What is Atheist Spirituality?

After a year and a half of writing on this seemingly oxymoronic subject, this question continuously arises. Although many past posts have attempted to clarify this concept, there has been constant development in my understanding.

How can there be an ‘atheist spirituality’? An answer can be developed through looking at the preconceptions we may have about the word ‘spirituality’. The word ‘spirituality’ is strongly, and unnecessarily, bound to ideas of religion, dualistic philosophies of transcendence, and dogmas demanding faith. In the modern era, spiritual practices have been largely institutionalized into formal faith categorizations. Spirituality has become the prime commodity of the religious institution. This association between religion an spirituality has become intensely entrenched in most modern cultures.

What about people claiming they are ‘spiritual but not religious’? Aside from increasing fundamentalism, there is a widespread lack of trust in religious institutions. The world is becoming more dichotomous; as fundamentalists become increasingly rebellious when faced with modern ideals. This influences modern individuals who are loosely religious to become sceptical of these institutions since they increasingly seen as being harmful. While continuing to practice spirituality on a personal level, many are disassociating themselves from religions which are developing a poor reputation. This personal belief or practice may still be entrenched in the dualisms of religion; therefore, it does not answer the question of an atheist spirituality.

What makes an atheist spirituality different? An atheist spirituality departs from the mainstream paradigm. It goes beyond ‘spiritual but not religious’ by rebelling against religious constructions. The philosophical shift from dualism to materialism can be illustrated by following historical ideas about the ‘soul’. Socrates can be noted as arriving at the necessity of the soul through questioning what is the user vs. the used. We may use a pen to write; therefore, the pen is the object (used) and the person is the subject (user). Socrates continues by asking: but isn't the hand used as well? and what about the eyes? Eventually, we may realize that everything on our body can be used – even our brains may be used to contemplate the process. This is where Socrates concludes that the user must be an immaterial soul. Fast forwarding, we can look at Cartesian dualism associating the soul with the ‘mind’. Descartes thinking-being of mind is the subject who acts on the objects of the profane bodies and earth. Fast forwarding again, we can see imminent conceptions of ‘God’ in the materialist philosophy of Spinoza. See his Ethics for extensive elaboration on this philosophical position. Deleuze, the most contemporary and my personal favourite, has written extensively on materialist philosophies of life; click ‘here’ to see a former post on Deleuze.

What does the materialist paradigm mean for ‘spiritual’ practice? This shift revolutionizes the dominate western conceptions of spirituality by changing all former definitions. The definition of ‘God’ is transformed into a pantheistic ‘God’ which Rickard Dawkins claims to be a “sexed up atheism”. Sin is no longer bound to transcendental judgment, but rather, becomes an individually autonomous ethics. Spiritual experiences of awe and wonder are no longer attributed to the presence of a divine entity, but rather, can be experienced through the glory of nature, evolution, and contemplating ones part in an infinitely unthinkable unfolding of life. Mystery of ‘God’ becomes the mystery of nature – a mystery which may infinitely extent its reach past our momentary understanding. Ritual becomes more than mere compliance for the sake of salvation, but a practice of affecting the mind-body (regarded as one) for the sake of happiness. Spirit is no longer the magic entity hovering somewhere in or around us, but rather, it is the human spirit: the spirit of love, joy, happiness, and peace. Although these virtues resemble those of Christianity, they are not seen as given by a God as a reward for good behaviour; rather, they are seen as virtues which come from within and can only be achieved in the present moment, not requiring a specific set of predetermined beliefs or rituals. Beliefs may be held, but are held loosely and not bound with one’s identity. Specific practices may be used, but their use is regarded as a way of changing one’s mental state. Mental states are also regarded as material since they rely on complex material interactions. An atheistic spiritual life is one of nomadic being, not clinging to fixed identity templates.

With all this said, openness to discovery may lead spiritual atheists in a multitude of directions. Since the joy is in the journey, future posts clarifying ‘atheist spirituality’ may differ from this one. Openness to experience is the way to ‘salvation’ in this search for spiritual complexity and life-fulfilling atheism.

Book Review: Pure Immanence: Essays on A Life – Gilles Deleuze

This is a book review by Ellen E. Berry from the online ‘Reconstruction Journal’ on the astonishingly deep philosophical work of Gilles Deleuze in his book Pure Immanence: Essays on A Life.

Three brief essays make up Pure Immanence -- one on Hume, one on Nietzsche, and one -- "Immanence: A Life" -- that functions as a Deleuzian last testament of sorts, written as it was "in a strange interval [immediately] before his death" (20) as John Rajchman informs us in his very useful introduction to the volume. In this essay, which appears first in the book, Deleuze defines what he calls a "transcendental empiricism," an a-subjective, impersonal, wild and powerful state, existing "in contrast to everything that makes up the world of the subject and the object" (25).

Unlike a notion of the transcendent, the plane of the transcendental is an absolute immanence, complete in itself, neither "in something" nor belonging to someone (say some notion of a universal subject). "It is only when immanence is no longer immanence to anything other than itself that we can speak of a plane of immanence" (27). Pure or absolute immanence is what Deleuze calls "A LIFE," defined as a paradoxical experience/duration in which individuality fades and becomes "a singular essence," an empty time of singularities or virtualities existing in between what we take to be the defining moments of an individual's life. A LIFE unfolds according to a different logic than the life of an individual. It can never be grasped fully; it is always yet "in the making," in potentia, and flashes into conscious existence only occasionally. Deleuze gives two striking examples to illustrate this enigmatic state/space/time, the first from Dickens's Our Mutual Friend:

A disreputable man, a rogue, held in contempt by everyone, is found as he lies dying. Suddenly, those taking care of him manifest an eagerness, respect, even love, for his slightest sign of life. Everybody bustles about to save him, to the point where, in his deepest coma, this wicked man himself senses something soft and sweet penetrating him. But to the degree that he comes back to life, his saviors turn colder, and he becomes once again mean and crude. Between his life and his death, there is a moment that is only that of a life playing with death (28).

In another example, Deleuze calls attention to very small children, as yet unformed as individuals, who all tend to resemble one another except in their singularities -- a smile, a gesture. "Through all their sufferings and weakness, [they] are infused with an immanent life that is pure power and even bliss" (30).

As Rajchman points out, one would need a new conception of society in order to understand Deleuze's notion of a life. It would be one in which we recognize that what we share is our singularities and not our individualities, that "what is common is impersonal and what is impersonal is common" (14). From this perspective, society is viewed not as a social contract between individuals but as an experiment with what in life precedes both individuals and collectivities. Relations with others would be based not in identification or recognition but in encounter and new compositions formed by saying "yes" to what is singular yet impersonal in living.

This all too brief summary cannot do justice to what is a complex set of musings. While Pure Immanence is not the place to start if one is unfamiliar with Deleuze's thought, it is a rich, rewarding, and not inaccessible read.

Here is a hyperlink to this book online: ‘Scribd’
Here is a hyperlink to buy a hardcopy on Amazon for $12.89: ‘Pure Imminence: Essays on A Life’

Spirituality as an Atheist

Why ‘Atheist Spirituality’?

           I use the name ‘Atheist Spirituality’ since it fills the role of describing my beliefs accurately while providing well recognizable terms. Though, it is still insufficient since it uses the word 'atheist' which focuses on what one does not believe in. Rather than asserting ones lack of beliefs, a title that asserts ones beliefs would be more useful. Personally, 'Naturalistic pantheist' is the closest I can come to such a definition. If I were to use this title, many people would simply not understand what this blog is about at first glance since ‘naturalistic pantheism’ as a concept that is not widely known.
          
          Spiritual atheism does suffice, but the drawback is that labeling ones self according to ones lack of beliefs may be more useful if one takes a protest position. Rather than taking on the identity of a protester (paying more attention to the object of protest), I prefer to the focus on what I stand for: an open-minded approach to spirituality. Many people have other positive assertions of belief such as ethical freedom (Christopher Hitchens), science (Richard Dawkins), free will (Jean-Paul Sartre). Playing the protester and playing the advocate is a fine balance one must consider. 
        
           My approach to open-minded spirituality consists of contemplation in light of viewpoints within modern and post-modern philosophy. Philosophy is questions that may never be answered while religion is answers that may never be questioned. Such questions can only be pursued if one has a highly critical mind-filter while considering the validity of every position presented. When faced with religion, a fool merely accepts it, politicians abuse it, and the wise question it.

Follow your bliss with an open mind.

What is Spirit?

  

         

          Spirituality is the life of the spirit. The spirit is not a thing, but a function. It is the act of thinking, willing, imagining, ect... Spirituality is living and experiencing as opposed to supernatural transcendence. It is not the metaphysical or transcendence of entities, but the absolute. The absolute refers to the everything in existence; supernatural creator entities can not be included since their existence suggests something beyond everything which leads to the question of who created the creator. The idea of the absolute in this way is seen in Epicurus's pan, Lucetius's summa summarum, and Spinoza's nature. The sum of all relations, conditions, and points of view is the absolute.

“ These are the fundamental concepts with which Spinoza sets forth a vision of Being, illuminated by his awareness of God. They may seem strange at first sight. To the question "What is?" he replies: "Substance, its attributes, and modes. ” — Karl Jaspers

        
        God is not in nature like water to a sponge, but rather IS nature; therefore, instead of using the word 'God', the word 'nature' is more suitable. Spirituality is immanence rather than transcendence. It can't be given, attained, or bought. It is not magic or god given, but rather, an inner experience. It is what the Jewish call would call 'the breath of life', what Christians would call being 'filled with spirit', and what Buddhists call 'being awake'. The purpose of a spiritual life is to lead followers down the path of intimacy and connectedness with the richness of ordinary life through a sense of connectedness with the extraordinary in the midst of the ordinary. It is our sense of at-one-ness with all that is.

Pantheism: The Spiritual Metaphor

“Pantheism is sexed up atheism” – Richard Dawkins

        What comes to mind when we hear “sexed up atheism”? If it’s a hedonistic sex addicted atheism, you may have to reconsider – but don’t get your hopes up too soon. Just as sex is pleasurable, natural, and perhaps even a spiritual experience: so is pantheism.  So what is it?

       Pantheism states that God is all. It is basically a form of atheism that uses spiritual or religious terms as a metaphor for the natural world. All of nature is revered and looked at with a sense wonder and awe. The word God can also be synonymous with the words truth and love.  As with any worldview, there are many variations in pantheistic perspectives between individuals; the common element is merely the lack of belief in god as a transcendent deity and acceptance of the metaphorical use of spiritual and religious terminology.

      Some Pantheists view god as being the whole of physical existence, while humanity is just a part interconnected with everything else within God. Just as our cells make up our bodies, we are a minuscule part of a much grander scheme that, from our perspective, we can never grasp in whole. As Richard Dawkins also states, “The universe is queerer than we can suppose”.

     We can only use symbols to describe spiritual matters. As Lacanian theory posits, the symbol (the metaphor) can never fully represent the symbolized (the true nature of the universe) we are always at a disconnect from the true reality. As all religions use their own metaphors to explain the unknown, pantheists use these metaphors in nature and the physical world to create a spirituality that interconnected with all of existence.

Mystery and Reverence

 

“…mine is not a smart-alecky atheism. I am no "evangelical atheist" (as I once heard someone described); instead I am a "reverent atheist." I have deep reverence for the immensity and wonders of the universe, including the mystery of the apparently deliberately fine-tuned constants of nature. I do not kid myself into thinking that I already have answers to those awe-inspiring mysteries. To accept a question-begging non-answer ("God did it") as their explanation would, for me, indicate disrespect for the wonders of our universe and for their continuing exploration.” - Leland B. Yeager

 

Wonder and awe should not be diminished by taking away from the complexity of nature and the universe. The creation stories of the Bible are examples of this gross oversimplification. Although, they can have symbolic meaning and therefore may be interpreted as a philosophical position on the nature of humanity. Those who read it as actual occurrence are missing out on the true brilliance of existence.  Creationists taking this position usually place their reverence and mystery in God. This view can be a respectable viewpoint so long as it does not attempt to discredit scientific findings (as many often attempt). If there is a God, we must look further than the Bible; therefore, scientifically exploring the nature of the universe can be considered one of the most spiritual endeavors. Although he was not religious, Einstein uses religious symbols in describing his  scientific quest for what may exist behind our observed reality. Science and Religion do not have to be in conflict; open-mindedness and faith can and do co-exist in many individuals. Whether you are a theist, atheist, pantheist, or deist, reverence for all in existence simply requires an open-mind.

X2TY32JA9F87

Dawkins Commentary On “Religious” Scientists

Richard Dawkins explains the use of the pantheistic metaphor in the physical sciences.  

Reactions: Problems with the Soul theory

The original post can be found at: Philo-Psycho Freedom.

          This critique of a specific dualist theory by Philo-Psycho Freedom gives us insight into several fundamental problems with many peoples idea of soul. Although, this critique is too narrow in its view on dualism. It addresses the most common dualist stance found in western religious teachings: that the soul being unique to humans, it has influence over ones personality, and it has a specific role in the afterlife. To begin contemplating the nature of the soul we must first recognize the several possible ways  in which it may exist.

          First of all, we should not limit the conversation to only one soul for each individual since some cultures believe we possess several souls. Second, we must contemplate the interaction between the soul and mind. I agree with Philo-Psycho Freedom in the assertion that the soul does not affect the mind. Though, we must consider whether the soul/ mind interaction is only one way; the mind affecting the soul, but soul not affecting the mind. Third, we must ponder the question of where the soul resides. Does it reside in a specific place within, outside, or fully immersing the body? Philo-Psycho Freedom raises a very important question about whether the soul is unique to humans. I personally like the idea that a soul exists in every living organism; we are merely highly developed minds possessing the rare ability to contemplate  what has eternally existed in the essence of all things.   Lastly, we must ask the question that gets to the heart of spiritual contemplation: what is the soul after death to the body? Does it die with the body, transcend with in-tact memory, transcend with no memory, or become the essence of another living organism?  These are the questions we must ask when contemplating the soul theory.

          There are a lot of questions with no simple answers. Although Philo-Psycho Freedom targets only a fraction of this complex topic, they provide a logical and compelling critique of the dominant cultural stance of the west on the nature of the soul. 

Waking Life: The Holy Moment

This clip from Richard Lancaster's Waking Life presents spirituality in relation to film from a pantheist perspective.

Allan Watts - The Illusionary Self

Allan Watts talks about our narrow consciousness and how we are disconnected from our true nature.

Heaven Without God

The other day I was thinking about the possibility of there being a heaven without a God. In the face of tragic events, persons of faith become angered with God. They feel a lack of understanding in why such an even has occurred, which can ultimately lead to the loss of faith. The problem is that we can not actually be angry with God, but only angry with our idea of God. If you see God as an entity that is loving, promotes justice and, wants the best for us, we can not make sense of the horrific tragedies that plague us every day. With such a specific definition of the nature of God, we can not explain many events that contradict this definition. Having a complete loss of faith is not necessary when faced with such events. The only change should be our realization that we really do not know the nature of God.

If one thing still stands from my of Catholic education growing up, it is the idea of heaven. When I say heaven, I don't mean a white place in the clouds with angels, harps, and a golden gate. Anything that has to do with transcendence of the soul into a reality we can not know is heaven to me. God doesn't necessarily need to exist in order for heaven to exist. I like to imagine heaven as another dimension parallel to the dimensions of the physical universes. Accepting the idea that we can not know the nature of god allows us to take comfort in the fact that we can not know why tragic events happen. Organic life is fragile and our bodies - part of this physical realm - can not survive without all its parts working properly. It's all very complex physical matter we can alter and label. The idea of a non-physical soul that possesses consciousness, allows us to look past the physical reality and take comfort in the possibility of an eternal spiritual life.

As Stephen R. Covey put it; "We are not human beings on a spiritual journey, we are spiritual beings on a human journey."

Allan Wattes "Atheist Spirituality"

This is a must see video from Alan Watts.