BuddhaTree2

Yesterday an editor from a philosophy magazine sent me an email. How he got my address is a mystery, since he seeks a priest, which I obviously am not. He wants an essay to counter the arguments of the ‘New Atheists’ (e.g., Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett), specifically by advancing the thesis that religion is a positive force in modern society. Although this editor reached me by mistake, I responded to his email by suggesting an opinion piece that would address the value of nonverbal states of consciousness, and how their attainment is one of the main benefits of religious activity. Although I have not read every book by every New Atheist, it is nonetheless clear that their arguments largely neglect this important reason why humanity seeks (and needs) ‘spiritual’ solutions.

A common theme in New Age philosophy is that problems arise when ‘ego’ gets out of control (Eckart Tolle, among others, does a good job of articulating this concept). More to the point, many of the most ancient spiritual systems arose after their founders discovered ways to shatter the ego-centered mind, and get in touch with selfless states of consciousness. The New Atheists often rebut claims that religions improve human charity, but I do not see them addressing the fact that religions help some people achieve a state of consciousness deeply rooted in selflessness, humility and surrender. Even if the atheists are correct, and on average religious people are no more ‘upright’ than others, it is also true that highly motivated seekers can use spiritual practice to escape the ego’s tyranny and destructiveness. Promoting the attainment of this enlightened state of mind is perhaps the most valuable function of religion, even if it often gets buried under layers of doctrine and hierarchy. Until the New Atheists recognize humanity’s need for ego-suppression, they will fail to win over many people who value spiritual development. They will simply be missing the point.

An oft-repeated New Atheist hypothesis is that religious tendencies evolved to buffer humans from a paralyzing terror of death. This viewpoint reduces spiritual aspirations to little more than fearful magical thinking. I’m often surprised to read long speculations about this proposed origin of religion from authors who claim to value ‘proof’ (and who insist their reliance on empiricism sets them apart from religions). With current information, we simply cannot know why people became religious in the course of evolution. Although fear may have played a role, it is equally likely that spiritual yearning evolved because there is survival value in remaining cognitively balanced. Individuals, families and societies suffer when people base their lives solely on the shallow concerns of the ego.

Personally, having been raised as an atheist and then trained in the western biomedical tradition, I see no need to invoke supernatural forces to explain or appreciate the universe. In that sense, I have no strong objection to the New Atheist opinions about ‘God’ and religious dogma. On the other hand, I see great value in overturning the self-absorbed mindset that is so widespread in our culture. Religion, at its best, promotes exactly this kind of transformation in people. The New Atheists, unfortunately, seem so heavily invested in linear thought that they fail to grasp the value (or even the existence) of any other type of consciousness. One does not need to be ‘religious’ to achieve a state of selfless nonverbal awareness, but it is the primary path available to most people. Because New Atheists seldom address one of the primary roles of spiritual systems, their well-argued views remain shallow and unappealing.

That, anyway, is the argument I proposed to the magazine editor who is putting together an issue about New Atheism. Since he specifically seeks a priest, I doubt he will be receptive to my suggestion. But because I believe these viewpoints to be valid, it makes sense to post them here, in the only forum readily available to me.

>> Share on Facebook
>>