- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I'm one of the 'arrogant atheists' referenced in this article (The moment I saw 'arrogant atheists,' I knew that there would be a lot of responses).
I don't have any problem at all with people getting hugs from this woman. I'm fairly certain that if I were to go and do it, it wouldn't be a transcendent experience because I'm just not wired to have such experiences, and you generally have to believe or want to believe in this sort of thing for it to work.
But these folks obviously do get something out of these hugs, and I certainly don't grudge them. They're just 'following their bliss,' and aren't harming anyone.
But there are these harmless hug-seekers, and then there are extremists of every stripe who are willing to create misery, kill others, and sometimes kill themselves, all in the name of pursuit of spiritual ecstasy or spiritual reward.
If we're talking about people as DNA machines, then I (as an arrogant atheist) will not hesitate to call religious experience a 'bug' in the programming, and these huggers and the suicide bombers are part of the same phenomenon.
Am I suggesting that Amma's followers are on the verge of going berserk? No. And of course it's impossible to make everyone into atheists, even if it were desirable. But I think that atheist and rationalist viewpoints need to be heard as a moderating influence.
People need to know that when they expect their spiritual beliefs to allow them to violate natural laws, it simply won't work. And Amma needs to know that when she drinks the bodily fluids of diseased persons, she's taking a chance.
I'm happy at the current prominence of atheist thinkers, because it counter-balances destructive irrationality. And if Richard Dawkins has the power to stop a middle-aged New York woman from enjoying a hug, then maybe we should start worshipping him
