Help
Sign In
atheism
May 2009 
~Omni-Peephole: Give Sam Harris Some Slack
~C4Chaos
(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)
Most of you who have been flowing this blog know that I've been picking on Sam Harris. That's because I had the impression that he's trying to collapse the interiority of the religious feeling into the rational without making room for the transrational (or the transcendent). I thought I was already being too hard on the dude, but then I read this criticism by Robert Godwin in his One Cosmos blog:
"Yesterday while driving home from work, I caught a bit of the Michael Medved show. His guest was the famous atheist Sam Harris, who has written the bestseller The End of Faith. He is a perfect example of Wilber's dictum, because this man was so intellectually banal, such a metaphysical yahoo, such an adolescent drone, that it is no surprise that he cannot raise his intellect to religion. But, in the American way, he has turned his infirmity into a virtue, and is no doubt making a small fortune in the process."
Now, I think that's a very unhealthy attitude towards Sam Harris. I'm not sure if Rob Godwin had read all of Harris' books or watched his interviews that's why he lashed out that way. But I don't think Sam Harris deserved to be insulted and dismissed just like that. I do think that Sam Harris is fighting a good fight here. So instead of taking the dude down and insulting him downright, why not build on top of his arguments? I think building on Sam Harris' work, like taking what's partially right and extending his rational arguments into the transational, is a more "integral" way of doing it.
To be honest, I haven't read any of his books, yet. That's why my criticisms of him are mostly open-ended and tongue-in-cheek. But the more I read about his views and watch him on interviews, the more I think that Sam Harris is the most inclusive of the New Atheist Trinity: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris. His reasoning and opinions may be lacking on the transrational or spiritual side, but hey, at least he's open to Buddhism, mysticism, meditation, not to mention that he's an advocate for contemplative science.
I really think that in order to take this conversation that Sam Harris (and Dawkins, and Dennett) had started to the next level, integrally-aware people like B. Allan Wallace and Ken Wilber should have a more constructive dialogue with him, because they're all after the same thing: to put meditation, interiority, and consciousness back into mainstream academia.
Bottomline: I see Sam Harris as an ally to the "integral" cause. Make that a very ballsy ally. So give the dude some slack!
Access: Public
~C,
I've read a good bit of Harris, and as near as I can tell, he has no interest in interiority other than as an expression of neuro-chemical manifestations. He, I think, is in the same reductionist camp as Daniel Dennett.
While I like some things about Harris, I can't see anything integral in his mission. I was disappointed that he seemed to grasp integralism for all of about 15 seconds in his interviews with Stu at Integral Naked. That was a huge missed opportunity to get a major public figuere into the integral fold. Too bad.
Peace,
Bill
Hi, C.
I haven't read or heard of Sam Harris so this is all new to me. Thanks for sharing.
I've met some hard core Atheists in another forum I used to visit (it was mainly philosophy students) and the interesting thing is that no all Atheists use the same pattern of reasoning to argue for Atheism. I'll see what I can dig up.
hi Bill,
“as near as I can tell, he has no interest in interiority other than as an expression of neuro-chemical manifestations.”
well, his background is neuroscience. but at least he's trying to practice meditation. that's why i think he and B. Allan Wallace should sit down and really talk instead of argue about reason and religion.
and besides, Harris is young and seems to be more open.
i think this comment from Bob (on my other blog) sums it up real good :)
“Harris is looking through a particular lens–at a particular level of magnification–when he looks at how we apply reason and rationality to religious beliefs. Just because there is a wider view available doesn't mean it's more appropriate to the question at hand.”
…
“I think that Harris's analyses are dead on and appropriate to the specific points he's making, and while changing the level of magnification to see the bigger, integral picture might be useful when addressing other questions, like how to deal with the problem of religious lunacy, when it comes to establishing the fact of said lunacy, flipping the switch to “integral” can just make things blurry.”
harris delivering his clear, calm and absolutely dead on arguments. thanks for this c4(comingaround)….:O)
just to play devil's advocate: isn't he being a bit of a rational fundamentalist here, i mean how does he presume to know if jesus is or isn't coming back to earth within 20 years? poseidon could one day turn out to be real, and science could be disproved tomorrow, right?
siona, where are you?
lol
LOL.i don't know. that's a good question to ask Sam Harris.
as for Poseidon, depends on whether you're talking about the Greek god or the mythical archetypal figure, and what strands of science you're talking about. even Quan Yin is literally real in the subtle realms when it comes to inner sciences.
yes, where the heck is Siona?
Hm. I can't say I'm that familiar with Harris. I would be a little bemused by anyone who gets their panties in a bunch over ”the mad hordes of religious imbeciles who have balkanized our world, impeded the progress of science, and now place civilization itself in jeopardy;” but I'd chalk this up to differing politics rather than differing religious sensibilities, just because I'd have no problem describing myself as an atheist. (I'm all about the Via Negativa, yo.)
Anyway - to respond first to WH - if you have a peep at the piece I linked to above (or check out ~C4's links), you'll find Harris has no problem with meditation - and even endorses it. He just objects to the religious contexts in which the experiences of meditation tend to be framed. Works for me … but I'd add that it's just as possible to be - as Julian nicely observes - a scientific / rational fundamentalist as it is a religious one. It's not religion that's the problem. Rather, it's a certain dogmatic way of thinking, one, unfortunately or otherwise, that isn't persuaded much by rationality.
But yeah. C4? Julian? I find it pretty funny how poorly educated most of these atheists and scientists seem to be it comes to, say, the philosophy of science or the limitations of both inductive and deductive reasoning. Don't any of them know Carl Hempel's paradox of confirmation? Haven't any of them read Kuhn? Or Quine?
Seriously. ;)
(A PS, though. I don't know the details of the arguments of the athestic crowd, so I don't feel remotely qualified to comment much more on this. Still, though, they hardly seem immune to dogmatism … )
~C, you said, ”But the more I read about his views and watch him on interviews, the more I think that Sam Harris is the most inclusive of the New Atheist Trinity: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris.”
Forget the New Atheist Trinity. Keep an eye on Joan Roughgarden, from the Beyond Belief series! She seems to be taking the most perspectives into consideration in her arguments. At the beginning of the series, others were opposing her, and by the end, they were all agreeing. Now, that's a true mark of an Integral thinker. And no one's talking about her here, so I thought I'd throw that in. She's, by far, my favorite speaker at that conference (if you couldn't tell already). If you can look past all the “um”s and the unintuitive rhythm of her speaking style, I think you might agree.
~M (for “~my two cents”)
hey ~Matthew, you mean this video? Beyond Belief Session #3. nice. Joan Roughgarden also digs metaphors :) excellent video. i agree :)
Yep, seen 'em all ;)
Siona,
Yep, Harris is down with meditation, but not as a means of reaching higher altitudes, to throw in some Wilberese. Harris innately distrusts any discussion of altitude. He sees meditation as a means to understanding the neuro-chemical reactions that occur in human synapses, not for what is might reveal of shadow material, worldviews, subpersonalities (Big Mind), or anything else that cannot be measured with brain imaging devices. Pretty reductionist if you ask me. It's that rational fundamentalism you and Julian mention.
Peace,
Bill
Yikes. I just finished listening to Harris's video. Bone to pick, much? He's got scientific fundamentalist down to an art form. The irony is breathtaking.
(For the record, Zen has a pretty bloody history, too, and a recent one, at that. Reason – and atheism – is no guarantee against fanaticism; the kamikaze pilots of World War II that Harris only just touched on were fighting for “a way of life” for their families in Japan, not because they believed they'd be rewarded in an afterlife.)
I still hold that it's not what you believe, but how you believe it, and how dogmatically you cleave to this belief. People pushed to desperation will adopt the most convenient immortality project they can, and religion happens to be the most available for most. If religion weren't an option, we'd come up with something else. (Harris obviously has his picked out. ;) Again, science is hardly immune to dogma.)
One last note. What about Communism? The Stalinist regime - insofar as it flowed from Marxism - was founded in part on the explicit banning of any religious doctrine. The intolerance of the atheistic zealot is no different, at heart, than the intolerance of the religious fanatic, and can be as susceptible to the perpetuation of atrocity.
The intolerance of the atheistic zealot is no different, at heart, than the intolerance of the religious fanatic, and can be as susceptible to the perpetuation of atrocity.
Siona,
Dang. Brilliant. Fabulous.
I've met some very intolerable Atheists. They can be super mean. No emo.
I think that in the quest for “truth” sometimes we forget where our hearts are located in the process.
Thus leading to dogmatism without considering any other insightful thoughts.
I think you can basically make anything a religion. Some people make it a religion to go to Starbucks everyday and be very dogmatic about it.
Ok. -C4
Wiki has a really good definition of Atheism.
My brain thinks that Sam Harris is trying to prove that atheism is not immoral and takes a positive stance, which frankly might be good for non atheists who believe that it is “immoral” to hear. So, yeah it's not all inclusive at all. He forgets to argue for the negative atheists. ha!
I am amazed at the synchronicity / apophenia of my life experience today….
Thank you ~C4 for posting this video (and thank you for cross-posting via Julian's blog) as that is how I came to it.
I've been contemplating language a lot lately….I like Sam Harris' comments in the Q&A session at the end that he prefers the term “rational” to “secular” and he would rather not refer to himself as an “atheist” just as he wouldn't wake up in the morning and say, “I'm not an astrologer, I'm not an astrologer.” Brilliant!
I had opened a book of quotations this morning and came across this one:
“The quieter you become, the more you can hear.” - Baba Ram Dass
I find it interesting/amusing that Ram Dass and Sam Harris are partners in my psyche today!
FYI: If anyone wants to continue this discussion in pod-land, I made a post here.
Thank you, Nishtha! I'll see you there.
Also, ~C? What in the world is the “iintegral' cause” supposed to mean? ;)
imho, aside from providing a more embracing map of reality, one of the aims of “integral” cause is to bring back interiority back in to mainstream academia, that's why I-I is trying hard to get recognized into universities and start a publication of “integral” books.
well, the I-I website put it more succinctly this way: “Combating Absolutisms for More Effective and Balanced Solutions”
when i said that Sam Harris is an ally to the “integral” cause, i meant this:
to make a more accurate analogy, Ken Wilber's Boomeritis is an assault on ”mean green meme” (narcissistic pluralism). Harris is doing the same thing on the “mean blue meme” (religious fundamentalism) as well as some elements of the “mean green meme” (religious moderates).
as for contemplative science, ok, let's say that Sam Harris “sees meditation as a means to understanding the neuro-chemical reactions that occur in human synapses, not for what is might reveal of shadow material, worldviews, subpersonalities (Big Mind), or anything else that cannot be measured with brain imaging devices.”
well, that's a valid and important research too: to flesh out the Upper Right Quadrant. but at least Sam Harris is subjecting himself to the practice! and since he's still young and more open-minded, then who knows, maybe if his practice gets deep enough then he might have a change of heart :) seriously, either way, Sam's popularity would help to advance the contemplative sciences. at least that's how i see it.
~C
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS - he's MOST DEFINITELY got scientific fundamentalist down to an art form & INDEED the irony is breathtaking …
COMMENTATORS & CRITICS a plenty but no evidence whatsoever of LEADERS, leadership or a ZEN-like solution to the REAL problems that we have faced since the beginning of HOMO SAPIENS existence on Earth …
… & yet again in consideration of the fact that - ALL perspectives have to be taken into account if we are to Transcend & INCLUDE - let us not KILL the Messenger !