Today the word “sacred” is employed to name a certain realm of life that can be contrasted with the secular. The idea here is that some object, area of life or geographical location can act as a “thin place,” i.e. a site where the transcendent shines through.
This approach to the sacred is ubiquitous in the contemporary situation and is borne witness to in the phenomenon of religious music, books and art, in the New Age interest in ley lines, the notion of Christian universities and in the embrace of artefacts believed to contain supernatural power. Here the religious or sacred is taken to be a sphere that can be identified in some way, visited, held or touched.
In contrast to this the work of theologian Paul Tillich reveals a different approach. For rather than seeing the sacred as some distinct thing (even the greatest thing), one can see it as the name we give to the affirmation of a depth dimension that can be found in all things.
In this way one does not attempt to place the sacred alongside reason, ethics or aesthetics, but rather sees the sacred affirmed in our heartfelt commitment to these. From this perspective, insofar as we affirm the world as wonderful, we express the sacred. It is as we show loving care and concern for existence, and as we participate fully in life, we proclaim the sacred even if we are not aware of it. This is somewhat similar to the way that everything we see proclaims the existence of light even though we likely have no direct cognisance of the light (for we are focused on what the light illuminates).
As such Tillich argued that a serious rejection of God (rather than a mere lack of interest in the subject) is a deeply sacred act. For when someone rejects the notion of God because of the wars that have been fought over that name, as well as the abuse, the fundamentalism and the ecological destruction that is bound to so much religion, they are demonstrating a profound concern for both people and the planet. As such their attack is directly testifying to a depth dimension in existence. The stronger their attack the more care and concern they are showing. In this very assault they are thus asserting, in a direct and visceral way, a commitment to the protection and promotion of life. The result is a proclamation of the sacred that is birthed from the same mother as the message found on the lips of the various poets and prophets in the Biblical text. To take one example, consider the words of Amos who cries out, in the name of God,
I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assembles. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!
It is because of this that both the theologian Tillich and the philosopher Heidegger each claimed that there is a form of atheism that is closer to the divine than the standard theism witnessed in the church. For wherever a concern of beauty, an embrace of life and a love of liberation are exhibited the sacred is proclaimed. In this way the passionate critiques of God propounded by the New Atheists can be seen as potent defences of the sacred. Defences that, at their best, are worthy of being called divine.
“In this way the passionate critiques of God propounded by the New Atheists can be seen as potent defences of the sacred. Defences that, at their best, are worthy of being called divine.”
But these same critiques have often seemed to me like a Nietzschean priestly revolt—racist, classist, privilege-blind and contributing to narratives of Islamophobia and intellectual elitism. (Reddit’s r/atheism often provides examples.)
Which is to say, these rejections often amount to rejections not of “wars, abuse, fundamentalism and ecological destruction” as such but merely rejections of the sign(s) under which these wars, abuses, fundamentalisms and ecological destructions are carried out.
Giving it the sound of out with the old boss, in with the new boss, same as the old boss.
But of course this critique only holds based on my reading of (pieces of) the New Atheists, Dennett possibly excepted; I’ve read none of his work. (For example: Hitchens, from what I understand, couldn’t be held guilty of the charge of being complicit in [as opposed to merely benefitting from] heterosexism, for example; whereas Harris’ Islamophobia is readily apparent.)
TL;DR: I share the reading that “there is a form of atheism that is closer to the divine than the standard theism witnessed in the church” and that at its best it is certainly worthy of the name divine. I am less confident that the major figures of the New Atheists (as a group) offer quality examples of said atheism, however.
A minor point, perhaps; forgive me if it was merely distracting.
To be honest I think that you make some very good points in this comment.
My main interest was to try and short-circuit the scapegoating that is sometimes done to these thinkers. I wanted to say that their critiques show a type of concern. However, I think that the actual arguments are often not critical enough and stop short of getting to the real heart of the problems.
Religion as a cultural phenomenon seems to me to be implicated in scapegoating and violence, however, as you mention it is also a sign under which these happen.
Anyway, all that to say thanks for the the thoughtful pushback!
…speaking of “scapegoating”, Peter:
Care to put any thots together on Rene Girard?
Tillich called this the “latent church” or the “hidden” church if I’m not mistaken. The people groups/individuals in which the Spirit of God moved but without a Christian identity or dogma.
It reminds me of Bonhoeffer’s claim that if Christ reconciles all things then how can their be a rift between religious/nonreligious?
Good post. I don’t dislike the New Atheist movement because I think they are not ultimately concerned for humanity or the common good. I just get tired of all their hubris (which Tillich claimed to be one of primary ways humanity is alienated from God). And I also dislike their negativity. They stereotype and over generalize. It just seems to me that they aren’t so much assaulting religious zealots anymore but just religion in general. And as we’ve talked about before, they just wanna take the xian god idol off their throne and place their own obj in its place–namely that of self, reason, science’s metaphysical assumptions. They’re decent people and quite witty, but most of the times they simply get on my nerves. Good post Pete!
-toy
Oops meant ‘there’* not ‘their’. Dammit.
Oops meant ‘there’* not ‘their’. Dammit.
Sorry I’m grammatically conscious.
Interesting piece, however I feel you are (perhaps unintentionally) trolling with your title – a secular respect for life and our universe as the amazing things that they are is in no way the same as belief in a god. The title just seeks attention, with no attempt made to justify its phrasing in the article.
Also, I’m a bit put off by your insistance on calling these ideas “divine”, it feels very similar to the assertion that morality is tied to the influence of god. In the same vein as the saying “If you can’t determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion,” one might say here that a failure to appreciate and stand up for the beauty in us and around us shows a lack of perspective, not a lack of divinity.
It may be difficult (as this is the world you are a part of), but please stop trying to frame the secular perspective in terms of religious concepts. It does a disservice to the thinkers of that movement as well as your readers.
Wow!
You just made me realize that I actually can love trolls! I’ve actually been under the conviction that they have no useful purpose at all – until this very moment!
THANK YOU!
You have actually reemphasized the point that Peter makes quite often which is (here is where I fail at summarizing Peter’s point):
The relationship between God and Good has become like the simulacra and simulation situation.
(God and Good used to be synonymous)
2. God established signs of his Goodness
3. The signs are given by a people who either aren’t good or are evil and the perversion is experienced
4. The meaning in the signs are totally replaced and neither God nor Good are intended and thus not missed
5. The meaning in the signs are emptied of all meaning and they are rejected, ignored or consumed – all to equal effect
You have done us a service of reminding us of just how totastically empty these signs have become to non-religious people. You also seem to have represented non-religious people well by translating what we’re saying into your own language.
Please forgive us as many of us still don’t know how to speak in non-religious terms very well. We often need your language translated into ours so that we can come a little closer to understanding you. Please understand that as far as Peter seems to be concerned, as well as many of his friends, we REALLY do want to understand.
I can’t apologize for Peter, but I often do apologize for myself when I do the same thing, so please forgive me when I offend.
<3
I agree with anon. It’s tantamount to a religious person incapable of accepting non-belief, so they prescribe a certain undefined sect to justify this group that doesn’t fit within their world view. The only divine we need to talk about is the “music of the spheres”… the inherent beauty in the systems that surround us.
Interpreting reality or people’s non belief via religious framework doesn’t necessarily do a service to the religious who hold that world dear, nor to those atheists trying to make their point – that it’s hypocritical & deceptively confusing poetic language is dangerous. Accepting these philosopher’s musings at this point, considering the world view they came from, might not be the most effective way to interpret our current reality.
However, wonderful post. I usually read and lurk, and never post…. thank you for making me think.
Many of us have called this practice “colonizing” and have rejected it. You have a point.
Translating between languages is difficult. But part of what makes this so painful is that many of the words in question are not tabula rasa. They are filled with hated meaning – as you said. So, they are not just incorrect, they are forbidden. And practicing the forbidden does kinda qualify as trolling. LOL
But – and this is my new “but” because I didn’t get this until tonight! – I now see that it drew down some xlnt feedback. And unlike some of Peter’s critics, you have both been polite and articulate and respectful.
And my hope is that we can negotiate these terms until we find some better way to communicate the meanings because the meanings are what is more important. I suspect that what is getting in our way is mostly the meaning massacre that has happened over the centuries. Our fault. Well, not really. It was mainly the fault of people who lived over many centuries and we have mostly inherited the mess.
Anyhoo, one of the things that Peter does for me is opens up the compromised words to expose what is really in there, which is exactly as you described. But in order to do this, we have to use the same dictionary to define the damage. For you the whole dictionary is invalid. But we have to use it. So, what I experience is an intuition of when he is pointing to how one word has been compromised, such as “rapture” (I highly recommend you watch that YouTube video!) and using other words in their uncompromised state to expose the compromised state of the first words. I think you’ll see what I mean if you watch it. But, I do admit, it is a bit of a conundrum.
<3
I like this very much. I would however differntiate between atheism and the New Atheists. There is some overlap, but they are not necessarily the same.
Peter, can you say more about your use of this image with the blog post? You make no mention of Anabaptists or Mennonites, let alone Anneken Hendriks, the Mennonite woman pictured in the image. Here’s a bit more about her life and death from the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encycloped on-line:
Hey. I used the image to show how religion can often deny the depth dimension of existence and should be attacked
Props to Tim Nafziger for catching the Annekin Hendricks image. I thought it was there due to the Anabaptist’s view of the sacred which was in many ways similar to that of Tillch. Especially the South German Anabaptists and their commitment that there were no holy season, days, times, places as such, since all the God had created had a sacramental dimension.
Was a little disappointed that that was not the reason for the Jan Luiken image.
It is now
Beautiful perspective. It reminds me of the amazing capacity of children for wonder. My 2-year-old will find a piece of fuzz on the carpet, pick it up, and run to me excitedly, amazed at his discovery. He has found “the sacred” in a piece of carpet fuzz. Ha ha ha.
Perhaps the objections of the atheists above could be reconciled by translating the terms. Because of Tillich’s environment, “sacred” was a word he chose to communicate a specific emotional state. But it is a word loaded with cultural and religious implications, and as such has the potential to offend or exclude. Maybe if we mentally substituted a word like “wonder” or “passion,” something like that, we’d be more on the same page?
I find some similar thoughts in Anti Climacus’ Sickness Unto Death but I think he is willing to go further than both Tillich and Heidegger (both of whom ripped SK off repeatedly, giving little but more often no credit whatsoever). Anti Climacus says the most intense form of despair (rejecting the self and rejecting God) are, dialectically, the closest and most similar to faith. There is a deeper consciousness and a deeper understanding of the self in one’s willingness to reject the self that God created the self to be. But there’s no synthesis of despair and faith, rejection and acceptance–despair is still sin when done before God. What do we gain from trying to make a rejection of God seem like an acceptance of God? I understand showing the similarities, but I highly doubt Dawkins, Hitchens, et al would be too thrilled about this view either.
I think Hitchens, at the very least, was irreverent to the core and driven by an agenda that was far from divine or sacred. I get your point, though–these New Atheists are quick and easy scapegoats and I would agree that that is not the best approach to their work.
Tillich, Heidegger, Dawkins, Hitchens–all seem guilty of trying to posit statements of understanding and/or knowledge as related to God or not-God, which I don’t understand.
Enjoyed the read, though.
Hi Pete, thanks for this post. I’ve followed the blog for some time now, and enjoyed it.
Regarding the New Atheists, what would you make of claims like those of DB Hart here (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/believe-it-or-not) ?
He seems to echo what many others who follow Michael Buckley’s big book on the roots of modern atheism say–that contemporary atheists are not actually rejecting the God of Christianity, but rather just a bastardized, modern deist-style god, and therefore have never made a “serious rejection of God.” Hart reckons that the only half-decent atheist of recent times was Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s giving God + Christian morality the finger in the pursuit of “life” would indeed fit your analysis here. But I do wonder if his contemporary confreres achieve the same.
Nonetheless, thanks for the though-provoking post.
Pingback: Week’s Links |
This is interesting and from what I follow, I tend to agree with much of what you have posted here, but I also find that much of your work and probably within my own self since I follow your work and some of those you have mentioned is that there is this resistance and argument based on the way in which religion as tended to form the questions of life – and much of the pushback is then framed within that as response. At the level that I feel the structure of the life questions seems to need changing, then I do see a relevant pushback response to it – thus the tendency religion/Atheism, but at the level that the framing of the questions is being transformed – I think it is less about direct resistance, or playing to knockdown the other, and beginning to be within what actually are some decent life questions and process type improvements, at that level it seems that Dawkins, Harris, the little I followed of Hitch later on, allowed a sense of compromise toward the shift of decent conversations going on. But I do see that they have areas they still hold strong resistance to, just as some in the religious groups have. perhaps at that level it keeps the challenge going toward the growing questions and work beyond that (?).
I noticed something yesterday.
When Paul was describing the frustrating, embarrassing and sometimes atavistic agendas that our bodies often have, he was using his narrative to gain some perspective on those agendas (which may or may not have been a common practice at that time and place). These agendas were not “sacred” or “holy” or “spiritual” in the sense that they “pleased the gods”. They were just simple animal desires and appetites. They asserted themselves whether it was appropriate or not, permitted or not, and often whether we were aware of it or not. No Laws restricted them. They used Laws as ladders to increase the level of frustration and embarrassment for us! And that’s about it! They didn’t care about punishment. We did! But they didn’t! They ate their meal and let our sense of self pick up the tab! We all know the verses, right? Romans. Yadda-yadda.
Well, it just occurred to me that the trend now with some of these scientists and researchers is to simply confirm what Paul said. These agendas are completely empty of all “moral” (in the sense of religious) value. They are only the 4 F’s. ALL OF THEM!
And here’s the rub! What many Christians thru the Centuries have been saying – myself included – is that the moral instinct in humans is real and actual and truly Moral – in all the UNcompromised meaning of that word.
Really? Are we sure?
I think there is room for a maybe here, but there also seems to be room for a maybe not. What many people call the “ego” – which is just the sense of self, neither good nor bad – seems to be able to co-opt every single thing which we have identified as “selfless”. Every idea. Every act. Every word. And it seems to be able to turn those things towards its own ends… the 4 F’s.
I think there is some middle ground, tho. I think our bodies actually do generate impulses and agendas that go beyond those basic ones, but they are still forming and not as solid. I think Maslow put them in the most basic terms. There may be more. I’m not sure. But they don’t seem to be like the other ones. Those first ones. Those embarrassing ones. Like if a guy gets wood when he looks at his best friend’s girlfriend. :-/ Nobody stands in line for that to happen – unless they’re at some wild poly party or on Spring Break. Whatevs!
The impulse to keep learning more beyond what you need to know to survive and prosper doesn’t arise in all people. It’s not bundled with the other software that comes with the hard-drive. It seems to be activated by some outside variables which may or may not be in that person’s environment. Or something. It seems to be a potential which is awakened only sometimes. Then there is the absurd impulse to become “enlightened”. WTF is that?! How can the sense of self perceive that it is better if it is annihilated? What exactly is it that will be “better”? And who will be around to experience it? That one is even weirder because even tho the impulse may arise in many people, it is actually a very rare occurrence.
What gets in the way? The same thing that gets in the way of everything. The sense of self co-opts it to gratify what Paul called “The Flesh”. I think he condensed all 4 F’s into one there. Heh-heh. Heh. Ask any Spiritual Teacher. That’s exactly what prevents it from happening. But there is an even worse possibility. And this one is really weird, but it’s important and goes unseen by many Spiritual Teachers.
Paul was no dummy. The Flesh and the sense of self are not the same. As I mentioned before, he used the sense of self do observe and vent his frustration about “The Flesh”. “Enlightenment” is the annihilation of the sense of self. “The Flesh” remains. The Body still enacts its embarrassing agenda. Just ask any Spiritual Student who has been exploited by a Spiritual Teacher.
There are precious few Spiritual Traditions which actually acknowledge this possibility and problem. Even fewer which have actually solved it. Exact number = 0. Here’s one of my freshest complaints about my own “god” and my own “faith” and my own “group”:
We have been given the only plausible solution to this problem and have yet figured out how to use it. My Church has failed. The texts and doctrines and practices which are available to me and my Church have failed. And since the request has been made many billions of times by billions of people, without satisfaction, my “god” has FAILED! FAIL!
Maybe we misunderstood him.
Maybe we were disinformed by some corrupting Cabal who stole the full solution from us before we had the chance to even see it.
I don’t know. But, with Paul, I have often asked:
“Who will rescue us from this Body of Death?”
And I’m beginning to perceive the answer:
“No one.”
So, now what?