[Vision2020] Sam Harris, Buddhism, and Atheism

[Ted Moffett]

*So you don't need any recourse to the supernatural in Buddhism?*

The core truths of Buddhism, the truth of selflessness, for instance.  It's
simply a fact that it is possible to realize that the ego, as you presently
feel it and conceive of it, is an illusion. You can experience the continuum
of consciousness without the sense of self.  This experience can be had
without believing anything on insufficient evidence. You can simply be
taught to look closely enough at your experience, to de-construct the sense
of self, and then discover what the consequences are of that happening. And
the consequences turn out to be very positive. There's a whole discourse in
Buddhism about the relief of psychological suffering, the transcendence of
self, and the nature of positive human emotions like compassion and loving
kindness. These phenomena have been mapped out with incredible rigor in
Buddhism, and one doesn't need to swallow any mumbo jumbo to find this
discourse useful.

And yet, much that people believe under the guise of Buddhism is dubious:
certainties about re-birth, the idea that one's teacher in the Tibetan
tradition is absolutely the reincarnation of some previous historical
personality—all of this stuff is held rather dogmatically by most Buddhists,
and I think we should be skeptical of it. If people present evidence of
it,—and there's certainly been some interesting studies on the subject of
rebirth—we should look at the evidence.  As someone once said,
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

--Sam Harris, answering the above question:  weblink to interview given
lower down

------------------------

Nick et. al.

Your original posting of your essay, my brief response, and your reply, are
included below.

I did not specifically object to calling Harris an "atheist."  My comments
on Sam Harris's "atheism" focused on your implication that he was minimizing
the important role emotion plays in people's lives.  I think that his
comments on the compassion that Buddhist meditation can inspire contradict
this assessment, as well as the fact Harris is very well aware of the
powerful emotions that motivate people to commit violence, especially when
given inspiration by irrational religious beliefs that are held without fact
and reason based examination.  The very fact that human beings are such
overwhelmingly emotional beings is exactly why the excesses of irrational
belief that religion often propagandizes renders these beliefs so dangerous,
thus the insistence on a reason and fact based examination of irrational
religious beliefs to lessen their danger.

Also, you did not merely call him an "atheist," you said he was a member of
the "Atheist Brigade," a silly attempt at disparaging his viewpoint with a
militant image.  Harris in no way advocates "militancy," nor is he a member
of a "brigade."  You may think his skills in philosophy and theology are
lacking, but I was taken aback that you would engage in this sort of emotion
laden labeling.  Calling someone a member of a "brigade" might make good
copy for culture war polemics (Nick Gier, member of the Leftist Academic
Brigade, someone might claim!) and no doubt appeals to those who wish to
denigrate Harris's viewpoint, but like his message or not, I respect his
attempts to confront the irrationality and denial of science that poses for
religious faith among tens of millions in the USA, or anywhere, for that
matter.  For example, hot off today's news:

 Southern Baptist resolution questions role in global warming  6/14/2007,
7:37 a.m. ET **
*The Associated Press*

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Southern Baptists yesterday approved a resolution on
global warming that questions the prevailing scientific belief that humans
are largely to blame for the phenomenon.

The resolution also warns that increased regulation of greenhouse gases will
hurt the poor.

The global warming debate has split evangelicals, with some not only
pressing the issue but arguing humans bear most of the responsibility for
the problem because of greenhouse gas emissions. Other evangelicals say
talking about the issue at all diminishes their influence over more
traditional culture war issues such as abortion, gay marriage and judicial
appointments.

The S-B-C resolution, approved near the end of the denomination's annual
meeting, acknowledges a rise in global temperatures. But it rejects
government-mandated limits on carbon-dioxide and other emissions as "very
dangerous" because they might not make much difference and could lead to
"major economic hardships" worldwide.

------------------------

I also stand by my original assessment that calling Sam Harris a "secular
fundamentalist" fails to take into consideration that his reason and fact
based approach to ideology should not be described by the word
"fundamentalist," given this word's common use to describe those of a
dogmatic religious orientation that denies the well researched and reasoned
conclusions of science.  As I stated, if you have facts or arguments that
can convince Harris his questioning of the irrational superstitious beliefs
of many religions is unfounded, he will consider the evidence or arguments
you present.  A religious "fundamentalist" will not be open to this
same reason and fact based approach, when the rubber hits the road.  For
example, how many millions of true believers in the USA continue to deny the
evidence for the evolution of the human species from lower life forms on
this planet?  These people are "fundamentalists" in the true sense of
this word, who deny the validity of science on many issues to the point of
irrational superstition, to my way of thinking.  Harris's approach to
knowledge should not be labeled with the same label applied to
evolution/science deniers of an extreme religious bent, in my opinion.
In regards to his expertise on Buddhism, he may very well be in error on
numerous points; nonetheless, my previous point that he is open to valuable
aspects of the Buddhist tradition, and his suggestion that he is open to
the evidence for "rebirth," a revelation it appears you conveniently ignored
to make your case, weakens your implication he's a "secular fundamentalist"
in the dogmatic sense you appear to portray him.  Can you imagine a
Christian fundamentalist evolution denier saying that there are some
interesting studies on the evolution of the human species from lower life
forms, that we should look at the evidence?

"....there's certainly been some interesting studies on the subject of
rebirth—we should look at the evidence."  Sam Harris

Harris may overstate his criticisms of some forms of religious belief,
drawing too sharp a line between religious experience, intuition, the role
of visionary states of experience, and the world of reason and science.  But
he has stated that he has taken heat for being open to the evidence for the
paranormal and other less "scientific" means of knowledge.  Again, I think
you are being unfair to his overall attempt to consider all claims of
knowledge with some some degree of open mindedness, if evidence can be
presented and defended rationally.

-----

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 6/13/07, nickgier at adelphia.net <nickgier at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Thanks for the additional information on Sam Harris.  I have only read
> "The End of Faith," but this extra reading simply confirms my opinion that
> his blanket condemnation of religious faith is not a constructive position
> at all.
>
> With regard to calling him an atheist, I submit that the fact that Harris
> wrote "An Atheist Manifesto" for Truthdig justifies my use of the term. In
> "The Sun" interview you provided he then admits that atheism "an unnecessary
> term."  OK, where does he stand, then?
>
> Pew Research is a pretty sober outfit, so I'll join them in calling this
> gang "secular fundamentalists." Perhaps you did not read to the end of my
> essay, so here is the conclusion with one word change:
>
> "At the turn of the 20th Century many conservative Christians urged the
> return to the "fundamentals" of biblical inerrancy and the divinity of
> Christ.  Our atheists want everyone to use science and empirical tests as
> the "fundamentals" for their lives. I certainly prefer the latter to the
> former, but it is still far from being the whole truth and nothing but the
> truth."
>
> With regard to Buddhism, I'm very happy that Harris chooses not to call
> himself a Buddhist, because he disses the entire tradition.  Here are some
> examples, the first one from your own source:
>
> "And, in any case, 99 percent of Buddhists practice Buddhism as a
> religion, and therefore are part of the same egregious discourse."
>
> "There are millions of Buddhist who do not seem to know this [that
> Buddhism is not a religion], and they can be found in temples throughout
> Southeast Asia, and even the in West, praying to Buddha as though he were a
> numinous incarnation of Santa Claus" ("End of Faith," p. 283).
>
> On page 284, he strongly implies that the Dalai Lama practices bad faith
> when he meets with other religious leaders, something that all his admirers
> would be offended by.
>
> And for someone who has been through the philosophy program at Stanford,
> I'm amazed at his uncritical acceptance of a dense and impenetrable Buddhist
> text as "a rigorous empirical document" (ibid., p. 217).  Misusing the term
> "mysticism," he says that this text expresses mystical truth, which is real
> non-dualistic truth as opposed to the "dualisms" of superstitious
> traditional religions.
>
> The following statement would make any scholar of religion frown:
> "Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. . . . [Mysticism]
> would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal
> concerns.  It would also be the end of faith" (ibid., p. 221).  I believe
> that this is just as much gibberish as some of the religious doctrine that
> he condemns.
>
> I could go on with comments about what a bad book "The End of Faith"
> is.  For example, he is very confused and wrong on many examples of
> religiously motivated violence. And quoting violent passages from scripture
> doesn't mean that people who believe in that scripture will necessarily be
> violent.
>
> We should judge the hundreds of millions of Muslims in moderate Muslim
> countries by their actions not their alleged beliefs.
>
> Nick Gier
>
>
> At 03:00 PM 6/11/2007, you wrote:
>
> Nick et. al.
>
> Sam Harris is open to the value in religious traditions, but not the
> demands for irrational superstitious beliefs for which the evidence is
> weak.  To emphasize basing beliefs on reason makes someone a "secular
> fundamentalist?"  This seems a misuse of the word "fundamentalist."  Harris
> will listen to reason and evidence if it contradicts his views.  A
> "fundamentalist" will not.
>
> Perhaps you would like to reconsider labeling Sam Harris in this manner,
> along with including him as a member of the "Atheist Brigade," that, as your
> phrased it, "seems to forget that we are emotional beings..."
>
> Let's let Sam Harris speak for himself to articulate his arguments
> regarding the dangers and harm irrational religious belief, even among so
> called religious moderates, poses in a world posed to destroy itself with
> weapons of mass destruction. Also read Harris's comments on Buddhism, which
> he has studied and practiced, a "religion" he recognizes as having value in
> its traditions.  He even indicates he is open to the evidence for
> "re-birth."  The whole piece in readable at the link immediately below, and
> the second link leads to another interview where Harris mentions Jainism as
> a peaceful religion, along with more discussion of Buddhism:
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/interview/print/20060403_sam_harris_interview/
>
> http://www.thesunmagazine.org/369_Harris.pdf
>
>
> You write passionately in your book about the spirituality of Buddhism.
> How do you describe yourself in terms of your spirituality?
>
> I don't call myself a Buddhist. I recently wrote an article in the
> Shambhala Sun, which is one of the more widely read Buddhist magazines,
> entitled "Killing the Buddha." I essentially argued that that the wisdom of
> the Buddha is trapped in the religion of Buddhism. The teachings of the
> Buddha, taken as a whole, probably represent the richest source of
> contemplative wisdom that we have, but anyone who values these teachings
> should get out of the religion business. It's the wrong message. And, in any
> case, 99 percent of Buddhists practice Buddhism as a religion, and therefore
> are part of the same egregious discourse.
>
> I think there really is something worth extracting from our contemplative
> traditions in general, and from Buddhism in particular. It's a phenomenology
> of meditative experience—what people do and realize when they go into a cave
> for a year or 10 years and practice meditation. There really is a landscape
> there that has been brilliantly articulated in Buddhism, and not so
> brilliantly articulated in some of our other contemplative traditions. And
> so I think all of this is worth talking about and studying.
>
> But I don't call myself a Buddhist.  and yet, if you asked me how you
> should learn to meditate, what books you should read, etc., I'd point you in
> the direction of Buddhist techniques of meditation, and to the Buddhist
> literature on the subject.
>
> So you don't need any recourse to the supernatural in Buddhism?
>
> The core truths of Buddhism, the truth of selflessness, for
> instance.  It's simply a fact that it is possible to realize that the ego,
> as you presently feel it and conceive of it, is an illusion. You can
> experience the continuum of consciousness without the sense of self.  This
> experience can be had without believing anything on insufficient evidence.
> You can simply be taught to look closely enough at your experience, to
> de-construct the sense of self, and then discover what the consequences are
> of that happening. And the consequences turn out to be very positive.
> There's a whole discourse in Buddhism about the relief of psychological
> suffering, the transcendence of self, and the nature of positive human
> emotions like compassion and loving kindness. These phenomena have been
> mapped out with incredible rigor in Buddhism, and one doesn't need to
> swallow any mumbo jumbo to find this discourse useful.
>
> And yet, much that people believe under the guise of Buddhism is dubious:
> certainties about re-birth, the idea that one's teacher in the Tibetan
> tradition is absolutely the reincarnation of some previous historical
> personality—all of this stuff is held rather dogmatically by most Buddhists,
> and I think we should be skeptical of it. If people present evidence of
> it,—and there's certainly been some interesting studies on the subject of
> rebirth—we should look at the evidence.  As someone once said,
> "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
> ----------------
>
> GOD IS DEAD (AGAIN!): SECULAR FUNDAMENTALISTS FIGHT BACK
>
> The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes.
> "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and
> I. All of us are his murderers.
>
> —Friedrich Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom §125
>
> Nietzsche is dead.
> —God
>
> The tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often . . . intolerant
> and mean.  It's contemptuous and even a bit fundamentalist.
>
> —Nicholas Kristof
>
> The ugly giant of the Religious Right, Jerry Falwell, is dead; Pat
> Robertson discredits himself nearly every time he speaks; and Ralph Reed,
> the founder of the Christian Coalition, cannot even win a primary election
> in Georgia.
>
> In the 2006 election, former Senator Rick Santorum, a darling of the
> Religious Right, lost to Democratic Governor Bob Casey by 18 percentage
> points. Senator Sam Brownback, the GOP presidential candidate most
> compatible with conservative Christian positions, drew, in most recent ABC
> poll, one percent compared to liberal Rudy Giuliani's 32 percent.
>
> The GOP coalition between Goldwater and early Reagan conservatives and the
> Religious Right is in shambles, and the birth of Vice-President Cheney's
> grandson to a normal lesbian family marks a symbolic turning point.
>
> "Left-wing" evangelicals such as Jim Wallis are making headlines and is
> speaking all over the country: "I say at every stop, 'Fighting poverty's a
> moral value, too.' There's a whole generation of young Christians who care
> about the environment. That's their big issue. Protecting God's creation,
> they would say, is a moral value, too."
>
> Leaders the National Association of Evangelicals agree and have issued the
> following statement: "We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred
> responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation
> of which we are a part."
>
> What a change from former Secretary of the Interior James Watt, testifying
> before Congress in 1981: "God gave us these things to use. After the last
> tree is felled, Christ will come back."
>
> Although I certainly respect their right to speak out and actually agree
> with some of their points, this is the worst possible time for atheists such
> as Sam Harris ("The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation"),
> Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion"), Daniel Dennet ("Breaking the Spell:
> Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"), and Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not
> Great: How Religion Poisons Everything") to stoke the fires of the culture
> wars.
>
> It is a sad fact that theological illiteracy is found among the nation's
> non-believers as well as its believers.  There is a whole range of religious
> options between the two extremes of religious fundamentalism and atheism of
> which most people are unaware.
>
> The Atheist Brigade seems to forget that we are emotional beings as well
> as rational beings, and need I remind them that there are many things in
> this world that reason cannot comprehend?
>
> I have a degree in philosophical theology, and I taught philosophy of
> religion for 30 years.  What always struck me at my professional meetings
> was the fact that some reformulations of the traditional arguments for God's
> existence are still holding their own.
>
> One can perhaps excuse the amateurs in the Atheist Brigade, but philosophy
> professor Dennet should be ashamed of himself when he claims that it is not
> necessary to address the arguments of his professional colleagues.
>
> Because of his lack of respect for others' expertise, Dawkins has been
> rightly ridiculed for his "Ultimate 747" argument, previous forms of which
> most of my students saw through easily.  Biologist Dawkins has always
> rejected such argumentative sloppiness by critics of evolution.
>
> Moderate evangelicals, such as Richard Mouw, president of Fuller
> [Evangelical] Seminary, admits that "we have done a terrible job of
> presenting our perspective" and that "whatever may be wrong with Christopher
> Hichens' attack on religious leaders, we have certainly already matched it
> in our attacks."
>
> But extreme Calvinists such as Douglas Wilson make no concessions (as is
> his wont), and is thrilled to have one more chance to fly the banners of a
> Christian Crusade.  His book "Letter from a Christian Citizen" is a response
> to Sam Harris' second book and is a now a Conservative Book Club selection.
>
> Wilson and Hitchens had a debate in the May, 2007 issue of "Christianity
> Today."  After despairful dealings with Wilson's over many years, I totally
> agree with Hitchens' description of his writing as "mildly amusing
> casuistry," but I not always happy with Hitchens' rhetorical excesses.
>
> John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life states: "These
> writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such
> as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style.  Indeed,
> one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious
> fundamentalism."
>
> At the turn of the 20th Century many conservative Christians urged the
> return to the "fundamentals" of biblical inerrancy and the divinity of
> Christ.  Our atheists want everyone to use science and empirical tests for
> guidance in their lives. I certainly prefer the latter to the former, but it
> is still far from being the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070614/7126e64f/attachment-0001.html