Watched a short video of a ABC Nightline interview with Sam Harris. I've described him as hyperrational and, since I LOVE rational, I say that most admiringly. The interview focused on his ability to stir controversy, not just in the religious, but also in the atheist community. He is known as one of the "New Atheists" and "Four Horseman" of atheism but has some good arguments against using the term "atheist". He notes that we don't need a word for non-astrologers to describe those who doubt that far away stars and planets could have mysterious deterministic effects on the lives of people here on Earth. He has aroused some ire from atheist groups and gatherings for saying that people can be spiritual without spouting religious dogma and claiming to know things no one knows. I have some serious misgivings myself about going with "spiritual". I have no doubt that some people can alter their consciousness and perceptions through meditation or concentration in ways that could allow for some profound experiences. It can also be easily done with drugs. But I think the default assumption should be that these experiences take place solely in the mind. We know brains exist and that they produce the phenomenon of "mind". To my knowledge the evidence for "spirit" is non-existent.
Interestingly, the best argument I ever heard for treating people with compassion and kindness came from Sam Harris. In his book "The End Of Faith" he makes the point that everyone we know or meet will die one day and lose everything they love. He asks, "Why would one want to be anything but kind to them in the meantime?" First time I'd heard it put like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment