harris]. However, the more I learn about each of them, the more I realize that their ideas are as diverse as the believers they criticize. Instead of a leviathan, they are more akin to horsemen with different personalities and philosophy fighting under the banner of rationality. By actually reading their books and articles, watching their interviews, and following their video debates, I've come to appreciate and understand where they're coming from. Because of this I could highlight the important parts of their arguments while at the same time be more critical of their arguments which, to my judgment, are very partial, arrogant, and too certain. In short, I could better rank their ideas and put them into a more integral perspective.
IMHO, this differentiation and ranking of the New Atheists is what seems to be missing from mainstream media as well as the Integralists subculture. The absence of ranking and differentiation in mainstream media, that I can take. But I expect more from Integralists. For example, I expect Integralists (i.e. authors, thinkers at IntegralWorld, philosophers like Wilber, Spiral Dynamic gurus) to treat the New Atheists with respect, acknowledge their importance, and take the time to join them (e.g. debate with them, dialogue with them, critique them) in this "important national conversation" [Wilber's words]. So far, I'm still left wanting. But then again, that's just me.
Some integrally-informed people say that there's nothing really new with the philosophical arguments of the New Atheists; that their arguments are rehashed from the old days of the Enlightenment and conscientious theologians of the past. I agree. I think even the New Atheists would agree, for they have bibliographies in their books pointing to the Founding Fathers, theologians, and thinkers in the Age of Enlightenment. However, what I think the main difference is between the New Atheists and the Enlightenment is the context, timing, and the ubiquity of information in our fast evolving globally connected culture. With the dangers of divisiveness caused by irrational and unexamined religious differences, the New Atheists are fighting a more important philosophical and political "battle" because the stakes are much higher today than a thousand years ago. I doubt that they would convert people into nonbelievers (or into believers of their cause), but the fact that they've already succeeded in making noises, sounding the alarm and getting the religious fundamentalists, moderates, atheists, and agnostics to join the religious battlefield (while enriching their bottom line in the process) is already a big accomplishment. They've sown the seeds of dissent in our current global culture. It's time for Integralists to follow through, seize the opportunity, and take this important (inter)national conversation to a whole new level.
My questions to you dear readers: Should Integralists Storm the Religious Battlefield? How? Why? Why Not? Do you have to be a moderate to be integral? Can Integralists take on the New Atheists with the same rhetoric and passion?
Access: Public
hmmmmm….mmmm..mm..mm.m..
Well, 'Storm'
In the past, battlefeilds have been littered with the dead and dying.
i'm not sure that's what We need Now.
Do you?
:-)
LOL. battefield is a metaphor. whether we need it or not, whether we're conscious of it or not, there are always “battle” of ideas.
~C
HHAHAHAHAH!
Yes, I agree with the essence.
Why not BE (do) something?
It seems that even small Actions can lead to Great Change!
Thank-You for Share-ing!!
:-)
Battlefields? Well, there can be an integral perspective of a battlefield, aside from just accepting the meme-war mentality for what it is. We can transform the battlefield into what Musashi, and other highly developed martial arts masters considered it as. That there there is no side, just a multiplicity of perspectives in which we are one. In that sense, if we are to step into this metaphorical battle - we must do so with an empty mind, or no-mind. Then, we could take on any perspective that comes - handle the situations as they come to us, work with each perspective to a healthy conclusion. Just like when an opponent strikes, you leave yourself open and empty in order to handle the specific attack, we should do the same. Perhaps it's wise to pick and choose these battles, but from an integral perspective we can handle any situation deeper, more whole - than ever before. I guess - test the water, see what needs to be done and reflect upon what needs the most attention in this culture. We have a variety of issues and a capacity to take on the lot of them, I feel…
“We can transform the battlefield into what Musashi, and other highly developed martial arts masters considered it as. That there there is no side, just a multiplicity of perspectives in which we are one.”
exactly! excellent metaphor. in addition, i'd like to remind people that the conversations in the Bhagavad Gita took place in the middle of a battlefied. integral or otherwise, ideas compete in the noosphere when minds are not abiding in emptiness.
~C
What the heck is an integralist? There is not even consensus inside these orbits:)
And why do new atheists not refer to some integral approaches?
The Battelfield is already there. I have always honored different approaches. One main batlefield is for me the area of life conditions. Hard work is to be done. Risks have to be taken. Not only intellectual ones. I am asking the new atheists about China.; India, Middle East,,Africa. What do they offere here?
What do they offer about laws of economy and society? How do they engage in politics? What are their insights about relationship and sexuality? How do they see modern literature and arts?
How are they personally dealing with existential ennui?
With advanced brain research?
Its good that a meme like new atheism is flowering. Yes. But what Vmemetic flow is behind it? In what tetrameshing process is it embedded?
Again, I am speaking from more secular Europe. Nobody is in rage what they are saying. LOL….Yes. I am wishing more passion in this conversational batelfield too. Michael Dowd is an excellent example. And he is not an integralist:):) Integral has to overcome its cognitive hybris and inbalanced favorizing of setting everything straight as if it would be lighth years ahead.
On the other side brilliant minds -as at TED, Edge, New Atheism Discussion - must begin deling with shadow, emotion, soul, interiors of all kind including ancient esoteric way of knowing.
Suggest a field testing in new psychatry. Whats the approach of every single perspective?
A very hot and controversial arena. Even a collosseum of a battelfield where no prisoners are made. …):)
THEN the conversation will become very, very transparent!
Albert said: “What the heck is an integralist? There is not even consensus inside these orbits:)”
good question. i knew someone would ask this! and i'm prepared to answer it. i'm using the term “integralist” as used by Steve McIntosh. See WIE: Steve McIntosh: The Integralist View. McIntosh uses the term integralists on his blog too. so if you have any issues with that label, take it with Steve ;) as for me, i prefer to use that label over Wilberoids, or Wilberphiles ;)
“And why do new atheists not refer to some integral approaches?”
good question. maybe that's why the integral camp should talk to the New Atheists and ask them this question.
“Its good that a meme like new atheism is flowering. Yes. But what Vmemetic flow is behind it? In what tetrameshing process is it embedded?”
this is something the Spiral Wizards can do better. too bad the spiral gurus are not addressing them. i know, the gurus are doing the necessary leg work in the middle east or somewhere, but i think it would beneficial for the spiral enthusiasts (publicity-wise) to engage this topic and present their ideas in conferences like TED, or conferences like Beyond Belief, and forums like Edge.
“Again, I am speaking from more secular Europe. Nobody is in rage what they are saying.”
exactly! but why do you think The God Delusion is a best seller all over the world (it's now being translated to different languages), including Europe? and don't forget that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is getting thrashed in the European multicultural climate. see Pascal Bruckner's defense of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. yep, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is part of the New Atheists, imho.
“On the other side brilliant minds -as at TED, Edge, New Atheism Discussion - must begin deling with shadow, emotion, soul, interiors of all kind including ancient esoteric way of knowing.”
spirituality, consciousness and “esoteric way of knowing” is, unfortunately, still taboo in such forums. however, TED @ Aspen is pondering the big questions: “Who are we? Why are we here? What is love? (And why are we so bad at it?) And there's no better place to consider them than the Aspen Institute, with its stunning views that inspire deep thinking.”
now tell me, how come integralists and Spiral Gurus are not even invited to be speakers in this conference? (Robb Smith is going btw, but only as an attendee. i'd love to see him talk about I-I on TED) is it a matter of PR problem? a walled-garden? a resistance and aloofness to any forums perceived to be as first-tier food fights? i could only speculate.
~C
Wonderful questions:):)Maybe you have just defined a job profile for yourself! Seriously….who knows what opportunities are ahead for you:)
Well…Steve McIntosh is PR man for me. Robb Smith is CEO. We need great debaters too. The tradition in European parlriaments of the last decades had good examples. polemics and r hetorics have to be mastered. IN spiral orbits I see many coaches and consultants but nowhere public figures who can engage in debate and even hand to hand combat on a large scale..):)So many new roles, functions and tasks must be casted. New forms for the playgounds as much as for the battlegrounds.
And on eternal dilemma must be solved.
In each field of knowedge we have pioneers who do it first. Lets say Wilber, Beck and Cohen. But of their “followers” is strong enough to initiate a whole new powerplay? Celebrating own genius. Like C.G. Jung did with Freud.
Like in modern arts..where Jackson Pollock stepped out of the shadow of almighty Picasso?
And wherhe are the WOMEN????They are not interested in open debates. They are for me absolutely essential in their contributions. No matter where, how and in what style. Where are the women of new atheism and integralism (for the sake of moment I am simplifying here)? Where are the women in American Poltics?
Yesterday I saw a TV Docu about German Chancelor Angela Merkel. You know I am a great fan of her! Angela -called magma master by one journalist -is capable of deepest listening to most diverse partners. She is master of surprising decisions and acting like a pirate. You know when they are hissing the flag with death head its to late for the brave ordinary shipmen:):)She is actually practicing lots of integrative skills.
She managed to become a top leader in spite of total lack of majorities in her party.
If I can one day collaborate with her in German Chancellory I would be very happy.
Now .storming the Religous battelfields is already on the way. Next years will be one of the most exciting times of perhaps last 200 years and certainyl since end of Cold War.
AND:
I want to see genuine dicussions between Europeans and Americans (of course Pacific partys too). But first in the transatlantic part of the globe. Involving men AND women…pioneers of EVERY generation and I want to see it in classic media as much as in new media and 2.0.
As Chairman Mao Tse Tung said: Let thousands of flowers blossom..
“And wherhe are the WOMEN????They are not intrested in open debates. ”
you obviously haven't seen the The View yet. see this video. just kidding. i couldn't resist making a joke out of it :)
“Where are the women of new atheism and integralism (for the sake of moment I am simplifying here)?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a kick ass atheist.
“Where are the women in American Poltics?
Hillary Clinton is a frontrunner :)
“I want to see genuine dicussions between Europeans and Americans (of course Pacific partys too)”
me too. but i also want to see China and Japan represented in these discussions. to be honest, this whole religion vs. science discussion is too Euro-American-centric. Confucianism doesn't even have a concept of God fer Chrissakes :)
~C
To begin with last point:
I have stressed the importance of Asia Pacific Room for many years already. But lets start here, at Zaadz where even we Europeans are a minority :):)
M question about women refers basically to integral ones. Where are they in this debate?
I have posted here about Ayaan Hirsi Ali already. Where is a broader discussion about her theme which is integrally or lets say simply wider framed?
The real strom of evolutionary changes has many faces. The wind blows where, in what form and when it is willing:)
“I have stressed the importance of Asia Pacific Room for many years already. But lets start here, at Zaadz where even we Europeans are a minority :):)”
good. please continue with your uber-visibility :)
“M question about women refers basically to integral ones. Where are they in this debate?”
i don't know. maybe they are too busy getting a life? maybe we are not looking at the right places? seriously, i don't know the answer. but i think you'll piss off Elizabeth Debold if you keep asking this question :)
“I have posted here about Ayaan Hirsi Ali already. Where is a broader discussion about her theme which is integrally or lets say simply wider framed?”
exactly! that's my main point about how the Integralist subculture seems to be ignoring the plight of the New Atheists. at least Sam Harris took charge when Hirsi Ali was abandoned to fanatics.
~C
Elizabeth Debold excellent articles are appreciated. Only where is the debate?…
where is the debate? you tell me. i don't even see a debate on religion, climate change, and the 2008 presidential elections among (popular) Integralists, men or women.
that is what i'm lamenting on this blog post.
~C
~C4: My questions to you dear readers:
Should Integralists Storm the Religious Battlefield? Yes, absolutely.
How? Joining the debate, but not the cultural divide, showing how exclusive (“first tier”) positions are both right, partially, and then showing the way to a position which embraces the best of both.
Why? Because it's timely.
Why Not? Not if it's gonna be a failure.
Do you have to be a moderate to be integral? No, not at all. But you will often appear as a moderate, and as a fence-sitter.
Can Integralists take on the New Atheists with the same rhetoric and passion? O, yea!
Godspeed,
Hokai
HAHAHA!
~C4, You have a way of xplodEay-ngiay the non-sense and exposing The Heart of The Matter.
I suppose that an Epic Battle between 'Good' and 'Evil' was as good a 'time' as any for Krishna and Arjuna to discuss the Nature of Existence,
but
We are Live-ing in Very, Very, Very, Very, Very, very, very, very, very different 'Time's
& yet it seems that 'time' is a wheel
so, Yes, let Us wage a 'battle' of sorts between 'Good' and 'Evil'
except maybe this time the 'battlefield' should be within each of Our Minds,
Looking Deeply at Our Self, and doing some Spring (winter) Cleaning.
:-)
I don't understand why I need to identify as an atheist. How is someone else's belief system the default here? I also don't believe in santa claus or the great pumpkin or the easter bunny. (I'm on the fence about the tooth fairy)
Why do I need to say that I don't believe in what someone else happens to believe?
nice stuff c4 - i love how seriously you've taken this subject and the amount of research, energy and sincere thought you've put into it.
i agree - integral and the important rational voice of the new atheism speaking truth to amber/red power should be engaged in a deep dialog to a) broaden the atheist perspective by including some of the elegant aspects of integral theory they are missing and b) to ground the integral community in a little more healthy orange and healthy green so as to keep deconstructing the unfortunate pull of regressive magic and myth and unhealthy green extreme relativism.
now - mix that intellectual inquiry and genuine multi-perspectival synergy up with some serious meditative practice and deep psychological shadow work (all of which both many atheists and many integralites are missing!) and some real stage-wise transformation might ensue all round…
second tier beckons but none of us are really close yet! the transitions from amber to orange to green are still very much in the balance and very unsettled - not mention the movement to teal that integrates it all…
the real question for integral - do you dislike harris, dawkins et al because they aren't integral (even when they arent claiming to be and as such it might be our job to educate them..) or do you dislike them because they are taking away the blankey of magic and myth that you were secretly hoping to include rather than transcend?
the real question for the new atheists - what do we replace religion with? how do we understand the need-structure that religion - however partially - satisfies, and what are the practices, philosophies and layers of meaning that we offer as an alternative as well as a way to work through some of the existential and psychological angst that keeps otherwise rational people clinging spiritually to amber and magenta? i think btw that both harris and dawkins do wax somewhat poetic/mystical (especially dawkins) in relationship to the natural world and somehwat meditative/contemplative (especially harris) in relationship to the mystery of consciousness and our humanity…
i'm with joseph campbell - let's have a new world-centric mythopoetic symbology with the earthrise photo taken from the moon as it's central icon…
Julian said: “the real question for integral - do you dislike harris, dawkins et al because they aren't integral (even when they arent claiming to be and as such it might be our job to educate them..) or do you dislike them because they are taking away the blankey of magic and myth that you were secretly hoping to include rather than transcend?”
excellent question! thanks for framing it so eloquently!
as for your question to the New Atheists, Daniel Dennett reflected on those too on his book Breaking the Spell. what i like about Dennett in this book is that he is honest enough to ask the question that matters.
~C
I heard and found the site of this following that fits in time of your entry: Science, Evolution and Creationism. It is by the Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. They published it today and released in a press release yesterday.
thanks for the link on the National Academy of Science material! very valuable and insightful indeed! the conclusion of this research had been covered by WIRED AP Press. check it out!
rapunzel said: “I don't understand why I need to identify as an atheist. How is someone else's belief system the default here?”
well, we don't have to. i'm not exclusively Atheist. and so is Sam Harris :)
~C
“Can Integralists take on the New Atheists with the same rhetoric and passion?”
Here's my answer to that question, C4:
Marilynne Robinson's response to Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, published in Harpers, 2006
Lauren,
yes. this is an excellent review of The God Delusion. i think it's spot on its critique of Dawkins' apparent bias with Darwinism, Natural Selection, and his form of hard atheism.
but regardless of this critique the political implications of Dawkins' book (and the New Atheists) are already in motion (e.g. atheists/agnostics are now coming out of the public light, some politicians are now more courageous to profess their atheism; atheism in mainstream media etc.). as of this writing, millions of copies of The God Delusion is being been sold and being translated into different languages. the best we can do on our end is to read it, understand it, use our own critical thinking, follow the debates, and see where it leads us.
thanks!
~C