Should Integralists Storm the Religious Battlefield?

[C4Chaos]

(Crossposted from ~C4Chaos @ Zaadz)

I just finished reading this Newsweek article entitled, Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield. There are a couple of important points from the article that I want to highlight:

1) Although the article didn't completely concede "victory" to the (New) atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens), it recognized their
achievements for they have "emphatically (and correctly) argued that
nonbelievers have the same rights under the Constitution as believers
do." As a case in point, Mitt Romney's speech on faith
was a "testament to the power of the atheists that he [Romney] had to
answer to them all." In short, thanks to the "loud and intransigent
rhetoric" of the (New) atheists, conversations on religion, science,
belief, faith are catapulted into mainstream media.

2) Moderate voices are now rising up to the challenge. Rev. Timothy Keller's upcoming book, The Reason for God, and Bart Ehrman's God's Problem are two books cited in the article. [Note: Too bad the article didn't mention Thank God for Evolution! by Michael Dowd since that book is out already.]

I've been covering the New Atheists on my blog (since the middle of 2006) way before the "New Atheist" label was in fashion. I even collectively criticized them and called their ideas FLAT. Looking back to my previous criticisms of the New Atheists, I admit
that I was too quick on the draw. My bad. I've made a cardinal mistake
of treating them as a leviathan with three heads [Dawkins, Dennett,
Harris]. However, the more I learn about each of them, the more I
realize that their ideas are as diverse as the believers they
criticize. Instead of a leviathan, they are more akin to horsemen with
different personalities and philosophy fighting under the banner of
rationality. By actually reading their books and articles, watching
their interviews, and following their video debates, I've come to
appreciate and understand where they're coming from. Because of this I
could highlight the important parts of their arguments while at the same
time be more critical of their arguments which, to my judgment, are very
partial, arrogant, and too certain. In short, I could better rank their ideas and put them into a more integral perspective.

IMHO, this differentiation and ranking of the New Atheists is what seems to be missing from mainstream media as well as the Integralists subculture. The absence of ranking and differentiation in mainstream media, that I can take. But I expect more from
Integralists. For example, I expect Integralists (i.e. authors, thinkers
at IntegralWorld, philosophers like Wilber, Spiral Dynamic gurus) to treat the New Atheists
with respect, acknowledge their importance, and take the time to join
them (e.g. debate with them, dialogue with them, critique them) in this
"important national conversation" [Wilber's words]. So far, I'm still left wanting. But then again, that's just me.

Some integrally-informed people say that there's nothing really new with the philosophical arguments of the New Atheists; that their
arguments are rehashed from the old days of the Enlightenment and
conscientious theologians of the past. I agree. I think even the New Atheists would
agree, for they have bibliographies in their books pointing to the
Founding Fathers, theologians, and thinkers in the Age of Enlightenment.
However, what I think the main difference is between the New Atheists
and the Enlightenment is the context, timing, and the ubiquity of
information in our fast evolving globally connected culture. With the
dangers of divisiveness caused by irrational and unexamined religious
differences, the New Atheists are fighting a more important
philosophical and political "battle" because the stakes are much higher
today than a thousand years ago. I doubt that they would convert people
into nonbelievers (or into believers of their cause), but the fact that
they've already succeeded in making noises, sounding the alarm and
getting the religious fundamentalists, moderates, atheists, and
agnostics to join the religious battlefield (while enriching their bottom line in the process) is already a big
accomplishment. They've sown the seeds of dissent in our current global culture. It's time for
Integralists to follow through, seize the opportunity, and take this
important (inter)national conversation to a whole new level.

My questions to you dear readers: Should Integralists Storm the Religious Battlefield? How? Why? Why Not? Do you have to be a moderate to be integral? Can Integralists take on the New Atheists with the same
rhetoric and passion?

[BrightAbyss~]

Excellent points Jim,

If AQAL is everything Ken espouses it to be then why not enter the fray and debate with other important intellectuals. Especially with so much on the line (re: culture wars).

I have always claimed that many of Wilber's strongest critics have missed the point of AQAL entirely, and are not as informed as Wilber on many topics (which I believe still holds true), BUT i think you are right to point out how Wilber himself does nothing to engage in serious (rigorous) academic or scientific debates.

One of Wilber's problems (at least for the future of AQAL), then, may just be that he suffers from both a lack of serious critics, and an unwillingness (or at least disinterest) to seek out more rigorous peer-related evaluations of his work (Robert Kegan being an exception).

Now there is much I don't like about Wilber's approach (and style), but I have found AQAL very useful on the way to a much richer contextualization of human knowledge, development and consciousness.

At the very least, AQAL has provided us with an example of how we might go about designing a meta-model, or constructing a more holistic account of general evolution. Of course, there is much room to improve this particular "theory of everything" - but it still stands as an example. I know of no other attempt which provides as much fodder for thoughts as Ken's.

But, as you know, I come from a different perspective - informed first and foremost by anthropology. This background compels me to look for the local to global nuances in any situation, and with regards to any grand narrative.

So, my project, and that of my immediate associates, has been to begin developing an alternative ‘integral’ narrative (model) of nature, self and society for the explicit purposes of praxis – the practical movement towards healthier and more sustainable forms of life.
So I truly think there’s a place for critical-integrative theory in a world so riddled with conflict, and so dominated by a particularly pernicious form or civilization (consumerism and corporatism).

A more complex and rigorous approach to real-world problems must be able to take multiple perspectives, with multiple methods of inquiry, while having a multi-leveled understanding of the global ecology (in the widest sense of that term) – and which affords people the most amount of resources (psychological, cultural and methodological)…

[Diane]

well said Chiron

[marmalade]

I generally am attracted to the mystical Godhead view portrayed in Wilber's description, but I'm not an atheist or not a strong atheist anyways. I'm agnostic because I believe in the possibility of a personal God and I believe there is an essence of truth to the experience of a personal God. I wouldn't argue against that most fundamentalists would consider me an atheist. Then again, most strong atheists probably would consider me a believer.

[marmalade]

I don't like trying to discuss God with too strong of atheists simply because I don't like doing so with anyone with too strong of beliefs. I belong to the Richard Dawkins forum and the IIDB forum. They both have a strong atheist element to them and so I don't post there much. To be fair, there are agnostics and theists there, but I don't know what percentage it is. I also belong to an agnostic forum because I've found that agnostics in general are more open-minded. On that forum, I talk about my spiritual experiences and everyone is fine with it.