I read an interesting debate this morning between Rick Warren, pastor, and Sam Harris, atheist. The author of The purpose driven life and the author of Letter to a Christian Nation recently met to discuss the question "Is God real?". You will find it in the April 9 issue of Newsweek.
The most interesting bit for me was their discussion of spirituality and morality. Warren argued that all morality is derived from our experience of serving a deity, as our lives without this would be brief and meaningless. He asked Harris where he gets his morality. Harris replied that it is possible to have a human experience of spirituality and ethics that is non-religious. He argues for recognizing the power of contemplating the mystery of the universe and exploring the nature of human love, both the humans you know and the humans you don't.
This issue, the nature of human spirituality and the derivation of our moral impulse, has been much on my mind lately having to do with the issue of global warming. That scientific phenomenon is not experienced as science by many Gatherites, in my view. Rather than accepting the science and recognizing their responsibility to participate in collective action, some of us seem to view it in religious terms and thereby reject the science.
Ultimately, I ended up wondering if there is any closure to the dialog between these two gentlemen. They kept it civil, which was a real plus, but nothing was resolved. Neither man will ever yield to the convictions of the other, so civility is all that can be expected of them. I doubt that in a thousand years we could hope to resolve the debate in the sense of all humans becoming religious, or all humans becoming atheists, or all humans becoming spiritual in some yet-to-be-defined third way.
As regards global warming, my hope is that we will continue to see the emergence of a majority that accepts the right of science to do science, and accepts that humans have a responsibility to serve their fellow man and generations yet to be born, irrespective of their religious or political convictions. Religious or not, can we agree that the apocalypse can wait? Whatever awaits the human race as an eventual destiny, there is no need to accept the idea that our pre-ordained fate is to die by our own hand.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 23
Understanding and acceptance should be the most important virtues, morals, or whatever you want to call them, and its usually the non-religious that are backing those things against a church or mosque etc... who disapprove of something.
I do not however condem those that feel the need for religion or a deity in their lives. Perhaps they need a priest, reverend or rabbi to remind them what is required of them so they can look into the mirror at the end of the day and not recoil? I went to temple one time only when I was a child. About a third of the way into the service the rabbi said,".......and we are right and They are all wrong"
I stood up saying,"Thats all brother" and actually left, never to return again.
Perhaps if he had said,"we all are right" I could have swallowed it easier? Instead I let go of my own religion that day, embarrased by their belief. I grew up and raised two wonderful children to believe that what was required of them was goodness and patience with their fellow human beings. And I couldnt be prouder of the adults they grew to be.
yes i agree. The thing i got from the debate between Warren and Harris is that they are both basically very well intentioned guys and it is not a wrong/right thing.
And I eventually said to myself, even though i am technically an atheist myself, I don't see the point to arguing this. All i care about is: can we take on a framework of ethics that will serve humanity now and forever whatever our personal beliefs may be?
good stuff. I always have figured that if there is a heaven, they would only ask one question at the pearly gates: "did you raise your children to be better than you are". If you can say yes, how they possibly keep you out?
Great article. This is an issue that has been the source of much frustration for me.
There is a significant segment of the American population that believes "secularism" is tantamount to "atheism," and that true morality cannot exist apart from religious doctrine (particularly Christianity).
Myself, I am not truly an "atheist," as I strongly believe that the Universe is the work of a divine being. I see too much magic in the way nature operates -- from the rotation of the planets around the sun, to the functioning of the complex organisms within every living species -- to think that it is all some quirk in the cosmos, and not the design of a Creator.
That being said, I don't believe that any man-made religion can claim ownership of Divine Truth. I relate more to the writings of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins than I do with any religious doctrine.
As for "morality," I believe that "secular" values (i.e., moral behavior inspired by a desire to contribute to the betterment of society, to treat others the way you would like to be treated, etc.) is far superior to moral behavior inspired by a fear that some spiteful Deity in the sky will punish you if you "sin," a belief that God will reward you with riches and good fortune if you're good, or a fear of "eternal damnation" in a lake of fire.
But that's just my humble little opinion.
This was one of the greatest insights of my spiritual life, and I hold it for myself. I don't expect anyone else to agree.
Also, I have come to see that the debate between theism and atheism is a waste of time (again for me). I used to think that atheism was an untenable position on two counts. First, how can nothing exist? Two, atheism can only be a belief in a kind of negative religion, and therefore a relgion itself. But eventually, I saw these insights didn't matter, either. Theism and atheism are just two opposite poles on the same linear logical plane. The universe may be more spherical!
In zen literature, there is a saying that "It" neither exists nor doesn't exist. "It" neither both exists and doesn't exist; nor does "It" neither exist nor not exist. I have found this extreme intriguing, much more so than the linear arguement between atheism and theism. Especially when such a statement is followed by a demand from a zen teacher to "speak quickly" of your insight into such a statement. I find zen insights to be much more profound than anything I have ever seen in western religion (at least as I have understood them). I have also found zen insights to be far an above superior, in every way, to the insights of western psychology.
These are again my thoughts, and I expect no one else to agree, or even take a position one way or another in relation to them.
For more on the God debate, see the current issue of ODE.
I feel that spirituality is something inate to the human being (not necessarily exclusively)... Religion is the dressing ... the way we communicate it to ourselves and eachother... groups of people tend to get together and organize and relate to themselves and their world in terms of common experience.... other aspects of human organizations come out and are put into play that have nothing to do with spirituality or religion, even if they are in the name of it... I feel ethics and morality are human and have nothing to do with the dressing put on it (that includes atheism, buddhism or religion) other than giving us a way to communicate and understand our ethics and morality... Nobody has a corner on the market with their own particular 'language of the spirit' ... (spirit being that internal spark that everybody feels as part of being alive...)
That's what I feel...
Currently, the thing many refer to as "science", is the religion most adhered to, in ridged, true dogmatic fashion, of all the religions on earth, I think. Worshipers believe without question, things they have no real grasp of, or awareness regarding any evidence or methods by which the "doctrines" they subscribe to came into existence.
Now, that is not to say that other religions lack such ignorant adherents . . . for surely they all have them to one extent or another, but this one is unique, in that it's “flock” actually believes there is no contradiction between speaking of the foolishness of such "blind faith" based loyalty to a "deity", and themselves zealously proclaiming that very sort of faith, with pride.
The foundation of this clearly schizoid stance seems to rest upon the notion of the relative infallibility of groups of people . . . whom again, need not be actually known, or even specified. It seems to me to be an extension of the adolescent propensity for anthropomorphizing authority in general. A sort of “revolt” against an earlier rejected authority figure, by enshrining a smarter, tougher, big brother . . .