Select comments from http://richarddawkins.net/article,497,n,n Sam Harris is a great writer, speaker, and critic of religion.
The spiritual or mystical experiences he speaks of, I believe, do occur, but I also believe that he should stop using those words. They have too much baggage attached to them from centuries of religious use.I think a good example of the experiences he speaks of is when you find yourself just staring off into/at nothing, not thinking, not observing, just there. For that brief moment there is a realization that you were not thinking, something that rarely happens. Thats my interpretation at least. If that is the case (or something very simliar to it),
I think Harris should stop using terms like "spiritual" or "mystical", or, at the very least, always and only use them with quotation marks--that way readers know that he doesn't mean to use the words in the sense that is normally thought. Still, since in speeches and interviews he uses the terms quite often, quotation marks just won't cut it. He either needs to drop the terms, replace them, or just find a better way of explaining exactly what he means by his experiences and the terms. I think he could do a little better in explaining scientifically these experiences also, so they don't come across as sounding so religious. Even in essays like this one (in which he explains that he doesn't interpret the experiences religiously), his way of speaking about them flirts a little too closely with religious "mysticism" and "spirituality" in the way most people think about the words. I have no problem with this, although like Stephen, I worry about the use of words which carry a weight of historical religious baggage.
Using such words to describe real-world, non-supernatural experiences carries the same risk as Einstein's use of "god" - it throws the hungry religious believer a bone. I like this essay quite a bit. On the issue of words like spirituality and mysticism, I have mixed feelings. To begin with,
when people say they're spiritual but not religious, it just annoys me - no real rational reason behind it - more so in the way an annoying fad can get under my skin. So that's a personal quibble that's easily ignored. I don't think dropping the words altogether would serve much of a point though.What Harris (I think) and people like myself want to do is have an open and honest inquiry into those experiences without the experiences being attached to a religious dogma or superstitous belief. However, to disregard those words (and make up new ones I assume?) seems to be giving too much to the religiously inclined. Why is it they can have a spiritual experience and I cannot? The word still maintains the gravity regardless of if atheists are using it or not.For me as an atheist to say that I do not have mystical experiences can be misleading and (given their knack for twisting words) further prove to theists and believers in the supernatural that removing spirituality and mysticism from one's experiential vocabulary also removes the depth and profundity that accompany such experiences.If our goal (I know mine is) is to open eyes and minds - certain things must stay simply so that they can be used as an easier way to bridge the gap between supernaturalists and naturalists. I'm not saying we should compromise the integrity of investigation into the truth - but to grind the world down into a purely scientific and practical vocabulary seems a bit much and surely won't encourage the religiously inclined to shake the bonds of religious belief in favor of reality. I hope I said what I was trying to say well enough and I'd like to hear what other people think.
I find it somewhat odd that Harris has added a dimension to humanity that doesn't exist. If one is to take evolution back to it's origin, one would have to conclude that for the most of human history (as we can see in the flora and fauna about us) there was no self-awareness/consciousness.
That said, consciousness must have occurred slowly and over a great deal of time for evolutionary purposes.
I don't know what the purpose was; religionists "believe" that the reason we reason is so we can go to some idyllic place and be happy after our brains electrical/chemical processes end. (We die.)
A better answer for Harris's feelings of euphoria/happiness would be pared down to the idea that happy humans don't commit suicide and/or involve themselves in risky activities thereby breeding and advancing the race.
Anything else smacks of silly spiritualism or fantasy.
13. Comment #16620 by Don'tForgetToBreathe on January 7, 2007 at 4:24 pm
You make some good points. I agree with you (and Harris) that atheists can have "spiritual" experiences and that they have nothing to do with the supernatural. Still,
I feel the problem with using words like these is that religious people tend to interpret them in their own terms and, even among atheists, seem to flirt with having a supernatural meaning.Then again, maybe Harris is starting something of a meme of his own, like the Bright movement. Maybe he's just reclaiming such words for naturalistic use. I'm glad Harris wrote this article, because it clarifies a lot of his positions. I'm noticing more people "taking his side" on this one. I think he explained himself well.
Whether we drop the terms or keep them, we're going to run into problems. Saying atheists aren't spiritual is misleading, but saying they are is also. The problem is that there are two types of spirituality here: rational and irrational. That's the message we need to get out there, and I'm not quite sure how. The problem with many atheists is that we are still struggling with the ongoing effort of trying to throw off a whole lot of superstitious garbage that has been shoved down our throats for many years. As a result we can have a negative knee jerk reaction to anything that even suggests the supernatural. This can force us into becoming very one-dimensional in our world view.However, we really have to be careful about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Imagine what the reactions would have been in 1900 to anyone trying to explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Even when I was studying it in 3rd year University physics in the 1960s it blew my mind and I initially found it very difficult to accept because is smacked of the metaphysical. My gut reaction was similar to that of Einstein who could never entertain the idea of probabilities in the Heisenberg sense. Now everybody accepts the Uncertainly Principle as a standard part of physics. Even more bizarre now are the bases and conclusions of String Theory, parallel universes and so on that are currently becoming so popular.Many people here I should imagine have not yet experienced the phenomena that are being described by Sam and are somewhat bemused and afraid of what is unfamiliar to them. In the same way we can become afraid and suspicious of String Theory because we do not have the background to understand it. Apart from attempting to be rational we should also understand that it is important to be open-minded and unafraid of exploring all sorts of issues including those that challenge our current world view.Although I am regarded as the arch skeptic in my circle, because I will not accept anything at face value, I have nevertheless actually experienced some of the phenomena discussed by Sam above and am enthusiastic about his attempts to understand these experiences in rational terms. In contrast to some of the comments here I find that Sam's approach actually complements Richard Dawkins' approach rather than opposes or diminishes it. To give you an example my brother, who is a actually a professional theologian, finds Sam's philosophy very close to his own and because my brother is also a contemplative like Sam he clicks in with Sam's approach to the degree that he agrees with almost everything that Sam says.
The reality is that there are a small percentage of religious people out there, who have had experiences that most of the rest of us have never had. These experiences are nevertheless real and unless you can address them in the way that Sam has then these people will continue to equate these experiences to something supernatural or religious which they are not.Richard Dawkins' approach appeals very much to my own scientific background and mindset while Sam's approach strikes a chord with my brother who has himself written books on spirituality amongst other subjects. We need both approaches because different people are persuaded by different arguments.
I cannot praise Sam Harris' article above enough because he is addressing a most important issue that Richard's book does not and it is a market segment that is huge and exceedingly important.
Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's collaborator and widow) is another prominent thinker who feels that the word "Spiritual" should not be ceded to supernaturalists. I have quoted a relevant passage from an interview she recently did for the Point of Inquiry podcast on my blog here:
http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/blog/archives/243 With respect to terminology, then along with the word "meditation" to describe the process (which, by the way, Sam used in his article at least six times), I would vote for the word "enlightenment" or "awakening" to describe the experience ("satori" in Japanese, "wu" in Chinese). As for the entire "discipline", it's part of Zen, about which D.T. Suzuki wrote:
"When it is said that Zen has no philosophy, that it denies all doctrinal authority, that is casts aside all so-called "sacred literature" as rubbish, we must not forget that Zen is holding up in this very act of negation something quite positive and eternally affirmative… We teach ourselves; Zen merely points the way."
And with respect to the good points well made by Aussie (Comment #16656), I'd like to add the following quotation from an article entitled "Our faith in science" written by Tenzin Gyatso (the 14th Dalai Lama). The full article is available at many locations on the web (e.g.,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/13/opinion/edgyatso.php)
"For many years now, on my own and through the Mind and Life Institute, which I helped found, I have had the opportunity to meet with scientists to discuss their work. World-class scientists have generously coached me in subatomic physics, cosmology, psychology, biology. Our discussions of neuroscience have proved particularly important. From these exchanges a vigorous research initiative has emerged, a collaboration between monks and neuroscientists, to explore how meditation might alter brain function.
"The goal here is not to prove Buddhism right or wrong but rather to take these methods out of the traditional context, study their potential benefits, and share the findings with anyone who might find them helpful. After all, if practices from my own tradition can be brought together with scientific methods, then we may be able to take another small step toward alleviating human suffering.
"Whatever the results of this work, I am encouraged that it is taking place. You see, many people still consider science and religion to be in opposition. While I agree that certain religious concepts conflict with scientific facts and principles, I also feel that people from both worlds can have an intelligent discussion, one that has the power ultimately to generate a deeper understanding of challenges we face together in our interconnected world…
"By invoking fundamental ethical principles, I am not advocating a fusion of religious ethics and scientific inquiry… Rather, I am speaking of what I call "secular ethics," which embrace the principles we share as human beings: compassion, tolerance, consideration of others, the responsible use of knowledge and power. These principles transcend the barriers between religious believers and nonbelievers; they belong not to one faith, but to all faiths."
Humanity has lost so much--life, happiness, dignity, productivity, progress to the poison that is religious superstitions.
We must not let the religites have a monopoly on spirtuality. I focus on the 'spirit' part of the word. Here are some definitions of spirit:(
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spirit)
The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
A person as characterized by a stated quality: He is a proud spirit.
A particular mood or an emotional state characterized by vigor and animation: sang with spirit.
To impart courage, animation, or determination to; inspirit. The essential nature of a person or group.
A very small number of the definitions under spirit pertained to the supernatural. Supporters of religious superstitions believe that only they have the key to open the door to something special, worthwhile, and awe-inspiring. Instead, in reality, they are not opening that door, not even a crack. Let the secular humanists give out the keys to that door for everybody; don't hamper their inspired and courageous attempts to remove the last scrap of imaginary, tattered fabric off the delusion of a nude religious emperor--that they are the ones that are not spiritual. They are, in effect, spiritually bankrupt. They are like the proverbial rich person who is impoverished and don't have a clue.