Mary:

Yes, you are probably right that the new Atheists would accuse us of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, so to speak. I'm just saying they wouldn't say we are the enemy.

But on second thought, is integral spirituality a type of supernaturalism? I think the answer might take the form of "Yes, there is a spiritual realm; we're living in it!"

Balder:

On anti-science bias, its totally possible that I'm overreacting, but I have noticed very subtle things like "Don't you guys think you are overthinking this?" or "Yeah, but ultimately everything is non-dual, so your concepts are really just empty." Some people think that getting too detailed, dissecting too much murders the spiritual part of things, but for me, if it enriches your experience, then why not? No-one is 100% anti-science, but I wonder if behind these comments there's a lack of openness. I could be mistaken, of course. Or there may even be a lack of openness in the opposite direction, toward non-rationalist modes of thinking.

Also, I want to draw a distinction between knowing that Orange spirituality of some kind exists (because of course, it must), and actually knowing what that experience is like. Whether you personally want or need to have that experience is of course up to you, but in the context of making real connections to people who do have that experience, I feel strongly that it is important to be sympathetic and be capable of sharing that experience with them.

mrteacup:

On anti-science bias, its totally possible that I'm overreacting, but I have noticed very subtle things like "Don't you guys think you are overthinking this?" or "Yeah, but ultimately everything is non-dual, so your concepts are really just empty." Some people think that getting too detailed, dissecting too much murders the spiritual part of things, but for me, if it enriches your experience, then why not?

Hi mrteacup,

I think this could be a matter of types and not necessary a lack of integration of a certain level. Some people love detail and love dissecting stuff. Others love being intuitive and seeing the big picture. Most people are somewhere in between. From what I remember this is even one of the type distinctions in Myer-Briggs personality measurement. I can agree that always rejecting rational dissecting is inflexible, as is always rejecting the intuitive big picture, but as far as I understand it it's mostly a type thing.

I believe you can pass through orange and be thoroughly uninterested in science, just like you can pass through green without participating in groups where every decision is taken by consensus.

Pelle

---

http://integraleurope.org
http://pelle.gaia.com
http://malmointegral.blogspot.com

mrteacup:

So that's how integral engages New Atheism. We send Stuart.

I hope not. I totally agree with the substance of what he said, but with all due respect to Stuart Davis, there's a bunch of things that make this approach ineffective

Oh sure, my remark wasn't serious, hence the smiley in the original post. See my later post, in which I expressed the thought that using Alan Wallace's approach is more effective (to the extent that people are sufficiently open to persuasion, that is).

Peter

---

"All nations should be like Amsterdam" -- Ken Wilber

Mr. Teacup:

Yes, you are probably right that the new Atheists would accuse us of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, so to speak. I'm just saying they wouldn't say we are the enemy.

Well -- According to that article by Gary Wolf that Balder linked to in the first post here, the New Atheists would say that we are "the enemy" because we are "giving aid and comfort" to mythical religious folks by asserting that conventional spirituality is a necessary developmental stage.

Mary

---

Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

~Rumi

I believe you can pass through orange and be thoroughly uninterested in science, just like you can pass through green without participating in groups where every decision is taken by consensus.

But the point that I'm making is that "science" is not merely orange, its the third form of integral epistemology, and thus the third route to God. If we accept that there is an I spirituality and a We spirituality, is there not also an ITS-spirituality? My concern is whether the prevailing attitude is that it is nothing more than a single cognitive level.

Maryw:

The new atheists make a distinction between mythic religion and post-mythic religion. For them, the most significant problems (opposition to stem cell research, support for war informed by belief in the rapture, Islamic terrorism) are caused by what I call the enemy, mythic religion. Some of them, primarily Sam Harris, accuse religious, agnostic and atheistic moderates alike of providing cover for mythic religions. But Sam Harris is a long-time Zen practitioner and is an advocate for a post-mythic religious consciousness. That is why I say we need not feel threatened by their views. At least not Harris' views. He is not saying, as some atheists do, that all spirituality is mythic.

mrteacup:

But the point that I'm making is that "science" is not merely orange, its the third form of integral epistemology, and thus the third route to God. If we accept that there is an I spirituality and a We spirituality, is there not also an ITS-spirituality? My concern is whether the prevailing attitude is that it is nothing more than a single cognitive level.

I so agree with you on this. It is the problem of differentiating between structures and content of consciousness that keeps popping up. There is the possibility of science on every level of consciousness, and only an overly simplified version of SD would say otherwise. People also have a tendency of equating science with orange value system science, which is only natural since it so dominates most current forms of science.

Like Ken says, all "good knowledge" consists of at least three major strands:

1. An injunction (if you want to know this, do this)

2. An experience (an illumination of the phenomena brought forth by the injuction)

3. A communal cofirmation/rejection (checking with other who have completed the first 2 strands)

In addition one must be able to specify the Kosmic address of the perceiver and the perceived (as well as the injunctions needed for a perceiver to reach a certain Kosmic address...). Orange will not do this since it assumes that everybody is at a certain stage taking certain perspectives and therefore seeing and experiencing the same things.

---

http://integraleurope.org
http://pelle.gaia.com
http://malmointegral.blogspot.com

BRAVO STUART -- but how about taking a BIG next step of exposing this type of epidemic shallowness TO THE WORLD OUT THERE BEYOND I-I by writing the same message in the form of a "Guest Editorial" for TIME or NEWSWEEK. Or at least in the form of a few substantial "Letters to the Editor" as further Flatland books are reviewed, or articles published.

One thing that certainly helps one to grow from level to level is the possibility of finding writings like yours -- which, just may, challenge one's current level sufficiently to give upward movement a kick start(right in the ass!). Ken Wilber, in one of the I.S.C. videos quoted a recent poll which found that 75% of all practicing physicians in the U.S. BELIEVE IN AN AFTERLIFE. But, of course none of them would think of admitting it to a fellow physician(oh, the shame to be known as a "believer" of any stripe whatever). Maybe all of us, while certainly continuing to educate and polish each other, (not just in our present levels -- but, ever onward and upward) should be doing everything we can to make very, very public a "new" face of the "Great Debate Between Science & Religion." We can all start responding to Flatland drivel with Integral letters to the editor (nationally published magazines, national and local newspapers).
HOW ABOUT BUILDING INTO I-I SOME KIND OF ACTIVE, CONTINUOUS OUTREACH to challenge flatlanders to think deeply for a change, to truly become aware of the reality and the significance of developmental levels. While it's fun to bitch and complain, it is much more helpful to intervene and help folks to change. I'd bet that most of that 75% of physicians would be excited to read(in the privacy of a locked, windowless office, or at home) Stuart's glorious RANTIFICATIONS. If they could come across such stirrings of the Flatland pot on a fairly regular basis who knows what might happen

Balder this is a good topic, that I have been spending some thought over, first since listening to Sam Harris a while back on the forum; and just recently seeing Dawkins(somebody I had never heard of) very good, and informative documentary.

 

Even though I was taken aback by the aggressiveness of this mans conclusions, as well as the similar attitude of Harris. I did appreciate, and agree with some of their ideas concerning the excesses in religion

 

BUT:

 

That fundamentalist religion has myriad problems and should be faced head on doesn’t sound so bad, but these guys want to take it much further than this, by not only denouncing- as they see, ignorant, dangerous, fundamentalist ideas on all levels- extremes within extremes, but also moderate and mystical aspects of religion, in which they think become apologists for the nutty fundamentalist, and thereby are responsible for the whole problem!

 

I am sure I heard these guys; I listened more than a few times to what they were saying just to make sure I was hearing what they were saying. It was so shocking to me and indeed their prescription is that ALL RELIGION should be attacked, ridiculed, mocked, aggressively by what they deem intelligent, rational people.

 

Whether they want to go as far as direct repression of religion, by civil law (something I would ordinarily deem ridiculous for free thinkers to advocate) but these guys are so extreme that this seems to be in the realm of possibility.

 

 

 

On many levels of ordinary intelligence and common sense could the ideas of these two gentlemen, be refuted.

 

Again I repeat not in their denouncing the many anti-human and degenerate practices of some, but in their attempt to lay all the blame of these types at the doorstep of the traditional religionist, as well their idea of an aggressive crusade against ALL religion and its, as they see, irrationality.

 

 

It was an amazing thing to see, first the dogmatic, erudite Harris, and then see Dawkins more emotional, less intellectual, then Harris on another format, sounding like the fiery disciple of the older Dawkins. Maybe we could call him the Abraham of this new aggressive atheistic movement; I bet Dawkins would appreciate the analogy.

 

Anyway to get to the point of their ideas, and my refutation of them. I say unequivocally in all my years of intellectual debate on any topic, these ideas are the most easily refutable, I have ever come across.

 

To blame the other religious types for the lunacy of the fundamentalist, as if the sober religious guys have not done their duty, in that the fundamentalist, still exist, is mind boggling. What are they to do?

Go on a Jihad and start killing the fundamentalist!

 

I won’t even answer that.

 

 

Or on a more reasonable level start some massive huge intellectual offensive against the literalist.

 

Crusade?

Inquisition?

 

Well where does one start separating good fundamentalism, from bad fundamentalism, for surely as  we see the depravity of the Taliban, these gentlemen don’t miss the admirable fully human actions of the Quakers.

 

Should we persecute the Quakers, because they forgive their trespassers, unlike most Christians.

 

Should we condemn the fundamentalist yet human actions of these type sects because these guys think their pacifism is irrational?

 

 

Further their other brainstorm to aggressively attack, intellectually ALL religion so these primitive irrational beliefs will become persona-non- grata to such an extent in rational modern society, as to shame the believers out of their faith.

 

That is almost humorous to me. If not coming from  two well published, intelligent world recognized( PHD in Dawkins) I wouldn’t even bother to intellectually refute such nonsense

 

Do these gentlemen think that when they initiate their humiliation campaign against the believers, that the believers are just going to sit back and let their religions be mocked into oblivion, then they are beyond naïve. These supposed post-modern intelligent men, don’t see the danger in igniting such an obsession campaign, that would in fact bring out all kinds of primitive crusader like activity all across the spectrum of the public square of such an abysmal “debate” then they are fools, and all their degrees are worthless. Psychology 101 something I mastered 30 years ago, precludes such a destructive idea.

 

It at this point makes no sense in expending much energy on refuting  these pedestrian notions, but if and when the need arises, despite, all the books, Harris publishes, the PHD of Dawkins, and his you toob documentary, I will strike, and destroy them with clean, precise, intellectual and  rational thinking, and I wont even bring GOD in it!

 

 

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/11/27/wallace/

 

 

regards

Girard 77

 

 

 

All --

I thought I would post this Q & A piece from Bishop John Shelby Spong's newsletter, as it mentions Sam Harris. (So I'm hoping it's not too much of a tangent ...) It also presents an "orange/green" level Christian point of view on the question of divine intervention in human history.

Question and Answer
With John Shelby Spong

Hal Wingo via the Internet writes:

As an interested reader of your columns, I feel that you are just about the only person I can pose this question to and expect an intelligent response. The question has to do with whether or not God ever intervenes in human history to heal individuals or stop natural disasters in response to prayer. I am 71 years old and have lived most of life under the ministry of Baptist churches that constantly insist that God heals and answers prayers. In the reflection of my later years, I have come to wonder if this makes any sense at all, or is even possible. If God is capable of inserting himself (okay, herself) into human affairs and to change things in response to prayers of petition, what is the best way to understand that he/she sometimes does and sometimes doesn't? It can't be just the urgency or the numbers of prayers, can it?

I have read Sam Harris' two books that question the very existence of God and challenges the useful purpose of any religion. He does raise questions that cannot be easily dismissed, such as why in all of human history, there is no record of God ever healing an amputee by regenerating a limb or changing a Down syndrome child to one of normal health. If God does or can intervene, it is only in situations that can be otherwise explained as natural phenomena? Or, deeper still, should we even think of a God capable of inserting himself into human experience? Is "God" something else entirely?

Dear Hal,

Your question is a primary and essential one and cuts immediately to the essence of theological debate today. Yet it is one that most people who identify themselves with evangelical Protestantism or conservative Catholicism seem to think they can either ignore or repress. They cannot. It is also a question that in order to address it adequately would take a book, not a column.

Sam Harris' criticism of popular religion is right on target. The weakness of his book is that he assumes that popular religion is what Christianity is all about.

The intervening, miraculous God is built upon the old idea of the record keeping Deity who lives above the sky and who swoops down on earth to split the Red Sea, or to rain heavenly manna on the starving Israelites in the wilderness. This is also the God who delights in sending plagues on Israel's enemies, the Egyptians, and drowning them in that same Red Sea.

This is also a God who apparently has not accepted the insights of Isaac Newton about how the world operates. It is a world, not of precise natural law, but of controlled chaos. Most theologians have long since abandoned such a deity.

When people assert that God intervenes in human life to heal, they must explain why God does that so sporadically. When people assert that splitting the Red Sea was a miracle to save Jews from death, they must explain why God allowed the Holocaust that destroyed Jews by the millions. It is not a simple subject.

The only thing that needs to be said quickly is that the idea that anyone knows who God is or how God works is ludicrous. What kind of human folly is that? I do not think that a horse can describe what it means to be human. Humanity is a dimension of life and consciousness that is simply beyond that which a horse can embrace. Similarly, I do not believe that human beings can describe what God is. The realm of God is simply beyond that which the human mind can know. The Greek philosopher Xenophanes once wrote that "If horses had gods they would look like horses!" Perhaps one ought to observe that most of the deities that human beings have worshiped throughout history have looked remarkably like human beings, magnified and supernaturalized. We have no God language to use so we force our God consciousness into human language. Only when that truth is acknowledged and accepted can we even begin to answer your question.

The discussion must then turn to the nature of God, again something we cannot know but about which we speculate endlessly. I believe God is real, but my human mind and human language can never penetrate that reality. So I cannot describe God, I can only describe my presumed God experience and honesty compels me to state that I might be delusional. Only at that point can we begin a discussion on the reality of prayer.

When I wrote a book entitled, "A New Christianity for a New World," based on lectures I had given at Harvard University, I sought to address the issues you raise. The book is almost 300 pages long. It challenges most of the pre-suppositions of traditional Christianity. It seeks to find new meaning for the most traditional symbols. It seeks to move between what I call both the God experience and the Christ experience which I believe are real and the way both the God experience and the Christ experience have normally been explained, which are to me dated, inadequate and generally unbelievable. Your question rises out of that mentality.

I hope this helps though it only scratches the surface of the territory where an answer can be found. I want to assure you that your question is the right question and that you are not wrong or weird to be raising it. Those who continue to repeat the slogans of their religious past as if they are still operative are wrong and they are increasingly weird.

John Shelby Spong

 

---

Let the beauty we love be what we do.
There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

~Rumi

The time has past for separated religions. There is only one. You may call Christ consciousness whatever you wish as long as you call it love and as long as it is universal, the innate center of every sentient being. Just as the teachings of the Buddha transcend Buddhism and all religion, just as the Sufi poets transcend Islam and all religion, so does the consciousness initiated by Jesus of Nazareth transcend Christianity and all religion. Truth is truth everywhere. Truth, the Hindu Gandhi said, is God. In whatever culture, love that knows no boundaries is Christ consciousness.

Evolution has both compressed us as a species on a tiny planet and freed us to explore together the endless reaches of consciousness. In space and time there is but one true Religion. All of humanity possesses it. Jesus called it the kingdom of God among us, at hand, within. It in-flows, in-forms and creates, space and time. There is endless diversity within its universe –like individuated fractals of becoming, but there is only one religion. It is the religion of love. It is the religion that awakens humanity. It is Conscious Evolution.

---

JC
33° 13' N 87° 37' W

Mary,

The question posed concerning the healing power of prayer is an experience seen. The laying on of hands (my dear mother) was an experience I will never forget. Spiritual healing is a reality that cannot be denied. Other experiences with the laying on of hands using God-energy flows when one is attuned to Christ Consciousness. It has been such an awesome experience; just wanted to share.

---

JC
33° 13' N 87° 37' W