An Atheistic Examination of the Culture of Death
Understatement - Fri, Sep 30, 2005
At long last, atheistic End of Faith author Sam Harris has come to realize the futility of secularism. In an essay in Free Inquiry, he notes that “secularism has negligible appeal to the culture at large (a practical concern) and negligible content (an intellectual concern).” In fact, he’s concluded that there is “not much to secularism that should be of interest to anyone . . .
. . . apart from the fact that it is all that stands between sensible people like ourselves and the mad hordes of religious imbeciles who have balkanized our world, impeded the progress of science, and now place civilization itself in jeopardy.
The rest of the piece is even more understated than that, actually devoted to a defense of Harris' “rational mysticism” and the practice of meditation: “What words should we use to acknowledge the fact that the happiest person on this earth at this moment might have spent the last twenty years living alone in a cave?” Good point there -- I have a feeling I’d be happier right now had I spent just this past week in a cave.
In case you missed it, Harris received a full, four-way atheistic grilling on meditation and the like here at TRA last year.
Oh, and the End of Faith is now out in paperback -- with a new afterword which alone is doubtlessly worth the full price.
HT: Brian Flemming.
UPDATE: Professor Myers of Pharyngula labels Harris a “dingbat” for characterizing secularism as negativism devoid of appeal or content.
Debates over utility of the so-called “Brights” movement often focused on whether its philosophy was merely a negative, anti-religious one, or a positive one with its own distinct, useful metaphysical convictions. A stronger case for the positive interpretation can be made when secularism is defined broadly as rational system of thinking applied to all disciplines. If restricted to mere atheism the case is harder, although I argued here that godlessness does have some distinct metaphysical content. Nevertheless, I find problematic Julian Biaginni’s view that its content can be appreciated wholly apart from religion.
A good analogy, I suppose, is the relationship between the discipline of medicine and disease. Almost everyone would agree that medicine is a valuable and useful and worthwhile thing, and doctors are generally accorded a high degree of respect in our society. But their profession is entirely dependent on the existence of disease. In a world without illness there would be no need for doctors, nor even a concept of what they were. So in some sense medicine is simply a form of negation which would disappear once its goal was accomplished. In the same way, atheism is simply the medicine for the disease called “religion,” whether it is a positive or negative thing depends upon how you regard doctors.
(Top) —Posted by: The Raving Atheist in The Daily Rave · Permalink · 12 Comments
·•◊•·
The Raving Atheist » Comments on: Understatement
I read the FI comments about the survival of secularism.
I hate it when I see things like "secularism has negligible appeal to the culture at large" and "What words should we use to acknowledge the fact that the happiest person on this earth at this moment might have spent the last twenty years living alone in a cave."
The first part implies that we select a world view based on the best sales pitch.
I don't think happiness has much to do with anything. As individuals, we go up...we come down. I don't understand why one would appeal to 'the happiest person on the planet.' Some of the sweetest people I have ever met were brain damaged from birth. What if they are the happiest people in the world? Should we wish to be like them just for the sake of happiness?
[Edit] September 30, 2005
Aaaaw, the Free Inquiry link says file not found :(
[Edit] September 30, 2005
harris' happy caveman brought to mind the following:
Olds and Milner (1954) first identified brain sites where direct electrical stimulation is reinforcing. Laboratory animals will lever press at high rates (> 6,000 times per hour) to obtain brief stimulation pulses to certain brain regions. The reinforcement from direct electrical activation of this reward substrate is more potent than other rewards, such as food or water. The potency of this electrical stimulation is most dramatically illustrated in a classic experiment where the subjects suffered self-imposed starvation when forced to make a choice between obtaining food and water or electrical brain stimulation (Routtenberg & Lindy, 1965).
http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport01.htm
[Edit] September 30, 2005
It's Harri's attitude that annoys me:
"Ohhhh, I am sooo happy because I meditate and lose my sense of self. Like, you would have to spend years listening to your breath before you can reach my achievements."
Besides, the happiest person on earth is probably a soccer mom on Prozac and not some buddist on a cave.
[Edit] September 30, 2005
I don't mind Sam Harris' view on meditation. From what I understand (which is little) of his position, there are certain experiences (in humans) that seem to be beyond physical experience. These experiences have been (historically) assigned to some god(s). However, if we are to truely to understand what makes us conscience and aware beings, one of the few approaches that has any link to rationality is meditation. A person can meditate while having a CAT scan giving us further incite into the human experience on a physiological level (sp?), but on a personal level meditation could give an individual an insight into themselves.
This can all be done without involving a supernatural being. Now some may find the same or similar results through exercise, music, drugs, etc (which personally I enjoy all three). Or it may just relax you with no major insight........which nowadays is a perfectly valid reason to do pretty much anything.
[Edit] September 30, 2005
I agree with Prof. Myers.
Secularism is it for me. It is the thing that is vibrant and full of life, while religion is life denying.
I leave meditation with losers like Depka Chopra.
To me is just more new age nonsense.
Hard to see coming from Sam Harris, who I agree with on so many things with!
Damn retard.
[Edit] September 30, 2005
I find that many atheists have the fewest issues with budhism, but we need to remember one thing. The idea of karma is just as idiotic and potentionally evil as the concept of original sin. Budhist societies have historically viewed anyone who is born with any physical defect was simply a bad person in a past life, which is just as harmful as catholics stating a new born child is sinful at birth and must have these preexisting sins washed away....
[Edit] September 30, 2005
Sam Harris is a powerful spokesman for rationality and an expert in the neurophysiology of the brain. Dr. Myers is an expert in biology with a different view of secularism. Neither is a dingbat.
[Edit] October 1, 2005
Secularism isn't really an 'ism' but a stage of empirically given history that produced a grabbag, 'modernism', beginning with the Protestant Reformation, and climaxing in the Enlightenment. Thus the 'new age or era' was a change of 'saeculum' or ages. The point is that 'secularism' is really a term of periodization, and the period is more than a single 'ism'.
Check 'Design for Atheists' at the Darwiniana blog
[Edit] October 1, 2005
Secularism isn't really an 'ism' but a stage of empirically given history that produced a grabbag, 'modernism', beginning with the Protestant Reformation, and climaxing in the Enlightenment. Thus the 'new age or era' was a change of 'saeculum' or ages. The point is that 'secularism' is really a term of periodization, and the period is more than a single 'ism'.
Check 'Design for Atheists' at the Darwiniana blog
[Edit] October 1, 2005
Can I just say that I fucking hate that word "brights". It sounds arrogant, and doesn't tell you anything about their (our?) stance. We're atheists, dammit!
Must stop now before I start frothing. Also cat has decided to walk all over the keyboaed making typing a pain.
[Edit] October 1, 2005
Meditation is a good thing. Brainwave patterns change when people enter a trance or meditate. It has a powerful calming effect on humans, such that they feel better and are more stable. Such techniques ought to be widely taught, in the interest of society. Better to have calm, happy monkeys than uptight, jittery, stressed monkeys.
[Edit] October 2, 2005
Comments Closed
In order to stop the proliferation of comment spam, the comments on this post have been automatically closed because the post is older than 30 days and the discussion has been inactive for more than 21 days.
Please feel free to your comments to me.
(Top)