I’m a big fan of PZ Myers. He’s godless, he’s liberal and he loves cephalapods. His site, Pharyngula, is one of the most widely read science (and liberal politics) blogs. You could say that I read it religiously.
But I cringe at his rough handling of religious believers. While I am unabashed in my atheism, Myers shares with Dawkins/Harris the habit of insulting believers (collectively, if not always individually). I have problems with this approach for a variety of reasons. It’s disrespectful (let’s all start our conversations with “you’re stupid!”), it doesn’t help atheists who are embedded in faith communities or relationships, it doesn’t reach out to believers who are beginning to question and doubt (who just might be tomorrow’s skeptics), and it lumps all believers into the same category–blinds skeptics to potential allies among the religious. Here is an example of Myers’ rough handling of “spirituality” in a recent post on science and spirituality:
I should warn you: “spirituality” is one of those words that sets my teeth on edge and triggers a reflexive reach for my kukri. It’s an empty buzzword that some people use as a placeholder for “deep feelings of connectedness to the universe”, but that I read as “mindless blithering; brains on the fritz”, so I respond to questions like that with an immediate rejection of the premise.
He leaves no opening for any nuanced understanding of “spirituality.” There was no attempt to even try to define the term, and his responded in a knee-jerk fashion. Fortunately, some of his readers were a little more forgiving, and were willing to accept that even godless scientists could feel a deep sense of connection to humanity or a deep sense of wonder at the universe–both of which are often included in definitions of spirituality.
I favor this more generous approach. Spirituality is an important word, partly because it is often used in opposition to religion: i.e., “I’m spiritual but not religious.” People can often reject the hierarchy, parochialism and superstition associated with “religion” while claiming for themselves a sense of the numinous in “spirituality.” I agree with PZ Myers that the term carries a lot of baggage, but I see it as a starting point, a place for identifying and building on common elements in human experience.
I’d like to think that Carl Sagan would’ve handled this topic differently from PZ Myers. While he was certainly critical of superstition (no one would deny Carl Sagan’s atheist credentials), he would have identified with the sense of awe. Perhaps he would have latched onto that element of spirituality and used it to build bridges, rather than burn them. He’d tell us that we don’t need to invent objects of reverence, no need to create a heaven and hell–that the universe defies the human imagination in the splendors and terrors it contains.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Johnny // Feb 2, 2007 at 11:31 am
Well, this is why I come to Mind On Fire rather than many other blogs. Even though I do not consider myself a believer, I don’t have a lot of sympathy with “unfriendly” atheism. Theism, or whatever religious dogma, may be false, but that doesn’t mean that believers are irrational. Frege once believed that there was a set of all sets and that that set was a member of itself. That proposition is false, but Frege was not unreasonable to believe it.
I actually read the links you posted and got annoyed, here is a quick response to anyone who wants to take a look.
http://thefiresermon.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/annoyed-with-the-self-declared-rational/
2 Jonathan // Feb 2, 2007 at 5:02 pm
That’s why I come here too. Following in the footsteps of one of my favorite apologists/philosophers, I try to make it a point that for every two books I read that I agree with, I want to read one that I do not, or talk to people who think differently from me after inundating myself with people who do. It’s almost like doing a rational/logical peer review. It really is great to talk with people about subjects that I will not get my head ripped off for disagreeing with the status quo, which is what I have come to expect in my faith-based circles.
That being said, I feel like I go a little overboard here - for no other reason than the pure satisfaction of writing about and discussing deep issues. But… I should probably save most of it for a post on my site rather than detailing it here.
I appreciate Carl Sagan’s handling of this issue as well.
3 Rich // Feb 3, 2007 at 7:43 am
‚ÄúIn its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos….Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.‚Äù
-Carl Sagan
4 Gene // Feb 3, 2007 at 8:50 am
Thank you so much for a great post. Heh, it’s rare that I agree so completely with someone. There’s a growing chorus taking strong exception to the attitudes of PZ Myers and others. The fact is, he is hurting his own argument by mirroring the strident intolerance of the Dominionists.
best,
Gene
5 Miko // Feb 3, 2007 at 3:47 pm
You know, I took offense at that post, too, but I also see where he’s coming from. There’s a tendancy to be “fluffy bunny” when it comes to somethings, spirituality unfortunately being one of them. It is very often a cop-out conversation-ender. “I’m Catholic, what are you?” “Oh, I’m not religious, I’m just spiritual.” Which makes it okay to still hang out with the god-loving crowd. There are many varied and nuanced ways of defining spirituality, each probably as different as the person using it. I think it is only the softer a/theists who like the term: fundies on both sides of the aisle see it as an excuse rather than a reason. There are times when I’m right there with them…
Johnny: I do believe that spirituality and religion both are irrational. I suppose no more irrational than believing that there is no god, but I almost feel that if I have an experience that is rational in any sense, it cannot be spiritual…
6 Tammy Takahashi // Feb 3, 2007 at 4:09 pm
John,
I agree with you that atheism doesn’t have to translate into anti-theism, or the assumption that all who are “believers” are irrational. At the very least, there’s got to be a place where atheists can be compassionate and respectful while at the same time believing that there is no God.
I mean, how is an atheist who bashes those with religion any different than one religion bashing another?
I also find it interesting that the majority of atheists that get on edge about “spiritual matters” are men. I have yet to meet a female atheist who gets all bent out of shape about others having different beliefs. I am aware that may just be a personal life experience, and not the norm. I just find that experience interesting.
Miko,
Can a rational experience be spiritual? What a great question! I have a feeling I’m going to be thinking about that for a while. Thanks.
7 John // Feb 4, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Rich, thank you for providing Carl Sagan’s actual words. And I’m grateful for everyone’s encouragement of respectful dialog. Tammy, I need to pair the words “compassionate” and “atheist” more often.
Miko, are you saying that spiritual experience is essentially defined by its irrationality?
It seems that you cannot even talk about a topic like spirituality without first discussing the definition. I don’t think you have to agree on a definition, but you do have to anchor your conversation somehow.
8 Miko // Feb 5, 2007 at 11:51 am
John (#7): yup.
I suppose it’s one of those paradoxes (as George Carlin would say, “well, it’s a mystery”), but I feel as though the spiritual experiences that I’ve had are valuable to me because they stand outside of rationality. I “know” that they couldn’t've happened, but I also “know” that they did. And maybe it’s rational if I understood more about my chemical composition, but gazing at a sunrise fills me with a feeling of hope. That, in my mind/definition is patently irrational. It’s just an event. A pretty common one (it’s happening constantly), and yet my reaction toward it turns it spiritual.
9 John // Feb 9, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Tammy said:
I also find it interesting that the majority of atheists that get on edge about “spiritual matters” are men. I have yet to meet a female atheist who gets all bent out of shape about others having different beliefs.
This is interesting, and I’m sorry I didn’t catch it the first time. I need to think some more on this.
Leave a Comment