It can't be made clear enough, for some reason.

chances are that you could very well be wrong; the psychedelics demographic is very weird and you do not have to be a tie-dye hippie to be associated with psychedelics. Some very square-looking cambridge dude and nobel laurette was open to his trying and being inspired by lsd. And I have heard of dmt use from the most unlikely people...

Anyway, back to the discussion. I think it is a straw-man argument the one about Richard Dawkins and atheism. It feels that Dawkins has turned from an atheist to a non-spiritual overdried beef jerky? Has Dawkins said that meditation, for instance is bullshit or similar stuff?

The atheism of Dawkins is quite specific and is the one that denies the presence of a ruling, omnipotent being that decides upon the fates of people. It is an admittedly narrow, but useful and very practical for the kind of philosophical battles he gives. To extend what gyomech said, there is no definition of god either, but some people's definition of god is dangerous or can be effectively used malignantly - for the latter I believe that Dawkins is doing a good job and I guess that, depending on the definition, he can be described as spiritual.

I remember being a staunch atheist back in the day and having a difficult trip with mushrooms and praying to god to end it and I would never touch mind altering substances again.

Still don't believe in the common interpretation of "god", but that's one example from my own life.

Agreed. Reminds me of the Arthur C Clark quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


I think one of the most difficult things for anyone, extreme rationalists especially, is to acknowledge that there may be aspects of existence that are beyond our ability to ever know for sure, and to embrace that mystery as part of our existence. The absoluteness of their worldview is, I think, a defense mechanism.

"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
-- J. B. S. Haldane

It is odd, but I think that is one of the easiest things for me to accept.
It is a very important concept in Scientific study, which cannot function without it, which is why falsification is vital to the commonly used scientific methods.

And while I generally disagree with and don't much like Dawkins, I would bet that he accepts this likewise. I would also wager cash money that he has taken psychedelics. I know about a half dozen academic atheists (professors, deans etc)who have an extensive history of psychedelic drug use. Their views are very interesting and I have had lengthy conversations about this topic (not the post but the topic of psychedelic use and psychological and spiritual insights) that I found very stimulating.

I think the truth is honestly somehwere in the middle, if the idea of a "truth" even makes any ultimate sense and is not just a trapping of our limited scope as humans/westerners or w/e it is that we may be.

I dont think scientific rationalism is wrong, but at the same time I dont think is it offers a point of view that can explain all of reality or discredit the belief held by some that there is something like "spirit" whcih flows through everything. The way one person defines spirit might be very different from another ways.

I dont think anyone can really criticise how another might personally connect to that energy either. Using psychedelic plants to meet that end does not really seem any more spiritually bankrupt than any other method. We are not closed systems..we rely on environmental intake to maintain basic life functions, this is just how life in this biosphere operates. For me personally after all the work I have done with entheogens I can look around and feel deep inside that this world and our place in it is sacred whether I have taken an entheogen or not. Taking an entheogen just increases the my awareness of the feedback loop dialogue that seems to always be in place and connects everything with everything else. It is always there though.

For me it is not about not believing anything either. I think we all believe things reguardless of how many times some people claim they believe nothing. We all believe the sun will rise in the morning, that the earth will keep turning for the next million years and that that some day we will die. It is the pointless and intangible beliefs that seem to hold us back..like believing in a god you have no experience with and no tangible reason to believe in, or the belief that there is no god at all even though you have just as little proof to support that claim as the one who claims the catholic god exists. It is just pointless becasue you dont know, so why even bother putting the engery of belief into something like that? It's irrelevant.

"God" is such an ambiguous term to begin with. You can have so many different definitions for the term god and some of them could actually be supported by current scientific understanding, while others are just rediculous ideas that end up enslaving people within prisons of their own dogma.

I think there is some type of creative force in the universe, but I dont think I have to worry about putting a face on it or proving it exists. Creation happens that is my proof and I think we honor that much more when we just relax and enjoy our time together here than when we build all kinds of silly frameworks that we can argue within.

Perfect!

I think an absolute surety of belief is one of the most dangerous things humans are capable of. It's hard to imagine starting wars or crusades over something we think might be true.

Let me first clear away some misinformation: Richard Dawkins is not an anthropologist; his formal training was in zoology, but is now most commonly characterized as an evolutionary biologist.

Now, surely, smoking DMT is not a surefire means to enter "the spirit world" and forever abandon atheistic materialism.

However, one common element from many psychedelic experiences is the collapse of convictions, and that will, in my opinion, be a healing process for someone as dogmatic as Dawkins. (Yes, I allege that Dawkins is dogmatic--anyone that can aggressively and simplistically claim that all religion is a net cost is excessively cocksure.)



Oftentimes, throwing out words like "skepticism" and "critical thinking" and "rationalism" acts as a smoke-and-mirrors disguise to mask dogmatic atheistic materialism. Dawkins seems to fit that bill, and he's memetically contagious to boot.

^
you sound like you're angry at Dawkins?


I think that critical thinking and rationalism are very well-defined processes and I cannot see how they can act as a smoke-and-mirrors disguise to mask dogmatic atheistic materialism.

Would you like to give us some examples from Dawkins writings/videos to support your stance? That might help us understand what you mean.

His presentation of natural selection is often thorough, interesting, and majestic. His book The Ancestor's Tale, for instance, can only increase one's intelligence. I deeply respect any intellect that can produce such an achievement. However, when he delves into theology (e.g., The God Delusion), he mistakes being dismissive for being scholarly.

Furthermore, he should be held accountable for irresponsibly breeding contempt for religious faith. He defines "faith" as nothing more than a few trite creeds that serve to comfort the psychologically weak.



Please define them, then. Historically, rationalism has actually served to bolster non-naturalistic metaphysics, in fact.

Do you see it as impossible for someone to use terms like "rationalism" as merely a rhetorical ploy to disguise dogmatism?



His New Atheist popularity is a patchwork of such hateful evidence. But here's a representative snippet: "To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both."

He has reduced religion to a bogeyman, fueling the worst faults of mankind, without embodying any redeeming traits. It's simple-minded. And, dare I say it, uncritical and irrational.

..Dawkins' rational battle stems i think from highly emotive aspects of his upbringing..

from the God Delusion:
..i agree, but this is specifically a battle with judeo-christian versions of 'god'..as written down by a handful of men..


..this quote by Dawkins i take exception to..
this is not applicable to several indigenous traditions i have studied..e.g. the australian indigenous 'dreamtime'/creator ..i find Dawkins offensive to many other versions of spiritual tradition on the planet..

lastly, Religion is not the same as Spirituality..
.

Richard Dawkins is just dogmatic and arrogant. Not really a big surprise..lots of people are dogmatic in some ways. Might as well just accept it cus there is lot of other people out there who are probly far more dogmatic than Richard Dawkins.

..it's not about whether you've done psychedelics, it's how you dealt with them..
.

What is expected from "religious" arguments is the full-force hatred of Judeo-Christianity, as if it were the core of all evil "religions". I agree that Dawkins probably had some negative experience with the religion - we share some sentiments there. However, what would be unexpected and more interesting (imo) would be a discussion of where the stories that support Christianity - specifically the Old Testament - originated. All details point to more ancient religions, such as Greek and Roman Mythology. Of course the men who wrote the Bible were different than those who wrote the myths of the Greeks and Romans. But if you believe the Old Testament is the origin of a "unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully" I challenge you to read and reflect on the ancient Olympian gods and goddesses.

Not only will you find the same traits in these characters (aka - many of them act all-to-human), but you will also read many of the same stories...only the names have changed.