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~]

Short answer: YES - integralists should enter the fray. But not as combatants per se, rather as a facilitators of communication and mutual growth between various factions. Post-formal approaches would include attempts to bring out the best in the New Atheist discourses, while simultaneously honoring the truth, beauty and goodness in traditionalist discourses.

Moreover, to facilitate this growth, integral thinkers (and their are so few of them, truly) will need to appeal to the noblest aspects in individuals and groups to help them open up to new possibilities - working within life-conditions to build pathways toward healthy disagreements and alliances.

My gut reaction however, is to let the New Atheists do their thing unabated in order to expose the fundamentalists in the various 'camps' (secular and religious), and allow moderists and communitarians (and even radicals) to differentiate the fanatical discourses and arguments from those of the more insightful variety.

In AQAL speak: let ORANGE and GREEN weaken the pathological AMBER, and let the healthy AMBER infuse the ORANGE and GREEN on the way to more TEAL dialogue...

It's a 'clash of civilizations' with a civilization, and what's at stake is a civilization yet to be born - its the evolution of culture.

Great post C~

[Heru]

I'd like to offer a more in-depth post on this soon (and fulfill a long belated promise, BrightAbyss!), but a short reply will have to suffice for now.

My problem with this general approach--integralists as facilitators and synthesizers of all possible viewpoints--is that it implies a position of superiority for the integral worldview and the integralist. Now depending upon the specific context and case, this may or not be the case, but the problem is that there is an a priori assumption that integralism actually "transcends and includes" other worldviews within its purview--which it does, but only to a degree, and the key being: only a surface, often caricatured, representation of any given worldview.

Now I do think that if you look at Wilber's AQAL map you've got perhaps the most comprehensive overall picture of all worldviews and approaches to date, but again: only on a surface level. Wilber's primary role is as a synthesizer; he is certainly biased towards certain configurations and paradigms, namely Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and scientific empiricism (in a similar sense that transpersonal psychology is really a fusion of Eastern spiritual traditions and Western psychology, with little or no infusion of Western esotericism--or only that as re-formulated by Jung).

The temptation of Wilberism--as I personally experienced through years of him being my main hombre--is to remain within the boundaries of his work and view everything through "AQAL Goggles," what Wilber calls the IOS or Integral Operation System, which he recommends that we "download". Yet I am beginning to believe that this download is actually antithetical to a more holistic, integral worldview--for it actually prevents a truly integral embrace through "AQALizing" everything.

To put it AQAL language, the IOS download gets one to Teal, but not to Turquoise. In fact, unless it is itself T&Aed, it may actually prevent development to Turquoise.

What are the alternatives? I am not saying to throw AQALism into the recycle bin, but I am advocating "learning another language," so to speak. And more so: when we do our ILP (Integral Life Practice), to not engage specific practices "from a Wilberian perspective," but to enter into the practice itself, as it is, without AQALizing it. In other words, if you are a painter don't think "Cool, I'm doing Integral Art™." Or when you walk down the street, don't think "I am engaging Body, Mind, and Spirit in Self, Culture, and Nature--I am an Integral Ubermensch."

So to return to C4Chaos's question, I would say: Yes--engage outside of the Integral Ghetto, throw yourself into the mix--why not enter the energy and flow of life? But don't do it from an Integral Missionary Perspective (IMP), which is entirely active, but from one that is more active AND receptive. In other words, throw yourself into the mix with the openness to not only impact others, but be impacted--and even transformed--yourself.

[marmalade]

Heru - I think its problematic anyone who gets sucked too much into one view. The ability to integrate perspectives is important, but so is the ability to entirely switch perspectives.

I have a desire to integrate different views, but I don't do it all of the time. When I'm with a person not interested in integral, I don't prosyletize to them about integral. When I'm on a non-integral forum, I only bring up integral on occasion. The majority of my time is spent with people not interested in integral and on forums not dedicated to integral.

Its a useful ability and enjoyable to be able to speak many 'languages'. I don't even consider integral to be my primary language. I don't directly think about integral most of the time. I simply like to see connections between things which often naturally leads me to an integral view on things, but I try not to force things into any particular integral view.

Active and receptive is good advice for relating to the New Atheists or for relating to anyone.

[Heru]

Hi Marmalade. I am in agreement--your first paragraph illustrates the problem of conflating "integrating perspectives" and "switching perspectives." As I see it, AQALism only does the former--from the position of a kind of "Uber-perspective" (Wilber's)--but does not do the latter.

[Imre von Soos]

Hi All,

Views, cannot be synthesized, fused, blended, combined, amalgamated, and then called an integral view; and calling the doubtful result an integral, superior view of the community of the contributing individuals, is self- and general deception.

The same way as a map is not the terrain, neither is anybody's perception of it. Views differ as functions of personal qualities (information-bank and intellect) and of the extent of the terrain perceptible (often referred to as extent of consciousness) by each particular person. Terrains never being closed systems, that is, not having any boundaries, the integrality (or integrality factor = perceived-content/absolute-content) of a worldview depends also on the same factors. A worldview becomes more integral – will have wider perspectives – by the extension of its basic contributing factors, and not by the inclusion of other worldviews. Different worldviews can be exchanged and discussed with the possibility of influencing each other, producing with it, however, just as many different, slightly altered particular worldviews, but never an "integral" one that "transcends and includes" all the other worldviews.

To be informed about as many perspectives as possible is important; to be able to form an opinion about each of these perspectives is important; but the most important is not to follow or be influenced by any, and the ability to form one's own dynamic perspective, and the ability to revise that perspective with each new information-input.

"What is presented in these writings is my personal, self-generated, dynamic and actual truth. The reader cannot accept anything that is written here – or, for that matter, anything that anybody has ever said or has ever written anywhere – on face-value, but must work it all through his own mental processes, forming his own dynamic and actual truth; otherwise he will be living second-hand, travelling on piggyback." (Living Universe, von Soos, 1984)

Imre

[Heru]

Hi Imre,
Very nicely said. It is my opinion that "Integralism" will not as much be the adoption of a shared worldview, but a greater degree of autonomy among individuals to form their own, unique, worldview. Certainly there will be commonalities--as M. Alan Kazlez beautifully illustrated in another discussion:

"[Integral] ...is, both at the same time, the further development of the individual consciousness, breaking free of dependence on old crutches and authority figures in order to actualise one's own uniqueness, as a unique and ever-evolving individualisation of the Supreme (or you can say the Absolute, "God", Thatness, Ground of Awareness, Supermind (sensu Sri Aurobindo)), AND, simultaneous and paradoxically synonymous with this, participating in and being part of a collective evolutionary process, that is a collective transformation, co-creating, losing the narcissistic sense of ego and "I-ness", being an Instrument of the Supreme, a tiny yet essential part or an aspect of a greater Divine Plan of Cosmic evolution and transformation."

In other words, the developing integral worldview is oriented to both individuals and the collective, yet because it equates with increased psychological autonomy, there must be great flexibility in individual perspective. This doesn't mean we all have to be Ken Wilber and write our own "Brief History of Everything," but that the Integral Human will be largely self-created; his or her worldview will be (largely) consciously chosen and crafted. Depending upon the personal make-up of the individual, a personal "Theory of Everything" will be crafted to whatever degree (whether implicitly or explicitly).

[Imre von Soos]

Hi Heru,
Just a quick note saying that I have started to write a new post two days ago that discusses matters based on your statements (which I liked) in that another discussion, and also that of Alan Kazlew (from which you have quoted. Give me a day or so.
Imre

[marmalade]

I have been more active on agnostic/atheist type forums than I am on integral ones. I'm a member of Richard Dawkins forum and the IIDB forum... both of which are extremely popular forums, but I've barely posted at them because overly strong atheists bug me. Instead, I post regularly on another agnostic forum. I also post regularly on an astrotheological forum which is largely dedicated to critiquing literalist Christianity. I like agnostics because more of them are interested in spirituality and religion. One of the agnostics I like to talk with is a Catholic agnostic.

The type of forums I belong to in general tend to attract agnostics and atheists. I also belong to Kaleidoscope a Jungian forum and the Joseph Campbel Foundation forum. I know of several agnostics that are very interested in Campbell which makes sense, and the Jungians seem extremely agnostic to say the least. However, the type forums seem more equal in terms of distribution of atheists vs theists.

So, what I'm trying to say is that I've already stormed the battlefield. I talk about religion and agnosticism on any forum I belong to. It can be fun and frustrating. I enjoy bringing an integral perspective into discussions when it seems useful, but most people have limited understanding or interest in integral theories.

My main interest in this area isn't the New Atheists. I'm simply drawn to study Christianity, Gnosticism, Biblical scholarship, and comparative mythology. I prefer the likes of RM Price, Doherty, Acharya, Harpur, and Freke and Gandy.

[Imre von Soos]

Greetings,

Impressed by the multiplicity of the subjects and the multiplicity of the reacting comments, I have quickly joined this new discussion group, dearly hoping that it will not also degenerate soon into this or that party-line with a common denominator, even if it would accord completely with my thoughts, in which case I would have nothing to say and nothing to learn. Please continue letting each individual thinker expose his/hers self-generated thoughts in free exchange, without organisation, without trying to integrate views and without conditioned alliances. You could come up only with a long text of compromised thoughts that not one "member" will be able to support rationally and with conviction, because it will contain no logically constructed ideas. "The longer I live in this morally indignant world – wrote Charles Morgan – where people organise their grievances in self-righteous groups – pressure-groups, leagues, bunds, confederations, full of hatred and scorn and blame, grasping, aggressive, whining for their infernal rights – the more certain I am that only personal relationships matter in the end. Group-thinking is ultimately valueless because groups can't think except in terms of effect."

Part of my stance on the current subject was posted on Integral World in November 2007 under the title of "Professor Dawkins' Gods and Intelligent Replicators" (http://www.integralworld.net/soos7.html),
So now only briefly:

Being an "Atheist" is a negative and an empty statement. Negative, because it only states what one is not; and empty, because it lacks the definition of the "Theos" whose existence one negates. The rational negation of the anthropomorphous god-image of the religions of the "theomorphous" western man – something that any intelligent youth should be able to perform –, leaves still a tremendous area above the materialist domain; an area that could and should be open for discussion.

The aim of the atheists/materialists is, however, not to prove their point by negating all the other avenues, but straight out subversion: the destruction of the inner harmony and subconscious knowledge – not belief! – of people in the existence of something much more than just a material existence, whatever that something more should be. Unfortunately all materialist science is in their service. In addition, their work is mightily facilitated exactly by the western religions' insistence on completely irrational stories and facts.

The atheists/materialists' fundamental purpose is not to change the Zeitgeist from "Theos" to "Atheos" but all to Consumerism, as the replacement of the gap left in peoples' lives. The best definition of the trend I have read is in John Taylor Gatto's prise-winning book, The Underground History of American Education:
"The secret of commerce, that kids drive purchases, meant that schools had to become psychological laboratories where training in consumerism was the central pursuit. . . The truth is that America's unprecedented global power and spectacular material wealth are a direct product of a third-rate educational system, upon whose inefficiency in developing intellect and character they depend. If we educated better we could not sustain the corporate utopia we have made. Schools build national wealth by tearing down personal sovereignty, morality, and family life. It was a trade-off."

Not only schools, but the whole (I should say, the "integral") media are in the service of globalizing commerce, that finances all the politics as it does scientific research. Did anybody ask himself yet, why does a university professor and biologist, like Dawkins, in touch with all the wonders of life, become a subversive militant against any idea involving that life's underlying principles, while the greatest nuclear-physicists of the 20th century, like Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Bohm are talking about the soul of the electron and that "The implicate order is

[Imre von Soos]

Here is the missing continuation:
"The implicate order is the fundamental and primary reality, albeit invisible. Meanwhile, the explicate order – the vast physical universe we experience – is but a set of "ripples" on the surface of the implicate order." And while Albert Einstein states that "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

[Steven Nickeson]

Chiron,
You wrote:
Without a roadmap to bring order out of this chaos, it seems we are doomed.
To which I would like to add a little bagatelle from my blog: that I wrote a month or so ago:

Whatever Gets You Through

A Soap in One Prologue and 11 Lines

Prologue
To live sanely is to limit the awareness. It is to draw back from the incoherent cusp of each on-setting moment to organize snippets of conditioning into sheltering illusions and idealized blinkers. Enough of these patches can be cobbled together into a process that one can call their own perspective; a discreet, serialized narrative that is manipulated to function within others and around others—currents knotted on currents—and function smoothly as long as one can pretend it is non-fiction. To live sanely is to suspend disbelief in the Inner Disney, the master of make believe and author of The Cautionary Tales. Sanity depends on how closely one attends the Inner Disney’s Cautionary Tales.

Act I

One — “I’m afraid…”

Another — “Tell me.”

One — “…of the chaos out there…”

Another — “The chaos within?”

One — “We can only hope for Integral™”

Another — “Oh, but Darling, how can you sacrifice your authenticity, your heat, for such a…a…clunky…I don’t know…oh god…it’s a cloister!”

One — “I need to gain control again…” (sobs)

Another — “But there are others…other sheltering illusions.”

One — “What? Existential Phenomenology? It’s too sad. It’s too scary…too real…so close to the edge. We have to fall back! I’m frightened.”

Another — “I’m afraid…”

One — “Tell me.”

The Scene
Outside: Reality remains the same as it has always been—but that’s an incidental matter.
Inside the Tale: Their content is nothing, their style is all.

They are trembling through the night.

Fade

[sunyalila]

I think that if "integralists" (or let me just talk about myself; I have never called myself an integralist), feel called to confront the religious battlefield or the new atheists, it should be without the "us against them" paradigm and fervor that is indicative of the very division that I would point to. I think we should be careful to not add to the ignorance that we seek to shine the light on or the division that we seek to heal with the same methods that we criticize. I think that we should make sure that we are not coming from a place of inner-division and the agendas that are born from there. Our first order of business would be to recognize and clear the way inside of ourselves so that we are 'coming from' wholeness and can be more present and available for enlightened action.

I have nothing against roadmaps; there could be a diversity of them that could assist and be appropriate for different times, stages or worldviews. I think there is a limit to their use and their danger is that if they placate one's insecurity with the unknown and replace or sublimate the fear that religion has covered they too will call to be seen through in the same or perhaps more subtle ways that we have now. What would make it 'integral' to me is not so much the content (beccause the content could vary according to the needs) but where it is coming from. I don't see it coming from a one-size fits all platform or a yes or no answer to your questions. I see it coming from a creative will that breathes through Silence or from that which is beyond pre-conceptions. I also have nothing against passion. But let it be fueled by the heart in connection to all and a love of truth that transcends our most cherished beliefs. Otherwise, we end up reflecting the very thing we seek to transform.