Atheist Spirituality — Another Thought for the Day
I have been using the above as a title for a series of articles (so far I’ve published 5). I haven’t added a number to this one, because it does not fit in with my intended train of thought. It is rather a direct response — some random observations and questions — to an article by Isak Dinesen, with whom I’ve been having a conversation about Atheist Spirituality. This is what started the whole series in the first place. (The general theme is my difficulty with the term Spiritual Atheist. For a guide to the whole series, click here.) In what follows I’ve quoted the sentences which I wish to comment upon, but you may wish to read her article in full.
====================================
At the outset, we return to the perennial question in such debates, what is the nature of God? Ms. Dinesen and I have debated this earlier. Here she accepts that there is “that which is beyond ourselves”, and is prepared to use terms like “The Ineffable, The Un-namable, The Un-caused Cause and The Ultimate”. For me these words are good enough synonyms for God. She, however, has problems with the word ‘deity’.
There is the major problem in the English language that we use the same word ‘God’ as the Ultimate Cause, alongside ‘god’, which is used in polytheistic systems, can be loosely equated with a deity and, what makes the problem worse, a personal God (i.e. a god with personality). In this context, we have been confused by centuries of Christian theology, Jewish theology before that, and the persistent belief that God is some kind of magical old man with a beard in the clouds. It would be good if this would stop.
She says that transcendence “does not necessarily imply a source such as a deity”. But does it imply a source of any kind? A good word for that might be the Un-caused Cause, which she herself uses, and for me that is what God is.
====================================
She further says: “Lesser deities (Devas and angels etc.) are categorically silent. Their resemblance to and interest in humans along with alleged summon-able powers are inconsistent with both science and The Un-nameable, but rather emanate from the vivid imaginings of necessity. Of course, like the saints, these regents of the Ultimate are approachable, petition-able and caring. A Spiritual Atheist finds no evidence of such superhuman intermediaries. However if there were to be an Unintelligible Mystery, how could dubbing down to lower realms of sub-deities either detract from nor add to the Definitive Substance of the Universe?”
This is the paragraph that I find the most puzzling and troubling. Firstly, do devas and angels resemble human beings? They may appear to do so in the works of Renaissance artists, but they had to paint something visual in order to depict remote supernatural beings. We have no reason to assume that the depictions are accurate, merely the best that their imaginations could come up with. I am happy to agree that humans have chosen to depict deities and angels in this way. That does not mean that the depiction is real. How could beings in the spiritual realm resemble physical human beings in the material world?
Secondly, I am always worried when I hear someone say that something is not true because it is inconsistent or incompatible with science. Is there such a thing as ‘science’, or are there merely lots of scientists doing different work, and holding different views about the nature of reality? In this context, does ‘science’ mean the objective search for truth about the nature of the universe, without bias or preconceptions? Or does it mean rather, according to the dominant philosophy of modern science, materialism? The latter will only accept natural explanations on principle. It is hardly surprising, therefore, if it finds no evidence of superhuman (supernatural) intermediaries. Whenever ‘science’ says that it finds no evidence of something, I always wonder whether it is looking hard enough, or even at all, if it dismisses something without investigating the subject thoroughly. I believe that I have received communications ‘from beyond’, although I would not be so presumptuous as to claim that these were from angels or deities. Something like ‘spirit guide’ or ‘higher self’ would be good enough for me.
Thirdly, I do not understand how deities and angels are inconsistent with The Un-namable. According to spiritual traditions, everything that exists at all levels is a manifestation of the Ultimate Un-namable, which Ms. Dinesen seems to believe in. Therefore, deities and angels would be emanations from this Un-namable, not from (human) imaginings. ‘Emanate’ is the precise word used in these traditions.
Fourthly, Rupert Sheldrake may be only one scientist, but one of the great scientists of recent times, battling for many years against materialist science. He has written a book, with Matthew Fox, called The Physics of Angels¹, the subtitle of which is Exploring the Realm Where Science and Spirit Meet. So it is not true to say that ‘science’ has rejected the existence of angels, merely the majority of scientists. (I should point out that the book is primarily an exploration of the thinking of three Christians: St. Thomas Aquinas, Dionysius The Areopagite, and Hildegard of Bingen. So one could argue that the book is not purely scientific).
Here are some interesting titbits from the preface: “When the two of us held our first discussions on this subject, we were fascinated by the parallels between Thomas Aquinas speaking of angels in the Middle Ages and Albert Einstein speaking of photons in this century. Hence the title of this book…”
They also describe conversations with Lorna Byrne, an illiterate Irish peasant woman, who says that she has been in contact with angels since she was a little child. She has written three bestselling books on angels (which may merely mean, of course, that there is a very credulous, gullible public out there). She describes angels as ‘balls of fire’, which the authors say parallels some of Hildegard’s visions. (So much for angels resembling humans!)
Finally on this paragraph, according to quantum physicists, who are at the cutting edge of the scientific understanding of reality, there is no such thing as matter, that it is an illusion. I’m therefore not clear what Ms. Dinesen means by the ‘Definitive Substance of the Universe’, and would like some clarification. Is she saying that nothing exists apart from the Unintelligible Mystery and the material universe, with absolutely nothing in between? That in itself would be extraordinary. The “lower realms of sub-deities”, far from “dubbing down”, may be actually responsible for maintaining (what appears to be) the material universe in being. That is what esoteric traditions say.
=====================================
Here are some further random observations.
Ms. Dinesen says: “We seek commonality through creative interpretations of Biblical myths based on modern psychology”. She offers as an example of such an approach an interpretation of the parable of the Prodigal Son by Jordan Peterson, who suggests we consider all three characters as part of our own psyche: “the id as rebel hedonist and the brother as ego; faithful, resentful and envious. Finally, we also host the heartbroken father; the superego of reconciliation”. I assume that she approves of this interpretation, for she says: “Allegorical readings of ancient texts answer those who yearn for ‘perennial’ meaning without compromise to the supernatural”.
My response is that Peterson’s interpretation of the parable is superficial and shallow, as is the Freudian psychological model he bases it upon. We will need to turn to a ‘supernatural’ interpretation of the parable, if we are to get to the bottom of it. (This has been on my to-do list for some time. I’ll try to get round to it soon.) Creativity is one thing; letting the imagination run wild is another. We may need to retain ancient interpretations of such myths, if they are to remain meaningful.
====================================
Ms. Dinesen says: “I am no longer burdened by cognitive dissonance as a result of a good god ignoring suffering and an angry father sacrificing his innocent son, enacting an incantation of absolution for the innate (original) sin of man”.
My response is that the fictions and fantasies of the Catholic Church, if that is what they are, have very little to do with either religion or spirituality. Is she rejecting religion and deities in general, or is her problem merely with Christianity? Why is the Christian story (as conceived by the Catholic Church) being allowed to stand as a witness for the whole of world religion, and the atheist question in general?
====================================
She says: “The Omniscient is unresponsive to our questions or requests in any reliable, reproducible way”. And yet she believes that it produces synchronistic events to help and guide us. It would indeed be extraordinary if we could rely upon, or reproduce them, since they seem to emerge from some kind of mysterious transcendent intelligence. She is very fond of this quote from Krishnamurti, which she has repeated in her article: “We cannot give orders to the wind, but we must leave the windows open. The Absolute is the wind; our spirit is the window”. I suggest these words are the answer to the issue she raises here.
====================================
Finally Ms. Dinesen says: “Anatomic and functional alterations in the brain are found in tragic cases of people with recalcitrant criminality, brain injuries, those suffering with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and frontal lobe dementia to name a few. We claim a strictly biologic basis for good and ‘evil’ ”.
My question here would be, is this true in all cases? Do all recalcitrant criminals, all people who commit evil acts, suffer from brain abnormalities? It would be interesting to read the research.
I cannot accept her conclusion, even if this appears to be the case to neuroscientists. I believe that there are supernatural evil beings. By coincidence, before reading Ms. Dinesen’s article, I had recently written a series of articles on Medium about demonic possession and exorcism. The first one contains some extraordinary and terrifying accounts, including some by credible eye-witnesses, with no reason to doubt their word. She has said earlier in her article: “My universe is safe from the whims of unseen non-material influences”. I would prefer to say that the universe she has chosen to believe in, and the one she personally experiences, fortunately for her, may appear to be safe in this way. Whether it is actually safe in the way she believes is another matter; just ask the people who have been demonically possessed, and those who have witnessed their exorcisms. (I would be interested to hear from anyone who thinks that the episodes described there can by accounted for by brain abnormalities. Also, the general problem of good and evil requires, I believe, a supernatural, not biological, explanation, which I’ll turn to soon.)
====================================
I hope you have enjoyed this article. I have written in the past about other topics, including spirituality, metaphysics, Christianity, psychology, science, politics, and astrology. All these articles are on Medium, but the simplest way to see a guide to them is to visit my website (click here and here).
=====================================
Footnote:
1. Monkfish Book Publishing, 2014
