niftydrifty

Do the “new atheists” (NAs) misunderstand spirituality?

I’ve read here and there through the works of a few of the NAs. The most prominent NAs are Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. I’ve skimmed the work of each of these authors, and am most familiar with Hitchens and Dawkins. I’ve not yet read anything by these authors that refutes what I have to say below.

From what I’ve read (and I could be wrong, but) it seems to me that the NAs misunderstand spirituality. Lachean, being more thoroughly acquainted with the works of these sheisters, has graciously accepted my challenge to explore the question in this private debate. I will attempt to argue that the NAs misunderstand spirituality. I believe that Lachean will argue here that the NAs do indeed understand spirituality, and that it is really niftydrifty whom is confused.

In addition to the main question, Lachean and I may even discuss all manner of things having to do with religion/science, etc. I hope so.

I will be approaching this question from the vantage point of someone whom has had a meager background in Liberal Protestantism but is more like a non-denom Christian Humanist.

I’ll make the OP brief. I could go on for days and attempt to be detailed, but I’ll admit I’m far from being a writer, or of having worked this out to the point of being worthy of publishing it, or something. So, I’ll just spell out what I essentially believe, and let Lachean tear it apart, as he usually does, so that we can get into it.

=====

Obviously, for a pure “rational” atheist whom believes in science, the idea that there is some kind of thing out there called “God,” that no one can't see, hear, touch, or feel, is absurd. To compound the matter, this alleged thing is supposedly omnipotent and eternal. The purely rational atheist takes a look at religion and confidently files it alongside superstitions and fairy tales.

I believe that when atheists do this, they are making a mistake. I don’t believe that religion’s language is the same as the language of the scientist. To do so is to misunderstand religion. The language of religion is the language of poetry, of metaphor and allegory. The language of science is that of literal explanation. Religion and science both get at different aspects of the real world, and they do it in two completely different ways. Religion can’t, and shouldn’t, provide explanations for how the world works. Similarly, science can’t provide explanations for artistic experiences or a process for our growth as people.

Religion, or spirituality, when it is practiced as I believe it should be, and has been by millions of people, isn’t used in place of science or in place of reason. It’s used for something else, namely, self-improvement, and community.

Religion does not equal superstition, and I’ll explain why.

Our brains seem wired for allegory and parables. A “deeper,” non-literal meaning resides in these things. We get “turned on” by myths, metaphor, allusions, and symbols. This is the language of religion.

Often, throughout history, religion has been used to provide scientific answers or explanations. It’s my opinion that when this has been done, to do so was to go against the very purpose of religion. And, I’m not alone in this.

Religion has also been used (or abused) throughout history as a means to deceive, manipulate or utilize other people. This is incredibly unfortunate, and I also believe that it isn’t the essence of religion. Science is not blamed for those whom practice it poorly, and so should religion not be, either, regardless of whether or not it is commonplace.

All of the major religions in existence today, in essence, are trying to get at the same thing. The point is to lose learned behaviors that are counter to our pure nature as human beings. Religious texts describe transcendent things. Anyone that has never had a transcendent experience, or that especially doesn’t prefer to look for it in a religious text, will never get, or ever have a use for, religion.

What do I mean by “transcendent?” When we were young children, we hadn’t yet learned about prejudices and negative behaviors. Some negative behaviors are on a societal level and some are on a personal level. Human beings are intensely tribal creatures. Some tribal behavior is necessary and beneficial, but other behaviors are negative and lead to everything undesirable, including war. Negative, personal, learned behaviors will cause us to lie in order to protect our egos, deceive others in order to get ahead, or to greedily keep things for ourselves when we don’t need everything we have. Transcendence in a spiritual sense, is to move beyond these learned or assumed behaviors.

Unfortunately, religion often gets used to reinforce, not lose, negative tribal behavior. Religion itself can become a false idol, warned about in scripture.

I’m not alone in this belief, either. Here’s an excellent book on the subject.

Richard Dawkins has said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” But Darwin didn’t provide any ammunition against religion or God. Not in my opinion. Darwin only did away with natural theology, and I say good riddance. Natural theology is pointless, counter productive, and IMO, has little to do with personal spiritual growth, letting go of our egos, our learned behaviors and prejudices, or enhancing our sense of community.

Dawkins is an incredibly gifted writer … about science. He’s a poor philosopher if he thinks (in this day and age) that William Paley is cutting edge. I haven’t seen many living theologists that overly preoccupied with digging up and refuting the work of an old fossil like David Hume lately, have you?

So, to get at the heart of the matter, what is God? I believe that God is something that essentially transcends words. But I think it’s basically the thing that holds everything together. The similar feelings we all have as people, regardless of nationality. The thing that makes you shiver when you hear good music. It’s all of these things. It’s something I can’t explain. Only metaphors and allegory can get at it.

I do believe that there is some overlap, because after all, we live in the world, and religion and science are two valid, but very different, ways of looking at the world. I think that God is actually the processes that are in natural selection. The reason that stuff in nature “spirals.” The way that veins, river systems, and lightning all kinda look alike. But don’t mistake what I’ve just said for natural theology. I won’t attempt to offer an explanation for these things using the language of religion. Religion is about allegory. Allegories that are also real. The language of science will offer explanations for those phenomena, which are meaningful and enlightening. It is a mistake to give explanations for these phenomena with the language of religion. At the same time, I think that science can get at our mental processes, but that it would be a mistake to use the language of science to describe “the feeling you get when you look to the west,” “déjà vu,” or the way an innocent question by a child makes you smile.

I have a friend, a generally non-religious person, whom has a habit of saying that whatever tickles his fancy “is god.” “Dude, Stevie Ray is god.” “This beer is god.” I know exactly what he means. It’s a silly example, but he’s saying that something about the stuff he enjoys is transcendent. The really good stuff is void of personal hang-ups, ego, flaws, or what-have-you. It is “god.” It is perfect. It is something that we strive for.

And this is what prayer is about. Prayer is not “wish making.” It’s a state that we place ourselves in, where we make ourselves humble to the thing that is common in all of us, and that was there before we were born and will linger after we are dead.

Here is an example from scripture, which I think illustrates the point of religion pretty well:
Christ’s example can inform our daily lives. The Gospels are rich with symbolism. The stories are “true” in this sense. We all have “crosses” that we must bear. And we have things that we must put behind us, just as Jesus puts Peter’s words, i.e. “Satan,” behind him. In the passage, Peter doesn’t understand why Jesus must do what he needs to do. Peter wants Jesus to do the thing that is comfortable. But in order to grow as a person, to “come after” Jesus, we must “deny” ourselves, our assumed, learned personalities, and not forfeit our souls. We can’t always do the comfortable, easy thing.

What is meant by “raised to life” in the above passage? What is meant by “life?” If we take it literally, the passage can’t instruct us, or be an example for us here today. If the word is understood in a metaphorical sense, then the passage is filled with symbolism and meaning. The words are metaphorical, but they hint at things that are real. They instruct our lives and can be very thought-provoking and a springboard for ruminations or meditation.

It seems obvious to me that people whose favorite pastimes are deriding others and immersing themselves in the literalness of things, would find no use for religion or spirituality. Religion is about neither.

__________________

Lachean

Its a failed hypothesis, but not all incarnations of it are absurd. Most deistic versions are plausible, many propositions regarding personal gods I regard as absurd. But I judge each claim on its own merits.

You may take scripture as allegorical but many do not, many are fundamentalists regarding their scriptures and the "New Atheists" have arguments against their claims.

In having arguments against a fundamentalist interpretation, does not in any way mean that a person is himself interpreting the scripture literally. One must deal with each variation of dogma on a case by case basis.

The "New Atheists" have not misunderstood religion in this case; by your standard the literalist believers have.

The problem here is you're trying to tell the whole body of theology, including the largest religion (Islam) that they don't understand religion and you do.

Religion is a useless term in this debate because it, like the term sport, is ambiguous and can be used to reference a the whole spectrum of personal dogmas and philosophies.

I thought this debate was about misunderstanding spirituality, and not religion? So far, it seems you're making the case that the "New Atheists" are wrong because they're attacking people who misuse religion, when you've ignored the arguments they've made against more moderate and nuanced allegorical interpretations of scripture.

It seems to me you've had little to no experience with the works of Sam Harris, he is regarded by Dawkins and Hitchens as the most spiritual among them.

In fact he is obsessed with his spiritual experiences, wants to understand them at the neurological level, and goes on silent meditation or isolation retreats for months at a time in order to induce them, and a sense of oneness with the universe.

The problem with your argument here is, when religionists have transcendental experiences they tend to explain them with their pre-concieved notions; those being the propositions of the dogma of their arbitrary births.

I have myself had several such experiences, that have humbled me, erased my sense that we are alone and insignificant in this universe and taught me just how precious life can be. I do not need spiritual allegory to express this, or explain it; Logic and reason suffice.

That to me sounds like a moral sense, rather than a spiritual one, and one does not need spirituality in order to overcome our primitive inclinations. There is a morality of reason, that is logical and based on reality.

It seems so far you're arguments for religion are the utility arguments (community, morality, etc...) which in no way are truth arguments, and do not reflect that majority of what religionists believe.

What he meant was his theory, so elegant and all encompassing, gave us an understanding of the cosmos that did not require a creator. You could now be an atheist, and have an explanation for life and the complexity around you.

Actually there are Universities (Liberty University for example), powerful groups like the Discovery Institute, and even movies (Expelled) dedicated to that purpose. They have millions of supporters and like-minded religionists.

It seems you're pretending that these people do not exist. As for Dawkins' alleged estimation of William Paley, I'm going to need a quote on that.

If you're going to define god as anything, "god is love" etc... then thats perfectly fine; as long as you don't expect me to also buy into any creationist or dogmatic propositions about his acts or will.

Useful /= true, pertaining to the human condition does not have anything to do with historical or metaphysical truths.

It seems to me this thread should be called "Most religionists do not understand spirituality." I have not heard any valid criticism of the "New Atheists" here.

Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have arguments against literalist religion AS WELL AS allegorical moderate religion. It seems you've skipped their chapters on those arguments, my worthy opponent.

If we are to address the topic as you explained it to me, I'm going to need you to quote an argument of theirs that either:

• I cannot find an example of a religionist that it pertains to
• Is demonstrably false
• Shows a lack of understanding of religion, rather than being an attack on someone who misuses religion by your standards

If you feel or find that they have not made valid arguments against your particular brand of theology, then I shall provide them for you. In either quoted text or YouTube video; whichever you prefer.

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

Lachean

Sidenote: In the paperback preface of the God Delusion, Dawkns addressed the criticism that: "You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . “you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

His reply was, "If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book."

Here is his reading of the preface and explaining that argument:


Also here is Sam Harris discussion spirituality, and how religious belief effects our world, in order for you to acquaint yourself with them:

niftydrifty

part 1 of 4
In my OP I explained what I think religion is. Does it sound like anything Harris, Hitchens, or Dawkins have written or spoken about? I’ve spent the last couple of weeks re-reading stuff by these authors, and I’m sorry, but I’m still not finding anything that exactly debunks or refutes what I’ve written.

I purposely used the term “spirituality” in the title of the thread. To me, spirituality is religion. It might be true that religion isn’t always spirituality. But spirituality is a religious experience, and, as such, I present my explanation of spirituality as a rebuttal of the work of the New Atheists. I have seen no evidence that the NAs actually understand it, as practiced by “moderate” Christians or other religious people. As I explained earlier, anyone that seeks to empirically test spirituality, or claim that spirituality can be empirically tested, doesn’t understand spirituality.

I’ve noticed that whenever any of these authors makes a statement about religion in general, you can always reply (and I do mean to say that absolutely) by pointing out that it is true, some of the time, but not always. This is evidence of a misunderstanding of religion. Here are some examples:
Religion gets used, or rather, abused, that way, I agree with Hitchens. But, 100% of the time? Not true. False teachings often attempt to control others. And this may even be the predominant pattern. But was Jesus’s actual ministry about control? Hitchens’ book neglects to provide any evidence for that. I would go so far as to say that Hitchens has never considered the true implications of Jesus’ ministry. If he had, he would have included his thoughts on it in his book. Instead he seems to have missed the point, hence, his conclusions. He has only railed against the Natural Theology of his former school teacher and various misguided souls throughout history. Actual religious people have done the very same thing as Hitchens. His book is no more an argument against religion than this one: The Faith Healers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his chapter on the New Testament in God is Not Great, Hitchens basically writes that the “evil” of the New Testament is that it can’t be literally true. Compare what I’ve written in the OP, with this statement:
Does that sound like an argument against “moderate” Christianity? He never makes one. He doesn’t think there can be one, or he never would have written that. Hitchens only briefly mentions “moderate” religion in his book, and spends nearly all of his time dealing with fundamentalism.

… only if we exclude the actual teachings of Jesus. The movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. Gandhi. The lives of Monks and renunciants everywhere for thousands of years. The Dalai Lama. As well as the actions of most people that are religious. Harris doesn’t differentiate (here) between an introspective spirituality and a fundamentalist radical version of “religion.” It’s an important distinction, and one that the NAs often forget to make.

Any one who claims that religion is a source, or the source of human violence does not know very much about human nature. The evidence for this, is that violence is often carried out for reasons other than religion. Human beings are intensely tribal creatures. It’s an innate part of our nature to protect members of the tribe like us, and to want to harm those not like us. Religion gets used to incite others to carry this out. There are various symbols of social authority. Religion is merely one of these. And then, there are always those whom lash out for not being part of a tribe themselves. (example: Seung-Hui Cho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The NAs neglect to say much about localized tribal worldviews, and their role in inspiring violence. Radical Islamism is part of a worldview that is both political and “religious.” It is more accurate to say that it is a bastardization or a hijacking of religion. Even Harris is confused about Islamism. Not all Muslims share the Islamist worldview. Likewise, some “Christians” would like nothing better than to blow Muslims away, “in the name of the Lord.” I call them “Christianists.” They possess a worldview not shared by all Christians. Some may even claim that “atheism” can lead to violence, and cite the example of the movement in Russia that sought to eradicate religion, early in the 20th century, as evidence. This too is mistaken. It wasn’t “atheism,” or “secularism” that did that. It was a localized tribal worldview which caught on at the time. These movements can be religious, or not. This essential concept seems lost on the NAs. Or, was it expressed somewhere, and did I miss it? Not meaning to sound facetious. I ask sincerely.

Do all believers claim to know…”everything?” Hitchens seems to believe that all believers are adherents to natural theology, the same mistake Dawkins makes.

On p. 166 of The God Delusion, Dawkins writes:
But is there a universal definition of religion? Is religion universal? Is it the same, or even similar, everywhere you go? Dawkins wasn’t considering Buddhism, or the similarities between it, and how I explained my take on Christianity, when he wrote this.

Does Dawkins ever define “religion,” differentiating it from a “belief in God?” Does Dawkins ever define religion in a way that isn’t easily refuted or contradicted?

Harris appears to have never heard of St. Augustine, aka Augustine of Hippo:
I believe it is fair of me to focus on the occasions when “religion” is spoken about as if it were a homogenous, monolithic, simple thing. In light of the above anecdotes, aren’t these, then, examples of a misunderstanding of spirituality and/or religion? There are many, many more quotes that only address a fundamentalist literal “Natural Theology” version of religion, and not the way that I and many prominent theologians understand it.

I could go on all day about them, because such misunderstandings thoroughly permeate these poorly written books, and even the talk given by Harris that you linked to.

If they do, I ask you to show these arguments to me. I’ve not found any valid ones. The New Atheists may have “arguments” against those claims, but so have nonfundamentalist religious people, for hundreds of years.

niftydrifty

Part 2 of 4
I’ve had another look thru the early chapters in Hitchens’ book, like you suggested, and found this statement in God is Not Great:I challenge you to explain how Jesus’ ministry is incompatible with the “nebulous humanism” described by me in the OP. If religion has “mutated” into a nebulous humanism, it is only because some have led it astray onto false paths, and that Christ’s religion was meant to be a “nebulous humanism” to begin with, if all else can be demonstrated to be false. Hitchens is right to call it admirable. In my opinion Christianity began as a nebulous humanism. It never should have mutated. And if it ever did, the mistake was exposed, so that the true essence of it may carry on.

I dislike the label “moderate.” It relates beliefs like my own with those whom I believe are mistaken or even blatantly wrong. The beliefs of religious “moderates” aren’t a diluted version of the beliefs of Fundamentalists. It can often be a different set of beliefs, altogether.

A few days after you made your posts, last Saturday, Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on my door. I didn’t turn them away. I spoke to them. When they told me with intense concern about how “they want to teach evolution in schools,” and about how that apparent fact harmed the prospect of so much good, including world peace, I asked them whom the “they” were, and how anything that they had just said, could possibly be true. They had no good answers, and fumbled around as if they had never been asked these questions before. I pointed out how I believed their scripture quotes were taken out of context. They acted confused, and somewhat shocked, especially, to hear that I was a Christian! We spoke for a while, and they left me with some reading materials. They asked if they could come back. I replied that it would likely be pointless for them to do so, as we appeared to have completely different opinions about what religion actually is, and nothing I could ever say would make them change their opinions about it. They agreed, and left.

So, it seems, I am actually in complete agreement with you, Dawkins, and Harris on the subject of fundamentalism and creationism. And even evolution. And yet it doesn’t contradict my faith. How can this be?

Many, perhaps even most, Christians don’t “get” Christianity. I’m not the only person to have noticed. That’s what the book that I linked to in the OP is all about. I suppose you might find it funny to hear about how religious people claim that their own version of spirituality is the only true version. But aren’t we all doing that?

It isn’t “just me” against everyone else. Countless religious people agree with me. And, there are also “moderate” Muslims.

Earlier, and in a different thread, you made a similar statement, and remarked that my ideas about spirituality and religion appear to be only mine. This isn’t true. Here are some more examples of people that are religious, but that are also evolutionists. Some of these people are even my friends.

Statement from a Christian Evolutionist
Quintessence of Dust
Book Announcement
Ken Miller's Evolution Page
POLKINGHORNE.ORG
Darwin's Forgotten Christian Defenders
http://www.berea.edu/specialproject/...th/default.asp
Writings of Allan H. Harvey
Ockham's Razor - 15/11/1998: Evolution, Theology and Creation Science
Faith & Reason Ministries
http://groups.msn.com/ChristiansForEvolution
CIN - Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man - Pope John Paul II Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996
www.meta-library.net
Theistic Evolution - One Christian's Perspective
DMD Publishing Co.
Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies
I disagree. It’s not a useless term in this debate, because we’re debating the New Atheists’ claims. They use the term “religion.” I address their claims about religion. Do they (or do they not) overgeneralize and mischaracterize many people in the religious community? Are there religious beliefs for which the New Atheists have not yet formulated valid arguments against? Do the NAs misunderstand spirituality? My answer to all of these questions is “yes.”

From my perspective, spirituality is religion.
Where are those arguments? I have yet to find one that isn’t a swift generalization made, before going on to spend dozen, or rather, hundreds of pages on fundamentalism. When I read these books I find glaring generalizations and misrepresentations. If my understanding of spirituality were the same as that of the NAs, I’d be a nonbeliever, as well.
I haven’t had no experience with Sam Harris, but you’re right that it has been little. I’ve been interested in the “new wave” of atheist literature. So I read all of The God Delusion. And since then, I have progressively read less and less of the other authors, as I’ve worked thru them. So much of what they have to say rehashes the same old points and is of very little use to me. I do like Sam Harris the best, but ran out of much steam before I got to him. Still, even in the talk in the video link that you posted, so much of what Sam has to say, is very distasteful and too overly generalized. His arguments are great, against fundamentalism. And how is anything about what he says about “spirituality” any different that of any other naturalist? I’ve heard it all before.

Naturalism (philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I think that’s excellent. It obviously has much to do with his more developed temperament. I did not know this. But I believe he’s wrong to say that there should be an “end of faith.” I believe Harris is wrong that Christianity can’t legitimately lead anyone to similar experiences. However, if by “end of faith,” he means faith resembling Natural Theology, then I agree. But not all faith. Many might even call the thing Harris wants a sense of oneness with, “God.”

I agree, that they “tend” to. Most do, but not all. Does religion have to be what most people think it is?

I also think this is excellent, Lachean.

Here’s a link that may interest you if you haven’t discovered it already: Spirituality without Faith
My whole argument is that religion can also get at this thing you’ve had, that has humbled you, and me, and even Sam. I believe many get it wrong. I believe that Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al, are correct to criticize much of what is wrong with “religion.” I actually reject many of the same versions of religion that they do, and I’m vocal about it, also (as I shared in relating my visit with the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Much religion has had it coming, and much of the work the NAs are doing is helpful in this regard. But I also believe the mistake is to regard all religion this way, and to not make note of the distinction between a spirituality like I described in my OP, which exists for thousands, if not millions of people, and the religion of crackpots, creationists, religionists, and cultists. They may smell the same, but they really are worlds apart. And, if a distinction is to be made, to try to be accurate about it. I don’t believe that the few times the NAs actually have made the distinction, that they’ve ever gotten it right. Fair enough?
It seems to me that we’re somewhat talking about the same thing. A spiritual sense like I spoke about is an advanced moral sense, that is “logical,” to the point where it rejects our innate learned prejudices. All human beings have cognitive biases and comfort zones, etc. It might be true that one “does not need spirituality” in order to get to such a point, and the end result would be the same. But this is where our similarities end. Part of “faith,” imo, is admitting that we can’t do it alone. We “give up,” and take the “leap of faith,” putting our trust in the belief system that it may lead us to the more transcendent state, iow, “the Kingdom of Heaven.”
I regard “religionist” as a negative term: one that zealously clings to belief as if nothing else matters, or nothing else will ever do. If those kinds of people are the religionists, then I would expect that the things I am saying about spirituality would not resemble anything that any religionists might believe. I don’t really understand how what most of any people believe has to do with anything. Truth isn’t decided by a democratic process. I used the word “truth” just now, because I have been trying to get at what I believe is true about spirituality and religion. Consider what I said about religion / science in the OP. Can metaphor and allegory be subjected to literal truth arguments?

niftydrifty

Part 3 of 4
Natural Theology requires a literal creator. Spirituality, as I have been explaining it, does not.

Why does Dawkins spend so much time lumping ALL of religion together, when he has actually met people, such as Francis Collins and Alastair McGrath, that are religious and that often agree with him about literalist theologies? Is it cognitive bias?

Why is it necessary to speak as if he has never heard these arguments, and to constantly state that most religious people appear to believe in things that can’t be true? In the interest of being accurate, more distinction needs to be made. This is really the crux of my argument when I say that the NAs don’t seem to understand spirituality.

In actual fact, Darwin’s theory hasn’t made it possible to to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Darwin’s theory only refutes Paley, not all religion. Darwin makes it possible to easily disbelieve in Natural Theology.

Anyone that believes that Natural Theology can be true, or is religion, in light of all the evidence we now have, is delusional. I can agree with that. But likewise, anyone that believes that Natural Theology is religion, is also delusional.

I was wondering about theologians (pardon my typo). You haven’t named any.

I don’t pretend they do not exist. Instead, I make a distinction between kinds of religious people. I don’t (irresponsibly) lump all of religion together and then disregard all of it.
from the introduction to Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker:What Dawkins’ doesn’t tell you, perhaps because he doesn’t know, is that Paley’s “Natural Theology” has already been dismissed by theologians living during, and since, Paley’s time.

Here’s an example of a famous critic of Paley: John Henry Newman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Henry Newman wrote these words in the 19th century:
An Anglican priest, about a hundred and fifty years ago, was explaining to us that Natural Theology isn’t really Christianity. Why haven’t Dawkins, or even the IDer’s, noticed? Human beings tend to believe whatever they wish to, eh?

Newman’s work is part of the body of theology. And it isn’t new. What he wrote appears to jibe almost completely with what I wrote in my OP. Will you agree now that I haven’t tried to tell “the whole body of theology, that they don't understand religion and I do?”
I don’t. Those aren’t my beliefs, anyway.
Do we disagree about what is metaphysical? In my quote I said “true” in a sense, and you seem to want to get at what is literally true. I would agree with you about the historical part, but not the metaphysical part. For me, the ultimate nature of reality has to do with the “sense of oneness” even Harris acknowledges. And I believe Christ can lead us to that.
As long atheists take “religionists” at their word, and appear not to notice that theologians and “moderate” religious people have been making the very same criticisms of religionists and creationists now being made by the New Atheists, then it is fair, IMO, to state that the NAs do not understand spirituality.

No, actually I don’t believe I have skipped anything, not worth skipping.

beliefnet: The Problem with Religious Moderates by Sam Harris
(Please note in the article in the above link, that Harris quotes no one. Curious.)

I’ve read the arguments against “moderates,” and they too reveal a misunderstanding of spirituality.

Harris seems to think that “moderates” must be tolerant of every one. I’ve provided several examples of “moderates” critiquing fundamentalism and religious literalism, now. I myself do it all the time. And I’ve also provided examples of “religious moderation” which is not a product of secular knowledge or advancements. Harris seems to think religious moderation is unsupportable by scripture. But only a religious literalist could make such a statement. In my OP I explained the difference between the language of religion and the language of science.

”Living by the letter”… according to Harris, (and Dawkins, and Hitchens), only a spiritual literalist is truly religious. Scientific minds seek literal explanations, and in so doing, misunderstand spirituality. I said as much in the OP.

Nevermind that the “moderates” tend to be the ones that actually take Christ’s advice, while the fundamentalists actually don’t!