Chapter 1 - Finding Purpose in a Godless World - by Ralph Lewis

[Harry Marks]

Please excuse me for not replying specifically enough to both of your responses.

Please don't worry about that. "What is the right question?" discussion is often the part I consider most relevant.

I'm not reading this book, so I probably should keep mum anyway.

Um, comments can be interesting grist for the comment mill. I am a little disappointed that you won't be reading it, because the book is from a psychiatric perspective and I understood you to be in the therapeutic line of work, of some sort. Presumably you would share many of the author's views and priorities. On the other hand, I can't say I have learned a lot about psychology in the first two chapters, and I am a rank amateur. The discussion is pretty much at a layman's level.

I would say three things here. First, as Robert observed, the supernatural is a vague concept. What are we talking about? The supernatural ranges from the mildly woo-woo through the explicitly magical.

It is undoubtedly too vague to pin down philosophically, but in practice it means God overrides the laws of nature for some specific purpose, usually as a "sign."

I recently accosted someone on the Patheos Evangelical forum for saying it was easy to tell that gay sex is sinful because it is in the Bible. I snarked a bit that "those poor disciples had to get by without scripture, and only had the Holy Spirit to guide them." The answer came back promptly: "Tell us about the signs and wonders you performed last week." The Bible represents supernatural authority to this person (and a lot of others, as well) as evidenced by, e.g. making prophetic predictions that subsequently came true. That authority is equivalent to what the disciples supposedly had, as attested by the healings and even resurrections they performed.

This is, in my view (see the ex-Christian.net thread for more) one of the big issues for Progressives to engage with Evangelicals about. The basic issue (expressed within the religious worldview) is that "forced obedience" is not God's wish for us. To have a real change of heart, we have to be thinking through values for ourselves, not following some set of rules. So the nature of God's authority is not in threats against our eternal soul in the afterlife, or for that matter in thunderbolts hurled at heretics. Which leads to the question what is the source of God's authority.

Second, the argument should include the possibility that belief in the supernatural (again, whatever that might mean) is not just unharmful but a positive good, at least for individuals. Robert allows for psychological benefit but appears to think that the dangers of denying rational evidence outweigh such benefits. I would ask whether a supernatural-based belief system might not provide a base of stability that could actually promote solid rationality toward daily reality--with the added feature of superb emotional intelligence.

Yes, I think that's what I am trying to work on, in looking at this book. Presumably there is some secular version that will give the same stability, personal rationality and possible emotional intelligence. In which case I am happy to recommend to others that they gather to foster such a version.

But I wonder if there is any possible system of thought which does these things without some version of a concept of the sacred: that some questions, some milestones in our lives, and some expressions of our deep priorities, have a quality of shedding light on the rest of our lives by virtue of their special significance.

Looking out at the trends I find disturbing, I don't see links to belief in the supernatural,

Well, except that many of these are reactions against 911 and the threat of fundamentalist terrorism. In truth, the divisiveness that characterizes 45's popularity (and that of Fox News) is standard stuff of narcissism (NPD) and one has to at least ask whether this argument for supernatural authority isn't a species of NPD.

This topic has a different look according to whether we're talking about reform within religion or supernatural beliefs affecting the larger society. My focus is on the second of these.

Hmm. Well, since I think that sound religion is about meaning structures and therefore cannot avoid issues of how to regard the larger society, I have trouble separating the two topics you set out here. Maybe you will have more to say about that as things go on.

[DWill]

I became interested in the book when I realized that Lewis is a psychiatrist. Though I don't have Lewis's training or experience, I have some acquaintance with the topics he covers in Part 1 of the book. His contribution to the ongoing discussion of atheism as a viable worldview could be welcome since his experience is more ground-level than that of other writers who have handled the subject. Harry and Robert have already commented, and they don't need to feel obligated to retread this ground. I won't feel ignored.

As I expected, he is tolerant of and compassionate toward his patients for whom religion is important.

I have no interest or business in challenging my patients' religious beliefs if these are not delusional. On the contrary, if a patient finds solace and strength through religion, I support and encourage this, despite being a nonbeliever myself. My goal is primarily to help people feel better, function better, and see their lives as meaningful and mattering. If they are believers or even semi-believers, I often encourage them to attend church, synagogue, mosque, or other houses of worship, with the hope of reconnecting them with community supports and sources of meaning

Anyone in a helping role would feel the same, I think. The doctor or other counselor should realize that she has very limited ability to change things for the person. She needs to leverage other resources for him or her. But note Lewis's qualifier, "if these are not delusional." That is the rub so frequently encountered in mental health. I would go a bit further than Lewis and say, "so long as religiosity is kept in bounds." There does not need to be specific delusions to upset the balance of the person's life. We're dealing here with overvalued ideas more than delusions. It seems that the mentally healthy are more able to dodge the potential upsetting effects of religious devotion. That is, they can say all the right things that mark them as strong believers, but they carry on, blending rather seamlessly with the "secular" world. For those whose minds are vulnerable to illness, it may not be this way. Religion can be a strong siren call, especially for people inclined to periods of mania. It doesn't help that fanaticism is seemingly supported in the Bible.

I knew a man very devoted to the Greek Orthodox Church. By all signs, the support he received there was significant in his recovery from Bipolar II illness. This person was very into the theology. His own priest would monitor him for signs that he was getting too serious about all that stuff. The idea was to leave it behind, in a sense, once the period of worship was over. I knew two other men who lived together. In their case, it was the ranting of Harold Camping that got them spinning into intense anxiety. One of them attended a fundamentalist Lutheran Church where Camping's end-of-the-world forecast was mentioned. I spoke to the pastor, who said that, yes, he had mentioned Camping, but not favorably. That didn't matter to Joe, who attended only to the rumour of apocalypse.

The bulk of the chapter is a solid summary of the rationales and benefits of religious beliefs. There has been talk of a "God gene," but Lewis makes it clear that we're dealing with a complex of cognitive attributes that incline us to believe that there are patterns, agency, and purpose in the universe. In many instances, we can make ourselves understand that we have imposed these qualities on the universe. And when we've understood that, Lewis tells us, we do not need to fear falling prey to nihilism, because purpose is no less real for existing within us rather than out there. Lewis himself was brought to a rationalist, atheistic view during hard times for his wife's health. He doesn't seem out to change how others respond to the world, but to offer a guide to people who have taken the same journey as he has. Though he may not say this, I sense that he also thinks his current view is a sign of the progress of humanity.

[Chris OConnor]

Just FYI I'm extending this book discussion to include the month of November.

As of right now I only see 2 book reviews so far for Finding Purpose in a Godless World on Amazon.com. It would be nice if some of our members could add reviews to Amazon. And if you do feel free to mention BookTalk.org. This could bring in some new faces.