Theism and atheism: I can't see beyond the river, so maybe it doesn't matter right now

As someone who has struggled along the spiritual path most of my life...wait, got distracted by a hottie standing next to me...anyway, as such a person, I find myself not only dipping my toe in spiritual waters, but converting only to be disillusioned. Pretty much every time. I think this is because so many Western religions strive to define *too much*...or at least my own habit of scrupulosity "goes there" into the "too much" world of theology and practice and...dang, the hot guy just left...and morality, and find it difficult to be just as I am within a context of practice which I know would be very good for me.

My point is that theologically I will probably always be mostly agnostic, in terms of the full identity of deity or beyond-deity is concerned. Philosophically - and this is much more complex than it seems, and possibly more vague at the same time - I'm Muslim and Taoist. At that level, I don't see much difference. I run into trouble when I get into that which was generated by culture rather than wisdom. And recognizing wisdom is such an individual, subjective thing. There is oneness, and life is a river. There is not much else I can be certain of. Even the oneness betrays me, or perhaps I betray it, very often. So life is a river. Worthy of (and for centuries already the subject of) much thought and writing.

Theist vs. atheist, well, I never got much into that, because with life being a river, and that being all I know, or believe, or something, God and Spirit and whatever else we want to call it is either necessarily real or not (or something else!).

Okay, enough of my Andrewocity for now. I seek serenity, and thus go to a lecture on the pre-Socratics. I wonder if that will bring serenity or dischord. I'll let y'all know.

Frankenberry on Wood, "Liberal or Literal?"

RE: "Liberal or Literal? James Wood, Terry Eagleton, and the New Atheism" by Nancy Frankenberry.

Not sure what to do with this article. It's certainly insightful.

My problem with much "new atheist" critique is resulting from those who espouse it in forums online, the ones who accuse me of accepting dangerous fairytales in lieu of "reason." I haven't read Dawkins or any of the others, with the exception of a brief excerpt from Harris, which I found very easy to refute and so didn't bother reading more.

The literalism I run into in daily conversation online, then, is a dismissive insistence that it's all mythology (as if mythology itself were foolish) and only serves as escapism or deflection of responsibility.

It ignores deeper experiences of those of us who are religious. As a liberal religious person, I have problem with neither the divinity of Christ and existence of spirits NOR the use of reason and science in the material world. It's easy to reconcile the two, because religion for me is not about explaining away everything. It's about getting deeper, getting energized.

I'm glad that atheism is getting airtime, and that atheists are speaking out, particularly against those who would turn the U.S. into a theocracy. But those who wish to convert us to atheism are missing the point. I am not dangerous, I am not deluding myself. I am living more fully than I would be if I rejected religion and spirituality altogether.