NewsReal Sunday: Secularist Sam Harris says "There is a Core of Truth to Religion That We Should Be Interested In."
See Part I of my NewsReal Sunday discussion of Friday night’s interview between Bill Maher and Sam Harris on Real Time.
Leftist comedian Bill Maher just can’t help being a jackass even toward people he respects. You’d think that if anyone could get him to at least attempt to grasp the value in the religious experience it would be believers who share his “progressive” political faith:
Maher: I have unending respect for Bill Moyers. He’s a brilliant man. He’s also a Baptist minister. Jimmy Carter, y’know, a pretty bright guy. How do we reconcile someone who is so intelligent but who believes things which you and I think are incredibly childish and nonsensical? It’s a neurological disorder that they have?
Harris: No, it’s a social disorder. It’s a conversational disorder. It’s the fact that we can’t apply enough pressure to these ideas and it’s taboo to do so. And there’s this fact that there is a core of truth to religion that we should be interested in. There’s the fact that people do have transformative experiences. If Jesus really was who they said he was or Buddha likewise, it’s possible perhaps to be the Tiger Woods of compassion. It’s possible to really be someone who has transformed himself. And we should be interested in that we should want to actuallize that and understand it scientifically. But the problem is it’s so mired in religious mumbo jumbo and superstition and taboo and religion has seemed to be the only game in town in talking about that possibility and we need to overcome that.
(I’ll leave rebuttals to Maher’s remarks about Moyers and Carter to NewsReal’s diligent commenters. I have other concerns today.)
This open admission about the truth in religion is one of the reasons that of the “four horsemen” of the New Atheist movement (Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett) I prefer Harris. Of course it must be said, though, that I have a great deal of affection for what Hitchens has to say on plenty of other subjects.
Unlike his fellow three horsemen and most secularists, Harris is able to distinguish between religious fundamentalism (something to challenge) and mysticism (something to encourage.) On these points Harris and I are somewhat in agreement. He’s just a bit more aggressive in his confrontations with fundamentalism and I’m more enthusiastic in my promotion of mysticism. I have far too many Christian friends who I love and respect far too dearly to come to Harris’s conclusions about the “danger” of their faith.
What is mysticism, though? What is this “core of truth that we should be interested in” that Harris talks about?
Robert Anton Wilson does a pretty good job of laying it out there in this four- and-a-half minute excerpt from Maybe Logic:
Wikipedia also has a great definition:
Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion[1]) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic.
Buried within almost all religions is mysticism. Religion is a gateway which allows one to experience mysticism which allows one to experience a unity with the Universe. This is why Carter and Moyers are so passionate about their Christian faith. And Maher’s lack of understanding of a mystical connection with the universe also explains two other things about him:
1. His need to be a jackass and lash out so cruelly toward others who he doesn’t understand. (Isolation and a lack of connection with the world causes an emptiness and a need to hurt others.)
2. His fondness and advocacy for marijuana. That is where he gets his mystical union — through the haze of his bong smoke. But hey, at least he has that. Can one imagine how much more vicious he’d be if he didn’t? I have a few ideas of what one might expect.
(You find these same two traits manifest in Hitchens except he seems to prefer liquor to weed.)
People who manage to form some sort of mystical connection to the universe are, by and large, just more pleasant, loving people to be around than those like Maher who have not.
Not all believers manage to find mysticism in religion. And plenty of atheists — like Harris — do stumble upon it apart from religious traditions. But the deck is still stacked in favor of people of faith to achieve mystical awareness. More religious folks are mystically tuned in and thus kind and loving. This means that they’re generally more persuasive and likable than the often bullying Hitchens, Maher, and Dawkins.
It’s because of this that people of faith shouldn’t be overly concerned that the four horsemen will be successful in bringing forth the Atheist Apocalypse Across America anytime soon. Without the loving spirit that’s a natural byproduct of achieving oneness with God it’s hard to accomplish anything of value or substance in this world.
To Be Continued Soon… (There is an important connection between the Mystical Idea and the American Idea which will discussed soon.)
To regard science and religion as opposites is a mistake. Each discipline is a search for answers, Truth if you will. The problem is in how the questions are asked. On the matter of faith, consider for a moment the Big Bang Theory. It postulates that the infinity number of galaxies, that’s right an infinite number of galaxies is possible, containing an infinite number of stars, which in turn contain an infinite number of planets and satellites, appeared from a point is space with no physical dimensions. All this stuff is thought by science to have been “produced†in less than one second some 14 billion years ago. Now if that isn’t faith what is? If that doesn’t describe a miracle, what does?
The scientist will argue that his is not a religious faith as his view will alter when a better theory comes along, where a religious person will hold more tightly to belief in the face of contradiction. Is the scientist the smarter for this position? Does the scientist’s faith in man the theorist, as ultimately the scientist must believe that man will explain all things, relegate religious faith to the ash heap of history? Well, that all depends on the question being asked. If one asks how, as in how did the universe come to be? Finding the answer, as well as the methodology to use in finding the answer skew in favour of science. Change the question, though, to why? as in why did the universe come into being, and the answer and methodology favour a “faith†based or religious exegesis.
We all know that a beating heart is life, and a still heart is death. We also know that science has made great progress toward keeping that heart beating. Yet when it comes to “affairs of the heart†i.e. love, science seems woefully short of answers. Science’s great strength is its ability to describe and define the observable. I might even add that science excels in its grasp of the obvious. But does love really exist? Is it really observable? When we look at our children, our wives, our brothers, and our sisters we have no doubt that something science cannot define or observe is real. So what’s the difference between the simple love humans experience and God? Both are unobservable in the scientific sense. But in certain quarters one must believe in one where it is anathema to believe in the other. Does that make sense?
I may write more as thoughts come to me, but the take-away here is that ultimately we all hold our most precious opinions, those we share only when prompted, by faith and faith alone. That is why the Mahers of this world strike out, as deep down inside they can no more disprove God’s existence than the Pope can prove His existence. Indeed, such a proof would serve to destroy the creation we are entrusted with, for to know God exists beyond doubt is to lose free will and to lose free will is to be a slave. Faith is what is demanded of each end every one of us–Scientist and Priest alike. That others have lost faith is in this context a ridiculous thought, for they have only misplaced it, however, misplaced might be defined.
The important thing about mysticism — and I think Harris recognizes this — is that it doesn’t provide factual knowledge. It may transform an individual, change how they live, and what they live for. But it has zero bearing on answering any factual question, except for those about the individual themself. The danger of faith is precisely when faith or mysticism is put forward as a source of positive knowledge.
Pace Balicki, physicists do NOT advocate the Big Bang on the basis of faith, but on the basis of evidence and careful reasoning from it. They may be wrong. But they are doing something very different from faith.
What about Joseph Campbell, isn’t he a legitimate academic to confront the issues of mysticism as far as understanding it logically?
Whether and how our scientific theories improve is something to determine by comparison and observation, not by faith.
Though I agree with you in part that atheist and agnostics might have a belief system in that we all believe in something it’s just that all have a personal belief system which is the bases of our beliefs.
It stems from in part from our own perspective of our own life’s experiences, and the choices that we make for ourselves. What examples do we set forth for ourselves as well as others? Do we humble ourselves and be courageous in facing, excepting, and respecting the truths about ourselves and believing in the streghths of others before passing judgment? Or do we simply judge others according to that which we are proud of about ourselves.
I have decided to base my beliefs on truth as opposed to basing my truths on beliefs. Knowledge and wisdom are the subjects to the nobility of truth, so that if thy have a boastful tongue let it be that which rest upon thy head the Crown of Truth.
From the variety of life springs forth the fountain of diversity which only makes us more distinguished and less insignificant.
Yes. I love Joseph Campbell. He’s got plenty of great ideas throughout his many texts and video interviews.
Sure. You’re right about mysticism. But so what? It’s not supposed to provide “factual knowledge.” It’s supposed to provide knowledge for the individual.
The mystical quest is about the individual’s engagement with God/the Universe. (Hence why it comes in so many different varieties through the various mystical traditions within the different religions.) It’s of use to the individual and ultimately produces positive results. It’s a totally different pursuit than science which seeks to understand the external world. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be advocated as a positive replacement for religion.
Both the religious and the scientist have faith, in the case of the religious it is a faith in God, and in the case of the physicist it is a faith in man’s ability to explain the mysteries of the universe by formulating ever better theories.
Well said.
The faith of scientists is placed in the process of science, which is to say in men and their ability to expand our knowledge base. Let me make this perfectly clear, no one holds a scientific theory by faith, they never have and they never will. That said, scientists, by their nature believe that all questions will eventually be answered, which is to say they have an unflagging faith in man’s ingenuity. And if not in his ingenuity, then at the very least in the scientific method.
The notion that “scientists, by their nature, believe that all questions will eventually be answered” is pretty laughable to anyone familiar with scientists. You are demonstrating how faith goes wrong. Even when a fantasy believed on faith doesn’t directly conflict with reality, there is no telling where its psychological expansion and buttressing will lead. There is no reason to think something as absurd about scientists, except for the pretense that others must be doing what practitioners of faith are doing. Like the drug addict who thinks everyone needs a “little something” to get them through the day, or the scammer who thinks everyone takes advantage of the system where they can. The only way to answer is to say: no, many of us don’t.