I was suggesting to a friend who has studied futurism that we can expect to see a backlash against religion in the next few years, a revival of militant atheism. This is a reaction to eight years of Bush and the aggression of certain fundamentalists, both Muslim and Christian.
Three books have been released that advocate atheism and scepticism.
1. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
2. The Atheist Manifesto by French philosopher Michel Onfrey
3. God is Not Great by journalist Christopher Hitchens.
I understand Al Gore is about to publish a book called ‘The Assault on Reason’.
The main problem has been a social acceptance of faith as equal to reason. We are supposed to tolerate people’s religious choices. The problem with this is that this tolerance becomes the failure to question and challenge absurdities. A perfect example happened in an encounter between Richard Dawkins and the minister of a megachurch in Colorado Springs (I think the same one that later admitted to having a homosexual affair and taking speed). The minister said that the eye and the ear could not suddenly appear. Richard Dawkins looked at him stunned and calmly said that he did not know of any scientist who ever claimed they ’suddenly’ appeared. At which point the minister got aggressive and accused Dawkins of arrogance. The point here is that such idiot ministers have a captive audience who accept everything they say, no matter how ridiculous. No doubt he has been telling his congregation that biologists think eyes suddenly appeared and there has been no one to disabuse him of his stupidity.
Another example of error appeared in a doco called ‘God on my Side’ (which probably will not air in the US). The reporter was very restrained and allowed the fundamentalist Christians to speak. He was talking to the Duffy brothers from Texas, three preachers with silly hair. He broached the subject of homosexuality and one brother said with full confidence that right throughout history there is plenty of evidence that an acceptance of homosexuality leads to the decline of civilization. I laughed! There is no such evidence. Where do these people get this nonsense? The answer is that they are not well-educated and think that a thorough knowledge of the Bible qualifies them to comment on things they know nothing about. They then spread this misinformation within their communities and it becomes accepted as fact – because it is never challenged.
This last belief reminds me that this idea of moral decay and the collapse of civilization is one of the great myths of the Judeo-Christians. The fact is that civilizations can accept a great variety of sexual deviance and continue to thrive. The Greeks accepted pederasty and thrived, the Romans tolerated homosexuality and prostitution, the Hindus institutionalised child sex, etc. Apart from this individual rulers have been generally free to indulge their sexual whims and also govern. The Roman emperor Hadrian had a boy lover called Antinous. When Antinous died young Hadrian had him deified and worshipped. At this time the Roman Empire had expanded as far north as Scotland. There is a wall called Hadrian’s wall that was built to stop the Scots invading Roman England. All the evidence suggests that sexual preferences and practices have no impact on civilization. None. Civilizations collapse for a variety of reasons, but never sexual practices.
To summarise – what we are seeing is a revival of mythic thinking. Whilst this blog examines integral approaches we actually live in a time when the rational stage is being eroded by the mythic. Al Gore’s book is about the many ways that mythic thinking (ideology is a form of mythic thinking) has replaced reason in US politics.
It could be that as the world becomes more complex is becomes harder to be rational. It’s easy to slip back into more comforting myths than wrestle reality.
The looming tragedy in this response is that the world’s problems can only be fixed through meticulously rational means. Mythic thinking is not equipped to solve anything.
I think that the rationalalists have left the back door open and mythic thinking has slipped back into the house. I also think that many rationalists are either too lazy or indifferent to the dangers of mythic thinking and have tolerated its existance. Richard Dawkins said as much himself. He said that he had thought mythic thinking had been defeated and he was shocked to see it was alive, strong and making a comeback.
And what is all the more frightening is that the integral movement itself is slipping into a type of mythical worldview. Only this one is based on eastern religion instead of Christianity. Instead of God or Jesus leading the way it’s “spirituality” or “consciousness.” The latter is so embedded in Ken’s AQAL that one cannot be considered “enlightened” without “state” training AND the highest overall “altitude.” As I have said time and again: all these notions are metaphysical holdovers in Ken’s model, and all of them arise in and express from the mythical worldview.
And they all lead away from the type of rational, communicative discourse embedded in deliberative democracy that Habermas posits as the integrative solution against such mytholocial and metaphyiscal backwaters No, the integral movement is not beyond the rational level, it is beneath it as long as it holds onto the above embedded myths.
PS: Yes, there are genuine, postmetaphysical ways (higher altitude) to posit a “universal,” but you’ll need to study Habermas, Derrida, Nagarjuna etc. for that, not Ken Wilber. Ken is getting closer with IS, but he’s not quite there yet.
PPS: Recall the following from the Postmetaphysical Thinking 4 post (http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=107:
“An absolute democracy could bring a democratic end to democracy; that risk is built right into democracy….The art of governing democratically is to know when democracy should suppress its own immunities to the undemocratic and attack itself (autos)â€â€in the interests of democracy, of course.”
In other words legitimate “altitude.” It is not democracy to let religioous mytholgy have an equal say in governance. And for that matter it is not democracy to let a fascist like Bush destroy the Constitution. Deliberative, representative democracy and legitimate pomo altitude (not Ken’s straw scapegoat) does not give equal voice to each and all lest it destroys itself. And how do we evaluate what’s relatively better between voices? See Habermas’ validity claims, for one.
Yes, the Atheist response is long overdue!ÂÂ
Ray said:
To summarise – what we are seeing is a revival of mythic thinking.
But this is still much too linear and simplistic an approach. It is based on Wilber-Beck Spiral Dynamics thinking. Gebser criticises this sort of myth of progress.
Personally i dont think Wilberian / Post-Wilberian memes (and most Open Integral posts are very much Post-Wilberian) are the best form of integral. This sort of narrative or worldview is very linear, it is a very limited way of thinking.
As Jung points out, mythical thinking isn\’t negative. What we are concerned with is not a colour-coded linear sliding scale, but two forms of dogmatism: rationalist-physicalism and american bible belt fundamentalist religionism and its counterpart Wahabist (and other forms of) Islamism. Of these two I agree with you, Western style rationalist physicalism is by far the better choice, and therefore I support it as passionately as you guys do. Not because it is rationalist, but because it is grounded in the Western concept of democracy and tolareance, somethining neither Bible Belt Fundamentalism nor Islamic extremism is. A totalitarian rationalist physicalism, such as Leninism or Stalinism, is as oppressive as any of those forms of religious fundamentalism. So it certainly isn\’t a case of rationalism versus religionism, or any other such simplistic dichotomies.
Edward said
As I have said time and again: all these notions are metaphysical holdovers in Ken’s model, and all of them arise in and express from the mythical worldview.
If by Mythical you mean in the sense of the myth of progress stemming from Comte, Spencer, and 18th to mid 20th century Western industrialisation, then i agree with you.
Yes, there are genuine, postmetaphysical ways (higher altitude) to posit a “universal,â€Â
You know, I really dislike this word \”altitude\”, with its entrenched ideas of elitism and \”I know better than you do\”. It\’s one of those Wilberian memes that we can certainly afford to get rid of.
but you’ll need to study Habermas, Derrida, Nagarjuna etc
But aren\’t you replacing Wilber\’s preferred authorities for your own (look, I do the same, I say Sri Aurobindo, Gebser, etc – we all have our preferred teachers!) It is still \”mythology\”. Your mythology – your meaningful narrative of how the universe works, says \”there is no such thing as metaphysics\”. You are making a statement that is based on your own experience, which reflects your own experience, and is true and authentic for your experience, but which doesn\’t reflect my experience. Of course each of us thinks our own particular position is the most integral, while all the others are mythical or partial or whatever (shades of Ken\’s two tiers!). I wouldn\’t be writing my book or arguing my case here if i didn\’t think my own view was the right one! So I\’m not criticising anyone, just making an (impartial or biased?) observation!
Because Dawkins’s TV program has just aired in Oz there have been a couple of opinion pieces critical of his alleged fundamentalism. This point was put to him and he refuted it absolutely. The reason is simple but missed by his critics. Science is NOT an ideology, it’s a method. Dawkins has gone on record saying time and time again that science does not deal in certainties or absolutes and he will readily explain how theories have been refuted and/or modified. To Dawkins science is an open ended method to determine the best possible explanation of the facts as we understand them. Ideologies work the other way – they force the facts to fit pre-determined theories. Thus science and ideology/myth are two entirely different categories. In fact Dawkins tells the story of his favourite biology professor who steadfastly held onto a certain view. Dawkins was present when a young upstart student provided undeniable proof that the professor was wrong. As Dawkins tells it all eyes turned to the professor who marched forcefully toward the upstart – the professor shook his hand and declared that he had to accept that he had been wrong.
If there is an alternative theory all Dawkins and other rationalists want is the irrefutable evidence, not assertion.
There is most definitely a problem with myth when it attempts to explain things it is not equipped to answer – and there is most definitely a problem with myth when it gives the wrong answers, which it most often does.
I understand Jung quite well and he would certainly have understood that science and myth are two entirely separate things and require two different types of thinking. Furthermore, Jung would never have said that myths were true, or that one myth was better than another. Read Jung and you see that he used myths from all sorts of cultures.
I guess the reason that rationalist/physicalists seem dogmatic is because they reject assertion and demand evidence.
So let me restate my concern. We are seeing a revival of erroneous mythic thinking. IOW – they are wrong, wrong, wrong. What’s worse is that they make it up as they go. Creationists have just opened up a gee-whiz museum in the US (where else!) that suggests that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark. What the fuck?
How ridiculous can they get? Sadly, very ridiculous.
There is no comparison between science and myth. Science may get some things wrong but it is self-correcting. Myth, by its very nature, is always wrong. Myth explains nothing of the real world.
Ray, I agree absolutely with your critique here re the superiority of science over fundamentalism. I have always supported science and always opposed creationism. I have met some creationists here in Oz many years ago and found them to be lovely poeple, but as for their biblical literalism I agree with you 100%.
However you missed the main point of my post, which is that the whole SDi/Wilber-Beck way of linear thinking is a very limited and misleading worldview that is better off discarded.
The idea that rationality emerges out of religionism is just one more biased dogma, one more creation story like the fundamentalist’s story of Genesis. Just because it’s the preferred creation story of scientism (not science, scientism) doesn’t make it any more true. As with all forms of dogmatism, it is blind to its own biases
I guess the reason that rationalist/physicalists seem dogmatic is because they reject assertion and demand evidence.
And when the evidence they demand conflicts with their preferred worldview (e.g. in cases of OBE, NDE, Synchronicity, dream telepathy, etc etc) they conveniently reject or deny it. Charles T. Tart the transpersonal psychologist pointed out the irrational biases of western rationalistic-materialistic psychology way back in the 70s.
And actually Ken does a good job here with using Habermas in showing that there are different validity measures depending on the domain. So science only becomes scientism when it extends its validity claim to all domains. So in that sense I agree that science isn’t the answer to everything, especially interior domains.
On the other hand, and here there are levels of complexity and development in each domain, so that there are better and better relative answers provided in each domain. So within the inner domain of worldviews relatively better ones replace relatively worse ones. Ones that rely on open-ended metholodogy are better than closed dogmatics.
It also seems viable that new-borns start at square one and have to go through the whole process so that it’s appropriate to be at each and every stage of development in each domain. But it’s not appropriate to empower lower stages politically, at least when the social holon reaches the rational and pluralistic stages. Otherwise you can destroy democracy, which is what we see happening right now with fundamentalists gaining control of government.
Recall the ebuddha criticized Ken for making assertions without empirical evidence to back it up within the relevant domains. Now Ken agrees with Ray in theory that each domain must past validity claim muster, but Ken doesn’t past muster in fact in each domain because of his isolated validation community that must accept his basic premises. Ken violates his own criteria and hence is “mythological” in that sense.
Yes, each stage in each domanin has its own “creation story,” or explanation of the way things are. That in itself is not “mythological.” The latter term has a specfic meaning in the domain-context of developmental psychology, and that’s how Ray is using it. And a worldview that gets to the point in development that allows openness to change and refutation is the bare minimimum requirement for democracy. And that attitude, by definition, is not mythological.
And one other thing: all the above is not linear AQAL or SD. It is based on valid, clinical research in those domains. That AQAL/SD uses that research for its own agenda is beside the point and does not invalidate that research. I give Ken credit for at least trying to incorporate the valid reserach from all domains instead of sticking his head in the sand when that research invalidates metaphysical postulates.
Which goes to Alan’s contention that scientism ignores paranormal phenomenon, etc. And there are places where that is legitimately explored, like in my neighborhood at the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma CA. However despite the valid research it seems to me that the overall worldview of the place is still interpreting the data from a “philosophy of consciousness” worldspace, which taints and diminishes the research. I.e., it extends the validity criteria of its domain to all domains and commits a category error. Here a little dose of AQAL might do them some good.
Alan,
I wasn’t defending Wilber, or even really thinking of Wilber – I’m over Wilber. Rationalism doesn’t arise from religionism, it arises as a normal function of cognitive development. Reason and faith has always co-existed and struggled. Even fundamentalists apply reason to those areas that don’t contradict their cherished beliefs. Many creationists happily accept the discoveries of science – but only so long as it doesn’t question their literalism.
In regard to the instances you cite – I disagree. As far as I’m aware the evidence in support of NDE’s etc is ambiguous at best. There is no doubt that many people will hold onto their preferred worldview, at least until unambiguous evidence to the contrary is provided. The problem with mythic fundamentalists is that even after copious unambiguous evidence has been provided from many disciplines they still hold onto their worldview.
A good scientist maintains and open mind and demands solid evidence. But there are plenty of ‘bad’ scientists who allow their prejudices to over rule reason. Philosophers of science understand the problem of bad science very well.
You also need to be careful of holding onto a belief in ‘transpersonal’ reality when the evidence is so far, ambiguous and problematic. These things are not certain by any means.
One also has to be careful of just using a particular validation community’s domain in another domain and even within its own domain. We’ve seen time and again that such a community can interpret other domains from its own and thus commit category errors. Another problem is that there is often a limited developmental dogma and block in such communities for a better paradigm. That is why there is a need for a “post meta” integrative framework within which to place all validity claims and domains so that one can do a cross-paradigmatic comparison and analysis, thereby appropriately contextualizing such claims.
In other words, as was said of Habermas and critical theory in the thread: http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=188:
Habermas accepts that various theories and methods each have “a relative legitimacy.†Indeed, like Dewey he goes so far as to argue that the logic of social explanation is pluralistic and elides the “apparatus of general theories.†In the absence of any such general theories, the most fruitful approach to social-scientific knowledge is to bring all the various methods and theories into relation to each other: “Whereas the natural and the cultural or hermeneutic sciences are capable of living in mutually indifferent, albeit more hostile than peaceful coexistence, the social sciences must bear the tension of divergent approaches under one roof†(1988a, 3). In TCA, Habermas casts critical social theory in a similarly pluralistic, yet unifying way. In discussing various accounts of societal modernization, for example, he argues that the main existing theories have their own “particular legitimacy†as developed lines of empirical research, and that Critical Theory takes on the task of critically unifying the various theories and their heterogeneous methods and presuppositions. “Critical social theory does not relate to established lines of research as a competitor; starting from its concept of the rise of modern societies, it attempts to explain the specific limitations and the relative rights of those approaches†(TCA, 2: 375).
Or in Ken’s terminology, free the paradigm by limiting it within its kosmic address.
Hi Edward,
Yes to all of that. Alan cites NDE’s, OBE’s etc, but these are highly problematic areas because a good deal of the evidence is subjective, anecdotal and inconsistant. Science demands unambiguous, objective evidence and until such evidence appears the correct stance is scepticism.
Alan, I think it is unfair to accuse science of rejecting evidence that is ambiguous and to accuse it of some sort of prejudiced dismissal of the scant evidence that exists. As you must be aware science must not only suggest a hypothesis but methodically disprove competing hypothesis. I’m not up to date with the most recent research but I am well aware that transpersonal psychologists such as Tart haven’t done of very thorough job of disproving materialist objections. It’s the same with creationists, not only must they prove they are right, but they must also prove why all alternate theories are wrong.
In regard to mythic thinking – it all too often gets things wrong and as a result many mythic explanations have gone the way of dinosaurs. Very few people believe that the Greek or Celtic gods really exist. I seem to recall that Dawkins complained that if we can live without the Chinese, Greco-Roman, Hindu and even Meso-American mythic worldviews, then we can live without the Semitic as well.
The problem is that some people don’t seem to be able to handle uncertainty all that well – they have to have some explanation, even if that explanation is manifestly wrong. The rational stage often demands with holding judgement and settling with ‘we don’t know’.
NDEs, OBEs etc. are real experiences, but it’s in how they are intepreted that makes the difference. For example, even the term OBE assumes it’s “out” of body, as if the “soul” can detach from the body. Granted there is a mental, psychic and causal “body” that are not merely the physical body, but can they exist without it? This was a question Ken explored in Excerpt G and hypotesized it “could” be but again, there is no “evidence” to date, using both intra- and inter-paradigmatic analysis (and synthesis). Which goes a long way to having relatively better (and open-ended) explanations.
Hi Ray
My reply. Science is a supremely efficient tool that i respect as much as you do. But science by its very nature and methodology can only access certain realities; i.e. those that are falisfiable, verifiable, etc. Regarding other realities (which subjective, anecdotal, inconsistent according to an “objective” observer, etc), these are just as real, only they are real in a different sense. Because they cannot be verified via scientific methodology, they are rejected, or at best seen as highly dubious or in need of reinterpretation (the experience itself is real, as Edward points out, but it is the non-physicalistic interpretation that is the problem) by those who adhere to the physicalist, quasi-physicalist, or agnostic perspective. As I have elsewhere argued, and will argue in my book, this is one of the two grand narratives of western society, the other of course being monotheism/desim/fundamentalism/etc. (of course there are also many variants and inetrmediate positions)
re Celtic and Greek gods, according to occultists they do exist, as thoughtforms. In that sense they are just as real as the Judaeo-Christian deity.
But it is perhaps pointless to argue further. You have your view, I have mine. It is upto others to decide which of us has the better explanation.
Alan,
The problem comes with using the word real and reality to describe quite different phenomenon.
In one sense ’subjective’ experiences are real to the subject, but not to others – it is not ‘real’ for them. However, objective reality is ‘real’ for everyone. For example, the law of gravity applies to everyone equally.
I’ve experienced many alternate states of mind and I’ve spoken to people who have had OBE’s, etc. But even after all that I can only say the evidence is ’suggestive’ – not conclusive.
To give you an example. I have (in the past) indulged in hallucinogens. The effects of different hallucinogens is well known and fairly consistent, but each subjective experience is unique – four people in the same room will not all see the same hallucination, even though it seems real to them. More importantly, anyone not taking the hallucinogen will certainly not see or experience hallucinations. The thing is, the hallucinations seem very real to the hallucinator. The deeper you go into the hallucination the more real it seems. The same applies to people suffering psychosis. The point here is that OBE’s and NDE’s are experienced under the influence of hallucinogens or by psychotics. I know because I helped a good friend deal with a ‘freak-out’ because she left her body and saw herself sitting across the room.
The problem for the transpersonalists is in separating hallucinations from ‘real’ experiences. A ‘real’ experience is objective – as in ‘hey, everyone, look over there, it’s a dolphin’ and everyone looks and says ‘yeah, it’s a dolphin.’
I spent many years meditating and I believe I have experienced subtle, causal and nondual states. But I would not say they were ‘real’ and that they said anything about objective reality. I certainly experienced them and I have spoken to people who experienced ’similar’ states. However, others never quite experienced these states in exactly the same way I did. The contents of their experiences were often quite different. Instead of seeing a dolphin they saw a shark, and another a surfer, and yet another a boat. The thing about the subtle, causal and nondual states is that you cannot enter those states and arrange to meet your friends in that state and reach an intersubjective consensus that it’s a dolphin. I’ve sat in a room in group meditation and it has always been a personal ‘inner’ experience for each person.
Therefore I have great difficulty in using the word ‘reality’ to describe these experiences – perhaps ’subjectivities’ is a better term. I mean, it becomes absurd because I can argue that hallucinations are real. They are because we know they happen. In that sense they are ‘real’ – but in another sense they are not ‘real’ and tell us nothing about ‘reality’.
I should add that in regard to my friend. She certainly ‘felt’ as if she had left her body, but she could not be certain it wasn’t an hallucination. I also had another friend who had an OBE whilst sleeping. It seemed real and ‘lucid’ at the time, but in the light of day she couldn’t really say it hadn’t been a dream.
In fact, to be pedantic, if you look up your dictionary you will find the phrase ‘other realities’ to be a nonsense. Collins says: “real 1. existing or occuring in the physical world, not imaginary, fictitious or theoretical: actual.” There is only one reality. As the existance of ‘other realities’ is theoretical and not proven, you have comitted a semantic contradiction. Which is why I prefer a different term.