Atheists who are interested in gathering the social benefits of church attendance without checking their brains at the door might want to look at the Unitarian Universalist church, which has no dogma. I mean it. They have no dogma. In theory this means there’s absolutely no inherent contradiction in the idea of an atheist Unitarian. You’re a Unitarian if you sign the book saying you’re a Unitarian: what you believe is entirely up to you. In practice, the degree to which an atheist would feel comfortable depends a lot on the local UU congregation. Some are essentially liberal Protestant churches with some handwaving of the thornier bits. Some actively welcome atheist members.
I think the social aspect is critically important to an understanding of why people continue to seek out religion after the Enlightenment, but I don’t think it tells the whole story. I think there’s good evidence that spiritual experience—and here I am not talking about sitting on a pew on Sundays and mouthing hymns, but rather about the real deal, a mystic state of religious transport and ecstacy—boils down to chemicals in the brain. I believe this because there are drugs like ayahuasca that trigger these experiences very reliably. It looks to me that every human culture has its own way of reaching this brain-state: it very often centers on music and dance, but meditation, self-hypnosis, yoga-like practices, or an endorphin rush triggered by fasting and self-harm are all common as well.
Some brains reach this state more easily than others. Some brains absolutely crave it. Some are all but immune to it. This is why some people become shamans, or religious nuts, and some don’t. Authentic ecstactic experience is (or was, until people like Alexander Shulgin came around) comparatively rare, but even when people had one such experience in a lifetime it was enough to change the course of civilizations.
I also strongly suspect that the state of “creative flow” reported by artists—the state where the artist feels that s/he is merely “taking dictation” from a higher power—is chemically similar to the state of religious ecstacy. There’s too much crossover between the message that artists and mystics “bring back”—a general sense of oneness, higher purpose, the interconnectedness of all things, etc—for this not to be true. I also, based on my own experience, suspect that the state of flow experienced by programmers is not too far off. That state when you’re holding all the connections in your mind, and you see the way forward, and you’re like a god—yeah. That one. Except about a thousand times more significant.
Where I think the proselytizing atheists tend to go wrong is that they discount the power of that brain-state. I mean, part of it is that it’s by definition charged with meaning. So naturally it’s going to feel like the Most Important Thing Ever. You’re flooded with a sense of immense meaning as part of the experience itself.
And I also think that the experience is desirable. Everyone should get to have it at least once. It clarified a lot of things for me in my early twenties. Religious practice gives people—oh, the lightest shade of what a true ecstactic moment has to offer, but for the kinds of brains that crave that state, religious practice is really important to their ongoing sense of well-being.
I think in a way the proselytizing atheists are being chemically...discriminatory? That’s not exactly right, but they’re failing to recognize that some brains crave an experience their own brains do not. They’re trying to other-optimize without fully understanding all the benefits that religious practice provides to the people who are so emotionally attached to it.
I have no personal acquaintance with Unitarianism, but these links may be interesting to you, and give at least one intelligent person’s take on Unitarianism. The intelligence is liberally mixed with insanity, but these posts made my worldview more coherent.
One of my best friends is an atheist Unitarian Universalist, but the church he attended seemed to be more of a vaguely supernaturalist “unknowable mysteries” sort. Not explicitly theist, but also not the sort of place to properly celebrate the merely real.
For more information on the brain state stuff, you might want to check out Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief by Andrew Newberg, Eugene D’Aquilli, and Vince Rause. It had a pretty big effect on my understanding of religion back when I read it.
For more information on the brain state stuff, you might want to check out Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief by Andrew Newberg, Eugene D’Aquilli, and Vince Rause. It had a pretty big effect on my understanding of religion back when I read it.
Wow, that would be great. I’ve been fumbling towards this understanding entirely on my own, and I’m relieved to hear that other people have gotten there first. Thanks for the rec!
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not going to stop me from being generally and vocally anti-religion.
I’m someone whose brain is not wired for spiritual experience; I’ve never had one nor even wanted to have one. Because of this, for a long time, I didn’t really understand the point of view of religious people. I took a course on the psychology of religious belief, in which we read (among other things) William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience. It’s a seminal work in the field, and while the field has made quite a lot of progress since then (as Desrtopa points out below), it’s still very informative. This helped me realize that others’ brains were doing things that mine wasn’t.
Nevertheless, religious claims are explanations for such experiences, and they’re bad explanations. The popularity of those claims is harmful to rational pursuits. Decrying religion is about the claims and not the experiences, despite how many people seem unwilling to separate the two. For me, the falsity and harmfulness of the claims trumps the genuineness and significance of the experiences, if the latter is dependent on the former (but it doesn’t seem in principle like it should be).
For me, the falsity and harmfulness of the claims trumps the genuineness and significance of the experiences, if the latter is dependent on the former (but it doesn’t seem in principle like it should be).
I agree with the first part of your statement, and as for the second—yes, exactly. I don’t think the experiences are dependent on the claims. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the claims [regarding the existence of a god or gods] originated as a rationalization of the experiences [the particular chemical state that produces, in human brains, a sense of ecstatic spiritual awareness].
And to me it makes the atheist message stronger if we can still have our tight-knit social communities and our occasional ecstactic brain-state, even while we agree that there’s almost certainly no such thing as God.
Some [UU churches] actively welcome atheist members.
I visited the uucpa once. Fifty people or so gathered in a room to sing songs for an hour; someone lit a flame, and rang a bell; and a congressperson gave a sermon on the health care reform bill. Afterwards, we went out for brunch. There is a humanist reading group as well.
I can see how an atheist would be comfortable there. It didn’t personally excite me, though.
But even PZ Myers, who is about a proselytizing New Atheist as you can get, has explicitly said that he doesn’t mind people engaging in religious behavior because it feels good (he has used the term “hobby”). The objection the proselytizing atheists have is that a) people don’t acknowledge that that sort of thing is purely chemical in nature b) religion in its current forms has massive negative side effects c) lots of deeply religious people make things worse for the atheists.
I go to religious services semi-regularly. This is mainly for social reasons, but that occasional vaguely ecstatic feeling is certainly a positive. Nothing in that constuction requires me to believe that that feeling is coming from anything other than material aspects of my own brain.
I’m also curious about your use of the word discriminate. While that word might have some purely denotative forms, it seems like you are using some connotations or other conclusions that discrimination is in general wrong. Can you expand on your definitions of discriminate/discrimination and point to the logical chain that it is always (ETA: in this case) wrong?
The objection the proselytizing atheists have is that a) people don’t acknowledge that that sort of thing is purely chemical in nature b) religion in its current forms has massive negative side effects c) lots of deeply religious people make things worse for the atheists.
I voted you up, because I agree with all this. Religionists in their current form do have massive side effects. They certainly don’t acknowledge the chemical basis of their experiences. Atheists are still in the minority, and suffer the effects of being a minority group. YES. AGREED. I’m not really discussing the issue on that level.
I go to religious services semi-regularly. This is mainly for social reasons, but that occasional vaguely ecstatic feeling is certainly a positive. Nothing in that constuction requires me to believe that that feeling is coming from anything other than material aspects of my own brain.
So...you’re agreeing with me? I’m not sure if you’re meaning to add anything, or depart in any way, from what I said above—if you did, please clarify, because I missed it.
I’m willing to break off into a discussion of the word “discriminate,” but not willing to defend it strongly, as I think my initial post already specified all the hesitancy I had around it. Can you suggest a better word?
So...you’re agreeing with me? I’m not sure if you’re meaning to add anything, or depart in any way, from what I said above—if you did, please clarify, because I missed it
Essentially agreeing with you. I thought it might be helpful to give a slightly different example, from someone who didn’t just have that sort of experience once, but still continues to have it.
I’m willing to break off into a discussion of the word “discriminate,” but not willing to defend it strongly, as I think my initial post already specified all the hesitancy I had around it. Can you suggest a better word?
I’m not sure. I guess, part of the issue is that this is the parts where I’m more inclined to disagree with you. The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we’re talking to an outside entity when we aren’t isn’t something that should be protected. If it turned out that some people had a brain form that forced them to engage in some cognitive errors, I’d feel sorry for them, but getting the rest of the population to understand that those are cognitive errors would still be a good thing. If PZ or Dawkins had an opportunity to press a button and remove all religion in the world, they would probably do it, and if I had to tell them what to do, I’d probably advocate for pressing the button, even though that means I’m no longer going to be able to get my semi-regular hit of religion.
The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we’re talking to an outside entity when we aren’t isn’t something that should be protected.
Mm, okay, I think I see your point. No, it shouldn’t be protected at the expense of true understanding.
But my point is that I think the feeling of spiritual unity (which is an intensely desirable feeling) can be preserved, even while a frame of realistic cognitive understanding is added. I mean, it sounds like that’s what you’re already doing—exploiting the “hit” of religion while recognizing that it comes entirely from “material aspects of [your] own brain.” Right?
I have a twofold response here.
Atheists who are interested in gathering the social benefits of church attendance without checking their brains at the door might want to look at the Unitarian Universalist church, which has no dogma. I mean it. They have no dogma. In theory this means there’s absolutely no inherent contradiction in the idea of an atheist Unitarian. You’re a Unitarian if you sign the book saying you’re a Unitarian: what you believe is entirely up to you. In practice, the degree to which an atheist would feel comfortable depends a lot on the local UU congregation. Some are essentially liberal Protestant churches with some handwaving of the thornier bits. Some actively welcome atheist members.
I think the social aspect is critically important to an understanding of why people continue to seek out religion after the Enlightenment, but I don’t think it tells the whole story. I think there’s good evidence that spiritual experience—and here I am not talking about sitting on a pew on Sundays and mouthing hymns, but rather about the real deal, a mystic state of religious transport and ecstacy—boils down to chemicals in the brain. I believe this because there are drugs like ayahuasca that trigger these experiences very reliably. It looks to me that every human culture has its own way of reaching this brain-state: it very often centers on music and dance, but meditation, self-hypnosis, yoga-like practices, or an endorphin rush triggered by fasting and self-harm are all common as well.
Some brains reach this state more easily than others. Some brains absolutely crave it. Some are all but immune to it. This is why some people become shamans, or religious nuts, and some don’t. Authentic ecstactic experience is (or was, until people like Alexander Shulgin came around) comparatively rare, but even when people had one such experience in a lifetime it was enough to change the course of civilizations.
I also strongly suspect that the state of “creative flow” reported by artists—the state where the artist feels that s/he is merely “taking dictation” from a higher power—is chemically similar to the state of religious ecstacy. There’s too much crossover between the message that artists and mystics “bring back”—a general sense of oneness, higher purpose, the interconnectedness of all things, etc—for this not to be true. I also, based on my own experience, suspect that the state of flow experienced by programmers is not too far off. That state when you’re holding all the connections in your mind, and you see the way forward, and you’re like a god—yeah. That one. Except about a thousand times more significant.
Where I think the proselytizing atheists tend to go wrong is that they discount the power of that brain-state. I mean, part of it is that it’s by definition charged with meaning. So naturally it’s going to feel like the Most Important Thing Ever. You’re flooded with a sense of immense meaning as part of the experience itself.
And I also think that the experience is desirable. Everyone should get to have it at least once. It clarified a lot of things for me in my early twenties. Religious practice gives people—oh, the lightest shade of what a true ecstactic moment has to offer, but for the kinds of brains that crave that state, religious practice is really important to their ongoing sense of well-being.
I think in a way the proselytizing atheists are being chemically...discriminatory? That’s not exactly right, but they’re failing to recognize that some brains crave an experience their own brains do not. They’re trying to other-optimize without fully understanding all the benefits that religious practice provides to the people who are so emotionally attached to it.
I was partly raised Unitarian Universalist and I can assure you there is a dogma. It just isn’t metaphysical.
Nice people though.
I’m curious: What is the content of the dogma?
It’s basically standard left-leaning anti-subordination politics- think Alas, a Blog and that wing of the blogosphere. Very politically correct.
They have the best Sunday school sex ed course though.
I have no personal acquaintance with Unitarianism, but these links may be interesting to you, and give at least one intelligent person’s take on Unitarianism. The intelligence is liberally mixed with insanity, but these posts made my worldview more coherent.
Short History of Ultracalvinism
Some Objections to Ultracalvinism
One of my best friends is an atheist Unitarian Universalist, but the church he attended seemed to be more of a vaguely supernaturalist “unknowable mysteries” sort. Not explicitly theist, but also not the sort of place to properly celebrate the merely real.
For more information on the brain state stuff, you might want to check out Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief by Andrew Newberg, Eugene D’Aquilli, and Vince Rause. It had a pretty big effect on my understanding of religion back when I read it.
Wow, that would be great. I’ve been fumbling towards this understanding entirely on my own, and I’m relieved to hear that other people have gotten there first. Thanks for the rec!
The word you’re looking for might be neurodiversity.
Yes, that’s much better, thanks.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not going to stop me from being generally and vocally anti-religion.
I’m someone whose brain is not wired for spiritual experience; I’ve never had one nor even wanted to have one. Because of this, for a long time, I didn’t really understand the point of view of religious people. I took a course on the psychology of religious belief, in which we read (among other things) William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience. It’s a seminal work in the field, and while the field has made quite a lot of progress since then (as Desrtopa points out below), it’s still very informative. This helped me realize that others’ brains were doing things that mine wasn’t.
Nevertheless, religious claims are explanations for such experiences, and they’re bad explanations. The popularity of those claims is harmful to rational pursuits. Decrying religion is about the claims and not the experiences, despite how many people seem unwilling to separate the two. For me, the falsity and harmfulness of the claims trumps the genuineness and significance of the experiences, if the latter is dependent on the former (but it doesn’t seem in principle like it should be).
I agree with the first part of your statement, and as for the second—yes, exactly. I don’t think the experiences are dependent on the claims. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the claims [regarding the existence of a god or gods] originated as a rationalization of the experiences [the particular chemical state that produces, in human brains, a sense of ecstatic spiritual awareness].
And to me it makes the atheist message stronger if we can still have our tight-knit social communities and our occasional ecstactic brain-state, even while we agree that there’s almost certainly no such thing as God.
I visited the uucpa once. Fifty people or so gathered in a room to sing songs for an hour; someone lit a flame, and rang a bell; and a congressperson gave a sermon on the health care reform bill. Afterwards, we went out for brunch. There is a humanist reading group as well.
I can see how an atheist would be comfortable there. It didn’t personally excite me, though.
But even PZ Myers, who is about a proselytizing New Atheist as you can get, has explicitly said that he doesn’t mind people engaging in religious behavior because it feels good (he has used the term “hobby”). The objection the proselytizing atheists have is that a) people don’t acknowledge that that sort of thing is purely chemical in nature b) religion in its current forms has massive negative side effects c) lots of deeply religious people make things worse for the atheists.
I go to religious services semi-regularly. This is mainly for social reasons, but that occasional vaguely ecstatic feeling is certainly a positive. Nothing in that constuction requires me to believe that that feeling is coming from anything other than material aspects of my own brain.
I’m also curious about your use of the word discriminate. While that word might have some purely denotative forms, it seems like you are using some connotations or other conclusions that discrimination is in general wrong. Can you expand on your definitions of discriminate/discrimination and point to the logical chain that it is always (ETA: in this case) wrong?
I voted you up, because I agree with all this. Religionists in their current form do have massive side effects. They certainly don’t acknowledge the chemical basis of their experiences. Atheists are still in the minority, and suffer the effects of being a minority group. YES. AGREED. I’m not really discussing the issue on that level.
So...you’re agreeing with me? I’m not sure if you’re meaning to add anything, or depart in any way, from what I said above—if you did, please clarify, because I missed it.
I’m willing to break off into a discussion of the word “discriminate,” but not willing to defend it strongly, as I think my initial post already specified all the hesitancy I had around it. Can you suggest a better word?
Essentially agreeing with you. I thought it might be helpful to give a slightly different example, from someone who didn’t just have that sort of experience once, but still continues to have it.
I’m not sure. I guess, part of the issue is that this is the parts where I’m more inclined to disagree with you. The fact that people (such as myself) have a strange cognitive bug that makes us feel like we’re talking to an outside entity when we aren’t isn’t something that should be protected. If it turned out that some people had a brain form that forced them to engage in some cognitive errors, I’d feel sorry for them, but getting the rest of the population to understand that those are cognitive errors would still be a good thing. If PZ or Dawkins had an opportunity to press a button and remove all religion in the world, they would probably do it, and if I had to tell them what to do, I’d probably advocate for pressing the button, even though that means I’m no longer going to be able to get my semi-regular hit of religion.
Mm, okay, I think I see your point. No, it shouldn’t be protected at the expense of true understanding.
But my point is that I think the feeling of spiritual unity (which is an intensely desirable feeling) can be preserved, even while a frame of realistic cognitive understanding is added. I mean, it sounds like that’s what you’re already doing—exploiting the “hit” of religion while recognizing that it comes entirely from “material aspects of [your] own brain.” Right?