• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Climbing the Stairway to Heaven

Reflections on Ken Wilber's The Religion of Tomorrow

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Here's a concise but complete summary and critical evaluation of Frank Visser's "Climbing the Stairway to Heaven: Reflections on Ken Wilber's The Religion of Tomorrow" (112 pages) written as a topical review/critique rather than a conventional review.

Summary — What Visser Argues

Visser's review isn't a single narrative summary of The Religion of Tomorrow; it's a detailed, multi-part thematic critique that examines key conceptual moves in Wilber's book. The PDF Climbing the Stairway to Heaven combines all seven parts of that critique.

1) Wilber's Core Integral Model

Visser acknowledges that the stage/state model of development is the backbone of Wilber's book — and that this model can be useful for understanding religion as a human phenomenon. He summarizes Wilber's claims that:

• People develop through recognizable stages (mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral, etc.).

• Meditative states and psychological stages are distinct yet related domains.

• Religious conflict and misunderstanding reflect different developmental positions.

Visser calls this a powerful interpretive framework that can help make sense of cultural conflicts, such as those between fundamentalism and secularism.

2) Involution/Evolution Cosmology

Visser starts his critique here. He explains that Wilber's book rests on the metaphysical dual notion of involution followed by evolution — where involution is a prereality process that supposedly contains all future forms prior to the Big Bang. Visser shows that:

• Wilber's notion of involution is esoteric, vague, metaphysical, and derived from Theosophy and Sri Aurobindo.

• It isn't grounded in contemporary cosmology, physics, or evolutionary biology.

• Wilber's use of involution to explain the origin of matter and consciousness constitutes a metaphysical assumption rather than evidence-based explanation.

Visser argues that this cosmology is the weak point of the entire project: if involution is rejected, Wilber's entire metaphysical superstructure loses its rationale.

3) Misunderstanding of Evolution and Science

Visser repeatedly critiques Wilber's portrayal of evolution and complex life:

• Wilber allegedly implies evolution requires some cosmic guiding force (Eros), whereas contemporary biology explains evolution through natural selection and self-organization.

• He criticizes Wilber for ignoring or misunderstanding evo-devo biology and modern evolutionary theory.

Visser presents biology and evolution scholars (e.g., Dennett) as offering more grounded explanations than Wilber's spirit-driven teleology.

4) Overextension of Interior Concepts

Visser points out that Wilber applies interior, phenomenological insights from meditation or mysticism to domains (cosmology, evolutionary history) where such introspective data have no legitimacy:

• Claims about Supermind seeing the entire cosmos are cited uncritically.

• Mystical experiences of causality are treated by Wilber as knowledge about cosmogenesis.

Visser sees this as a core flaw: Wilber's model sometimes masquerades subjective experience as objective insight.

5) Characterization of Religion and Fundamentalism

Visser also critiques Wilber's claims about mythic-religious stages:

• Wilber sometimes reduces mythic literalism to dangerous, fundamentalist positions, even equating certain stages with horrors such as Nazism.

• Visser considers this oversimplified, polemical, and unhelpful for genuine intercultural understanding.

He contrasts this with the treatment of New Atheists — who Wilber criticizes for reductive reasoning — noting inconsistency in Wilber's treatment of broad categories of thinkers.

6) Lack of Engagement with Real-World Issues

Visser laments that:

• Wilber's book offers ambitious interpretations but lacks contextual engagement with real religious conflicts (e.g., terrorism, geopolitical religion issues).

• The book repeatedly recycles integral terminologies (quadrants, levels, Eros) without connecting them to real social phenomena.

7) Overreliance on Esoteric Claims

Visser criticizes Wilber's uncritical use of controversial figures or ideas to support mystical claims:

• For example, mentioning Eben Alexander and Rupert Sheldrake without skeptical assessment.

• This supports the view — in Visser's reading — that Wilber sometimes elevates quest narratives over critical standards.

8) Political and Social Science Avoidance

Visser notes that Wilber barely analyzes pressing topics — climate change, religious violence, global politics — even though these are central to a “religion of tomorrow.”

Overall Evaluation — Visser's Position

Visser's review is rigorous, disciplined, and highly critical, but not dismissive of the entire project. He:

• Acknowledges the stage/state model as valuable and generative.

• Criticizes the metaphysical and scientific overreach of Wilber's cosmology and teleology.

• Finds the argumentation inconsistent and speculative in key areas (e.g., involution, evolution, mysticism as cosmological explanation).

• Notes a lack of engagement with empirical science, modern evolution, and real-world religious issues.

Central Tension in Visser's Critique

Visser appreciates Wilber's framework when it stays interpretive (i.e., understanding religious psychology). But he objects when Wilber:

• Detaches metaphor from empirical grounding,

• Turns mystic subjective reports into cosmic explanation,

• Misreads dynamical science,

• Ignores contemporary research where it contradicts his metaphysics.

This amounts to a wider critique of Wilber's epistemic claims: that mystical insight or developmental theorizing can stand in for evidence-based understanding of nature and culture.

Assessment — Strength of Visser's Review

What Visser does well:

• Thorough, systematic critique across core structural elements of Wilber's book.

• Shows where Wilber's claims extend beyond his expertise.

• Highlights the gap between mystical interpretation and scientific framework.

Where Visser is controversial:

• Some in the integral community might see his emphasis on scientific critique as missing Wilber's phenomenological aims.

• Critics of Wilber outside the integral community might want even deeper engagement with why Wilber's metaphysics persists despite its speculative nature.

Final Take

Visser's review is the most substantive critical appraisal available online of The Religion of Tomorrow. It is not a neutral summary — it is a detailed, serious critique rooted in cultural, scientific, and philosophical evaluation. If you want to understand the strengths and weaknesses of Wilber's book from a skeptical perspective, Visser's review is the most comprehensive source to date.