I’m not happy that it’s come to this, but I finally have to get
some things off my chest about atheists. I’ve stated here before that I think
it’s a good thing that atheists are speaking up
and gaining more visibility. I think they have an important humanitarian
message to share, and their voices are a long-needed counterbalance to the
overwhelming, and often destructive religiosity of the U.S. But damn, they are
really starting to annoy me.
For the record, as much as I would like to be, I am not personally
an atheist. I’m not a Christian, although I was raised Catholic, and I don’t
believe in a sky-God or think there is some grand entity “out there” looking
down on humanity and performing divine interventions. But I’ve had
multiple unexplainable experiences that lead me to describe myself with
that vague and lazy phrase atheists detest—“spiritual but not religious.”
I suppose in short, I would describe myself as a mystic, a strange, archaic
word which I like a lot and am considering claiming unabashedly.
I recently read this interview in Salon with “The Age of
Atheists” author Peter Watson. This snippet of the interview really set me off:
“I’ve attended numerous so-called “Atheist
Church” services over the last year, and I notice words like “awe,” “mystery,”
and “transcendence” floating around a lot. They make me cringe. Does it seem to
you that a new wave of “Atheists” is trying to reclaim an awe or mystery that
is actually rooted in early monotheism?
I’m very much against the concept of transcendence. One problem we
have is that many religious words, like “salvation” and “transcendence,” are
firmly embedded in our vocabulary. Some people try to make secular equivalents,
which I think is a mistake. Rather than going back to the old religious
vocabulary, we should go to a new one.
But yes, I think there is a sort of midway stage with some people;
they’re not religious, but they are probably mystical. That said, I do think
that a lot of the New Age people are basically religious. They don’t buy the
great monotheisms, but they seek some sort of otherworldly feeling, which I
don’t think is available.”
I found this exchange to be extremely condescending and
dismissive. What is so patently offensive and cringe-worthy about the concept
of mystery and transcendence? And what does Watson mean when he says that “some
sort of otherworldly feeling” isn’t available? It’s very available to me. But I
don’t talk about it much anymore and definitely not with atheists because when
I have conversations with them about my spiritual experiences, they tend to be
very aggressive about defining them as "delusions" or
"neurological blips" which is very frustrating to me. It feels like
they're telling me I'm too stupid to understand my own experiences, or that I’m
imaging them. (Believe me, I wish I had imagined some of
them.)
As I’m writing this, I’m struggling very hard with describing the
exact nature of my beliefs, and I realize it’s because I’m very uncomfortable
stating them, which makes me sad. I used to be braver about these things. I was
deeply wounded by my involvement in a spiritual community a number of years
ago, which further complicates my feelings about “spiritual people”, who
are just as capable of heinous behavior as anyone else. As a result, I have
spent a number of years in a kind of semi-exile from spiritual activities, but
always maintained a belief in humanity’s essential divinity.
I won’t apologize for being someone who believes that humanity has
a higher purpose beyond pro-creating and base survival. And for being the
sort of person who must believe it, because if I didn’t
believe there was a meaning beyond mere survival in this vale of tears and
suffering, I would find life to be unbearable and I’d kill myself. Unlike
Watson, I don't find the concept of transcendence to be problematic--I find it
to be essential.
It’s commendable that atheists have to the courage to live decent
lives with the belief that this all there is, but I can’t. And those of us who
can’t aren’t stupid or weak-minded. I would ask that atheists to be open to the
possibility that people like me experience the lifting of the veil; see beyond
the limits of physical reality, connect to something beyond the scope of our
scientific understanding. Could these experiences and intuitions simply be the
illusions of an overactive imagination or the fever dreams of a high-strung
poet? It’s possible, but I don’t think so. I honor the experience of atheists
and I don’t extrapolate about their character or intelligence based on their
beliefs—I would just ask the same of them.
--Kristen McHenry
3 comments:
Excellent commentary--actually, almost a white paper or what used to be called a monograph. Regarding the whole subject of your post here, I've always liked the symposiums written/created by the great French philosopher Rene Descartes. Especially this one:
"If you can' prove that God does not exist, I don't have to prove that He does."
Yep.
Shut up and Love.
Kristen, I believe you have found your purpose in life - to reflect different prospectives showing the differences between main stream religiosity and spirituality of the soul.
Nancy
Post a Comment