The following speech by Sam Harris is inevitably going to offend some of you. This is not why I’m posting it. You see, while I have some severe disagreements with Sam Harris, his rationalist stance on mysticism and spirituality is unique amongst the major well-known atheists of today, and I believe deserves attention.
Part 1 of 2
(In minute 23 of the above video, Harris begins delving into the subject of mysticism and spirituality)
The man has actually spent years meditating and for a short while was even the Dalai Lama’s bodyguard. Moreover he dedicates an entire chapter in his NY Times best-seller The End of Faith to discussing contemplative traditions in a largely positive light, something he’s received lots of heat from many atheists for.
It is for this reason I’m posting his speech and admittedly prefer him over all the other remaining Four Horsemen of Atheism: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet.
The latter threes’ overtly reductionist materialist scientific approach to certain subjects does not appeal to me. Moreover, I find Hitchens and Dawkins too comfortable throwing the baby with the bath water.
On top of that, in numerous cases I find the faith of anti-faith to be just like the faith of faith itself.
Part 2 of 2
If you don’t have time to watch the videos of the speech, read this long article as it pretty much contains what Sam talked about.
Below is the part where he starts talking about spiritual experience from an interesting and unique rationalist perspective. I don’t agree with everything entirely, but nonetheless, I find the ideas refreshing.
The last problem with atheism I’d like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world’s “spiritual” and “mystical” literature.
Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things. So I think I should take a little time to discuss this. While I always use terms like “spiritual” and “mystical” in scare quotes, and take some pains to denude them of metaphysics, the email I receive from my brothers and sisters in arms suggests that many of you find my interest in these topics problematic.
… for thousands of years, contemplatives have claimed to find extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast stretches of time in total isolation. It seems to me that, as rational people, whether we call ourselves “atheists” or not, we have a choice to make in how we view this whole enterprise. Either the contemplative literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, deliberate fraud, and psychopathology, or people have been having interesting and even normative experiences under the name of “spirituality” and “mysticism” for millennia.
Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation.
Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves
… To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about.
One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.
As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.
Spare some time and read the entire article here.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
“in numerous cases I find the faith of anti-faith to be just like the faith of faith itself.”
So true. Harris indeed sounds way more appealing to me than e.g. Dawkins. (Maybe that’s for me being of an European mind, where Atheism must not show up in arms the way it does in the US).
Damn it. Should be “… Atheism does not have to show up…”.
But Dawkins is European anyways. Guess he doesn’t share your mindset though, since he’s still pretty aggressive.
@Drima just noticed that he’s British. I don’t know how the atmosphere is over there on the island, and I also haven’t read his works, but from all I know I can but say that to me he seems quite American in his position.
I simply Don’t care if god exist’s or not.Only a sheep need,a shepherd.
Actually, it’s the stupid sheep who think that they don’t need a shepherd.
Only a sheep need,a shepherd.
lol. Dave, we all need guidance. It takes a particularly outrageous form of arrogance for somebody to think they don’t. I’m not speaking just about God, but about life in general. We all need role-models, father figures, people we admire and look up to, etc. Seriously, this isn’t even a ‘meaning of life” mystery, it is simple human nature.
Humans have always had “faith” of one kind or another in the supernatural. Always. Can humanity survive without it? Maybe. But, we don’t know that. We don’t know that a faithless humanity won’t become so deeply cynical and nihilistic that we fail as a species on every level. To argue that humanity (as a whole) doesn’t need faith going into the future is just speculation. If it ever gets to the point where we get to find that out, I hope for all our sakes that we can survive without faith because its not something that is easily fixed, right?
Craig…
You are gonna get me started on my rant…Faith is fine…but we all know that faith tends to get bent and twisted to meet people’s needs and rationalize their behavior.
Once again, and I am definitely a believer in God, I have yet to note a significant difference between the overall behavior of believers and non-believers…and that is a sad sad thing. Just the same old bell-shaped curve.
You are gonna get me started on my rant…Faith is fine…but we all know that faith tends to get bent and twisted to meet people’s needs and rationalize their behavior.
Very true, Howie. And one of the reasons I don’t talk about my own beliefs much, outside of the “virtual” world. But you aren’t talking about faith, you are talking about religion. Two entirely different things! And I humbly submit that people who bend the tenets of their religion, or knowingly misinterpret the intent of a scriptural passage, are lacking in faith. No matter how devout they may seem to be
Once again, and I am definitely a believer in God, I have yet to note a significant difference between the overall behavior of believers and non-believers…and that is a sad sad thing. Just the same old bell-shaped curve.
I have to disagree with you there! I’ve noticed a distinct difference in the basic morality of atheists versus spiritually healthy individuals (regardless of their particular religion) and it isn’t subtle! Note that I’m talking about regular folks here… friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc. I would never trust an atheist to do anything just because it was ethical, even if it wasn’t in his best interests, unless he was worried about giving people a bad impression - in other words, worried about his reputation. There are some people of faith I trust absolutely to do the right thing, even if it costs them dearly to do so. So, I’m not going to agree with you on that one!
Craig…
“I have to disagree with you there! I’ve noticed a distinct difference in the basic morality of atheists versus spiritually healthy individuals ”
Naughty naughty Craig…you shifted the normative population for my bell-shaped curve.
I agree with your statement…but you are talking about a baseline based on a normative group of “spiritually healthy individuals”…My baseline is based on ALL those who profess belief and faith vs. all those that don’t believe.
Hitler was an atheist as was Stalin…so were my dad and Bertrand Russell and Eric Fromm and many other good people. And Osama bin Lauden and the Grand Inquisistor and the molesting priests were/are men of the cloth.
So I am not splitting hairs here…I could talk of “healthy atheists” that I trust way more than religious people I have known…and I can tell you about religious people that have embezzled from my business and on and on and on.
So I reaffirm my point…again…me a man who fully believes in God…I sadly see no difference between the RATES/TYPES of behavior of religious and non-religious people, good and bad behavior. As counter-intuitive as that sounds…this is what I see. About the same amount of good and bad in each camp.
So intution has long told me you are correct, life has taught something much different.
So intution has long told me you are correct, life has taught something much different.
I’m the opposite! I had some bad experiences early in life with religious folks and became agnostic as a result, until I was in my 20s. I would have agreed with you then! But more recently, I’ve met a number of people who’ve genuinely “gotten it” when it comes to faith - I’m talking about Christians mainly because most the people i know are Christians, but I assume its similar with other religions - and it has totally changed my mind. The Bible, or more particularly the New testament, is a recipe for human happiness. Anyone who is using it as a draconian tool (and i admit there are a lot of this type of christian!) to bludgeon people into submission is completely failing to understand what Jesus was trying to teach!
I can relate to what you are saying, Howie. I totally can. But maybe you’ll meet some people who change your mind about matters of faith
Craig….
I think you are still missing my point…which is odd because I have followed many of your posts and you are typically spot on.
I know MANY people of faith who live it and are highly admirable. As I stated, I am a person of faith and religious…though leaning more back towards a Drimaistic mysticism of my youth…though I always leaned that way.
What I am saying is about RATE…you seem to not get that point…can somebody else reading this help this poor man get this point…
I am pr0-faith…I am pro-religion (though I have great distrust of both, just like I have great distrust of atheists…though I can hang pretty well with agnostics, though I am not agnostic) but it saddens me that I do not see a big difference between the groups in terms of human decency.
I will say this…I find the more intensely religious or intensely atheistic folks become…the more their behavior worsens. If I had to trust somebody…it would be a humble religious person that admits to all the gray, fuzzy and complicated and inexplicable aspects of life. But the extremes always lead to some type of militancy and self-righteousness and that usually leads to dogma which always leads to rationalization of bad behavior.
Can I get an “amen” from somebody here? Nizo…are you reading? Are you not one of my great supporters? Neo-facist Zionist that I am?
I get your point, Howie. We just have a difference of opinion
Drima:
This is a bit off topic but i received an email that appeared to have come from you. it detailed how you had started a newsletter. it was sent to my less used address, an address that I seldom use, so I didn’t notice it until just a few days ago. Have you started a newsletter? or was it sent by a hacker? I always feel a need to check such things. If you have I’d certainly be willing to subscribe.
ooops btw pardon my redundancy about the less used address lol
“The latter threes’ overtly reductionist materialist scientific approach to certain subjects does not appeal to me. ”
Too bad. It works when it comes to understanding reality.
“Moreover, I find Hitchens and Dawkins too comfortable throwing the baby with the bath water.”
What baby?
“On top of that, in numerous cases I find the faith of anti-faith to be just like the faith of faith itself.”
Ideology. Familiarize yourself with the word.
As for mystical experiences, what is the argument? I hear LSD causes the same thing and is alot faster than training for years.
“Actually, it’s the stupid sheep who think that they don’t need a shepherd. ”
They got by until we domesticated them.
“Humans have always had “faith” of one kind or another in the supernatural. Always.”
Never heard of the Epicureans have you?
“We don’t know that a faithless humanity won’t become so deeply cynical and nihilistic that we fail as a species on every level. ”
coughcommunismcough
“And I humbly submit that people who bend the tenets of their religion, or knowingly misinterpret the intent of a scriptural passage, are lacking in faith.”
What is they are interpreting them exactly as they were supposed to be interpreted?
“I would never trust an atheist to do anything just because it was ethical, even if it wasn’t in his best interests, ”
“There was no water left in the trucks. Misha filled the cistern and we aimed the water at the top. Then those boys who died went up to the roof - Vashchik Kolya and others, and Volodya Pravik … They went up the ladder … and I never saw them again”
“Hitler was an atheist as was Stalin”
Hitler was not in fact an atheist. Reading the Mein Kamf makes it quite clear that he was a Christian with a different interpretation of the bible.
“I sadly see no difference between the RATES/TYPES of behavior of religious and non-religious people, good and bad behavior. ”
The only real difference is that atheists don’t commit religiously motived acts. Seriously, you have religious people cracking down on the gays… and the same thing happening in Cuba.
Not if you define “religion” as exclusive of fear and admiration for living idols like Stalin.
If you define religion as the belief in a god or gods, then stating that atheists don’t commit religiously motivated acts is stating a tautology.
But if you define religion as including idolatry like Stalinism, you will find that there are lots of atheists of the Stalinist persuasion who have committed many acts motivated by their belief in Stalin.
Actually we define that as ideology because theists can hold that as well as a religion.
Leave a Comment