Atheism changing in the collective unconscious?

This post is slightly less formal and serious as I intended for this blog when I started it, but as I know of no better place to put it, here it is.

For a while now I've had this theory that something big is up with atheism and the atheist community. As in archetypically - or whatever you want to call it. Stirrings in the collective unconscious which are moving this particular reality tunnel in a certain direction.

That direction, I believe, is the realization that being atheist or part of some sort of atheist community does not guarantee that people agree on certain fundamentals, and that in fact these communities are no more immune to schisms and ideological disagreement than any other.

The first big stirring was the furore over the issue of sexism and sexual harrassment within the atheist/skeptical community which started with the so-called 'Elevatorgate' incident. It was innocuous enough at first; Rebecca Watson/Skepchick posted a video where she described an incident in an elevator that she was uncomfortable with and asked guys not to repeat the behaviour she described. I'm not going to go over the details of what followed, but suffice it to say the reaction of many within the community (most notably Richard Dawkins) were less than sympathetic.

The schism that followed, further driven by a similarly heated debate over calls for sexual harrasment policies at atheist/skeptic conventions, eventually led to the establishment of Atheism+, an organization of atheists who are interested in incorporating social justice into their atheist ideology and activism. So, this is definitely a schism of sorts which has even been made offical via the establishment of a formal organization. What's interesting is the reasons that opponents of the whole Atheism+ movement cite for their opposition. Among those is the idea that atheism is being made more like a formal religion than these people can stomach via efforts such as these. The Atheism+ crowd is called cult-like, they are compared with dictators, etc. A distaste of feminism ideology often plays into this, as the critics feel that feminism is much too religious-ish for their taste. Mostly though, they feel that atheism should just be atheism and that any calls for mixing other ideologies into that are steps in the wrong direction.

So, this is what I've been following pretty closely and so therefore today I was not really that surprised over the chaos that's reigning right now in the /r/atheism subreddit on Reddit over some policy changes that were made over there. More specifically it's rule #1 that's upsetting many of the the regular users. The mods' rationale is that they want to '[cut] down on what are essentially karma whoring and cheap content posts'. Now, I can fully understand that this pretty radical change would make people upset, but again what's most interesting here is the nature of the reaction. Again, the rules are sometimes compared to religious dogma, and users feel that /r/atheism should be a free-for-all and essentially have as few rules as possible. Another common accusation is that /r/atheism will unavoidably become 'softer' as a result of the policies and that all the sting will go out of it. Users feel that the meme images they were directly accessible from the front page, which often mock religion quite harshly, had been successful in converting people to atheism and that conventional debate tactics are much less effective in achieving this. The main point of contention (which is hardly a new one; this policy debate is only bringing it out quite explicitly) therefore seems to be whether /r/atheism should be a platform for mocking religon, where anything goes, or whether it should be more civil. Some users even go as far as to accuse the mods of pandering to religion by attempting to downplay the quite vocal criticism of religion that the /r/atheist crowd has gotten used to seeing in the subreddit.

I am of course simplifying both issues somewhat here in the service of getting a big-picture view of what they represent archetypically, but both of these debates largely boil down to morals. Should atheists explicitly incorporate social justice into their atheism? Should they encourage other atheists to do so? Should atheists mock religion openly and be as disrespectful as possible towards it or should they 'tone it down'? Should they even be openly anti-religious at all? These and other issues are all big questions that really cannot be ignored indefinitely by any atheist, and it's quite reasonable that they are being debated. It's also quite reasonable that there should be schisms over them. What's a bit surprising though is how fast this is happening. I expect to see more of this in the near future and I predict further official schisms.

The thing is that being an atheist is not simply just a matter of rejecting all religious claims and then be done with it. The line between religion and ideology is not as sharp as many atheists seem to believe, and every one of us sooner or later has to take a stance on moral and social issues; that's simply a part of being human. I think the world is therefore ready to move a bit away from New Atheism, which is basically nothing more than some highly vocal reactionism against religion, and into a phase where atheism finds it own voice. As a celebrant of human diversity I look forward to hearing that voice and have every reason to believe that it will be a productive addition to the human dialogue.

Traps for the seeker

The spiritual path is fraught with traps and enticements and challenges to be overcome. Most of them boil down to different ways of bloating the ego through a misguided perception of the importance of one's knowledge, and the traps often overlap. However, there are of course many ways to skin a cat, and here follow some of the more common ones. While there may be some grain of truth to some of them some of the time, all too often there is no or very little truth to them when they are examined closely enough.

I will use masculine pronouns throughout for convenience, and apologise if this offends anyone.

1. The Messianic Trap

The seeker, believing that he has been gifted with some uncommon insight into the true nature of reality, sees it as his holy mission to spread out the good word and liberate others from their blindness and ignorance.

2. The Solipsistic Trap

The seeker will have his own consciousness so inflated that he believes it to be somehow central to the universe. Even though he may acknowledge the existence of other consciousnesses, he nevertheless has a hard time escaping the feeling that his consciousness is higher and therefore in some way more powerful than most others.

3. The Eschatological Trap

The seeker convinces himself that humanity is on the verge of some great change, whether it is an apocalypse, an alien visitation, or simply a radical shift in consciousness. The seeker will inevitably believe himself to be a part of the movement towards this great change.

4. The Conspiracist Trap

The seeker becomes certain that his spiritual insight gives him a priviliged inside view on a global conspiracy that is designed to suppress humanity. He will explain most or even all of the evils in the world in terms of this conspiracy and the elusive cabals that are behind it, and devote much of his mental and emotional energy to exposing these cabals and obsessing over how evil they are.

5. The Paranoiac Trap

The seeker becomes convinced that he is in harm's way; that human or supernatural (or both) agencies seek his downfall because of his knowledge and status. He will devote energy towards defending himself, or even attacking back.

There's a wonderful story in Michael Harner's The Way of the Shaman that illustrates this kind of trapping and its resolution in action. In this case, it's the all too common conspiracy trap followed by a Messianic trap combo. Harner receives an Ayahuasca-induced vision of dragon-like entities who show him how they have always ruled humanity and guided our evolution; a tale quite reminiscent of the rantings of David Icke and his ilk - and much like David Icke, Harner feels compelled to share this revelation with the world. However, he wisely decides to consult an experienced shaman about this vision, and the shaman simply shrugs this off by saying "Oh, they’re always saying that. But they are only the Master of Outer Darkness." In Internet terms, one can easily imagine these dragon entities as playful trolls who entice the seeker with easy answers, and those who fall for them as newbies. Or in more conventional terms, the dragon entities can be seen as a manifestation of the Trickster archetype; they test the seeker and force him to face certain projections in order to learn from his foolishness.

Most of us need to go through many phases of foolishness in order to reach wisdom. As William Blake said: "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." - so the traps are usually a natural part of the process of acquiring wisdom. However, it always helps to keep in mind that the best wisdom is the conventional wisdom of the ancients. If you believe you are somehow reinventing the wheel and exposing new truths, it's very likely that you've stumbled into the Messianic trap. You are indeed a special and unique snowflake, but your wisdom and knowledge is not; it belongs properly to humanity as a whole and should be treated as such. And one good piece of ancient wisdom goes: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The Guardian of the Threshold

All discussions have to start somewhere, and Wikipedia is usually a pretty good starting point for any discussion. This is a good starting point. In short then, the Guardian of the Threshold is an entity that must be confronted at one point or another along the path of spiritual growth, and it represents one's darker sides as well as the darker sides of humanity as a whole. Let us then explore some clues as to how this can be done.

In the most esoteric of the schools of psychology, the Jungian one, the Guardian is represented by the archetype of the Shadow. The parallels are rather plain to see; the Shadow is one's repressed evil, in both its personal and its collective aspects, and by confronting the Shadow and integrating it into one's being one gains a deeper understanding of oneself and a better integrated personality, even going so far as to tap positive Shadow potential that had been buried and disowned along with everything else pertaining to the Shadow.

In the Tarot, The Devil symbolizes the Threshold Guardian. Arthur Edward Waite states this plainly enough in his Pictorial Key to the Tarot:

What it does signify is the Dweller on the Threshold without the Mystical Garden when those are driven forth therefrom who have eaten the forbidden fruit.

Of note here is the Devil's torch, which points downwards, almost as if saying "The fire must go down." And of course, the flames of Hell are traditionally imagined to reside somewhere in the nether regions, while the glory of the Heavens is to be found far above. Continuing with this common metaphor, in order to ascend to Heaven one must first descend into Hell. One reaps as one sows, and without going deep into oneself and sowing seeds of fearless exploration one cannot reap the rewards of spiritual development.

Now, fire symbolizes raw creativity and male power. Its maleness can be seen by its alchemical symbol, △, which is quite similar to the symbol of the male blade, ∧, as popularized by Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code as the opposite of (and compliment to) the female chalice, ∨, which again is quite similar to the alchemical symbol for water, ▽. This suggests that as well as being directed down, or inwards, the fire needs to be tempered by water - an integration of male and female which is emphasized throughout many spiritual traditions, including alchemy and Jungian psychology (wherein one's inner gender opposite is represented by the archetype of the Anima/Animus).

An excellent demonstration of this archetypal pattern can be seen in The Lord of the Rings, with Gandalf's battle with the Balrog, a demonic creature of fire. Gandalf confronts the Balrog with some fire of his own, as can be seen in his using his wand against it - the suit of Wands in the tarot is associated with the element of fire. Also, it's stated that Gandalf uses a benevolent sort of fire to fight an evil sort of fire:

Warm and eager was his spirit (and it was enhanced by the ring Narya), for he was the Enemy of Sauron, opposing the fire that devours and wastes with the fire that kindles, and succours in wanhope and distress; but his joy, and his swift wrath, were veiled in garments grey as ash, so that only those that knew him well glimpsed the flame that was within. Merry he could be, and kindly to the young and simple, and yet quick at times to sharp speech and the rebuking of folly; but he was not proud, and sought neither power nor praise, and thus far and wide he was beloved among all those that were not themselves proud. Mostly he journeyed unwearyingly on foot, leaning on a staff; and so he was called among Men of the North Gandalf, 'the Elf of the Wand'.

Gandalf, then, tempers the powerful and potentially destructive fire that burns within him with modesty; a very watery sort of trait. That water is associated with modesty can be seen in the Tao Te Ching, where the Tao is quite strongly associated with and compared with water, and its chief virtue is said to be modesty:

The supreme good is like water,
which nourishes all things without trying to.
It is content with the low places that people disdain.
Thus it is like the Tao.

Therefore, it is pretty much unavoidable that Gandalf descends with the Balrog down into a body of water; as he says himself (quoting the film version here):

Aragorn: It cannot be. You fell.

Gandalf the White: Through fire and water. From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak, I fought with the Balrog of Morgoth. Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside. Darkness took me. And I strayed out of thought and time. Stars wheeled overhead and everyday was as long as a life-age of the earth. But it was not the end. I felt life in me again. I've been sent back until my task is done.

Fighting fire with fire is not enough - it is only through dousing the clashing fires in water that the battle can be  won. Or to put it plainly; one has to swallow one's pride and direct it inwards and temper it with modesty. The courage of the lion (a most fiery archetype) must be used in examining one's own heart and confronting any blackness that lurks therein fearlessly. Only through doing this can real integration achieved, whether it be the integration of the Shadow or the integration of the Anima/Animus. In fact, these go so much hand in hand that it is often hard to tell what pertains to the Shadow and what pertains to the Anima/Animus. After all, many people tend to vilify the opposite sex and deliberately bury and distance themselves from the traits that do not 'properly' belong to their own sex.