CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT FAITH by Sam Harris. Posted On Faith Internet Blog, January 6, 2007 5:34 PM
NOTE TO THE READER FROM SAM HARRIS (pvii-xii)
My experience lasted just a few moments, but returned many times as I gazed out over the land where Jesus is believed to walked, gathered his apostles, and worked many of his miracles. If I were a Christian, I would undoubtedly interpret this experience in Christian terms. I might believe that I had glimpsed the oneness of God, or felt the descent of the Holy Spirit.
I recently spent an afternoon on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee, atop the mount where Jesus is believed to have preached his most famous sermon. It was an infernally hot day, and the sanctuary was crowded with Christian pilgrims from many continents. Some gathered silently in the shade, while others staggered in the noonday sun, taking photographs.
As I sat and gazed upon the surrounding hills gently sloping to an inland sea, a feeling of peace came over me. It soon grew to a blissful stillness that silenced my thoughts. In an instant, the sense of being a separate self—an “I” or a “me”—vanished. Everything was as it had been—the cloudless sky, the pilgrims clutching their bottles of water—but I no longer felt like I was separate from the scene, peering out at the world from behind my eyes. Only the world remained. The experience lasted just a few moments, but returned many times as I gazed out over the land where Jesus is believed to walked, gathered his apostles, and worked many of his miracles.
If I were a Christian, I would undoubtedly interpret this experience in Christian terms. I might believe that I had glimpsed the oneness of God, or felt the descent of the Holy Spirit. But I am not a Christian. If I were a Hindu, I might talk about “Brahman,” the eternal Self, of which all individual minds are thought to be a mere modification. But I am not a Hindu. If I were a Buddhist, I might talk about the "dharmakaya of emptiness" in which all apparent things manifest. But I am not a Buddhist.
As someone who is simply making his best effort to be a rational human being, I am very slow to draw metaphysical conclusions from experiences of this sort. The truth is, I experience what I would call the “selfessness of consciousness” rather often, wherever I happen to meditate—be it in a Buddhist monastery, a Hindu Temple, or while having my teeth cleaned. Consequently, the fact that I also had this experience at a Christian holy site does not lend an ounce of credibility to the doctrine of Christianity.
There is no question that people have “spiritual” experiences (I use words like “spiritual” and “mystical” in scare quotes, because they come to us trailing a long tail of metaphysical debris). Every culture has produced people who have gone off into caves for months or years and discovered that certain deliberate uses of attention—introspection, meditation, prayer—can radically transform a person’s moment to moment perception of the world. I believe contemplative efforts of this sort have a lot to tell us about the nature of the mind.
There are, in fact, several points of convergence between the modern sciences of the mind—psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, etc.—and some of our contemplative traditions. Both lines of inquiry, for instance, give us good reasons to believe that the conventional sense of self is kind of cognitive illusion. While most of us go through life feeling like we are the thinker of our thoughts and the experiencer of our experience, from the perspective of science we know that this is a false view. There is no discrete self or ego lurking like a minotaur in the labyrinth of the brain. There is no region of cortex or stream of neural processing that occupies a privileged position with respect to our personhood. There is no unchanging “center of narrative gravity” (to use Daniel Dennett’s fine phrase). In subjective terms, however, there seems to be one — to most of us, most of the time. But our contemplative traditions (Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.) also attest, to varying degrees and with greater or lesser precision, that this point of view is vulnerable to inquiry.
Consider, what the brain is doing, as a matter of conscious representation. What are we conscious of? We are conscious of the world; we are conscious of our bodies in the world; and we are—we think—conscious of our selves in our bodies. After all, most of us don’t feel merely identical to our bodies. We feel, most of the time, like we are riding around inside our bodies, as though we are an inner subject that can utilize the body as a kind of object. This last representation is an illusion, and can be dispelled as such. Selflessness is a quality of consciousness that can be subjectively discovered. Indeed, it is in plain view in every present moment, and yet it remains difficult to see. If this seems like a paradox, consider the following analogy:
The optic nerve passes through the retina, so as to create a point in each of our visual fields where we are effectively blind. Most of us had this demonstrated to us in school: one marks a piece of paper, closes an eye, and then moves the paper into a position where the mark disappears. Of course, only a small minority of people in history have been aware of their "blind spots." And even those of us who know about them go for decades without noticing them as a matter of direct perception. And yet they are always there, available to be noticed.
There is an analogous insight into the nature of consciousness — too near to us, in a sense, to be easily seen. For most people it requires considerable training in meditation to catch a glimpse of it. But it is possible to notice that consciousness — that in you which is aware of your experience in this moment — does not feel like a "Self." It does not feel like “I.”
As a critic of religious faith, I am often asked what will replace organized religion. The answer is: many things and nothing.
Nothing need replace its ludicrous and divisive elements. Nothing need replace the idea that Jesus will return to earth wielding magic powers and hurl unbelievers into a lake of fire. Nothing need replace the notion that death in defense of Islam is the highest good. These are baseless, dangerous, and demeaning ideas. But what about ethics and spiritual experience? For many, religion still appears the only vehicle for what is most important in life — love, compassion, morality, and self-transcendence. To change this, we need a way of talking about human well-being that is as unconstrained by religious dogma. [That way is science, which already pervades all aspects of our economic-technical-medical culture! (This elaboration was added by webmaster.)]
As I write, the second in a series of meditation retreats for scientists is just getting underway, sponsored by the Mind and Life Institute. One hundred scientists will spend the next week in silent meditation, to see whether, and to what degree, this technique of sustained introspection can inform their thinking about the human mind. There are also several neuroscience labs now studying the effects of meditation on the brain. Western interest in meditation has opened a dialogue between scientists and contemplatives about how the data of first-person experience can be brought into the charmed circle of third-person experiment. The goal is to understand the possibilities of human well-being a little bit better than we do at present.
I believe that most people are interested in spiritual life, whether they realize it or not. Every one of us has been born to seek happiness in a condition that is fundamentally unreliable. What you get, you lose. We are all (at least tacitly) interested in discovering just how happy a person can be in such a circumstance. On the question of how to be most happy, the contemplative life has some important insights to offer.
Posted by Sam Harris on January 6, 2007 5:34 PM
Comments (50 by Saturday afternoon, January 6, 2007)
[1] It sounds like a noble pursuit Mr Harris --- I'm sure you will keep us apprised of the outcome
no one is happier than I am that scientists are opening dialogue between contemplatives and themselves- its like 2 sides of the human brain communicating for the first time in a new harmony. Peace.
Posted January 6, 2007 8:37 PM Ted Swart
[2] Wow Sam --- You sure touch a chord with that insightful piece of writing.
I had my first mystical experience at the age of 5 or 6 with all the characteristics which I much later learnt were characteristics common to all mystics of all faiths and no faith. The feeling that the world had somehow stood still, a feeling of peace and oneness with the world. The total conviction that I was not apart from the world and, in some deep sense, that all was well with the world. Even the birds singing was somehow frozen in time.
My very first experience of that kind arrived before I had been indoctrinated into any faith so I never, in later life when having such experiences, felt them to be linked with the God of the monotheistic religions.
Thank you for sharing your experience with all of us in such a moving manner.
Posted January 6, 2007 8:45 PM Ryan Parsons
[3] Your writings and speeches continue to inspire and be a candle in the dark, dogmatic world we currently inhabit. If things change for the better, you will be near the top on the list of people to be thanked. Keep up the good work, and I'll continue to advertise your materials on my myspace site.
Posted January 6, 2007 8:57 PM Ryan Parsons --- http://www.myspace.com/ryanjesseparsons
[4] Mark --- What is the use? Is this a fight worth making? It seems faith and religion are so ingrained in peoples lives that to change that paradigm is almost inconcievable. I do think your arguments are sound and logical, but fear one must be patient with incremental change.
Posted January 6, 2007 9:12 PM Bruce Burleson
[4] Sam --- I would like to share my "mystical" experience. When I was 30, I was sitting in my back yard, thinking about my lovely mother-in-law and the dogma that she regurgitates on each of her visits. A thought ran through my mind that not only was the Jesus phenomena fictional, but the whole system of religion was a delusion. I had a moment of pure peace, exhilarating, and self assurance. I felt closer to the natural world and was pleased to be 100% a part of it. If the moment a person becomes an atheist can have a euphoric affect, how valid is a religious experience? Since my cherished first moments of atheism, I have become a much more satisfied person. Atheism is never in conflict with my rational. When I have problems that need to be solved, I feel "spiritual" in knowing that I can get up and do something about it and not have to think really hard to a deity for what I need. I have confidence that I can take care of it myself or with the help of other humans. I feel a true sense of "fellowship" when in the presence of other humanists and feel a "natural energy" and connection. These feelings are similar to the experiences I had as a Christian but oh, so much meaningful!
Thank you for fighting the "good fight" and thank you for taking the "spit and venom" from the believers, who see themselves as the good guys, for the rest of us.
Posted January 6, 2007 9:23 PM Angelia
[5] Stone Age people, afraid of the wild animals imagined gods, stronger than the animals and worshipped them for protection. They also imagined the existence of a soul after death and its salvation in heaven under divine protection. Since then every child on earth had to grow up thinking of salvation of his soul in wonderful heaven, free of any pain or suffering. This thought gave them a very pleasing feeling of being in heaven near god. After thousands of years of this brainwashing, people even in the computer age feels that ecstacy. It is mesmerism.
Posted on January 6, 2007 21:23 --- Dr. Anil K. Sarkar. MD
[6] Like Sam, I am an atheist who practices "Buddhist" meditation. (Incidentally, I'm also considering doing a PhD in neuroscience.) It's interesting how many people see this as a contradiction. Religious people of course are outraged--how dare you attack our religion as an atheist, and then say another religion is better? What surprises me is how many atheists are put off by this, rejecting meditation in what seems to be a knee-jerk reaction against anything vaguely reminiscent of religion, without excercising critical thinking in being able to see important distinctions.
IMO, the problem is this: to see Buddhism as "a religion" is to misunderstand it. Fundamentally, it is a system of methods for the purpose of effecting specific changes in our psychology. Meditation (like all of our experiences) literally rewires the brain.
I'm excited that science is finally beginning to look into this. Buddhism has made important discoveries about psychology and consciousness that could make valuable contributions to our scientific understanding of the mind. Hopefully, we will be able to divorce "spirituality" of religions encumbrances.
Erradicating the "ego" is a vitally important task for all of us. Egoic thought is a hindrance is many practical ways. For example, the samuri, somewhat ironically, coopted Zen in order to make themselves better warriors. Ego also is the chief impediment to rational thought. We cling to our opinions as if they were limbs, and respond to disagreement as if our "opponent" were about hack them off with an axe. Reason demands that we consider all things with dispassion; if we are in fact in error and someone points that out to us, they have done us a great favor.
Posted January 6, 2007 9:33 PM Village Green
[7] Thank you for putting your views forth in public forums. You do make it easier for some of us to be more open about our own godless lives. I hope that we get to read some post-meditation reflections after the conference.
Posted January 6, 2007 9:34 PM Anonymous
[8] I believe you brought up an interesting insight on this question as I am sure that it's up to us, nonbelievers, to provide some answers to all those questions that make the religious appeal so powerful to so many people around the world.
Posted January 6, 2007 9:35 PM Eric James
[9] Sam --- I am 26 and grew up in a Catholic household. After High School, I learned more about the history of Catholicism and organized religion in general and grew away from my religious roots. I will go to church with Mom on Holidays to make her happy, though.
My experience happend a few years ago on a trip through Europe. We stopped in Rome and I went to St Peter's Cathederal in Vatican City. The size, grandure and beauty of the building was overwhelming to the point that I almost started to cry. I'm thinking it was because I was in the presence of something much larger than I. Not God, but the hard work and ingenuity of the laborers and artisans who created such wonderful archetecture. Beauty is beauty, no matter what odd beliefs inspired them. This feeling I had was a God shaped hole that wanted to be filled up. Fortunately we have logic, reason and those willing to fight for what is right.
Thanks Sam, keep up the great work!
Eric Olsen --- Posted January 6, 2007 9:38 PM
[10] Right on, Sam. From here, have you ever gone back into the Bible, inasfar as we can regard it as a record of the life and sayings of Jesus and posited Jesus as an exemplar of the experience you describe, attempting to interpret/communicate it's nature to his fellows within the framework of the religion he grew up in to a people who were for the most part determinedly dualistic.
I use a (coarse) analogy myself --- the analogy of the algebraic graph. The y axis from the past (y0)- our expectations - is one's separate dualistic consciousness. Meditation reduces the y axis to a mere point - the origin - and from that point is available an empathic awareness the rest of creation in the now, as our consciousness becomes free to traverse the x axis.
Posted January 6, 2007 9:38 PM Woodward
[11] Sam --- I'm curious as to whether you've read the book "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom, and if so, what is your opinion of it? To me it seemed very insightful, albeit somewhat depressing. It's self-evident that much of nature is cruel and ruthless, but also true that there is beauty and enjoyment to be had. I think "The Lucifer Principle" brings to light much of the underlying 'evil' in nature that less insightful people fail to recognize.
Posted January 6, 2007 9:59 PM Matt
[12] Sam --- Thanks so much for everything you do. Anyone who knows me knows very well how much you personally have changed my life with your wonderful writing. I hope you never stop, every time I get a new email from you, my day becomes a good one.
I hope someday you'll talk more about how you've discovered ways to be more spiritual. You've shown us all great ways to use logic to shed the cloak of dogmatism from our ways of thinking. I hope eventually you'll show us all ways of achieving spiritual creaminess similarly to how you have.
Thanks again. Much love and peace
Posted January 6, 2007 10:00 PM David R
[13] Thanks, Sam. You speak for many of us who are fed up with the respect given to insane ideas under the guise of religion. Keep on going.
Posted January 6, 2007 10:06 PM Pat
[14] Sam --- I always enjoy reading your lucid compositions. I think you are making a wonderful contribution.
An interesting experience (I've had others) when I was in 7th grade: I was lying on my back, looking up at the constellations of the summer night, when suddenly it seemed that I was instead looking down at the constellations...so strong was this feeling that I grabbed hold of clumps of grass, to keep from "falling". I knew, of course, that up and down were relative, not absolute terms, but never had I experienced such an abrupt re-orientation of one to the other.
Then it seemed that I/my mind expanded to reach and be one with the entire universe or macrocosm; almost instantly I shrank to be on a level with/aware of/"at one with" the tiniest thing, the microcosm. Macrocosm and microcosm seemed to be one, and I was at one with the entire range. It was wondrous and beautiful and euphoric --- briefly. I don't know how long I lay there feeling in tune with the macrocosm and microcosm, totally unlimited by the bounds of selfhood...it may have been 10 minutes or only a few seconds. Then I became frightened (why? of what?) and retreated quickly back to the familiar, the middle ground. Then I chuckled at my fear and knew I'd treasure this little moment. Strangely enough, I didn't relate this to religion.
The spiritual atheist is not a contradiction. We do know this. We can be godless,and we can be spiritual without gods. Thanks Sam.
Posted January 6, 2007 10:21 PM Tom
[15] This is all well and good, I suppose. I've never felt what Sam is talking about, and frankly, I'm glad. What people like Harris and Dawkins should be focuing on the real harm religion does. Just turn on the TV for pete's sake, people are killing themselves over who should be considered the proper descendent of "the prophet." One goes for his brother-in-law (the Shiites) and the other for a friend of "the prophet" (the Sunnis.) Religion is rarely more than an excuse for killing others--yes, even Buddhists do it.
People should be made to understand that RELIGION IS THE BANE OF MANKIND. Save for some decent painting and music, I can see no purpose to keep it around.
Posted on January 6, 2007 22:30 James Conrad
[16] In my experience the main reason that anybody I've run across for believing what they believe amounts to nothing more than, "If it was good enough for my mom and dad, it's good enough for me." that's the kind of closemindedness that is seldom mentioned but often the hardest to overcome.
Posted on January 6, 2007 22:33 Jason Anger
[17] Sam, I am 78 years old and welcome you the new prophet upon the scene. It has been my experience in reading the Holy Bible that much of it is mythology borrowed over the centuries from various cultures and reflects the knowledge and belief systems of those times. And although some claim to be the word of God it is more likely what rulers and religious leaders of the time promoted usually to control others.
A case of populations and procreation for example in a time when mortality rates were high and a steady addition of members to the tribe was required for protection both the King and the Priest promoted the idea of "be fruitful and multiply" Today it seems more appropriate to aim to "preserve and conserve and adjust" to the limited resources of the earth.
Even as a young boy in Sunday School I wondered why God would speak so distantly and directly to men thousands of years ago but has not done so recently. I think it was then and pretty much the same as it is today, some like Pat and Jerry make similar claims but many of us are not so easily fooled. Their humanity is apparent. We must get with our own humanity and learn more about ourselves and how to love one another better and more fully. We must continue to seek the truth that sets us free. We must avoid dead end dogma and seek enlightenment.
We may seek to better comprehend the universe and that which is as of now unknown. We are making incremental progress and it fills us with even greater wonderment. Never the less food, clothing, shelter and the pursuit of happiness remains the basis of existences. Sam, when I first heard you speak, I was filled with both awe and joy . I have read your books and my grand children have also.
Posted January 6, 2007 10:49 PM Posted on January 6, 2007 22:44
James Kenley M.D.
[18] Many thanks to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for their courage and steadfastness. Many thanks to all the others who have posted on their sites in support of them and the coming-out party now in effect on the net. Humans invented 'god(s)' to explain things and comfort them in their fear of each other and the world around them. Each successive generation has been indoctrinated from infancy, perpetuating the myths. Isn't it time we stopped pretending there is a scientific/biological need for 'god'? Isn't it time to move on with ethical behavior and a moral code based not on pious self-righteousness and the adulation of some all-powerful Supreme Being, but on what will benefit the majority of humanity in this life? Keep the discussion going!
Posted on January 6, 2007 22:56 Anne Greene
[19] Dear Sam --- Upon reading this essay, I immediately was freed from the anger I felt after looking at the puzzling diatribe from Alternet. What's up with that? I still marvel that people can feel and react so erratically when faced with ideas which seem to threaten them.
My early background, Roman Catholic, was intense. It took study and openness to help me realize inappropriate to my life were its beliefs and pronouncements. The freedom I have felt in recent years is true and uncluttered by dependency upon myths.
Your books and writings have helped me greatly. Aside from my intellectual agreement with what you say, I have noticed a calmness and serenity in your inquiries into meditation and human spirituality. The freedom of this path is rewarding. Thank you.
Posted on January 6, 2007 22:59 MARGARET NOLAN
[20] As an atheist I don't have "spiritual experiences" myself. I think that true atheism can only categorize such "experiences" as self delusion. My belief is that it is difficult to hypnotize people who don't want to be hypnotized and I don't want to be self hypnotized. I can experience the aesthetic beauty of the great outdoors and I can aesthetically enjoy nature, art, music and humor...but I do not call the enjoyment I may get "spiritual" simply because I do not believe in spirits.
Sam I agree with all of your writings until I reach parts that claim "spiritual experience" and I believe that this alone may mark you as a hypocrite in the eyes of your religious opponents. What I do believe in is Humanism and I think that you do too. I believe that humans can understand concepts together and this can bring about resonant emotions such ass friendship, love and mutual respect, but this has nothing to do with spiritualism or ESP. It has to do with filling in the blanks with those who we call our friends, lovers or associates.
This is because Man is a social animal and can establish human relationships. Man can also rebel against the sometimes prevalent inhumanity that exists between Men, which leads to wars and terrorism. Religions have done a poor job of preventing torture and mass murder in the past as you have explained in your writings. They are hypocritical when they only respect the rights of their own flocks.
Keep up the good work Sam but don't be too spiritual because a atheist spiritualist is indeed an oxymoron.
Posted January 6, 2007 11:14 PM Ron
[21] I think the most at peace with myself that I've ever been was 20 years ago, when I would sit in the shade of a cannabis tree in the afternoon behind my barn after work, and smoke marijuana. Since then, the closest thing to a spiritual experience were the times, when I was serving a minimum ten year federal sentence for growing marijuana, and I would be laying in my bunk listening to Prairie Home Companion, or reading, or someone in the cell would say something that would strike me as so funny that I would laugh so hard, I would lose consciousness of anything else but me laughing.
Posted on January 6, 2007 23:21 William OConnor
[22] One has "faith" that one exists and that one can be conscious of one's own existence. That "faith" is unproven although one acts upon it every day. One also has "faith" that all others have similar "faith" (or confidence) in their individual existences. Faith then is a necessary adjunct to living. Faith of some sort constitutes a human biological imperative.
Posted January 6, 2007 11:27 PM Mark Nathanson
[23] I was in my late 20's in hospital having a tonsillectomy. After waking up from the anesthesia and overcoming the nausia, I felt a profound change that challenged my thinking and values. My surroundings seemed white w/ clarity and my hearing was exceptionally sensitive. As friends came to see me, I became weepy and felt compelled to offer something to them. I told them I loved them. Grudges evaporated off of my shoulders, I felt innocent,pure. The message I was getting was to share more of myself, stop being so self-absorbed, give more. Well, I didn't hear voices, Jesus didn't appear and I had no delusions of God. I have often thought of this wonderful experience as a pure event. Thanks for your views Sam.
Posted January 6, 2007 11:28 PM Adrian Boulton
[24] The closest I had to a mystical experience was when I finally "got it". The "it" in question concerned the intellectual elimination of all that surrounds the meaning of life, what for some people gives life its meaning and to realize that there is no purpose and that once life got started and Darwinian natural selection took hold, the emergence of complexity was as inevitable as it is that salt dissolves in hot water.
Of course, this was by no means really inevitable and just as obvious is the fact that I would not be here to comment on the phenomenon had it not occurred, and though I haven't read all of the comments posted, maybe this mystical experience is unique in that instead of it being fed by experiences extra to the everyday (a sudden appreciation of the glory of nature, gazing down a telescope at the Eagle Nebula, a religious experience etc), it was fed by the realization that the complexities behind the reasons for life with which many of are are indoctrinated throughout our lives are simply not there and that the complexities that are, are as a result of the simple, blind, purposeless, repeated process of natural selection.
Instead of looking at what lead to life, I like to look at what life can lead to and value it all the more for how transient it is.
[25] Sam --- With every step you take and with each breath that your inhale, please continue to exhale the truth you speak. Regardless of others who will misinterpret your writings they are only validating each and every word you write. Reading the article that tried to discet you only drove home your theme in my mind.
I will always hail a flag in your honor because you are the first man with enough smarts and gonads to stand tall like an obelisk to the myths, allegations, prepetrated propaganda and vile manipulation from Christians and Muslims.Now left holding their countless inhumane atrocities they must grovel because FINALLY they are accountable. This is a great healing. Thank you.
Posted January 6, 2007 11:32 PM Gnobo Calypso
[26] Sam --- As usual, you are amazingly articulate, eloquent and beautifully artistic even in your most rationalistic exposes. Well done: likening you to Richard Dawkins means that you have have been already inducted into the "Reason Hall of Fame"; and rihtly so, Sire.
Please continue in your quest for sanity; it may help save America and perhaps the whole world from insanity of religions.
Posted January 6, 2007 11:48 PM Lu (European in the Bible Belt)
[27] What a disaster! The man of reason and science betrays both when it is convenient. In reading your post, I logged on to the Mind and Life Institute website and read about the discovery of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. Isn’t it as absurd as Jesus being born to the Virgin Mary or Mohammad visiting the heavens with a winged horse?
Posted January 6, 2007 11:50 PM Ali
[28] We need a new "good book" to demonstrate to theists that religion and morality are separate entities. Possible titles could include, "Secular Morality in a Post 9/11 World" or "21st Century Morality: Eclipsing Dogma in Search of Universal Moral Truths."
I bet it would be a best seller!
Posted January 6, 2007 11:50 PM Tony
[29] Dawkins, Dennett, & Harris are all my super heros but Sam holds a special place for his talent at exposing those who respond to the mesg.s of apologist for some sort of religious belief with their but, but, but,(s). Mr Harris's thoughts on meditation, etc. do concern me. If I were hit in the head with a rock, I would see stars. If I took herion, I would feel 'no telling'. These experiences only manifest the fragilness of our brain --- not a spiritual awakening!
Keep your mind clear & awake Sam. We badly need you.
Posted on January 6, 2007 23:50 AM John Elliott
[30] Yes, I totally agree with Harris. I am a meditator as well and I have had experiences such as this and I do not believe in any religious dogma. I truly agree with Mr. Harris that if there is a future for humanity on our current trajectory, such (hopefully) dogma-less contemplative practices will be the spirituality of the future.
Let us hope so anyways. It is sad that other atheists assume that any contemplative experiences not refinable to "rationality" are useless. This is another form of dogma.
Posted January 7, 2007 12:21 AM Aaron
[31] I am so gratified to see from the comments how many other people have recognized Sam's truly revolutionary contribution to society. The End of Faith was a life-changing book for me, and I have been following Sam's writings ever since. Nice to see I am not the only one.
Where do we go from here? I'm ready to sign up for something. What, though? A new political party? An athiest pride parade? We need someone who is as good at organizing and leading as Sam is at writing and speaking. Any volunteers?
Posted January 7, 2007 12:26 AM Bryan
[32] Hi, Sam --- I appreciate your prespective, aside from your confusing the relationship between Jesus and what has become "Christianity." We are all sailors adrift in and on the sea of ignorance and arrogance. I don't believe in our zeal for the truth, that we need to kill the messenger again. The proceeding comments were very interesting. Some of the athestist are quite zealous in their remarks, kind of like fundamentalist athiests. I'm sorry, I really don't like labels. They tend to seperate us from one other.
Posted January 7, 2007 12:38 AM Laura
[33] Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
Posted January 7, 2007 12:56 AM Tom
[34] Hawkeshead, Cumbria, England, 9:00 AM, mid June, 1993. For a week an eclectic group of sixteen folks had spent mornings listening to poetry read by David Whyte, followed by afternoons hiking the fells and lanes of the Lakes District -- a place that evokes my soul. On this particular morning, while waiting for the group to gather, I sat alone in the bay window of the shabby, cozy living room of a funky B & B created out of a 17th century farm house. Raining. Outside the window, across a tiny courtyard, a single yellow rose shone against a stone wall.
I closed my eyes. After a few seconds, I became aware of something moving toward me--not a cloud, exactly, because it had no shape or color. Not a presence, either. Something. It approched me, then enveloped me. It felt golden and light. I sat quietly for a while. Then I smiled. "Remember this," I said to myself. "This is what contentment feels like." Whatever it was stayed with me for a couple of minutes, then slowly drifted away. I didn't try to force it to stay, and was not disturbed when it left. There was no blinding light of revelation. No trumpets. No overwhelming urge to dedicate my life to the service of a god (or goddess.) Simply, for one brief, shining moment, the feeling of pure peace.
Posted January 7, 2007 1:56 AM MartinG
[35] Wow, just reading that was meditation in itself. You are making a difference for the better.
Posted January 7, 2007 2:24 AM m
[36] Hum, replace Sam Harris' name with Jesus or Jerry Garcia in a lot of the these posts and it's kind of freaky. As an atheist I agree with and support reasonable people and ideas, but I don't worship them.
Anyway, I agree with Harris on religion, it is a really bad head trip, but I wholly disagree that meditation is anything less then just another way to head trip. Can meditation rewire your brain, change your personality etc. sure why not, but so can your environment, drugs, trauma, or any religion. So we can screw with our brains if we try hard enough, big deal, to what end. So that life is more beautiful, so that the good things are better and the bad thing more tolerable, how wonderful, right up till the point you die and you and the thought of every rainbow you every saw disappears in to oblivion with you. We came from nothing and we return to nothing.
Thinking that changing your brain patterns around is somehow going to change that fact seems silly. The beauty of life IS life, and this is our one shot out it in an unsympathetic universe. Everything we do should be about building towards our own immortality as a species, fighting and kicking all the way, not laying on our backs watching clouds go by blissfully waiting for our end. There are no gods to give us immortality, but we can reach it for ourself if we love life enough to fight for it!
Posted January 7, 2007 3:34 AM GAD
[37] Sam --- I have read your two books and have since bought several copies that I distributed & urged like-minded friends to read. In your two books, you have managed to coalesce and articulate what I believe many irreligious people intuitively feel but dare not speak publicly.
Failing to reconcile classical Western notions of God[s] with a world where unspeakable evils, unbearable pains, & needless suffering are abound (often in the name of such God[s]), I personally concluded that a superior-being could not exist and allow such harms to occur. And that's when my "religious experience" happened.
If there is no God, then our existence is both a natural phenomenon and is to be treasured. I began to view each of us as incredible, rare, one-of-a-kind works of art; to be valued & urged to live as fully as possible to the potential of our being. Your writings remind me of that epiphany as a source of my drive to help others shed backward societal & religious dogmas that impede individual fulfillment & social progress.
I am grateful for your efforts to push the dogma-danger discourse into the mainstream. Keep up the great work!
Posted January 7, 2007 3:56 AM RationalBostonian@gmail.com:
[38] In the West, religions promote the idea of people as property -- think "Lord" Byron, "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know." Your "Lord" is your owner. That's a childish picture of the world, as was argued fifty years ago in John Robinson's book, "Your God Is Too Small."
Worse than that is the idea of "divine authority" in the sense of an author of all our being. If a supernatural being is our author, we're fictional and whatever we do to each other isn't really happening and doesn't matter in the really real world beyond our fake one.
Logically, faith is a matter of definition, and we do have the right to define ourselves our own ways. This is, however, subject to some basic requirements, such as, that our definition is not self-contradictory, that it does not entitle us to harm or destroy self-defining beings, and that the result of our definition is self-correcting and allows for learning and growing forever, in case our definition was wrong to begin with on the first two counts, inelegant or inefficient.
I have no clear idea how to justify, much less enforce, the claims in the preceding paragraph. Keep up the beautiful work, Sam!
Posted January 7, 2007 4:33 AM Jim Perry
[39] Here absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence and no true argument from ignorance in that there is no god.No rational being wants worship and no being deserves any!The charge of atheistic dogmatism and fundamentalism is silly: we want reason and evidence , not the I just say so of faith= gullibility! Sam exposes the silly notions of religion.Non-fundamentalists with their metaphors and theistic evolution bray out obscurantism ,and Sams knows that.They do not have a middle way between fundamentalism and atheism ,for they are at bottom creationists in the wide sense- faith addicts.They cannot stand that Sam and Richard Dawkins show them to be backwards also! Francis Collins and Alister McGrath bray and bray so more that we see their silliness.
While non-fundamentalists bray, we live life without the delusions of religion. Our transient passions --- meanings and purposes --- and human love and this life sustain us while the religious delude themselves with ultimate purpose , divine love and a future state. Do not despair! Look at the Czeck Republic where 51% are atheists.Look at the secular societies of all Europe!In the western world , religion is on the decline and for the better for society. Here in America, we atheists are now 15%. The battle against the suprenatural and the paranormal --- we have to fight them. They are both silly.
See Paul Kurtz's book "The Transcendant Temptation" for a demonstration of this point. Logic is the bane of theists. Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.
Posted January 7, 2007 6:03 AM morgan-lynn lamberth
[40] The comments section on the websites always seem to outdo the savant's essays. Robert Wexelbaum is absolutely correct and inspiring in what he says about this. Can we get some degree of seriousness in our public doings? Could the 100 scientists develop their self-critical capacity, examine their own motivations and egos, and refuse to be space warrior monks for a weekend? Could I talk one of them out of it, please?
Harris is right to defend his torture references,and he has done incredibly valuable work, but the web debate is shifting away from his spiritualism poppycock. One minute I'm giving slow-moving grannies the finger on the road, the next at home I think I'm the Mahatma times two coming back to save the world --- who cares, it's what we do that matters, not the arrogant assumption that the elecrical waverings of our brains determine the nature of the universe.
Posted January 7, 2007 6:39 AM notabilia
Sam Harris is the author of the New York Times best seller book The End of Faith --- Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (2004).
His website is at: www.samharris.org
“On Faith” panelist Sam Harris is the author of the best-selling books Letter to a Christian Nation (2006) and The End of Faith (2005), which won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction and has been translated into many foreign languages.
Return to mindbody essay #3: Focus on Your Creative Mindbody
Return to: Creativity Training Abstracts
Go to brainpower index: Interactive Index of Factual Ideas