Sam Harris’ final chapter in The End of Faith is entitled, “Experiments in Consciousness.” In light of the basic premise of his book (i.e. faith is destructive and irrational, and needs to come to an end), it will surprise the reader to find that Harris essentially advocates for eastern meditation and religious practices, all the while trying to convince us that it really isn’t religious…it’s what he calls “a science of consciousness.”
Ironically, Harris provides yet another clear example of how the New Atheist movement and the Young Earth Creationist movement actually share the same worldview and engage in the same semantic tricks. Both movements actually denounce and disparage religion for being religious and not scientific, and then both movements slap the “scientific” label on the specific religious texts or practices they particularly like in order to legitimize them. The fact is, though, we can say to Ken Ham, “No, Genesis 1-11 isn’t trying to be scientific; it is perfectly fine, inspired, and legitimate as it is.” And we can say to Sam Harris, “No, eastern religious practices aren’t scientific—they’re religious; that’s fine too—something can be beneficial without being scientific.”
The “Reasonableness” of…Spiritual Practices?
In any case, Harris begins his chapter with his rationalization for engaging in “spiritual practices” by saying that they are “often recommended as the most rational response to this situation [feeling of loneliness]” (206). This truly is amazing, given the fact that his entire book tries to argue that faith and religion are inherently irrational. Is it possible that there are practices that really don’t have any “religious” connotations to them?
Sure enough, Harris does make reference to the kinds of practices he has in mind: “The history of human spirituality is the history of our attempts to explore and modify the deliverances of consciousness through methods like fasting, chanting, sensory deprivation, prayer, meditation, and the use of psychotropic plants. There is no question that experiments of this sort can be conducted in a rational manner. Indeed, they are some of our only means of determining to what extent the human condition can be deliberately transformed. Such an enterprise becomes irrational only when people begin making claims about the world that cannot be supported by empirical evidence” (210).
Fasting, chanting, prayer, and meditation are all major spiritual practices found in most major religions of the world. Even in ancient cultures they used “natural drugs” to enhance their religious experiences. So it seems that Harris is promoting the spiritual practices that have been developed by the major religions of the world, but then is insistent that faith and religion is bad. That simply does not make sense. Let me back up a bit and attempt to review the “flow” of Harris’ argument throughout his book.
- Harris claims that religion is violent, irrational, and should not be tolerated.
- Harris highlights only the negative examples of religious extremism to bolster his thesis.
- Harris ignores and dismisses any religious example that promotes reason, peace, or anything good, for that matter.
BUT…
- Then Harris speaks of “spirituality” and claims that science can discover objective truth regarding happiness, beauty, and spirituality.
BUT…
- Then Harris, in his discussion of ethics, turns around and says that certain things like love and compassion do not need to be validated by tests, thus discounting his claim that science can give us definitive answers to these things.
BUT…
- Then Harris puts forward the idea of “spiritual practices,” which look strangely identical to the traditional spiritual practices of many religions, specifically Christianity, and actually claims that these practices are rational ways to transform the human condition.
BUT WAIT…
- Harris said earlier that religion is irrational, unreasonable, and ignorant. If that is so, then how did such irrational religions come up with such rational ways that can transform the human condition? That would seem to indicate that the very rational and spiritual practices Harris is promoting come from something…religion…that Harris has condemned as violent and irrational.
BUT WAIT…
- Harris also argued that what lies at the heart of religion and faith is belief in things of which there is no evidence.
BUT…
- These spiritual practices that he promotes, that he claims to be utterly rational, that he claims can transform the human condition, that find their genesis in religion, seemingly bring about a real transformation of human beings who practice them, and those examples of transformation thus act as evidence that they are good, helpful, and true.
BUT…
- When it came to pointing out the good examples—the evidence, if you will—of how religion brings about a positive change in the world, Harris dismissed them as not constituting real evidence.
No, I’m sorry, I don’t think there is any way Harris’ argument can maintain coherence. It is irrevocably self-refuting. You cannot condemn “all religion” as irrational and violent, then take the very spiritual practices that come from religion and call them rational and peaceful, while at the same time maintaining your charge that “all religion” is irrational and violent. Such an argument is the opposite of reasonable; it is delusional.
The “Science” of Buddhism
As it turns out, even though Harris promotes certain spiritual practices (in the name of atheism and science) that are common to most of the major religions, it becomes apparent that he specifically has in mind the practices of the eastern religions, namely Buddhism. He specifically condemns Western philosophy for not “discovering” what lies at the heart of Buddhism, namely that the source of all human suffering is our illusion that we are individuals when he says, “Personal transformation, or indeed the liberation from the illusion of the self, seems to have been thought too much to ask: or rather, not thought of at all [by Western philosophy]” (215).
The core Buddhist belief regarding human suffering is that we try to live out an illusion—that illusion is that our “selves” are real. Buddhist teaching claims that the way to get rid of suffering is to realize that “you” are not really “you”—you are simply a drop in the ocean of universal consciousness. Your “self-consciousness” is an illusion and the source of all human pain and suffering. Nirvana, therefore, is not an admittance into some sort of paradise; it is rather the negation of all attachment to the material world and a complete renunciation of any sense of self. It is, for all practical purposes, nothing—a complete denial of human individuality.
This view, quite obviously, flies in the face of the Christian belief that we are all made in the image of God and that creation is good and to be enjoyed by human beings who rule over it through service to it. Such a view also flies in the face of Enlightenment thinking, that insists on the rights of the individual to pursue personal happiness. This is extremely ironic because Harris, along with the New Atheist movement, champions the values of Enlightenment thinking.
Basically, in the name of Enlightenment rationality that champions the individual and autonomous reason, Harris is arguing that we embrace the spiritual practices of a religion that says the individual is an illusion, and that the belief in the individual self is the root of all human suffering. Again, this line of argumentation by Harris is inherently contradictory and self-refuting. It is irrational and delusional.
Despite his claims, what Harris is advocating for has nothing to do with science and reason. It is, straight up, eastern Buddhist thinking. Consider this quote:
“Inevitably, the primary obstacle to meditation is thinking. This leads many people to assume that the goal of meditation is to produce a thought-free state. It is true that some experiences entail the temporary cessation of thought, but meditation is less a matter of suppressing thoughts than breaking our identification with them, so that we can recognize the condition in which thoughts themselves arise” (217).
I find it highly ironic that Harris, who sings the praises of reason and rationality on virtually every page of his book, can turn around, and with a straight face, advocate a type of eastern meditation whose “enemy” is…thinking! Harris doesn’t seem to quite get the idea that if you “break your identification” with your thoughts, then they are no longer your thoughts. If there is no “you” who is thinking the thoughts, then there is no “you” to “recognize” the condition of those thoughts.
The Inevitable Contradictions
Harris the Scientific-Enlightenment-Buddhist goes on: “Break the spell of thought, and the duality of subject and object will vanish—as will the fundamental difference between conventional states of happiness and suffering” (218). This is basic Buddhist teaching: once you realize that “all is one,” then you will realize that there really is no distinction between good and evil, suffering or happiness. Apparently, this is what Harris believes as well. Unfortunately for Harris, though, this Buddhist teaching that he embraces completely contradicts everything he has said in his book. For instance:
(1) If Harris believes Buddhist meditation leads to a vanishing of the distinction between happiness and suffering, then how can he claim that “a rational approach to ethics” should be based on questions regarding the happiness and suffering of human beings? According to what Harris says he believes, there is no distinction between happiness and suffering, so how can there be a rational approach to ethics based on things that don’t really exist?
(2) If Harris believes that there really is no distinction between happiness and suffering, then why does he spend so much time decrying the evils of religion? Shouldn’t he have realized through his meditation that there is no real difference between burning witches and having sex while on LSD?
Harris continues by making simply an absurd distinction:
“Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance” (221).
Such a distinction between mysticism and religion is a caricature at best, and utterly misleading at worst. First off, Harris seems to be ignorant of the large mystical tradition within Christianity, as well as other religions. It seems that his predisposition to “hate religion” has given him license to not even bother investigating what religious traditions actually have said, done, practiced, and advocated.
Secondly, look at how Harris defines mysticism: (a) it is “a rational enterprise,” (b) the mystic has “empirical reasons” for what he believes, but (c) it cannot be analyzed, but only “experienced free of concepts.” If mysticism cannot be analyzed, if it can only be experienced free of concepts, then how can it be “rational” or supply “empirical reasons” for belief?
Mysticism and mystery lie at the heart of Christianity. It can be seen in the Lord’s Supper, or most precisely, in the Orthodox “version” known as “The Mystical Supper.” There is a realization that there is a profound mystical mystery that is experienced during the Lord’s Supper. It cannot be defined in any “scientific sense”—it is a mystery that is experienced by the faithful. This is the exact thing that Harris is saying “mysticism” is, but “religion” is not—but here we have an example of mysticism that lies at the very heart of the Orthodox tradition in the Christian religion.
More can certainly be said, but let’s keep it simple: Harris simply doesn’t take the time to understand religion, therefore his critiques of it simply display his own ignorance. And when Harris then turns around and argues for a “science of spirituality,” not only does it undermine then entire argument of his book, but it undermines the very Enlightenment worldview that he champions. Such is Harris’ argument: a hopeless contradiction.
