The New Atheism is as Flat as a Pancake
-
Here's something for fellow Atheists to consider
Even though as a Buddhist the word 'God' is not in our dictionary, but this article does has its points.
http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/191
Journal
The New Atheism is as Flat as a Pancake
November 13, 2006 21:00
(posted by ~C4Chaos)
I just finished reading the recent WIRED feature on The New Atheism. The trinity of active mainstream atheists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett) are at it again evangelizing the gospel of the God-less society.
For the most part, I agree with them. Belief in God is not required and it's the cause of so much suffering around the world via religious extremisms. However, their approach is too fundamentalistic for my taste. While I personally don't limit the idea of God to its Christian or Muslim or Jewish concept, I also don't think that logic and rationalism alone could ever take the place of faith and religion. It's like saying that integral calculus can be taught to students without them learning basic algebra.
The biggest flaw of the New Atheists is that, their ideas, no matter how rational, are FLAT. They are too focused attacking the the idea of God without defining which level of God they're attacking. I say that they're pretty much attacking the mythic God. However, they're making a lot of performative contradictions and thus elevate their own level of God in the process: the mental God (read: logic, rational).
But if there's one good thing that the New Atheists are doing, it's that they're elevating the psychological development of people who are ready to step out of mythic belief in God. I just hope that these people don't get stuck in rational level because there are other higher levels of God that can only be understood and appreciated once we take a skinny dip into the trans-rational.
Kudos to the WIRED article for not buying into the atheistic Kool Aid
"The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong."
(Note: For more details on levels of God and a more-embracing spirituality, check out the book Integral Spirituality, and the ISC portal). -
i think the article is putting words into horse mouth by saying that atheist has some beliefs that they have not mentioned. This is misleading to the readers.
-
I just hope that these people don't get stuck in rational level because there are other higher levels of God that can only be understood and appreciated once we take a skinny dip into the trans-rational.
like the supernatural?
-
Based on Ken Wilber's works, there are nine levels of consciousness development of a human being, and one usually progresses as they age until a certain level (but this varies for different people, and usually one does not reach transpersonal levels unless one has done spiritual practises, with a few exceptions). The respective worldviews of those nine general structures of consciousness can be described as: archaic, magic, mythic, rational, aperspectival, psychic (yogic), subtle (saintly), causal (sagely), and nondual (siddha) (Adi Da, 1997; Gebser, 1985; Wilber 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 2000b). In my forum alone there are at least four persons who posted who have reached the nondual state, which in Buddhism would be considered as the entry point of enlightenment (whereas most other religions stops at the causal, 'I AM' level). There are also several others who posted in my forum who are at the causal level of awakening, including one guy who just created a new topic in this forum.Originally posted by Ito_^:like the supernatural?
For me I am not enlightened but have a glimpse of the psychic level of transpersonal or transrational experience (any stages of 'psychic' and above are considered transpersonal/transrational), which does not mean psychic supernatural powers, but rather, a form of unity consciousness where subject and object temporarily ceases, but more of the gross level. However my experience is not an awakening. Only causal and non dual levels are awakening, although only non dual can be considered buddhist enlightenment, and before causal/non dual, all stages are mere experiences or perspectives, not experienced as the everpresent ground reality.
'Supernatural' is a very vague term, and may even refer to magic or mythic level of consciousness.
p.s. those interested to read more should grab the book 'A Brief History of Everything' by Ken Wilber from bookstores or library. interesting read. -
Something so simple can be made so complicated..
-
Thusness, an experienced forummer who is one of those 'non duals', defines the causal God very nicely:
Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
Being free individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is “God”.
However the Causal God, which is what all major religions -- Christianity, Islam (especially Sufism), Hinduism, Taoism (with exception of Lao Tzu who is higher than that), and so on, often point to as the ultimate, it is still not the same as the Non Dual level. Unfortunately many are mistaken and even some Buddhist writers mistakes the Causal level of Witness to be the "Buddha Nature", making it sound like the teaching of atman.
Because of oversimplification like what most religionists and 'new atheists' did, they cannot advance.Originally posted by Gackt247:Something so simple can be made so complicated.. -
When i saw this topic, i thought there was gonna be some good points against atheism, but in fact it is the article itself which is FLAT as a pancake.
Rather, it is devoid of any useful material at all.
"I also don't think that logic and rationalism alone could ever take the place of faith and religion"
Well, of coz logic and rationalism cannot replace (religious) faith and religion, which are the products of irrational thinking and imagination. However, it does not warrant that the by-products of imagination are true.
"The biggest flaw of the New Atheists is that, their ideas, no matter how rational, are FLAT. They are too focused attacking the the idea of God without defining which level of God they're attacking."
The whole idea of supernaturals is due to the "fanciful" imaginations of mankind. The funny thing is that this author is trying to suggest that people should not be rational but be irrational instead without providing any evidence of the supernaturals. There is no need to define "which level of god" as all are absurd - the mental god is a creation of anti-atheists who are too imaginative and delusional and could not understand a rational world without supernaturals.
if people work towards being irrational, then the world will be in chaos.
over-simplication or not, what atheists want are hard-facts and evidence! not mere talk and imagination. -
How true and how sad...Originally posted by sgquitter:When i saw this topic, i thought there was gonna be some good points against atheism, but in fact it is the article itself which is FLAT as a pancake.
Rather, it is devoid of any useful material at all.
"I also don't think that logic and rationalism alone could ever take the place of faith and religion"
Well, of coz logic and rationalism cannot replace (religious) faith and religion, which are the products of irrational thinking and imagination. However, it does not warrant that the by-products of imagination are true.
"The biggest flaw of the New Atheists is that, their ideas, no matter how rational, are FLAT. They are too focused attacking the the idea of God without defining which level of God they're attacking."
The whole idea of supernaturals is due to the "fanciful" imaginations of mankind. The funny thing is that this author is trying to suggest that people should not be rational but be irrational instead without providing any evidence of the supernaturals. There is no need to define "which level of god" as all are absurd - the mental god is a creation of anti-atheists who are too imaginative and delusional and could not understand a rational world without supernaturals.
if people work towards being irrational, then the world will be in chaos.
over-simplication or not, what atheists want are hard-facts and evidence! not mere talk and imagination.
-
Again, what you're talking about is entirely about the pre-rational God, or the Mythic God and Supernatural God, nothing about the trans-rational God.Originally posted by sgquitter:When i saw this topic, i thought there was gonna be some good points against atheism, but in fact it is the article itself which is FLAT as a pancake.
Rather, it is devoid of any useful material at all.
"I also don't think that logic and rationalism alone could ever take the place of faith and religion"
Well, of coz logic and rationalism cannot replace (religious) faith and religion, which are the products of irrational thinking and imagination. However, it does not warrant that the by-products of imagination are true.
"The biggest flaw of the New Atheists is that, their ideas, no matter how rational, are FLAT. They are too focused attacking the the idea of God without defining which level of God they're attacking."
The whole idea of supernaturals is due to the "fanciful" imaginations of mankind. The funny thing is that this author is trying to suggest that people should not be rational but be irrational instead without providing any evidence of the supernaturals. There is no need to define "which level of god" as all are absurd - the mental god is a creation of anti-atheists who are too imaginative and delusional and could not understand a rational world without supernaturals.
if people work towards being irrational, then the world will be in chaos.
over-simplication or not, what atheists want are hard-facts and evidence! not mere talk and imagination.
Trans-rational god is not irrational, it embraces everything including rationality, but is beyond what rationality can grasp. (Rationality can only grasp concepts about it but not the real thing, the rest you have to do the experiment and see for yourselves)