Help
Sign In
atheism
May 2009 
The New Atheists @ WIE
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
I just finished reading the featured article, Atheists with Attitude, on the latest issue of What is Enlightenment? magazine. As usual, WIE did a great job at presenting different perspectives, as well as the timeline of the evolution of Atheism. However, I was a bit disappointed with WIE's take on the New Atheists for the following reasons.
For a magazine which I consider to be a leading edge on spirituality in general, and integral spirituality in particular, I was expecting a more integral take on the New Atheists from the editors and writers. But WIE only presented a very general overview of the New Atheists. Although WIE has some nice things to say about the New Atheists, the general tone of the article is a negative slant against them. Nothing wrong with that. There are indeed philosophical areas where the New Atheists fall short. But WIE didn't make detailed distinctions on the differences between the New Atheists. In short, no teasing apart the partial right and partial wrong. There's no ranking.
The WIE staffers expressed their disagreements with the New Atheists but they weren't specific on what areas they agreed with and what areas they have issues with. Take this quote from the featured article. (Emphasis mine.)
"As for the editors of WIE, we remain curious observers of the new atheism, encouraged by its articulate defense of modernity, science, and reason, but disturbed by its tendency to demonize all things spiritual and to associate rationality exclusively with a materialistic view of the universe."
"Demonize all things spiritual?" Sam Harris is not demonizing spirituality. He's even promoting it, albeit indirectly, with his Buddhist-flavored approach to consciousness. Harris doesn't even want to be identified as Atheist, fer Chrissakes (too late for that though). Even Christopher Hitchens has discussed the importance of separating the numinous from the supernatural. WIE had made the usual error of lumping the New Atheists like a blob, treating them as a leviathan with a single head that of Dawkins. (I consider Dawkins to be the extreme materialists among them four--Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris.)
Also, check out this quote from WIE's review of The Four Horsemen. (Emphasis mine.)
"But the primary contribution of The Four Horsemen is its capacity to stimulate the mind, to provoke one to reconsider the impact of the religious traditions and rethink one's own beliefs and attitudes toward these powerful cultural behemoths that continue to have an influence on human life. Will you agree with the new atheists? Maybe not--we didn't--but we appreciated their efforts to make us all think more clearly about what we actually believe about life, and about what God, gods, or nondeities we have faith in, and why."
Um, ok. So how does integral spirituality or evolutionary spirituality deal with radical Christians and Islam? What about the New Atheists take on multiculturalism and secularism? How about their call to action and appeal to religious moderates? What's good about studying religion from a scientific perspective? Is it a good idea to compulsory teach world religions (as well as Atheism) to children in school? I like to hear specifics rather than just an integral view from 15,000 feet.
And finally, there's no mention of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, giving the impression that the New Atheists are only comprised of angry white men (Ayaan Hirsi Ali is neither white, nor a man). I consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be the most gutsy among the New Atheists since her life is literally on the line whenever she speaks against radical Islam and takes on European multiculturalism.
All in all I feel that WIE didn't do enough justice with what the New Atheists represent. Yes, it's true that there's nothing new with majority of their philosophical arguments that the Enlightenment thinkers hadn't already dealt with. Then again, the New Atheists are tackling the same issue on a different interconnected global stage. So the stakes are much higher and the dynamics more complex than it was during the Age of Enlightenment. Never before in our recorded history that the issue of science, religion, and Atheism capture the attention of the global media (e.g. news network, newspapers, internet, blogosphere, etc.), and the New Atheists deserve credit for reviving this age-old philosophical debate, no matter how limited their perspectives may be.
That said, I hope that this is only WIE's intro feature on the New Atheists. I'm looking forward to WIE teasing apart, ranking, and then putting the New Atheists on a more integral perspective.
Access: Public
So, there wasn't a sexy enough cover on the magazine for you?
Good blog. Disappointment with WIE is sort of like how I feel when my kids mess up. Pretty much expected, yet I really feel it every time. For me, it was the “women's issue.” Oy, what a waste of paper.
I, too, am deeply impressed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. What a powerhouse of a mind she has. She blasted through the spiral like a rocket. Reading her latest book was like a tonic for the soul.
Liz
“So, there wasn't a sexy enough cover on the magazine for you?”
LOL. blame it on the magazines on supermarkets. that's how popculture looks like from the magazine stands :)
~C
Oh! Interesting post. I think you should start your own magazine :) Really.
hah! i barely got time for blogging :) but thanks for the props. will continue to post interesting stuff ;)
~C
“…no matter how limited their perspectives may be.”
I apologize for bringing this to light, perhaps it was unintentional, but myself being an atheist (I'm not aware of the theory of the New Atheists however) I feel that something must be said. lol.
I would like to comment that I do not conceive of my perspective to be limited in any manner. In fact, I would hope that many intellectual atheists admit the possibilty of their being wrong. I do, to be honest. But, I expect many others, even the religious, to admit the same thing. That will never happen. ; ) The churches seem to 'get off' on knowing what we cannot possibly know. Oh, the admittance in that one. I said that I claim to not know of these matters. It's true. I don't know. I have thought about it for a good amount of my life and have come to the wise conclusion that religion, nor the supernatural, are needed to live a good life.
I'm sure that you didn't mean for yourself to put a negative slant on the New Atheist, or atheist in general, because you stated so. But… it was there. : )
Spirituality is marked separate than anything else. It is not supernatural, that is God-believers only, nor is it part of any belief system. It is entirely separate from any of these things. It can be reasoned and it is common sense. That's why, when you read of many philosophers and they point out such things as Being and Now (those are only two examples), you have a sudden clarity and you wish to hit your head on the desk with how obvious it seems.
I believe it to be the goal of a proclaimed 'atheist' or 'agnostic' person is to show people that Church, Religion, nor the Supernatural is needed for living a good life or a spiritual one. There is a large misconception, even now, of non-believers in general. At least, that's what I think.
Be well.
i love reading the new atheists and agree with much of what they have to say, although, in my experience they are wrong; but yes, i could be wrong too……..
i've been trying to get some nibbles on the 'is there a god' pod about the idea that moderates are religious enablers, but no one seems to want to bite. it's as if people think that one is being anti-semitic if you question and challenge the core doctrine of judaism,christianity and islam.HE”S MY DADDY! and he chose me and my group cause we're so special. now, it be laughable if this core tenet of those faiths wasn't so seriously lethally deadly.
and yes, it is possible that god choose abraham and is using one of those groups as an example to the world. but if god is really doing that ,then i think he's a bit of a loony and we're all doomed! fortunately, i don't think god is a loony, but i think that doctrine is lunacy, and it's about time that the pope,the rabbi's and enlightened imams began to speak out on that issue. unfortunately though, they would rather keep sacrificing tens and thousands of lives every year to keep the status-quo of power………and what's so sad about that to me is that it's not like there isn't better explanations now for what's happening on this planet..:)
so i as a religious moderate, i am speaking out on behalf of the god i've come to know…
god loves everyone, god has no favorites and in fact we are are all a part of god……..
unless, god is a delusion……………..said mischievously………..
Hi C4,
Thanks for your comments on the article. As the author, I' m goign to have to disagree with you. :) But i don't think we're that far apart on this. it's interesting, before I wrote the piece I actually read much of what you wrote about Harris and the new atheists. I appreciated it. It's funny; I expected to get slammed the other direction, for being too nice to them, but so far, it's been the other way.
Anyway, if I have a chance i'll put down some thoughts.
Best,
Carter
Hi C4,
Joel (another WIE editor who worked on this piece) just tipped me off to your post… We've received a few letters criticizing our “view from 15,000ft” take on the new atheists, but to be honest, that's all it was ever meant to be, which is why we called it a “field guide” on the cover and in the ToC blurb – and an “entertaining” one at that! :)
Still, I disagree with you on this point: “But WIE didn't make detailed distinctions on the differences between the New Atheists. In short, no teasing apart the partial right and partial wrong. There's no ranking.” It's true we didn't do it between the specific individuals (for lack of time and space), but I think Carter's skillfully nuanced presentation did do that regarding the new atheist phenom in general, making orienting generalizations in good Integral style. Even in the passage you quoted, right after you said there's “no teasing apart the partial right and partial wrong,” Carter gave some fairly explicit descriptions of the partial right and partial wrong:
”… encouraged by its articulate defense of modernity, science, and reason, but disturbed by its tendency to demonize all things spiritual and to associate rationality exclusively with a materialistic view of the universe.”
Also, in my own humble opinion, Sam Harris's “Buddhist-flavored approach to consciousness” is itself part of the “demonization of spirituality.” There's a growing number of vaguely materialistic Buddhists out there whose “agnostic” relationship to God / Emptiness / Spirit may be doing more harm than good… Buddhism is not agnostic when it comes to the nature of the Absolute:
“Consciousness without feature [Viññanam anidassanam], infinite and shining everywhere: here water, earth, fire, and wind have no footing. Here long and short, coarse and fine, fair and foul, name and form, are all brought to an end.”
WDYT?–Gautama Buddha, Digha Nikaya: Kevatta Sutta
Tom
Carter, thanks for responding. i really appreciate it.
“But i don't think we're that far apart on this.”
i actually get that feeling when i read between the lines. i really love reading WIE and the various perspective that it brings in each issue. but i'm also biased on the topic of the “New Atheists” since i've been following them closely. not that i agree with everything they stand for, but i'm rooting for them because they speak out what i think is on most people's mind (at least those who have gone beyond mythic-membership and shallow spirituality).
i understand that a lot of people in integral circles are put off by the New Atheists. i really want to hear it – the detailed reasoning, the point of contention, the partial truths and partial wrongs. maybe you can tease this out in future articles? that would be cool :)
thanks again for your attention.
~C
Tom said: “We've received a few letters criticizing our “view from 15,000ft” take on the new atheists, but to be honest, that's all it was ever meant to be, which is why we called it a “field guide” on the cover and in the ToC blurb – and an “entertaining” one at that! :)”
haha. yeah, i did get that. hence my closing thoughts ;)
“It's true we didn't do it between the specific individuals (for lack of time and space), but I think Carter's skillfully nuanced presentation did do that regarding the new atheist phenom in general, making orienting generalizations in good Integral style.”
good point. like i mentioned to Carter above, this is my own bias with the New Atheists combined with my high expectation with WIE. to be honest, i'm expecting an integral take on the topic of the New Atheists, including the ranking of their worldviews, where you agree with them and where you part ways, etc. i understand that this is a big task since the New Atheists has a nuanced stance between them. and that's my main point.
“Also, in my own humble opinion, Sam Harris's “Buddhist-flavored approach to consciousness” is itself part of the “demonization of spirituality.” ”
this is debatable but i'm interested to hear your detailed take on this.
imho, however, Sam Harris is actually promoting a more authentic spirituality (without calling it spiritual), e.g. meditation, consciousness research, etc. you may not agree with him but that falls on the realm of idealistic and philosophical differences. simply calling it “demonizing spirituality” is, i think, below the belt.
for more context, see Sam Harris talking about meditation in a room full of atheists. doesn't he deserve some props instead of being lumped with Dawkins? ;)
“There's a growing number of vaguely materialistic Buddhists out there whose “agnostic” relationship to God / Emptiness / Spirit may be doing more harm than good… Buddhism is not agnostic when it comes to the nature of the Absolute”
my knowledge of Buddhism is not ultra-deep so i'll just leave it at that.
however, my understanding of Buddhism includes the tetralemma logic. at my current stage of spiritual understanding, i'm able to adapt with the paradox with a more agnostic attitude rather than absolute certainty. but that's just me.
i'm always open to revising my worldview. but at this time, i have yet to experience that sense of absolute certainty so if accept that just because i've read it or someone told me about it then it won't be authentic on my part. that's why i choose to adopt a more agnostic stance, at least for now.
thanks for participating in this conversation. so does that mean that there will be more than the “field guide” in the future? :)
~C
P.S. i just posted a follow up :) see Re: The New Atheists @ WIE. thanks again!
~C
Two cents from the peanut gallery, but a peanut who has thought about the matter to some extent !!
I am not conversant with the esoterics on either “side,” but I think it would be good to get the discussion away from the following propositions:
There is a God.
There is no God.
God exists.
God does not exist.
In my conceptual knowledge and personal experiences, from the largest perspective available to me at this time, what I can say in language is:
WRT “There is a God.”
“The words there, a, and God simply don't compute. God is not there or here. A God, no, nor The God, those article qualifiers make no sense, they literally have no referent. God, but what does that word mean, if it refers to everything and nothing? It is indefinable and therefore useless in human discourse.
Thus, There is NO God is an equally meaningless and empty and nonesensical utterance in human discourse. There is no referent for the NO…..
The only word that possibly has any real referent and therefore meaning in language is IS. Just is. That's all we can say. IS. That is why I am that I am is the utterance and name of God, for some religions. They are pointing to the one word: IS.
In God exists the only word with any meaningful referent could be “exists.” Ditto God does NOT exist.
The whole “atheist, believer, agnostic, spiritual” debate IMHO hinges on silly use of language. If we focused instead on having experiences, real personal authentic experiences, by following what Ken Wilber calls Injunctions, i.e. instructions on how to evoke within oneself certain experiences, then religion would dissolve, and so would this debate.
I also see the debate as between religion, the mythic religion WHICH DEPENDS ON LANGUAGE, and nonbelievers in religious dogma, religious CONCEPTS. Well, duh. Of course there are disagreements, language does that. A language debate about something that makes no sense in language is a pretty good waste of time, doncha think?
Any so-called atheist who denies that my experiences are real or possible is simply a dogmatist of another sort. Any so-called atheist who denies the possibility that they themselves could possilby have certain experiences, is simply ignorant about the human psyche.
I can't see any other validity or content to this whole frou-fra. Can you?
Blessings, Rev. (of no other “religion” than my own experiences) O.M. Bastet
P.P.S. for more context on my take on the New Atheists, see New Atheists = New Anti-Dogmatists.
thanks!
~C
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion
here's a link to a letter written by einstein. it kind of addresses my rant in the above post. i am happy that i am in such fine company on this issue, although ,i am going to take einstein to task!lol it seems to me that childish behavior is more often than not, benign. in other words, childish beliefs are usually harmless. it seems to me that this continued fantasy about judaism,christianity and islam( we're gods chosen) is anything but harmless and childlike. to me, as i said, this particular brand of belief has proven to be lethal.
in this regard, i might as well be an atheist………….