Atheism and the Mythical God
If you believe in God, I don’t. If you don’t, I do. – Alan Watts
In Spirituality and the Mythical God, I talked about how spirituality and literal belief in sacred myths, such as those in the Bible, are far from the same thing; that, in fact, belief in the literalness of myth is actually contrary to spiritual growth. In this article, I’d like to discuss how atheism typically relates to the mythical god and why it, too, is an incomplete view of spirituality.
Atheism literally means “against theism” or “anti-theism.” [Correction: a-theism means, literally, without theism.] Theism is the belief in a god who created and is intimately associated with every occurrence in the Universe, most importantly, with the lives of all human beings. An atheist rejects this view as irrational and therefore wrong. While some atheists believe in non-theistic supreme beings, such as gods who created the Universe but do not participate in its workings (this is called Deism) most do not believe in any beings that can’t be proven to exist. In this article, I’ll be using the latter definition of atheism: disbelief in any beings who can’t be proven to exist.
Atheists usually arrive at their beliefs (or lack thereof, as some might see it) in reaction to mythical religion. At some point, usually during adolescence or young adulthood (when people are willing to invest the time it takes to ponder such weighty issues), they say to themselves, “I don’t believe that really happened.” And they reject the stories as fairy tales, for that is the closest analogy they can find in the secular world. Quite often, this rejection is an emotional experience for the young atheist, who feels his parents have wronged him by trying to make him believe things so glaringly not true. The result is a person with a profound distaste for all things religious. He marvels at people’s plausible denial of the obvious and wonders “How have these myths managed to hang on as long as they have and exert so much power over mankind?”
If you are a critical thinker, it’s not hard to empathize. And yet, ironically, the atheist is stuck in the same myth as the believer; he is merely on the other side of it. His beliefs are rational, but they are also reactionary, defined largely by the system he’s rebelled against, thus tying him to it. If he is to put a solid foundation under them, he must think the issue through more thoroughly.
Let’s try to do that now.
Rejecting sacred myths as literal truth is a forward step in thinking. It is a more rational, more reasonable, more logical worldview. Therefore, it is a more sophisticated worldview. This cognitive advancement, in fact, was at the root of the Enlightenment, summarized by Immanuel Kant as “simply the freedom to use one’s own intelligence.” This had not been the case prior to this period. Prior to the Enlightenment, the Church was the arbiter of science; in other words, people looked to the Church for answers. This makes sense, if the Church is the organization with the best answers to life’s difficult questions, which it was. Who are we, why are we here, where did we come from, what is the meaning of life, what happens after we die: all the realm of the Church until the Enlightenment. In one sense, the Enlightenment can be seen as the separation of Church and science. The Church was still the authority on moral issues, but science was now and henceforth the authority on knowledge. And no matter how steeped one may be in Church dogma, he cannot easily dispute the superiority of science in the realm of knowledge. The Church could never have increased life span, invented dentistry, written a Declaration of Independence, pursued flight, or any of the other miracles of critical thought made possible by the Enlightenment. They just would not have happened.
Technology, knowledge, and critical thinking have forged ahead and will continue to forge ahead. Why? Because knowledge gathering is an integral part of who we are, and mankind’s history and even prehistory follow a clear path in this quest for knowledge. First, tribal leaders invented stories to explain the Universe. Then the Church came along and became the authority on this knowledge. Then the Church was replaced by a more rational system, which separated and refined the pursuit of knowledge into a scientific method. As we continue to develop, it’s likely that the scientific method will be enhanced, or maybe even replaced, by even more advanced systems; some say this has already happened with postmodernism. The point is that, if you value rationality and critical thinking—which you can’t not value, as they are by all evidence man’s most powerful survival tools and an integral part of our most basic nature—then you must recognize the more logical view as the more sophisticated one.
Thus, atheism is a rational response to a dogmatic belief system; literal belief in myth is just silly, and really requires no further refutation. But it is important not to confuse dogma with spirituality, which it is not. If you’ve rejected the entire spiritual realm along with the dogma of organized religion, you have rejected a basic part of who you are, and this needs to be addressed.
Spirituality, which I define as that which is of ultimate concern, is as much a part of our makeup as is the pursuit of knowledge. And science can’t answer questions of ultimate concern. From Integral Spirituality, by Ken Wilber:
…Science cannot say whether God exists or not; whether there is an Absolute or not; why we are here, what our ultimate nature is, and so on. Science can find no evidence for the Absolute; nor can it find evidence disproving an Absolute. When science is honest, it is thoroughly agnostic and thoroughly quiet on those ultimate questions.
But the human heart is not. And spiritual intelligence, meant to answer or at least address those issues, is not so easily quieted, either. Men and women need an Ultimate because in truth they intuit an Ultimate, and simple honesty requests acknowledging the yearning in your own heart.
This sense of ultimate concern is, I believe, undeniable. When you look upon a great work of art, or hear a piece of beautiful music, or feel a sudden sense of connectedness while you’re walking in the woods, or look upon a starlit night and wonder at the immensity of the Universe, or feel a sense of your own greatness, or the flow of thought and feeling and order down through time, you know—you just know—that there is something miraculous in being alive, and something even more miraculous in the conscious awareness of being alive. This is difficult to put into words, and way beyond the dogma of organized religion to define or explain. But you know it’s important to, if not fully understand, revere.
That is a recognition of your spiritual nature.
When you acknowledge this Great Mystery, you have begun to move beyond atheism and toward a mature spirituality. You have discovered mysticism, the belief in consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality (from Dictionary.com). At first glance, mysticism may look like another irrational belief system, but it isn’t. Rather, it is transrational. That is, it acknowledges the reality of our sense of the inexplicable divine and seeks, through contemplation and meditation, to create a personal experience of it.
Big difference.
Once you understand the basic premise of mysticism, you can start to make sense of the myths you once rejected. You can start to answer the question, “How have these myths managed to hang on as long as they have and exert so much power over mankind?” You begin to see the crucial difference between a myth and a fairy tale, and you begin to understand that the myths serve a valid and vital service to mankind, uniting us and guiding us in our human struggle to make sense of the world and understand our place in it. When we see the sacred myths as metaphors for the human struggle, then we can accept them on a new—more sophisticated—level and integrate them into our lives in their proper place. (Sadly, literal interpretation misses this point entirely. For example, if you were to tell a fundamentalist Christian that you understood the crucifixion story to be about your own struggle for wholeness, you would be instantly denounced as a heretic. If Christ could see what became of his teachings, he would be truly heartbroken.)
We need myth. It describes our human struggle and unites us in it. It ensures us that we are never alone. It transcends all man-made divisions and guides us down the path of enlightenment. Myth gives existence meaning, which is what we all crave, in our most human of ways, whether we are aware of it or not.
Science is important, but it cannot give life meaning. Thus, myth stands in tandem with science, no more important, but no less, either. Both serve man in uniquely necessary ways, separate but equal, and both must be acknowledged as basic requirements to fully develop our human potential.
The revival in recent years of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is, in my opinion, evidence of the lack of avenues open to rational people compelled to fulfill their spiritual quest. In fact, I believe re-integration of spirituality with the secular rationality of modern life is one of the most relevant crises of modern times. We must find a way to incorporate spirituality at levels beyond conventional religion if we are to understand and solve the moral dilemmas we face today.
Further reading:
The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell (also a PBS miniseries)
The Cry for Myth, by Rollo May
Integral Spirituality, by Ken Wilber
8 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I enjoy your writing, but I must disagree with your definition of atheism and portrayal of how they think. There are certainly many who are as you depict, but I believe there are many more who simply feel that believing in things that are unbelievable is not healthy or helpful. This is not “against” or “anti” anything. Someone who doesn’t believe in alien abduction is not “anti” alien.
You wrote: “And yet, ironically, the atheist is stuck in the same myth as the believer; he is merely on the other side of it. His beliefs are rational, but they are also reactionary, defined largely by the system he’s rebelled against, thus tying him to it.”
This is extremely simplistic and while it *may* apply to some atheists, it’s not how many atheists feel. I reject anything that is not believable, and this is not being “stuck in” any myth.
Quite to the contrary, the study of Eastern religions, and spirituality, is more closely akin to mythological religious attitudes than atheism.
Furthermore, disbelieving a wild claim, such as a supreme being, is not reactionary. It is a case of an extraordinary claim being made, and a demand for corresponding extraordinary evidence is being asked for.
If your knowledge of atheists and atheism is based on some who are as you portray atheists in your post, you owe it to yourself to find out more. Most atheists belong to no clubs or groups, nor do they fall prey to any group-think, nor are they “active” or “reactive” in any way.
You have concocted (or chosen to align yourself) with a fantastical view of “spirituality”. Why? You’re trying to answer the same questions philosophers and theologians have been trying to answer throughout time. I know why — you need to have answers and a firm pathway, and you desire to believe in something greater than yourself. It’s a common need, but it can be overcome. You’re very rational, and obviously well read, but cloaking your discussions in rationality and neutral language isn’t helping you.
You wrote: “We need myth. It describes our human struggle and unites us in it. It ensures us that we are never alone.” This is patently false, and goes to my statement in the previous paragraph. You need it, but please do not say “we” need it.
No doubt you will consider this over-simplistic… The world can be divided into people who believe in things without evidence, and those who don’t. You’re in with the Christians and philosophers. If this helps you live an enjoyable life, more power to you. Many of us can’t submit to mysticism, whether it’s concealed in a rational discourse, or Catholicism, or any other foundation for believing in something bigger than ourselves. We are alone, and there is no reason to believe otherwise unless it satisfies a need to believe in such things.
I’m glad to see that atheists are reading my stuff. I hope you continue to. Atheism is a difficult topic to write well about, and I apologize for not being more clear. I’m not sure I can be clearer now, but I’ll give it a shot…
First of all, I put forth the definition of “a-theism” strictly in terms of its etymology: the prefix “a” means “anti” or “against” in Latin. I can see how that might be offensive to atheists everywhere, so to clarify, I did not mean it as anything other than a dictionary definition, nor do I believe there is anything negative about being “anti-theist.”
I didn’t do a good job defining the difference between “myth” and “mythical” as I was using the terms. I think it was clear that I see conventional, mythical religion–religions that believe the myths really happened–as unsophisticated and unsatisfactory to any rational person. But I wasn’t so clear about how rational people can re-integrate “myth” into their lives in a healthy way, or why I think that’s important. By “myth,” I simply mean the stories we tell ourselves about who we are. That’s very open-ended, intentionally so. It can apply to virtually any story that has served man down through the ages, and these stories are an essential part of being human. Possessing the capacity for conceptual thought makes storytelling part of who we are. You, me, and everybody are always telling a story about themselves, their roots, and their desired destinies, call it what you will. It is in that sense I meant that we need myth.
Finally, I don’t need to believe in something greater than myself, not in the sense you mean it. Like you, I have no illusions about what happens to me when I die. But I do believe in a creative impulse, a great unsolvable mystery of which I am some small, inexplicable part.
If you’re interested, check out some of the further reading, particularly the Ken Wilber. Anything by him can explain these issues one thousand times better than I can.
Thanks again for your comments. I am delighted to have thinking, intelligent, rational people reading my stuff.
Kitty
Can you provide a link for your claim that the prefix “a” means against. It is my understanding that means “without” as in asexual, amoral, atheist.
“Without” is definitely the correct word; you are right. Thanks for clarifying that. For me, it amounts to the same thing, but it’s important to be precise. I will modify the article to reflect that. -K.
Well,
That Atheism denies a sense of awe (spirituality)? May I suggest reading anything by Carl Sagan or Dawkins’ “Unweaving the Rainbow.”
However, do most Atheists reject post-modernism? I would imagine that the data shows that. But, it is based on the fact that most (certainly not all) Atheists have an epistemology based in empiricism. If postmodernism could ever come up with a theory that fully explains the observed data to date, and make falsifiable predictions about future observations that are confirmed over and over and over again, then this Atheist at least, would certainly rethink his commitment to empiricism.
Tully,
Exactly the point: if atheists are honest, they cannot deny a sense of awe when they contemplate the Universe, and that is, as you say, atheist spirituality. I would also submit that the sense of awe is due to an acknowledgement that the empirical method has thus far been unable to solve that mystery and there is no evidence that it ever will; the more we learn, the more we understand the immensity of that mystery. That seems to be the way it goes.
I would also disagree that most atheists reject postmodernism. Guys like Foucault, Derrida, and Nietzsche, for example, were almost certainly atheists, as were most, if not all, of the other leaders of this movement. This says little, though, about their commitment, or lack thereof, to the empirical method, although I understand that, because postmodernist beliefs seem so irrational, it might be difficult for an empirical atheist to see how such seemingly irrational thinkers could have atheistic roots.
And yet, for the most part, they do. Postmodernism essentially asks, “How does the subjective affect the data/evidence/world view?” If you’re doing math or physics problems, this is an absurd question, but in the realm of soft science, such as language, culture, psychology, philosophy, history, etc., the subjective has substantial influence. The empirical method has not been very effective in dealing with issues of a subjective nature (and I can elaborate on this if need be), and postmodernism arose out of that awareness, which I believe is a valid one.
So, while postmodernism has done a dreadful, dismal, terrible job of defining the issue and an even worse one of applying it to much of anything—its very nature being about subjectivity makes this extremely difficult—there is validity to its claim that subjectivity exists and has a significant influence on nearly everything we do, and we ought recognize that and take it into account as best we can.
Thus, if you look only at the externally objective evidence which can be studied empirically, you are limiting yourself, and you are not being honest about the role of your own mind, beliefs, history, culture, education, morals, philosophy, ethnicity, etc. have in how you see the world. Postmodernism can’t and won’t come up with a theory to explain observed data because that is empiricism’s role. PM plays a different role, one much harder to grasp or explain (again, because of its subjective nature), one meant to enhance the empirical method, not replace it.
For the best critique on both modernism and postmodernism I have ever read, please see A Brief History of Everything by Ken Wilber. He is one of the most rational thinkers I have ever read, and masterful at boiling concepts down to their essentials. It’s actually a fun read. I would even send you a copy if you’re interested. Let me know.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. -K.
Swann,
Eloquent reply, but I must refute most of it.
You wrote, “I would also submit that the sense of awe is due to an acknowledgement that the empirical method has thus far been unable to solve that mystery and there is no evidence that it ever will.”
This errs in two ways. First of all, modern neuroscience has made strides in this area. For instance, in pictures of landscapes, there is an almost universal “sense of awe and beauty” when people are shown a picture of a savanna with a nice full arboreal background. This, by the way, makes absolute sense for a species that had to flee the jungles to escape predators. There are other examples; this is just the first one that came to mind. Secondly, and I do say this intellectually and not as an invective, what a horribly arrogant thing to say. You are arguing that not only is humanity not smart enough to figure this out now (although the above belies this), but humanity will never be able to figure it out. Well, that’s the equivalent of a child asking a question that I don’t have the answer to and me replying, “I don’t know and because I don’t know, you’re not bright enough to find out either.” As I said, it seems arrogant and is historically absurd.
You then wrote, “I would also disagree that most atheists reject postmodernism. Guys like Foucault, Derrida, and Nietzsche, for example, were almost certainly atheists, as were most, if not all, of the other leaders of this movement.”
First of all I qualified that comment with, “I would imagine that the data shows that.” A qualifier is an important thing. In this particular case it means, “this is what I intuit, but I haven’t done the research or I don’t have the facts to say it with certainty.” So first, you misrepresent my position and then you try to refute it using a logical fallacy. What you have stated is anecdotal evidence. You have “celebrity” testimony posing as statistical fact. What famous Atheists subscribe to isn’t important; it’s what most Atheists ascribe to and you never address that. Logical fallacies are called fallacies for a reason. They lead to logical absurdities that are not supported by the evidence.
Next, you’re wrong here even when you’re trying to fair, “And yet, for the most part, they do. Postmodernism essentially asks, “How does the subjective affect the data/evidence/world view?” If you’re doing math or physics problems, this is an absurd question, but in the realm of soft science, such as language, culture, psychology, philosophy, history, etc., the subjective has substantial influence.”
Bias exits in physics and mathematics, however mathematicians and physicists recognize this and put methods in place to help find truth. Shoot, they know they have their own biases and it’s tough to overcome them. When Newton and Leibniz discovered calculus there was a strong bias (absurd infinitesimals) against them. The difference between a knowledge art and postmodernism is that the knowledge arts let the data decide. It may take time, it may take a great deal of time, but in the end the data is the data. It is the same with history; historians know that you can’t trust interested parties (at least until they are tested and found reliable) so they always look for disinterested parties. They also partner with geologists, archaeologists, forensic scientists etc. Through neuroscience, psychology approaches everyday closer to the physical sciences and it too fully recognizes that biases exist. The difference is that the knowledge arts have put in place self-correcting mechanisms for bias; peer review and a demand that the hypothesis match the data.
And then, you make assumptions about my thought processes which you could have absolutely no idea when you write, “Thus, if you look only at the externally objective evidence which can be studied empirically, you are limiting yourself, and you are not being honest about the role of your own mind, beliefs, history, culture, education, morals, philosophy, ethnicity, etc. have in how you see the world.”
Well, I am honest about my own beliefs, prejudices, history, education, culture, morals, etc. when I evaluate claims. To not do so I would consider intellectually dishonest. And if you want to make the claim that I am, I would at least ask that you got to know me first.
Finally, as to Wilber’s book? Tell, you what, I’ll go out and pick up a copy (I’m always looking for a new read). I’ll also make you a counter offer, I’ll send you a copy of Sagan’s, “The Demon Haunted World” or if you tell me you’ll pick up a copy yourself, I’ll believe you. You seem honest to me, or is that just my culturally corrupt perception of you?
tully
Tully,
Here are my responses to your latest comment.
[Eloquent reply, but I must refute most of it…As I said, it seems arrogant and is historically absurd.]
Reply: First of all, I wasn’t speaking about the sense of awe being the mystery; I was speaking to the mystery of life itself, that we exist at all. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. But it’s somewhat irrelevant, anyway, because your point that neuroscience is making strides in measuring this awe is inaccurate. Neuroscience is incapable of measuring awe, at least not in any meaningful way. A sense of awe is an internal, subjective, personal experience. Neuroscience can measure changes in brain chemistry of a person who claims to be experiencing a sense of awe, but that is not the same as measuring a sense of awe. Ditto your later comment about psychology approaching a hard science. Psychology can measure the brain chemistry and physiology of subjective experiences, like emotions, but that is not the same as measuring emotions. Empirical, objective methods simply do not work in subjective areas. The best result possible is a scientific reductionism, like you are describing, that addresses the quantifiable aspects and largely ignores the rest.
Here’s a better illustration. Let’s say a scientist has spent his life studying a particular person’s brain. To make it interesting, let’s say that neuroscience has made great strides, and is capable of pinpointing exactly what emotions are occurring in the brain, and to what degree, with great accuracy. Furthermore, let’s say the scientist can even measure the level of concentration and interest the person is experiencing. But let’s also say the scientist has never actually met the person and has no knowledge of him other than his brain tissue. The scientist would know next to nothing about this person. He could study the brain tissue for a lifetime and be unable to make any predictions whatsoever about the person’s ideals, values, and interests. Whether a person is a conservative or a liberal. Whether or not he believes in god. None of this information can be found from studying brains. Further, reducing psychology to such pinpointing of organic processes confuses the study of the mind (internal subjective) with the study of the brain (external objective). They are separate areas of study, but equally important, and neither can be reduced to the other.
There is much more to say about this, and I know by leaving it here I risk you misunderstanding my assertions, but that is a chance I will take in the interest of brevity.
Also, I’m not sure how you get arrogant out of this. By your logic, since I also am human, aren’t I calling myself not bright enough to figure this out as well? But again, I am not saying mankind is unable to figure this out. I am stating what I believe to be the limitations of the empirical method—that it cannot tackle the internal, subjective world—not of the human mind.
[You then wrote, “I would also disagree that most atheists reject postmodernism. Guys like Foucault, Derrida, and Nietzsche, for example, were almost certainly atheists…They lead to logical absurdities that are not supported by the evidence.]
Reply: I don’t think I misrepresented your position. I disagreed with the position you presented, and whether or not you’ve researched it or not, it is still the only position you’ve presented, and therefore the only one I can respond to. But to get on with the point, I am not talking about “celebrity atheists” and I am not presenting anecdotal evidence. I am just naming some postmodernists whom I believe to have been atheists. I am not talking about “most atheists’ beliefs;” I am giving a brief, cursory description of postmodernism and some of the atheists who ascribed to it. (And btw, was Foucault famous? Or Derrida? Not hardly. At the risk of sounding dismissive [or arrogant], I must say, this objection borders on silliness.)
[Next, you’re wrong here even when you’re trying to fair…and a demand that the hypothesis match the data.]
I agree with all of this. Science has done a good job regulating bias. This sort of makes my point: in hard science, biases are more easily measurable and determinable (not absurd, as I stated earlier, but also not really worth discussing in this context). Not so in soft sciences and areas that deal with subjective reality. I believe you and I are in near total agreement on most issues, the one difference being that I see empiricism falling short in the subjective realms, and I see the subjective realms as every bit as critical to advancing knowledge as I see science, and you, perhaps do not.
[And then, you make assumptions about my thought processes…ask that you got to know me first.]
Yes, I believe you are an honest and earnest person. I do not use “you” as in you, personally, Tully. I use “you” in a general sense to a general audience. Being honest with oneself is difficult, a lifelong task of ever-increasing depth and complexity, and one that we never fully complete. Please don’t take my statements personally: other than the few statements in this post that are obviously directed at you (like this one), none of my comments are meant for a specific person. I think you’re one of the good guys merely by your willingness to take this stuff on.
[Finally, as to Wilber’s book?… culturally corrupt perception of you?]
I will read Sagan’s book. I may even have a copy of it. My boyfriend is a big fan of his, as well as Feynman, Gould, and many other heroes of science, and has several of their books. And if we don’t have it, I’ll buy it. Promise.
Finally, I will say that I would love to carry on this conversation with you, but if you want to continue, let’s read our respective books first, then get back to each other. Fair enough? I am enjoying this, but I have a lot of other work to do, and Wilber’s Brief History will be a better resource for you, anyway. I am eager to hear what you think about it.