Raimon Panikkar vs. The New Atheists: The Ultimate Smackdown
Balder
Raimon Panikkar vs. the New Atheists
Recently, reflecting on the discussions about the New Atheists I've been involved in over the past week or two (with Julian and with Hokai), and thinking back also on my earlier blog series on intersubjectivity and Integral deep dialogue, I decided it was time to write something in honor of the work of Raimon Panikkar. I first came across his work about four years ago while researching and writing on interfaith dialogue, and I was immediately impressed by his erudition, his prodigious intelligence, and his ability to masterfully navigate different worldspaces and to draw deep nourishment from them without (it seemed to me) compromising their integrity or merely appropriating them for ulterior aims. What wasn't immediately apparent to me, especially in his scholarly works, were his equally impressive warmth, humility, and humanity, all of which shine through in the video below.
Panikkar, as a Catholic priest who considers himself equally a Hindu, Buddhist, and postmodern secularist, exemplifies the new dialogical, transcultural consciousness that is emerging in our age. His appreciation for the demands (and limitations) of pluralism; his belief that we are urgently called, at this point in history, to create new forms of consciousness, and new forms of spirituality, through deep dialogical encounter with individuals and cultures who are truly Other; and the fact that he sees this not only as politically necessary but as imbued with the potential, spiritually, to be truly revelatory and transformative, put him in stark contrast, in my view, with the Four Horsemen of the new atheism (and, of course, with apologists for most traditions, religious and secular). To explain why I think so, I will first quote from myself (this is something I first posted on Hokai's blog):
Panikkar has been working for quite some time on a hermeneutics of interreligious dialogue. In particular, he has developed what he calls diatopical hermeneutics, which he sees as the foundation of dialogical dialogue. Diatopical means "across places" or "across spaces" and is to be distinguished from more common forms of hermeneutics -- morphological, i.e. taking place within the same overall tradition or cultural space; and diachronical, taking place within the same overall historical stream (of a particular tradition or culture). In either of the latter cases, there is a natural hermeneutic circle that is available for parties to enter into. But in the encounter between very different cultures and traditions, there is no such circle; in essence, it has to be created anew, and this is facilitated by what Panikkar calls the imparative method. The imparative method, according to Panikkar, is "the effort at learning from the other and the attitude of allowing our own convictions to be fecundated by the insights of the other." E.g., pursuing truth together, in dialogical dialogue. There is a sensitivity to the presuppositions of our own interpretive tradition, and a willingness to suspend them or hold them lightly enough that we are able to enter into the other's "circle," to see it from within, rather than imposing our particular interpretive categories upon them.
The imparative method is to be distinguished from the comparative method, which is what we find quite commonly in the current atheist-theist debates: an entrenchment in particular positions, an investment in argumentation, an effort to discredit the other's positions, a tendency to impose the categories of our thought onto the other, to "colonize" them with our assumptions. While I do believe there is a place for this sort of combative debate, it is insufficient and obviously one-sided. Really, it strikes me as a pre-Green artifact (both Orange and Blue use it, in different ways); and in the case of those who argue the New Atheist agenda, I have a sense that they have not really digested the lessons of post-modernism, much less moved beyond them into integral dialogical territory.
This is not to say that the insights and criticisms of atheists and secularists are without value, or that they do not, in fact, serve a powerful corrective function, helping to dismantle mythic-level fixations and compensatory beliefs. Panikkar himself refers to the secular movement as a sacred one: he finds great value in the secular critique of traditional religions, agreeing with their diagnosis that these traditions have tended historically to exacerbate human alienation, fragmentation, and pathology. Theologically, as well, he believes the West took a wrong turn when it identified God, the depth dimension of reality, with a particular personality or entity. Panikkar's theology moves in the direction of non-theism, or what Wilber would call evolutionary panentheism. As Gerard Hall writes, "The mistake of Western thought was to begin with identifying God as the Supreme Being (monotheism) which resulted in God being turned into a human projection (atheism). Panikkar moves beyond God-talk to speak of the divine mystery now identified in non-theistic terms as infinitude, freedom and nothingness..."
(If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of what Panikkar means by God, see Nine Ways Not to Talk About God, published in Crosscurrents. And a good overview of his theory of multi-faith dialogue and interculturality, which includes a discussion of the Cosmotheandric Vision which informs his approach to postmodern, postmetaphysical spirituality, can be found here: Multi-Faith Dialogue in Conversation with Raimon Panikkar.)
Getting back on topic: When I criticize the rhetorical style of the New Atheists as a pre-Green artifact, I also do not intend to say that there is no occasion, from an Integral perspective, on which one might not legitimately use this approach. Ideally, Integralites have a whole pallet of tools to draw from, to employ as part of our skillful means. This would include the confrontational, strongly challenging rhetoric of someone like Harris (or even of my Integral friend, Julian). What I intend to suggest with this blog entry (despite its tongue-in-cheek title) is rather that, if Integralites are to enter more deeply into the current theist-atheist debates that the Four Horsemen have stirred up -- and I think it is actually a timely and vitally significant discussion to have -- then Raimon Panikkar can serve as a helpful guide in this endeavor, particularly if we intend to move past polarized positions into a fuller integral embrace of perspectives. Rather than simply bashing New Atheists for not being sensitive or nuanced enough, or condemning religion altogether because the majority of its practitioners are Amber, can we -- in the spirit of a critical and sensitive Integral Methodological Pluralism -- facilitate a meeting across places that allows for transformation and fecundation on all sides of this debate?
I believe Integral can play a powerful role here, if Integral thinkers -- on all sides of this issue -- decide this is, in fact, a dialogical encounter worth having, a process worth midwifing. And I am suggesting that Panikkar's ideas can vitally support Integral discussions of this nature, allowing us to enter more deeply into authentic intersubjective / interobjective encounters -- where Integral Methodological Pluralism is understood as an open process, a door to existential encounter and a creative unfolding of perspectives, not simply as a pre-generated, pre-digested map we impose on those we encounter.
As I mentioned above, some of the tools that Panikkar brings to the table are the notions of diatopical hermeneutics, dialogical (as opposed to dialectical) dialogue, the imparative method, and his cosmotheandric vision which is the basis for his faith in the possibility (contra many postmodernists) that transcendental truths may be discovered within and between multiple cultural perspectives: "The cosmotheandric principle could be stated by saying that the divine, the human and the earthly--however we may prefer to call them--are the three irreducible dimensions which constitute the real, i.e., any reality inasmuch as it is real... What this intuition emphasizes is that the three dimensions of reality are neither three modes of a monolithic undifferentiated reality, nor are they three elements of a pluralistic system. There is rather one, though intrinsically threefold, relation which expresses the ultimate constitution of reality. Everything that exists, any real being, presents this triune constitution expressed in three dimensions. I am not only saying that everything is directly or indirectly related to everything else: the radical relativity or pratityasamutpada of the Buddhist tradition. I am also stressing that this relationship is not only constitutive of the whole, but that it flashes forth, ever new and vital, in every spark of the real" (Panikkar, 1984).
In addition to these ideas and tools, Panikkar also introduces the notion of homeomorphic equivalence. If we are to avoid simplistic comparisons between key elements of different world views (say, God and Brahman), such as have often been made in overly hopeful studies in comparative religion; and if we are to similarly avoid the simplistic, sweeping dismissals of powerful, deeply nuanced terms like God because of mythic associations, such as we find in the case of New Atheist rhetoric, then Panikkar's insight seems potentially very helpful. In simple terms, homeomorphic equivalence suggests that, instead of a one-to-one correspondence in terms of content (something we are never likely to find), there may be a functional correlation between particular beliefs, symbols, or concepts across cultures and religious traditions. Recognizing the homologous functions of key elements of different traditions, discovering them in deep dialogue with traditions through a process Panikkar calls topological transformation, we are able both to preserve the real differences that exist between religions or cultures (instead of ignoring or whitewashing them) while also allowing for the possibility of meaningful contact and transformative encounter. As Gerard Hall writes, "Although religions and cultures are profoundly unique, they may represent transformations of a more primordial experience that make each tradition a dimension of the other. If this is the case, then diatopical hermeneutics not only uncovers hidden meanings within another religious or cultural system; it also discovers hidden or repressed meanings within one's own."
What awaits discovery in a theist-atheist (and -nontheist) encounter of this nature remains to be seen, but through Panikkar we have an invitation to move past the polarized dynamics that currently predominate in public debates of these issues (in the national media and the blogosphere) to a meeting which I believe has the potential to be fruitful and transformative for all parties involved. The New Atheists are interested in raising consciousness, as Mike (Mr. Teacup) says, and I agree with this and support their aim; but to truly raise our consciousness beyond the norms that prevail in scientism or even relativistic Green postmodernism -- in the war of words that is raging right now -- I believe we have to hold ourselves to a higher level of discourse, and enter into a more vulnerable and open existential encounter, than has been ventured thus far.
Access: Public
atheism
Balder,
thanks for the heads up on Raimon Panikkar. i'm not familiar with him. but based on the info you've provided on your blog post, he's my kind of guy already ;)
i agree with you that the level of discourse should be taken to the next level. however, big mainstream media doesn't buy that. it thrives on polarities, controversies, and simplistic duality of religion vs. science, evolution vs. intelligent design, theism vs. atheism, etc. the contributing success of the New Atheists (success in terms of getting the media attention to talk about religion while selling millions of books and generating national debate in schools and public arena) is that it they've taken this duality head on. integral thinkers have yet to accomplish this feat of mainstream attention because of the more gentle tone (not to mention the grand ideas which are challenging to digest at first). for example, Wilber wrote about integrating science and religion years before the New Atheists become fashionable but it didn't have that much impact, as far as mainstream is concerned, because it wasn't bold, controversial, and confrontational enough. it was too gentle. so it was basically ignored by the people who needed to hear it.
that said, like you, i also want to take the discourse on an integral level, but do integral thinkers even challenge the New Atheists directly and call their partiality? none that i know of. (yes, Wilber talks about them, but that is not a dialogue. yes, Stu interviewed Sam Harris on Integarl Naked but they didn't take the discussion to the next level–a missed opportunity, IMHO).
i think integral thinkers should ride the wave generated by the New Atheists to spread the integral ideals. how? here are some examples: write an op-ed article of NYTimes addressing the partiality truths (and limitations) of the New Atheists; participate in conferences like Beyond Belief; write a book addressing the New Atheists and put them into a more integral context; invite the New Atheists into a friendly dialogue (instead of talking about them) or blogalogue; and other skillful ways… the object of the dialogue is not to *win* arguments but to spread the integral ideas far and wide in the process of dialoguing. then let serendipity take care of the rest ;)
anyway, the only integrally-informed thinker i know of who is addressing the heart of the religion vs. science debate and acknowledging the contributions of the New Atheists is Michael Dowd. check out this blog post: Thank God for the New Atheists and Creationists.
Dowd's version of spirituality is focused on changing the storytelling of Christianity in its own backyard rather than bringing in philosophies from multiple faiths. i think his approach is more effective, especially when talking with people in the Bible Belt.
see: http://thankgodforevolution.com/faq.html
thanks for this dialogue. i'll brush up some more on Raimon Panikkar :)
~C
Best moment: “I learn more from my detractors, than from my admirers.” Thank you for this post, Bruce. There definitely is a “weakness” in Panikkar's approach (I already feel stupid for putting it like this, but some have criticized Wilber in this way): namely, it's quite difficult to simplify what he is saying and make it popular. You see what I'm getting at? It's quite easy to yell, “God is Bad!” and entitle your book “God is not GREAT!” and proclaim 75% of all people confused and deluded, but it's much more difficult to practise authentic critical thinking wherein you take 3 or 4 incommensurabilities and come up with AQAL, or take the polylogical situation we're deeply embedded in nowadays and come up with homeomorphic equivalence and the imparative method to be used by those who already know a lot! Real practical wisdom hardly boils down to slogans without losing most of its depth and robustness. Still, the good old Panikkar has important things to say, and with help of some pre-trans distinctions we come to what is the gist of your last comment: a transparent existential encounter, with our cards laid out for all to see.
Just for convenience, the amazing depth of nine ways not to talk about God, according to Panikkar:
1. We cannot speak of God without having first achieved an interior silence.
2. Speaking about God is a discourse that is sui generis.
3. Discourse about God is a discourse of our entire being.
4. It is not a discourse about any church, religion, or science.
5. It is a discourse that always takes place by means of a belief (every use of language conveys one or another belief).
6. It is a discourse about a symbol, not about a concept.
7. Speaking about God is, by necessity, a polysemic discourse.
8. God is not the only symbol to indicate what the word “God” wishes to transmit.
9. It is a discourse that inevitably completes itself again in a new silence.
Thanks for your responses, C4 and Hokai. I agree with both of you that Panikkar's ideas are not easy to simplify for mass consumption, and that the sort of integral dialogue I'm calling for is not likely to capture the media's attention. I jokingly titled this blog the way I did because I wanted to parody the deliberately provocative titles (or approaches) that sell New Atheist books and get them air time, but also because (I admit) I figured a dualistic, WWF-esque flavor would be more likely to generate blog hits.
Although I think the New Atheist wave does provide an opportunity for interested Integral thinkers and writers to provide public commentary and thereby promote Integral to a wider audience, and I also encourage folks to do this even if I-I has chosen to stay out of the polarized fray, the approach I'm really calling for in this blog is a bit narrower or more specialized. I recognize that Panikkar's theology is not one that will inspire Amber folks, anyway; and his proposed methods of dialogical inquiry and existential encounter will not play outside of a relatively small circle. So, what I'm calling for, at least initially, is an Integral-initiated dialogue between theists and atheists/secularists that might take advantage of the “energy” around the current debates without actually having to be as front-and-center in the media. I do not propose this as an alternative to C4's vision of public outreach, but as a complement. Because I think it is something that needs to happen, for a number of reasons.
One, I do think we need to “take on” the New Atheists on some level, if not directly, then in terms of just exploring into and articulating a nuanced Integral perspective on this issue – one which highlights both the strengths of what they are doing as well as the shortcomings. Two, perhaps more importantly, and as I said in my blog, I feel we are presented now with an opportunity to widwife a meeting “across hermeneutic spaces” that could be existentially revelatory, if we go deeply enough. Three, I do not think the Integral movement has really developed its dialogical chops yet. Something important is taking place at the Integral Spiritual Center which has great potential, but it is a meeting among individuals who already value and subscribe to AQAL and the Integral worldview. The next step, in my view, is the more risky sorts of encounters that Panikkar is facilitating, and that are also being explored by organizations such as the Global Dialogue Institute. Some of this work is being done from a Green center of gravity, but that does not invalidate it in my opinion; Green offers a number of tools which are quite powerful, and which can be effective (in my view) in Integral dialogue settings as well. Currently, because of the desire to make Integral appealing and understandable to a mass audience, a lot of Integral material is actually being written and presented at an Orange level. Integral has yet to digest and apply, in any thoroughgoing way, the practices and modes of discourse and dialogue that have been developed by Green or 2nd tier pioneers in these fields. I personally would like to see more of this.
Best wishes,
Balder
Hokai, thank you for highlighting the abbreviated form of Panikkar's Nine Ways Not to Talk About God. I had thought about doing that but then got concerned about the length of the blog. I also think his nine principles of dialogue are worth highlighting:
1. It must be free from particular apologetics. The Christian, Hindu or Buddhist must not approach the dialogue with the a priori idea of defending one's own tradition over or against the other.
2. It must be free from general apologetics. Those involved in interfaith dialogue should not see their task in terms of defending religion in general against the non-religious or anti-religious attitudes of secular society. This would turn the religious encounter into an ideological movement as well being simplistic in its rejection of modern secular consciousness.
3. One must face the challenge of conversion. To be involved in religious encounter is a challenge and a risk. The truly religious person is not a fanatic who has all the answers but a pilgrim who is always open to the experience of grace and truth. One may lose one's life or even lose faith in one's own tradition–but one may also be born again and one's own tradition transformed.
4. The historical dimension is necessary but not sufficient. All religions risk limiting themselves to particular, historical interpretations which quickly become truncated ideologies. Religious encounter is a meeting of religious persons who both carry the power and burden of their own religious traditions; yet they also carry the power and burden of reinterpreting that tradition anew, not breaking with past history, but carrying it forward in imaginative ways. Religious persons like all others belong to history; they also change history through responding to life's contemporary challenges.
5. It is not just a congress of philosophy. Religious encounter is a meeting of persons, not simply the meeting of minds. This does not deny the place of philosophy including the possible comparison of various religious systems. Nonetheless, doctrinal comparisons must be genuinely dialogical, that is, taking into account the reality of profoundly diverse worldviews. Much damage has been done by well intentioned western scholars who assume that only western philosophy has appropriate categories for understanding the world's religions. If anything, eastern philosophy has a more sophisticated system for appropriating religious truth.
6. It is not only a theological symposium. Theologians have an important role, but religious encounter is not primarily concerned with theological systems of thought. Theologies emanate from a particular experience, revelation or event that is ipso facto specific to the particular religious tradition in question. Theologies are primarily concerned with religious beliefs; religious encounter is concerned with religious persons in their entirety. The meeting of persons is not at the level of belief, but at the level of faith in a truth that transcends beliefs, doctrines and theological systems.
7. It is not merely an ecclesiastical endeavour. Admitting that official encounter among representatives of the world's religious traditions is today an inescapable duty, these must be seen as separate to and independent of the religious encounter of ordinary religious believers. The former will be primarily concerned, as they must, with the preservation of their own traditions in a religiously pluralistic world. The latter will be freer to try new ways and risk new solutions … and to be genuinely open to the multireligious experience.
8. It is a religious encounter in faith, hope and love. Whereas beliefs, ideologies, doctrines and theologies divide, faith unites. Hope is at once a truly human and a profoundly religious attitude, often linked to the religious notion of sacrifice: one's eschatological hope for the world and ourselves enters the heart of the dialogue overriding fear, weakness and prejudice. Love seeks truth, but it also impels us toward our fellow human beings, leading us to discover in them what is lacking in us. In faith, hope and love, one yearns for the common recognition of truth that does not obliterate the differences or mute the voices of any tradition.
9. The primacy of intra-religious dialogue. Before entering into an inter-religious dialogue, one must first depth the reality of one's own tradition. This is to say that intra-religious dialogue is primary.
bruce and hokai this is thrilling.
i am excited to dive in and learn from you guys - you obviously have some very thoughtful and layered observations to make that i can only benefit from…
glad to see you both expanding on your points in our previous discussions - i'll look forward to repsonding when i have suficiently digested both your great posts and my holiday feast…
Julian, looking forward to have your input, valuable as always.
Hokai
Balder, you challenge us again! We are not talking semantics for consumer packaging but refined ideals to better serve humanity.
So, it is about taking chances. We don't choose our perspectives to feel safe…now, do we?
Let's continue dancing with the 'vulnerability from not knowing it all with much certainty.'
Besides, the moment we figure it all out …. is the moment when we're all in biiiiig trouble! But maybe I should speak for myself! Cool Reflections!
Great post, Bruce. In the spirit of Panikkar, I think we can all benefit from your perspective, and the value of this approach. His elevation of secularism, and from my research, atheistic spirituality as well is a welcome addition to the conversation.
The contrast between comparative and imparative modes is a useful one, but it does seem that both are necessary. To me, the comparative method succeeds in drawing distinctions between ideas, where the imparative method seeks out similarities, and it seems a bit unfair to relegate one or the other to lower stages, since they seem to correspond to masculine and feminine energies. If the intent is to engage in imparative discourse between atheism and post-mythic religion, I think that is a welcome innovation, but simply reiterating the value of the imperative mode against the new atheists is not enough of a response, particularly toward Sam Harris, who argues not only in a comparative mode, but also for the necessity of that mode. One of the original points made in the Four Horsemen was how clergy often have very sophisticated post-mythic theology, but don't live up to the courage of their convictions when preaching to the masses, with the resultant lengthy list of unwelcome results of fundamentalism, to which the integral critique must add: the absence of a mature, vibrant religious practice. It does seem strange to me that today – centuries since Orange was the leading edge of consciousness – the modern, spiritually impoverished condition is blamed on science, not religion. This seems to be rooted in a perspective where the expectations of religion are near zero while the demands of science are outrageously high.
Many critics of the new atheists take them to task for not seeing a distinction between stages of religion, but who is really at fault for that? Most people have never heard of the Unitarian Universalists or other forms of liberal Christianity because those groups have very politely and graciously declined to argue religion in public and make that distinction, with the assumption that acts of religious tolerance will demonstrate the superiority of their views without the discomfort of making it explicit. Low in calories, and it tastes great! It just hasn't worked out that way; instead, their silence is interpreted as wishy-washiness, and an odd tendency to place tact ahead of what is supposed to be the most important questions in the universe. From my point of view, it seems that we are at risk of criticizing the new atheists for not making sophisticated distinctions, while at the same time, advocating methods that de-emphasize them.
Virtually the same argument is made in the political sphere from the about liberal politicians, and as Hokai points out, the new atheists are avowedly political. Beyond that, they are also of the conviction that it is time to be political in light of the various fundamentalisms. I admire Panikkar's insights, but also recognize that any method is useless if the participants refuse to use it. Still, he has enormous relevance for post-mythic spirituality. The appearance of having an Eastern/Buddhist fetish while all but discarding the truths of the secular, humanist post-Kantian Western philosphic tradition contributes greatly to the skepticism with which spirituality in general and the integral project in particular is received, and if Panikkar can help us overcome that, I welcome his ideas.
Merry Christmas to all,
Mike
Wonderful Christmas treat to read / see this, B. Thanks so much.
Sandra
Thank you for your comments, Bryan, Mr. T., and Sandra - and Merry Christmas to all of you!
Bryan, a big yes to dancing with the vulnerability of not knowing….
Mr. T, you've made some excellent points. I'll respond to a few of them in the order you presented them.
YOU WROTE: “The contrast between comparative and imparative modes is a useful one, but it does seem that both are necessary. To me, the comparative method succeeds in drawing distinctions between ideas, where the imparative method seeks out similarities, and it seems a bit unfair to relegate one or the other to lower stages, since they seem to correspond to masculine and feminine energies.”
Yes, I agree that both are necessary. Panikkar offers it as an additional resource, not an exclusive alternative. The imparative method [i]does[/i] seem to be more feminine in its energy, but at least as Panikkar frames it, I also think it is fair to represent it as a higher-stage tool, since it is founded on insights and perspectives that become available at Green. But as I said above, this does not mean it replaces the comparative method, or that the comparative method gets left behind. Rather, as I see it, the comparative method just gets bracketed, so that it is no longer taken as the only, or the “logically highest” way to proceed - particularly in this realm of diatopical hermeneutics.
YOU WROTE: “If the intent is to engage in imparative discourse between atheism and post-mythic religion, I think that is a welcome innovation, but simply reiterating the value of the imperative mode against the new atheists is not enough of a response, particularly toward Sam Harris, who argues not only in a comparative mode, but also for the necessity of that mode.”
The way I would put it is this: the comparative method is important but not sufficient. To go beyond the rather dismissive, either/or discourse that Harris and other New Atheists are offering, the imparative method suggests a potentially fruitful way forward. But - I agree with you - not at the cost of being able to make strong, comparative distinctions.
YOU WROTE: “One of the original points made in the Four Horsemen was how clergy often have very sophisticated post-mythic theology, but don't live up to the courage of their convictions when preaching to the masses, with the resultant lengthy list of unwelcome results of fundamentalism, to which the integral critique must add: the absence of a mature, vibrant religious practice. It does seem strange to me that today - centuries since Orange was the leading edge of consciousness - the modern, spiritually impoverished condition is blamed on science, not religion. This seems to be rooted in a perspective where the expectations of religion are near zero while the demands of science are outrageously high.”
This is a very important point. I attempted to touch on this in the recent discussion on Julian's blog when I commented that the so-called Orange ceiling is, in part, self-imposed by the religions themselves.
YOU WROTE: “Many critics of the new atheists take them to task for not seeing a distinction between stages of religion, but who is really at fault for that? Most people have never heard of the Unitarian Universalists or other forms of liberal Christianity because those groups have very politely and graciously declined to argue religion in public and make that distinction, with the assumption that acts of religious tolerance will demonstrate the superiority of their views without the discomfort of making it explicit. Low in calories, and it tastes great! It just hasn't worked out that way; instead, their silence is interpreted as wishy-washiness, and an odd tendency to place tact ahead of what is supposed to be the most important questions in the universe. From my point of view, it seems that we are at risk of criticizing the new atheists for not making sophisticated distinctions, while at the same time, advocating methods that de-emphasize them.”
Harris' argument is one that merits attention, and one that I had not really considered until I heard him articulate it: that (for example) the progressive, “tolerant” Christians actually end up legitimizing fundamentalism by supporting the overall validity of Christianity while not publicly challenging those who interpret it in a literalist, ethnocentric way (and claim divine sanction for doing so!), or at least not making more of an effort to shape public discourse about religion. I do think Harris goes too far in his indictment of religious progressives and moderates, and of religion in general, but his criticism is well-placed enough that I hope it will catalyze more positive, culturally impactful outreach efforts on the part of progressive/contemplative religionists.
Concerning your warning that, by emphasizing Panikkar's theories and his method of dialogue, we may run the risk of advocating methods which de-emphasize sophisticated distinctions precisely when they are most needed - I think that is a concern worth heeding. I certainly do not intend to advocate a retreat from making such distinctions, nor do I think Panikkar's approach necessarily entails such a retreat, but I recognize that that has often been the result of the Green elevation of tolerance as a virtue.
You may have come across the following remarks already (they are in one of the essays I linked above), but I think they're worth highlighting here:
“However, it is a mistake to assume that Panikkar's cosmotheandric proposal is opposed to the demands of reason–which he states always has the “veto power”–or to any method that will assist mutual critique and overturn misunderstanding. Panikkar's discourse is directed towards another level of meaning without which human traditions are certainly caught in the endless cycle of power relationships, ideological discord and inevitable misunderstandings. This is the level of meaning that reason alone cannot provide–certainly not if we accept there is a radical differentiation of human experience and intelligibility across cultures and religions. His emphasis on the experience and praxis of dialogical dialogue is important because it emphasizes the communicative possibilities of symbols. Without some kind of trust in the other and some form of optimism in the human spirit (or in God, Being, Truth, Non-being, Transcendence or Life itself), the other must forever remain the unknown stranger.
Nonetheless, the subtlety of Panikkar's thought should not be underestimated. This is evident, for example, in his notions of homeomorphic equivalence and topological transformation. It is only through the actual praxis of dialogue among specific traditions that similarities and differences can be explored at the deepest level. The danger here is to assume the supremacy of the logos without first entering into symbolic and mythic engagement–and without commitment to personal transformation. The invitation to dialogical dialogue represents a radical departure from the narrower focus of dialectical dialogue which too readily assumes there is such a thing as pure truth located in the human intellect” (Gerard Hall, 2003).
Best wishes,
Balder
Excellent. What a wonderful read and I hope more people read it.
Thank you, Lucidity.
In a related conversation on Hokai's blog, I discussed some additional ideas of Panikkar in relation to the New Atheists that I want to copy here as well….
To the degree that atheism, particularly the New Atheism, is defined by means of contrast with a particular manifestation of religion, I agree with you (Hokai) and DiPerna that it can (at least loosely) also be described as a type of religious orientation.
One of Panikkar's distinctions may help to take this argument further. He distinguishes between mythos and logos in his model of diatopical heremeneutics. Here, mythos does not correspond to a particular level of thinking – the mythic – but rather is defined as the “ever-elusive horizon” which makes any hermeneutic possible. It consists of the “given” features of a worldview, the basic, foundational presuppositions which largely go unquestioned. The mythos of a particular worldview is necessarily transparent, forming the background of the more visible logos – the more formal arguments and proofs that are used to support a particular set of beliefs.
There is, therefore, a mythos that underlies the Atheist worldview just as much as there is one that underlies the traditional religious or the postmodern pluralist one. It is more than a set of rational propositions or formal arguments. It is deeper even than the mythical (foundational) stories of a tradition. But this isn't often recognized, precisely because the mythos is so transparent.
The current discourse both by and about the New Atheists has focused primarily on the level of logos; whereas dialogue – dia-logos – has the potential to cut through the logos to penetrate to a deeper level of meaning, one which I believe needs to be acknowledged if we are to move forward (in Integral) in our communication with both atheists and the theists they denounce.
What do you think? How do you see this? We can engage with New Atheism as a political movement, or as a particular religious orientation – here, as anti-religion. Both perspectives are valid. We can also look for the underlying contours of the worldview which informs the more surface-level reaction that is labeled “atheism.” in my view, dealing only on the level of logos – of atheism as a “logical system” – will miss contacting the deeper pastures of meaning that could really open us up to something new.
Hey Folks,
The ” new atheist” to me, are the same as old ones we have always had.
As for integral, it needs to take on itself before jumping in anything. It needs to answer these questions.
What is it? A methodology
A religion
A philosophy
A synthesis
Is it a methodology without purpose?
Is it a science without methodology?
Is it both these things without, content, intent, or purpose?
People like Wilber want to integrate it with science without the tools to do it, or a clear understanding of what it is. Also, the science community does not accept the faith or metaphysical aspect of Integral.
I personaly think Integral will be a bad science, and a bad religion, and methodology, AT THIS TIME because it has no legitimate focus.
IS IT SEEKING TRANSCENDENT KNOWLEDGE, OR TERRESTRIAL KNOWLEDGE?
I think ( FOR NOW) it should focus on the LL quadrant by attempting to unite people in understanding the advantage and wisdom of Integrals idea of acceptance, and tolerance. This LL venture has a chance of success, because it is a useful, though a somewhat moderate goal.
If the integralists shoot too high, like I believe our friend Wilber is doing (that is by trying to merge it with science prematurely, while at the same time trying to replace metaphysics with it) is a description for disaster. This is premature, in my view. Experience first what integral can do for you, and then preach! If not then I feel, one looses the integrity of integral!
Meet the atheists at the point of the desire for free enquiry, and the method of cultivating as much as possible objective thought, and methodology. Though they will not accept faith on any level, they do believe in freedom of thought, and the pursuit of knowledge.
Zak
Hi Bruce,
In response to your last comment, I agree that atheism has a religious orientation, but I don't think anti-religion is it. What is missing is a recognition that the atheistic scientific perspective also includes an appreciation of the numinous. As Kepler put it, Geometry is one and eternal shining in the mind of God. If an inter-religious dialog occurs with atheism, the numinous dimension of the physical universe, the 3rd face of God, is surely the contribution that will be made. I would say that in integral circles, the 3rd face practice is given far less acknowledgement than even 2nd face practice.
Much is made of the fact that in science, part of the mythos seems to be meaningless, randomness, and other ways of removing the humanity from the center of the universe. To many religious people, this on its face is evidence of the nihilistic tendencies of science with respect to Spirit, which is taken to be basically a re-centering of humanity in the world. By asserting something like a divine intelligence, religion says that there is something that is interior to me as an individual that is also mirrored in the ground of the universe. This can be understood naively in the case of someone believing that God is personally favoring their desire for a promotion at work, or in more sophisticated ways. We typically understand science and atheism as disagreeing with this on ontological grounds, but there is something much more subtle here. Scientific atheistic spirituality insists on decentering humanity because it is the basis of that spiritual practice. The vastness of the universe and its indifference to human meaning is often seen as coldness and nihilism, but from within the practice, it is viewed as liberating, and might be best understood as an analog to theistic practice of submission and surrender. The belief that consciousness does not persist after death is also important, because it places humanity within the living and dying universe, not distinct from it or magically immune from it.
Scientific atheism denies humanity's specialness, and to me, this is its basic religious orientation which should be included in a dialog. An effort should be made to show how this truth is not incompatible with approaches that affirm the opposite.
Late update: a final thought is on the role of paranormal studies. It should be clear that even though these types of activities follow the scientific method or at least claim to, they are well outside of atheistic spirituality because of the previously mentioned unspecialness of human experience. Attempting to prove specialness with the scientific method is in a way sacrilegeous, kind of like using tantra to improve one's sex life.
Hi, Mike, tell me what you think –
It seems to me you are actually doing what I was calling for when I made the distinction between dealing with atheism as “anti-theism” or “anti-religion” and going deeper, attempting to contact the mythos that underlies atheism and tracing out the homeomorphic equivalencies…
B.
Yes, that was it :)
Hi, Zak,
Thank you for joining the discussion. You've made a number of good points and raised some interesting questions, so I'll respond to a number of them individually.
You wrote: The “new atheist” to me, are the same as old ones we have always had.
Yes, I agree - in a number of ways, many of the same old arguments are being repeated. What makes them stand out is their more active, almost evangelical nature…and, as Hokai points out, their strong political agenda.
You wrote: As for integral, it needs to take on itself before jumping in anything. It needs to answer these questions.
Panikkar makes the same argument: Intra-religious (intra-cultural) dialogue is primary, meaning members of a tradition should do that work first before attempting to enter into deep dialogue with members of other traditions.
You asked: What is [Integral]? A methodology, a religion, a philosophy, a synthesis? Is it a methodology without purpose? Is it a science without methodology? Is it both these things without, content, intent, or purpose?
I think you could fairly, and without contradiction or problem, define Integral in a number of ways simultaneously. One definition that I am comfortable with it is that it is a meta-paradigm - a paradigm about paradigms. But while Integral Methodological Pluralism may be largely without content, the “story” of Integral certainly does involve content - and therefore also a purpose or an orientation.
You wrote: I personally think Integral will be a bad science, and a bad religion, and methodology, AT THIS TIME because it has no legitimate focus.
I don't understand why you say this. Why do you say Integral has no legitimate focus, and what do you mean by this?
You asked: IS IT SEEKING TRANSCENDENT KNOWLEDGE, OR TERRESTRIAL KNOWLEDGE?
It attempts to acknowledge and integrate both knowledge quests, from multiple Kosmic addresses.
You wrote: I think (FOR NOW) it should focus on the LL quadrant by attempting to unite people in understanding the advantage and wisdom of Integrals idea of acceptance, and tolerance. This LL venture has a chance of success, because it is a useful, though a somewhat moderate goal.
If the integralists shoot too high, like I believe our friend Wilber is doing (that is by trying to merge it with science prematurely, while at the same time trying to replace metaphysics with it) is a description for disaster. This is premature, in my view. Experience first what integral can do for you, and then preach! If not then I feel, one looses the integrity of integral!
It does seem that, with Integral's recent popular outreach movement - the new books, the journal, the Youtube presence, the workshops, the encouragement to open Integral salons around the world - there is an emphasis right now on cultivating a LL appreciation for the power and utility of AQAL. But it wouldn't be “integral” to concentrate only on the LL…
You wrote: Meet the atheists at the point of the desire for free enquiry, and the method of cultivating as much as possible objective thought, and methodology. Though they will not accept faith on any level, they do believe in freedom of thought, and the pursuit of knowledge.
Yes, I agree that this is a good place to begin.
Peace,
Balder
Hey, Mike, great comments. You wrote: “Scientific atheistic spirituality insists on decentering humanity because it is the basis of that spiritual practice.”
This is crucial indeed, and is not at all at odds with some more esoteric teachings. In Japanese Buddhism, for example, we find Shingon and Zen teachings that go as far as equalizing the sentient and non-sentient as equal (not same) expressions/embodiments of reality. In Wilber's work, we find “ground value” when discussing depth of holons (the other two being intrinsic and extrinsic values).
I believe you're also right when you say, “in science, part of the mythos seems to be meaningless, randomness, and other ways of removing the humanity from the center of the universe. To many religious people, this on its face is evidence of the nihilistic tendencies of science with respect to Spirit, which is taken to be basically a re-centering of humanity in the world.” Very important point!
Godspeed,
Hokai
Hi Balder
You wrote quoting me:
I personally think Integral will be a bad science, and a bad religion, and methodology, AT THIS TIME because it has no legitimate focus.
I don't understand why you say this.
Why do you say Integral has no legitimate focus, and what do you mean by this?
I am saying this from the perspective of the seeking of a concrete objective such as Enlightenment. The fact that Wilber's AQAL is not perfected sometimes makes him loose focus. Wilber's says the wisdom traditions are obsolete, yet he uses them himself. Why the mixed messages? I know Integral has the ILP, but this is traditional, not anything new. I believe the ILP is excellent and a moderate attempt to spread Integral in all quadrants that is not what I am criticizing.
I said at “this time.” I like and respect Wilber in challenging traditional metaphysics and trying to produce new knowledge through AQAL, but my point is that he has not yet produced the goods, in my estimation. He needs to slow down, is my point. He should AT THIS TIME be satisfied with spreading the positive message of Integrals universality, [ LL Quadrant] and not overplay his hand, because if he does and fails, he will be have had done more harm than good, in my view.
I think though, Integral, most versions of it, and Wilber's version– with or without the addenda of AQAL– IS ready to spread to the LL quadrant on a social, moral, and philosophical level, laying the foundation for the universal idea of unity, and tolerance, and the objective pursuit of knowledge.
Regards
Zak
Nice post, Bruce. I especially liked this part:
And I am suggesting that Panikkar's ideas can vitally support Integral discussions of this nature, allowing us to enter more deeply into authentic intersubjective / interobjective encounters – where Integral Methodological Pluralism is understood as an open process, a door to existential encounter and a creative unfolding of perspectives, not simply as a pre-generated, pre-digested map we impose on those we encounter.
Mike: The vastness of the universe and its indifference to human meaning is often seen as coldness and nihilism, but from within the practice, it is viewed as liberating, and might be best understood as an analog to theistic practice of submission and surrender. Scientific atheism denies humanity's specialness, and to me, this is its basic religious orientation which should be included in a dialog.
This is so true. The third face is really God as process. As Brian Swimme put it, “We are the human phase of this process,” and seeing this is immediately liberating. Andrew Cohen really stresses this in his teaching, much more so than the first or second faces of God. In fact his current quote of the week is about this. There are many other quotes in there that touch on this, including this one. Here is another:
Evolution in Action
“We are all part of a vast, impersonal, glorious process of evolutionary unfolding. The ego sees itself as a spectator, always standing outside of and separate from this process. But the part of us that is not ego, the authentic self, recognizes, ecstatically, that we are that process, that it is our process, and we are not in any way separate from the whole event. When we begin to awaken in this way, everything changes, because then the important choices that we make become a reflection of that recognition, a dynamic expression of evolution in action for the sake of the evolving whole that we are all a part of.”
This is what Ken means by relative emancipation: it's not absolute emancipation, which is stepping out of the process, but liberation in the process or as the process. Contemplating things like the New Story and the Universe Story are really helpful for this–the Kosmocentric, deep-time perspective–because it's so easy to fall back into the personal story. Of course some try to find liberation by taking themselves out of the process, but I think this is pretty misguided. I think one of the great gifts of the teachings of Ken Wilber, as well as those of Andrew Cohen, is that they direct people back into the process but in an impersonal way.
An effort should be made to show how this truth is not incompatible with approaches that affirm the opposite.
This is also true, but some stages will find this inherently threatening. They won't “resonate” with it. In fact, up until Indigo, people are into self-actualization rather than self-transcendence.
The belief that consciousness does not persist after death is also important, because it places humanity within the living and dying universe, not distinct from it or magically immune from it.
I don't understand why this is an important part of it. Could you explain this? it seems to me that if we believe this we will be more inclined to identify with what does without question die, the body and the attached ego. If people can reach a point where they have attained constant awareness and stay aware throughout the sleep cycle each night, it doesn't seem far fetched to me that that will continue once the body has died. The idea of life after death, whether it's heaven and hell or reincarnation, also has a profound impact on how people live their lives. People tend to be far more ethical with this belief. I don't see how things would be improved by removing this idea, particularly since there does seem to be reason to believe that it actually might the case that people transmigrate (NDE, OBE, evidence suggestive of past lives, etc.).
Amber does need to be cut down to size, particularly in the U.S.–but at the same time it needs to be refurbished in some ways. That's a tricky business, and one that the New Atheists aren't quite up to as they simply want to destroy Amber. Ken makes the point that terrorists tend to have the same motive: if you don't make a place for my Amber religion in your world I will blow you up. And in any case, the spiral needs Amber–and at the same time needs to clear it out of positions of political and economic power. A job for integral!
Zakariyya wrote: “The 'new atheists' to me, are the same as old ones we have always had.”
Indeed.
60 +/- years ago, Einstein said:
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
The new/old atheists, while correctly rejecting “childlike” exoteric religious superstition and dogma as complete or valid explanations of the human condition, throw the baby out with the bathwater by not even considering, let alone examining and studying, the esoteric. In that sense, they are equally as childlike and simplistic as the regime they seek to overthrow, and would merely substitute another incomplete and insufficient dogma - that of the absolute supremecy of reason and logos.
Quoting Panikkar from Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics:
“[Atheism] is weak…when it tries to offer a positive substitute for the theistic vision. Atheism is necessary as a constant corrective to any belief in God, but it always betrays its mission when it becomes a substitute for God, religion, or whatever.”
this is a gorgeous post bruce.
i am sorry it took me so long to get into it.
i watched the video back when you linked me to it and really enjoyed pannikar's ebullient spaciousness.
the post itself is intelligent and does a great job of introducing a wonderful third voice into what has become a predictable back and forth debate…
i actually agree with this position and wholeheartedly support the spread of these ideas in integral circles - especially if there is a strong practice methodology (often so lacking) attached to the ideas as well as a clear differentiation form the “near enemy” of pre/trans confused magic and myth masquerading as second tier.
i spend so much time pointing out what i see as the pervasive presence of the later in integral circles because i think it is a big problem - but in so doing i may have created the impression that the position you are elucidating above is not close to my heart - when inn fact it is….
i will do whatever you ask to help seed this perspective.
all the best
~j
and for the record - unlike you and some others i have no problem with this kind of metaphysics:
“The cosmotheandric principle could be stated by saying that the divine, the human and the earthly–however we may prefer to call them–are the three irreducible dimensions which constitute the real, i.e., any reality inasmuch as it is real… What this intuition emphasizes is that the three dimensions of reality are neither three modes of a monolithic undifferentiated reality, nor are they three elements of a pluralistic system. There is rather one, though intrinsically threefold, relation which expresses the ultimate constitution of reality. Everything that exists, any real being, presents this triune constitution expressed in three dimensions. I am not only saying that everything is directly or indirectly related to everything else: the radical relativity or pratityasamutpada of the Buddhist tradition. I am also stressing that this relationship is not only constitutive of the whole, but that it flashes forth, ever new and vital, in every spark of the real” (Panikkar, 1984).
even though he uses that forbidden word “reality ” a whole bunch….
:O)
well actually i am not sure about some of those other words - you know like “divine” - although if i used that one in my simply put series it probably would fly right by….