Help
Sign In
atheisim
November 2009 
The New Atheists Part 1 - The Changing Images of Man
Photizo
A Call to Reason
There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience… but
though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it
all arises out of experience.” Pure and Empirical Knowledge - Immanuel Kant
I went to some of those links and decided that NOW was as good a time as any to start blogging, so I did. I tried to follow the sage advice of Bruce lee who said, Absorb that which is good, reject that which is bad, and create something unique within yourself. I think over time I’ve followed that pathway towards blogging fairly well. And it has been an enjoyable way to express ideas and issues that come and go but in all that time there have been a couple issues that I have declined to write about for good reasons.
Now from time to time I will visit the Hyperlinkers blog as it always has something fresh and new and if you have done the same you see a re-emerging theme of the long standing debate between what some are calling the “new atheists,” notably, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris against those who are willing to step into the fray and defend their position of what appears to be religion, Christianity, the Bible etc…
Now I as Iread C4C he seems to take the middle Way which I applaud very much as he has quoted Lawrence Kraus.
"But I'm more in agreement with Steven Weinberg, Lawrence Kraus, and Michael Shermer. They seem to favor the middle way: meeting people where they're at. As Lawrence Kraus had put it: "If you believe that a rational world is a better world, and I do, and I know you do, to me one of the best ways to do it is to demonstrate rationality, rather than attacking irrationality."
To attempt to escape the classic pre/trans fallacy trap and alow for the transrational to spiral and unfold.
| PREPERSONAL | PERSONAL | TRANSPERSONAL |
| mythical religion | historical religion | mystical religion |
| body | ego | Self/Essence/Being |
| nature | culture | Kosmos |
| instinct | intellect | intuition |
| body | mind | soul |
| etc. | etc. | etc. |
Now this is the pre/trans fallacy: in the first view, the first, pre-personal category is left out. As a result of this, it merges with the third category, giving us a pre-rational view of spirituality. Pre and trans are confused; more specifically, the prerational is elevated to spiritual status. In the second view, the prerational is acknowledged as a separate category, in sharp distinction to the transrational realm of mysticism.
In the first view, the process of rationalisation and secularisation is understood as anti-spiritual, as is done by the great majority of scientists of religion. Religion is on the decline because people have learned to think for themselves. In the second view, this only applies to mythical religion; mystical religion is still to be discovered by modern men and women, as a process that completes their developmental potentials. "
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett
So the other day C4 Chaos blogged about a friend he describes as the “the dude behind the hip blog Foreignerd,” Paul Salamone, who had posted a comment in response to his blog post, The Portable Atheist: A Great Holiday Gift.
.
Paul said: ".... Either way, the real difference between the Wilber and Hitchens (who professes a belief in the transcendent and the "numinous" btw) positions on religion is a tactical one: would it serve collective human interests better to a) use the "conveyor belt" approach, or b) root out and destroy all religious idea-viruses before they can breed and mutate the next plague? The role of moral instruction, in the latter view, would be taken on by a reconstructed "rational religion" as advocated by Harris and others. Is it easier to inculcate this into the youth, or to raise them on tradition and hope the literalistic and warlike aspects of the sacred texts do not come back to haunt us?"
Now when it comes to Religious Systems, Dogma or belief in the absence of justifiable reasons no matter what their label, I’ll be the first to roll my eyes in dismay at the ever-present brainwashing of those who would instill fear and panic through blind faith in a SYSTEM. With that said I can’t help but read this statement and its pompastic audacity to assume that anyone has the right to “ROOT OUT” and inculcate moral instruction by a reconstructed "rational religion." Substituting what has been the very problem with religion from the dawn of time doesn’t seem like forward progress.
If I didn’t know better, I would say this was eerily familiar with the Imperialistic doctrine of the Neocons, with their glorious doublespeak of war for peace, and rooting out the Axis of Evil as if it were a crusade of moral imperative in creating a “New World Order “of “Moral Clarity.”
The idealistic view, the “Wilsonian view," that the world would be a better place if only America can make it that way.
Woodrow Wilson
To seek to inculcate (implant by repeated statement or admonition; teach persistently and earnestly) moral instruction of a reconstructed rational religion into the youth is an elitist statement. It should not be the role of the state, science or public schools to fashion or “Implant” a “New Religion” but that of an awakened individual guided by principles of his or her choice. To remember what was always known, that love, peace and happiness are states of being and not cultural memes to be co-opted into one life because of repeated manipulative statements.
Is it not bad enough that we have to watch our culture and nation of children dumbed down on purpose to bring about the Idiocracy of America by those who see themselves as platonic philosopher kings who believe it is their place to “implant by repeated statement or admonition; teach persistently and earnestly,” what they believe our children should know?
Who are they or anyone for that matter, whether you be Dawkins, the Pope, Stalin, Marx, Bush or some dude behind the hip blog Foreignerd to make such a statement.
Such popish remarks make claim to the same propensity of all other religious tyrants who by cloak of “Moral Instruction” seek the “Best Interest of Humanity"by ridding the “Opiate” of the masses and injecting some rational vaccine as the benevolent philosopher kings of Plato’s republic over the clones.
Lording over the Clones of an Empire
"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" was the statement of Marx which came from his introduction of his 1843 work Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right which reads,
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. [Emphasis added]
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Mad Marx
Call it what you will, but one thing man never learns form history is that man never learns from history. Perhaps a closer look at collectivism vs. individualism might be helpful before we all jump over the deep end of the collective mantra and begin repeating...
“Resistance is Futile.”
"We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological
distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us."
Like the report entitled “A Computer-based Exploration of Alternative Futures for Mankind 2000.” The report that was included in the book Mankind 2000, which is full of rather disturbing quotes like this one:
“In the organization of a civilization of the future we anticipate that the individualistically-oriented man will become an anachronism. Indeed, he will be viewed as a threat to the group organization as well as to his fellow man. Hence, as stated, he in all likelihood will have few individual expectations. While such a picture may not be pleasant to contemplate, when viewed with our present orientation and value judgment, we would be amiss to deal with unrealistic imageries that would blind us to future reality.”
I am not trying to defend one position or another of the debate between the “New Atheists and the other “Religious Camps”, that is NOT the point here. I understand the conveyor belt idea as presented by Wilber. But the “rooting out” and “ re-definition” is exactly what is called for in the never talked about intensive research project entitled “Societal Consequences of Changing Images of Man.” where Joseph Campbell is listed as one of the report’s reviewers.
“Societal Consequences of Changing Images of Man”
The 268 page U.S. government commissioned project undertaken by the Stanford Research Institute and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for the Dept. of Education reported on the idea that a new religious movement might be in the process of being created.
Back in 1973, the SRI concluded that the spread of so-called “new values”- spiritual and ecological awareness and self-realization movements - had become unstoppable. They also predicted that if left unchecked this would bring about a transformation of society that would undermine ‘modern industrial-state culture and institutions’ and result in ’serious social disruptions, economic decline, runaway inflation, and even institutional collapse’.
Here is a look at just a few of the Chapters:
Some Formative Images of Man in The Universe
The knower – Gnostic view
The Age of faith –and contention
The Human as evolving Holon
The Human as spirit- the view of the perennial philosophy
Influence of Science on “The Image of Man”
Consciousness research
Sources and characteristics of a possible new paradigm
Interactions between science and society
Self Realization Ethic
Balancing and Coordinating satisfactions along many dimensions
The Feasibility of an Evolutionary Integrative Image of Man
Cultural transformations
Personal Transformations
Guidelines and Strategies for Transformation
Salient Characteristics of the transformation
Nature of the fundamental anomaly
Essential conditions for resolution of the fundamental anomaly
Difficulty of achieving a non disruptive transition
Peter Chamberlin of Online Journal writes,
“The object of the research was the development of a plausible vision of the future in which democratic methods survive, major problems are managed successfully if not resolved, and the unfolding of the human potential continues to expand. In other words, the postulation of a "desirable future" including feasible paths to its realization.
“The government was looking forward to a very troubling future, trying to figure out the best path through it. The plan was to find ways to shape and mold mankind into a new cultural image, complete with new ideas and ideologies, even religious ones. The root of the problem was human nature, and solution was to reshape the competing forces of daily life, in order to forge a new image of a new human nature. The researchers were brutally honest in seeking all available knowledge pertaining to their research, and in assessing the current common image of man-on-earth.”
The report anticipates a lessening of trust in authority and a reaction against a regimented, tightly controlled society. In order to prevent this “worst case scenario”, SRI recommended identifying existing institutions or traditions that could be used to control and contain the impetus of the new movement - in other words, they recommended that the government infiltrate and co-opt the movement for meaningful spiritual/ethical re-definition and social change. So a new science-based religion is in the making, something approved by the voice of “Official Authority,” something safe, neutered, and materialistic or a reconstruction of a “rational religion"
There is War for ideas by those who are convicted of radical impracticality as opposed to justifiable reasoning, but we must be mindful to the words of theorist Willis Harman at the Stanford Research Institute, who edited the report “Societal Consequences of Changing Images of Man,” who said,
"There's a war going on between your side and mine. And my side is not going to lose."
A report whose authors “recognize the inevitability of the rising new image of man, describing it as a quasi-religious awakening within the collective mind of man, man's new human nature, relating it to the actual process of spiritual learning that has been going on within religions for thousands of years."
Read that sentence then re-read it again and again. It speaks volumes!
In this report Step 4 of their six-part strategy is to "Bring About a Non-Catastrophic Transformation" -- "Encourage a politics of righteousness and a heightened sense of public responsibilities of the private sector,” which “may be indispensable for safe passage through the times just ahead."
In this calling for the manipulation of our economy and our democracy to maximize their profits, the multi-national corporations and their owners are to be exalted as the potential saviors of mankind.”
As David Rockefeller, corporate multination globalist admits of his one world plans:
David Rockefeller
Feel the love
Just as Communism displaced God with Atheism so too do the plan for a New Order call for the negation of a Creator in favor of materialist science where strength and leadership will be provided through corporate benevolence.
The idea of a new re-structured religion sounds insidiously close to the strategy of transition and change as spelled out in that rare and relatively unknown report with the "Elements of a Strategy for a Non-catastrophic Transition" as:
- Promote awareness of the unavoidability of the transformation.
- Foster construction of a guiding vision of a workable society built around the new image of man and new social paradigm.
- Foster a period of experimentation and tolerance for diverse alternatives.
- Encourage a politics of righteousness and a heightened sense of public responsibilities of the private sector . . . A politics of righteousness might have been laudable in any generation; it may be indispensable for safe passage through the times just ahead.
- Promote systematic exploration of and foster education regarding man's inner life, his subjective experience.
- Plan adequate social controls for the transition period while safeguarding against longer-term losses of freedom . . . Regulation and restraint of behavior will be necessary in order to hold the society together while it goes around a difficult corner.
These approaches are defined as "restorative, simulative, manipulative, persuasive and facilitative."
So a red flag goes up when I read C4 Chaos comment,,
Exactly! And that is what I’m exploring intellectually and philosophically. i think *both* approaches--(a) conveyor belt, and (b) rational rooting out--are useful strategies that can be used depending on the situation. for reasons based on human psychological development, rational "rooting out" would not work on people at the "fundamentalistic/mythic" stage. this stage would more likely respond to a gentler and gradual "conveyor belt" approach coming from their (moderate) religious leaders, while people at (to use the spiral dynamics terms) *orange* (scientific/strategic) and *green* (communitarian/egalitarian) are at the stage of rationality which would likely respond to (and even counter) the rational rooting out approach.
It seems to me that the Power of truth is the attraction to the unification of self and society, not the manipulations of a reconstructed rational religion that appears to be following the guidelines and strategies for transformation by establishing the essential conditions for resolution of the “fundamental anomaly.”
It seems with all these camps, the utopian ideal of a unified humanity seeking its noospheic singularity point by re-construction sounds more like the thoughts of the Fabian Society or a German engineering project alla Leo Strauss then a collective awakening when INDIVIDUALS are ready. I have always understood that change begins in the UL. Like the idea that change does not come about but what we say or do, but of a consequence of what we have BECOME.
“Power vs. Force”
might make good reading too.
DEO
Access: Public
Photizo,
wow! great to see you blogging your heart out! thanks for taking on the conversation started by “The New Atheists.” there's so much info packed in this blog post i don't know where to start my comment. allow me to focus on the “rooting out” strategies that raise your red flags.
as i've mentioned on my blog post about the New Atheists, they seem to have a spectrum of ideas instead of a monolithic movement who's sole aim is to eradicate religion altogether. upon closer look, the New Atheists are as diverse as their religious counterparts.
the “rooting out” of toxic elements in religion is more of Dennett's approach. see Daniel Dennett doesn't want to exterminate religions. it's different from rooting out religion altogether. i find this approach to be compatible with Michael Dowd's Evolutionary Christianity approach wherein he teaches the scientific facts of evolution while embedding it in Christian ”great story.” i think this approach is also compatible with Wilber's approach. for example, in the book Marriage of Sense and Soul, Wilber's proposal for integrating science and religion, is for religion to “set aside” their dogmas and focus on the spiritual threads (e.g. contemplative and meditation injunctions) of their tradition.
the difference with Dennett's approach is that he looks at religion from a natural evolutionary perspective. to me, it's obvious that religions evolve like music or language, as convincingly described by Dennett in his book Breaking the Spell- Religion as Natural Phenomenon. Dennett carefully treaded on the territory of religion in that book. he asked a lot of questions. and proposed that instead of less religion, we should have more religions in school. check out this debate between Dennett and D'Souza.
the converyor belt approach of Wilber makes sense. but the question is how will it be implemented without the process of some “rooting out”?
i think Michael Dowd is on to something. he's basically introducing the scientific worldview to Christians using the Christian language. it's a form of a conveyor belt approach and “rooting out” of the irrational (and pre-rational) arguments of Creationism and Intelligent Design.
now my questions to you are: why does the “rooting out” of unhealthy versions of religion approach raise your red flags? what alternative ideas would you propose to counter unhealthy versions of religions? e.g. theocracy of Islam? of the dominance of Christian Evangelicals in U.S. politics?
as for the conspiracy angle that you brought up in your post, i'm not familiar with them so i have nothing to add at this time. very interesting, nonetheless.
thanks again for adding to this conversation. keep it flowing….
~C
Well it would be nice to start with a dialog minus the hyperbole for one thing. The big question here between these views is not “which view is most true?’ but “what are the likely consequences of acting out from one or the other view in active contention?” and “can a view be found which creatively synthesizes them into a larger conception?”
My red flags come when there are arguments brought forth as “proofs” when in reality there are but conclusions based on personal “definitions” for desirable outcomes. In this case, the non-existence of God.
With such a dismissal of all religions as “Irrelevant” there can be no dialog to creatively synthesize into a larger conception. With such dismissal there can only be a ‘re-direction ‘ based on……?? Mob-Rule an elite of Brights? The league of Teal? The Second tier community? An enlightened elite? :-)
What seems to be called for is a sense of direction to fulfill mans desire for purpose. But as humanity increases its level of consciousness its unfolding naturally brings about the participation needed to further its own evolution. A holistic perception of the emancipation of the bondage of history which is what I see as the real core of the “rooting out,” and the “reconstruction of a rational religion.”
But the possibility for a creative synthesis of difference rests on what I believe are the ideas of “free will”, on” individualism” and “collectivism.”
As long as Will freedom and consciousness are done away as mentalistic and pre-scientific there can be no reconciling or integration of a larger conception. I will say that Harris meets us half way, but only as a form of mental gymnastics in his dismissal of God. But yet he affirms the non-duality of consciousness and “Mysticism as a rational enterprise,” with the nature of consciousness prior to thought open to rational discussion. Yet goes on to say that “A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion,” and rightly states that it is “our religious traditions that are intellectually defunct and politically ruiness that are full of fear.” An argument I agree with and make in Part Two of this blog.
The red flag to me, is how on the one hand you can admit to “Truths” in religion, ( I speak of Harris) while dismissing the texts upon which these kernels exist and state unequivocally that they are intellectually bankrupt, or “dilute” of “wisdom with respect to the present.” Such sweeping allegations are neither justifiable nor congruent.
So my concern is in the idea that anyone should be establishing a new “rational religion” at all.
Religion is what has caused countless bloodshed for “Moral Crusades” and “Moral Clarity” in the name of God on the one hand, and has warped and woofed into the extreme opposites of the Godlessness of Pol Pot’s, Kim Jong’s, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. Both are delusional. So I’m not sure I care for a new religion of any kind, whether it is rational or not.
The evolutionary ordering of individuals and cultures is entirely dependent on the stages of development and the center of gravity for each culture. It seems as if there are those would seek to push the envelope forward to some high ideas or utopian society. Well, correct me if I am wrong, but has there ever been one?
Man has from the beginning of time set out to establish the kingdom of God or a kingdom of gods here on earth. Either one IMHO is a pipe dream. The one thing man never learns from history is that man never learns from history, but believes it can “Change the images of Man” and redirect humanity.
now my questions to you are: why does the “rooting out” of unhealthy versions of religion approach raise your red flags?
Because the only way to “Root Out” something is by force or by poison with the idea of “death” to the holder for such beliefs , something that seems to come easy for the hard atheists and something that history has taught us can happen in the hands of Godless despots. So maybe the wording or phrase itself needs to be re-visited.
What alternative ideas would you propose to counter unhealthy versions of religions? e.g. theocracy of Islam? of the dominance of Christian Evangelicals in U.S. politics?
Well I think you and I are on the same ground on many ways when it comes to this. You said in your blog Daniel Dennett doesn't want to exterminate religions,
“That said, IMHO, a more integral response to the New Atheists is to acknowledge their partial truths, recognize or constructively critique their proposals, set them on an integral framework and talk to them instead of dismissing them as reductionists and “first-tier” food fighters. In short, the New Atheists and Integral Camp should talk.”
Exactly!
Take for example Iran and the fundamentalism of their culture with a desire to build a nuclear program. Bush, acting out the pre-rational desires of Cheney and the interests of Big oil seek to “Root out” and “Reconstruct a new democracy” (Think puppet government and Iraq) by the pre-emption of a nuclear strike. I think both you and I would agree that using hyperbolic phrases such as “Rooting out” and “reconstruction” just as Bush uses similar phrases escalates hostilities and sounds rather aggressive. We manage perception, and it is hard to believe that those words were not carefully chosen to “Frame” the subject. The phrasing is just not a good one, simple as that, like , “Bring em on!”
But the point here is that there should be a dialog between the U.S. and Iran to try and “SEE” from the others “perspective” the What, Why and How we can communicate to create a solution that is of a more integral in nature.
Just as there is a need for true dialog between the camps, not merely debates. So I applaud your efforts in seeking that dialog between the camps.
“of the dominance of Christian Evangelicals in U.S. politics?
My take is that I don’t believe that most of them are Evangelical Christians at all, but merely profiteers and wolves in sheep’s clothing sheering and in many cases skinning the sheep. Just last week there was a call from a congressional committee to seek out the big T.V. evangelists profits to see whether they were excessive and unjustifiable for tax exemption. Not one of them offered to “open their books.” These people are no more representative of the essence of their “religion” then Bush is of Freedom. And if you believe either I have a big ole bridge for sale. :-)
As to the “Political Evangelicals,” I believe they are as brainwashed as those who watch FOX NEWS. They are generally selected from institutions that have been built to influence and “train” them in the “framework” of the “Republican Revolution” which itself seeks to manipulate the future of mankind. This instituitional training of a republican polical army as it were was the brainstorm of a 60's republican judge who saw their party slipping. So, just more manipulations and that's what I detest, we shoul dnot be manipulated by media, politics or religion.
Keep the Peace!
P.S.
Can you do anything about the 7 or so attempts to put this blog up that result in the message Please retry your page request. Even if you try to hit the blog link on my profile it is given the message. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I did ask for some help in the blog support forum as well.
Thanks for the read and the comment C4C!
DEO
Excellent! I think an open dialogue is in order. But I've learned that people are stubborn and will hold on to what they believe especially when someone tells them they are wrong. With so much cultural history and social propaganda surrounding religion, there needs to be a dialog.
It is also apparent to me one person's religion is often misunderstood by the masses as much as ethnicity and gender.
Thanks to mass media, it really is obscuring what is going on with religion unless you start talking to people about their beliefs. More and more I truly believe the media is only for profitable entertainment value and no “Truth” seeking medium.
I suppose one reason I like citizen journalism and blogs.