This is the second chapter previously seen on my personal blog. Again this piece has been amended, far more so than the last, as time, temperament and tolerance learned have prevailed and my thoughts and opinions changed...
"The Great Spirit is not perfect: it has a good side and a bad side. Sometimes the bad side gives us more knowledge than the good side." - Lakota (Sioux)
I am not an atheist for to be atheist one must forget the rules of science. There is neither proof there isn't a God anymore then there is proof there isn't. This leaves only two options - theism or agnosticism. As far as I am concerned atheism is nothing but a reaction to the perceived evils of religion. Atheism rejects faith then neglects spirituality. Having one does not mean you need the other. Spirituality is a quest for truth that seeks to learn the link between humankind and what some see as godhead. Religion, and by that I mean organised faith, is an autocratic state controlled by men who seek power and, control. I have friends who practice what they preach in the quiet of their minds. They do not need those who would instill their own doctrine, who would dictate their dogma onto others that require a direct audience with the deity of their choice. Organised religion has nothing to do with faith but everything to do with power. Power corrupts. There is nothing so corrupt as a church whose only desire is to control those it ensnares with its dogma, its ritual, its arrogance and its manipulation of history.
We see this abuse daily here in the UK. We see it wherever there is Church and State. It is wrong on that be assured. What need is there for faith teachings in school? The moral imperative lies not within the dogma of faith but within the fabric of humanity. It is the single one principle that defines mankind making it different from its fellow animals. Our codes and morals are older than gods they are part of what it is to be human.
We do not need, any more than those who believe in Yahweh, Jehovah or Allah, Rabbis, Popes or Imams. We do not need or require those to interpret God's words, to tell us what God is or isn't thinking. Books that have been written in languages both vague and historic are dated and fallible and more relevantly exaggerated. God is love. God is peace. God abhors violence. If any such book as retold by leaders of religion advocates anyone to break this code, this Golden Rule, then you can be certain that they or it are acting out of self-interest. It has nothing to do with God.
Having said that it would be equally foolish to attribute all the world's evils to religion. It would be wholly unjust. Not all that mankind has done can be laid at the doors of religion. Much can, though, and it is recent events, namely 9/11 and seeing fundamental Muslim's enacting their perverse justice that has given rise to Neo-Atheism. That group only presents part of the truth. It is the whole truth we need.
"The truth which makes men free is for the most part
the truth which men prefer not to hear.” - Herbert Agar
Having faith as a personal choice rather than a church led mechanism is fine. No one has the right to ridicule another their beliefs.
When Richard Dawkins published his rather beautiful 'The God Delusion' it dealt, in no small part with the Old Testament a book, if taken literally, reveals God to be short one crumb his cake.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins
There is nothing particularly shocking in that statement to any sane person who has read that work assuming, as did I and it has to be said a great many fundamentalists, that this was the word of God in actuality. It isn't. That is something I shall return to later in these posts.
New Atheism has sprung out of acts of violence enacted on innocent people since the horrors of 9/11. It is the rational man and woman's response to those events. That said, there is still that matter of taking literally that which isn't literal.
There is a poetry that exists by which man recognises his place in the eternal, and by that I mean the thing that is greater than all of us yet conversely of which we are a part. You only have to look outside your window to see the truth of this statement. Look at the sky, the bend of the horizon, the way stars, millions of years old speed light to us that are thousands of years past. The way a tree rakes its branches against the sky, the way the ocean laps at the shore, the way the wind blows, the rain falls, the fact that size is only a matter of perspective and time a construct of humankind.
New Atheists confine themselves to science which is nothing more than a tool that we use to enable us to understand the eternal.thereby understanding our place within that vastness. New Atheism and even Humanism are nothing but another organised faction much like the organised religions they seek to remove from the lives of humanity. Why overturn one system only to replace it with another? Better surely to take the path Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke of by thinking for ourselves for how on earth can you organise that which is so personal to each and every human?
Atheism is a sanguine act of aggression. It promotes and supports change without recognising the spirituality inherent in humankind. It enables not just clear, logical thinking which we need but encourages others to vocalise and then support their words with a robust posture which could, which might lead to acts of outrage and ultimately violence.
"As soon as you concern yourself with the 'good' and 'bad' of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticising others weaken and defeat you." - Morihei Ueshiba
All and any form of violence, unless it is self-defense is wrong. We can, and sometimes we must protest our dislike for any one given thing. It might be political, it might be sexual, the one thing it can never be is violent. The act of violence negates all protest. If we want change, and I for one do, the only way to see that happen is by pacifist means. And yet, having said that had there been no division in the first place there could be no conflict.
I have expressed a dislike for religion, some would frame it as being organised religion. I see all Monotheism as being organised. I am not so confident when it comes to Jainism or Taoism and certainly not Buddhism. They are, by and large, verbal traditions more philosophical than religious By principle, their practices are passed down mouth to mouth. There are few doctrinal documents that preach anything but love, sex and co-existing with others. There are no sets of instructions on what to do if you meet humans of different persuasions. No one is encouraged to stone or decapitate anyone.
Humanism is nothing but another form of organised religion. It's adherents, supposedly free of the shackles of faith, give great store instead to science. They worship it the way those of faith worship a deity. Science, fun to learn at times, is but a tool by which we understand life, the universe and thereby that which some call God. The word is not the thing it is only a projection of what those of faith believe to true. For those like me, and there are a great many, the word is best defined as that which is unnameable. I would call it Tao. Slowly we are understanding more about ourselves, the stars, the tides and our place within the great vastness. That is not the poetry I spoke of. As I said, it is just a tool.
I welcome these authors, these so-called New atheists. I enjoy the wisdom they share in their books. I like their irrefutable logic. What I do not like is their oversight of humankind's natural seeking of belonging. What was once mysterious is still remarkable. Knowing is not a reductive process. Showing us the mechanics of how some call God works does not reveal why we feel connectivity not only to each other but our fellow animals and much, much more. The creative and the absurd are our ways, our spiritual overtones to that Great Spirit, that thing that we are part of and yet which we still find remarkable, amazing and beautiful no matter how much we learn. Call it God, call it what you will, it still amazes, it still enthrals, it still invites our celebration of not only IT but also ourselves. At the end of the day is one not the same as the other?
By having, or forming New Atheism or Humanism all, you are doing is starting yet another unnecessary group. It will have its own agendas. They may start out benignly only for someone to reshape them into something other than that which they first were. For example, a right-wing thinker who detests Islam or Christian Evangelicals and who then, upon seeing one of those groups perform what he sees as a sinful, corrupt act of violence, suggests that his group should retaliate. This is wrong. It is perfectly legitimate to defend a principle, to suggest a peaceful solution but the peaceful solution would not need to be sought if you didn't have groups which can only ever create division.
I see these stances being taken all the time. This is not helpful. Nor is it helpful to have Theism or Atheism. They cause people to defend their corners when there are no corners to defend only smooth curves.
"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affectation for a few people near us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Albert Einstein
