~C4Chaos

Daniel Dennett and Robert Thurman Talk About Religion, Reincarnation, and Consciousness

I just finished reading a dialogue between Daniel Dennett and Robert Thurman. They've discussed Daniel Dennett's latest book, Breaking the Spell. I'm glad to see them agree when it comes to the topic of religion. Here's a relevant quote.

---

Dennett: "...The title of my book concerns two spells: one of them is the veil of polite ignorance of religion."

Thurman: "The taboo to talk about it, right."

Dennett: "That's the spell I want to break. And I do break it. I *want* to break it. But as for the question of whether I want to break the spell of religion altogether, I am completely agnostic on that. I have not decided how I feel about that. I don't know enough. I do not know what we would replace religion with."

Thurman: "Well, we have evidence that in the Soviet Union and in China, when they tried to replace religion they deified the leaders of the society, and they became really destructive."

Dennett: "That was not, it seems, a good policy."

Thurman: "That was a really bad idea."

Dennett: "Any more than prohibition, we learned. The war on drugs is another bad idea."

Thurman: "What about religion itself? You seem to use 'religion' as if it was coterminous ???? with belief in a creator God. I appreciated you leaving Buddhism out of the picture entirely, which some people think of as a religion, although but I don't. As I told you, I think of it as one third religion. Certainly Buddhism does not believe in a creator God, neither does Confucianism or Daoism. Some other traditions too believe in multiplicities of gods and things like that. But that's an old-fashioned definition of religion. Religion defined as the belief in God was Tyler's definition."

Dennett: "My definition is a social system that postulates supernatural agents whose approval is to be sought."

Thurman: "They don't have to be a creator?"

Dennett: "No."

Thurman: "John Dewey, for example, wished to take the good elements of religion away from religion and make them possible as an education for people. He had a plan like that because he came from a fundamentalist background. He saw that religion was having good effects on some people in some cases. He was not, obviously, living under the current Republican administration. But the thought about the dangers of the institution, and how to take that out of that. But you are not really proposing that, are you?"

Dennett: "No. In fact, I don't know whether some version of that would be a good idea or not. I don't think that Dewey had studied religion enough to know, and I haven't studied it enough to know. What I do think is important that we do right now, is educate each other a lot more. I've been fascinated by the reaction to one of my, it seems to me, quite uncontroversial suggestions, namely that we should have a curriculum on world religions in the public schools and for home schooling, with *facts* on world religions, and that parents can teach their kids whatever they want as long as they also teach this this. This has been called totalitarian by one reviewer."

Thurman: "Really? That there's a curriculum on world religions so that students in schools learn about each other's religion? Just the factual things about them? Totalitarian?"

Dennett: "Totalitarian, yes."

Thurman: "Well, you can be happy that you don't have to worry about such a reviewer. About ten years ago, here at Columbia, when this business was going on in Sarajevo in the former Yugoslavia, I came up with this. I was quite exercised, because I happened to know someone from the politics of that area. It was about the possibility of creating a Religion Studies program in Sarajevo University. They didn't have such a thing. In communist countries the study of the world religions would be done by scholars in the Atheism Department. So, they would study the different kins of opiates of the people. They learned the textures????? and scriptures and so forth, but there was no concept of a Department of Religious Studies. That's really an American thing. There are very few European universities that have that. In Eastern Europe, once the communist lid was taken off, these religions have rearisen in the very fundamentalist form, unaffected by the last eighty years of communist rule. That's why the Protocols of Zion are recirculated in Poland and Russia. These backward things would have no chance if religion was more in dialogue with modernity. It has not been, because it has been underground. I was shocked that some people who are trying to ameliorate the conflicts and violence in those cultures still think that religion is whithering away, so they don't think that there should be Religion Departments. And then those scholars don't know what to do: they go to Literature Departments; they have no place to mobilizethe people in the streets of Sarajevo – in one block of Sarajevo you will have a synagogue, a mosque, a catholic church and an orthodox church, or maybe even several of them in one block – who have lived there for decades without killing each other. When the Jews were thrown out of Spain in 1429, they went to Sarajevo under the Aramens?????, and they were much more tolerantly looked after. And yet, they never learned about each others faiths. Therefore demagogues could exploit them to demonize each other and we saw what happened in Yugoslavia."

Dennett: "Indeed."

---

But then the real fun begins when Dennett and Thurman started talking about consciousness and reincarnation. You have to read the whole thing to be entertained by it. Here's a quote:

---

Thurman: "There's a Buddhist terminological ???? principle that I like to take a moment to explain to you, and that is that all teachings or theories about relative reality are only relative." ... "Therefore, they're only valid or invalid in a certain context. All teachings about ultimate reality are actually completely useless *except* the absolute negation that there is no capturable ultimate reality, like a refutation of the idea of an absolute God that creates the world, or any absolute, actually, that's relevant to the world. In a way, it's a very simple thing: an absolute can't be relative, so therefore it's irrelevant to the relative. Only that theory has definitive status in Buddhist philosophy. This basically opens all theorizing about relativity to being relational and useful in this context or that. The theory of involuntary rebirth – which it is better called than reincarnation, at least for ordinary people – is considered very important in a general ethical level, not in a deep metaphysical level."

Dennett: "They got to be."... "Now, I confess I simply can't fathom most of what you just said."

Thurman: "That's good!"

Dennett: "I expect that there's a great deal in what you say, but it's the last bit I want to ask you about. Why should a *moral* point of view hinge at all on this idea of rebirth? Why not the life that we lead right now? Aren't we lucky to be alive? I certainly feel very fortunate to be here."

---

Here's my take on their discussion. I don't dig Dennett using the label "brights" (I'm on Sam Harris side on this one), but I do agree with Dennett that I don't need a concept of reincarnation to be moral.

As for consciousness, I resonate more with Thurman's Buddhist view but I don't think he did a good job of refuting Dennett in this dialogue. Dennett is a reductionist when it comes to explaining consciousness. Not even Thurman can persuade him, especially since Dennett doesn't do yoga like Thurman does. So there'd be no meeting of the minds here. And it's better to just leave it at that. Anyway, I'm not worried about Dennett since I don't think he'd be crashing planes on buildings or even run for office. In the meantime, I care more about Dennett's thesis on religion because it is more politically relevant and philosophically sound.

Thanks to Jim (aka holotrope) for the heads up!

Changing the World from the Inside Out

Just want to give a shout out to EnlightenNext's upcoming 6-hour internet audio broadcast, happening tomorrow, May 31, featuring Andrew Cohen in dialogue with Ken Wilber, Deepak Chopra, and other guests. Schedule details and free registration here.

Siona (Director of Gaia Community) will be one of the guests during the broadcast. Nice.

I also just noticed that Linus Roache will be in the broadcast. Very interesting. If you don't know Linus Roache then you're probably not watching Law and Order, which is a shame because the program rocks! But if you're a big fan of Batman you might remember that Roache played the very serene Thomas Wayne (Bruce Wayne's dad) in Batman Begins.

Anyway, I'll try to make some time to check out this event tomorrow. Hopefully, they make the audio archive freely available too, in case I miss it.

Re: The New Atheists @ WIE

Previously, I ranted a bit about WIE's featured article on the New Atheists. It was a pleasant surprise that I got a response from WIE writers -- Carter (one of the authors of the article) and Tom.

Tom said: "We've received a few letters criticizing our “view from 15,000ft” take on the new atheists, but to be honest, that's all it was ever meant to be, which is why we called it a “field guide” on the cover and in the ToC blurb – and an “entertaining” one at that! :)"

Good point. In fairness to WIE, I did get the impression that the featured article was not meant as a detailed take on the New Atheists. But that was partly the reason for my disappointment. I've been wanting to see a more integral take on the New Atheists and I was expecting it from WIE (e.g. the excellent WIE issue on the Evolution Debate). Maybe in future issues? ;)

See the comment thread on my Gaia blog for the rest of the discussion.

Thanks to Carter and Tom for their time and attention.

The New Atheists @ WIE

I just finished reading the featured article, Atheists with Attitude, on the latest issue of What is Enlightenment? magazine. As usual, WIE did a great job at presenting different perspectives, as well as the timeline of the evolution of Atheism. However, I was a bit disappointed with WIE's take on the New Atheists for the following reasons.

For a magazine which I consider to be a leading edge on spirituality in general, and integral spirituality in particular, I was expecting a more integral take on the New Atheists from the editors and writers. But WIE only presented a very general overview of the New Atheists. Although WIE has some nice things to say about the New Atheists, the general tone of the article is a negative slant against them. Nothing wrong with that. There are indeed philosophical areas where the New Atheists fall short. But WIE didn't make detailed distinctions on the differences between the New Atheists. In short, no teasing apart the partial right and partial wrong. There's no ranking.

The WIE staffers expressed their disagreements with the New Atheists but they weren't specific on what areas they agreed with and what areas they have issues with. Take this quote from the featured article. (Emphasis mine.)

"As for the editors of WIE, we remain curious observers of the new atheism, encouraged by its articulate defense of modernity, science, and reason, but disturbed by its tendency to demonize all things spiritual and to associate rationality exclusively with a materialistic view of the universe."

"Demonize all things spiritual?" Sam Harris is not demonizing spirituality. He's even promoting it, albeit indirectly, with his Buddhist-flavored approach to consciousness. Harris doesn't even want to be identified as Atheist, fer Chrissakes (too late for that though). Even Christopher Hitchens has discussed the importance of separating the numinous from the supernatural. WIE had made the usual error of lumping the New Atheists like a blob, treating them as a leviathan with a single head that of Dawkins. (I consider Dawkins to be the extreme materialists among them four--Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris.)

Also, check out this quote from WIE's review of The Four Horsemen. (Emphasis mine.)

"But the primary contribution of The Four Horsemen is its capacity to stimulate the mind, to provoke one to reconsider the impact of the religious traditions and rethink one's own beliefs and attitudes toward these powerful cultural behemoths that continue to have an influence on human life. Will you agree with the new atheists? Maybe not--we didn't--but we appreciated their efforts to make us all think more clearly about what we actually believe about life, and about what God, gods, or nondeities we have faith in, and why."

Um, ok. So how does integral spirituality or evolutionary spirituality deal with radical Christians and Islam? What about the New Atheists take on multiculturalism and secularism? How about their call to action and appeal to religious moderates? What's good about studying religion from a scientific perspective? Is it a good idea to compulsory teach world religions (as well as Atheism) to children in school? I like to hear specifics rather than just an integral view from 15,000 feet.

And finally, there's no mention of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, giving the impression that the New Atheists are only comprised of angry white men (Ayaan Hirsi Ali is neither white, nor a man). I consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be the most gutsy among the New Atheists since her life is literally on the line whenever she speaks against radical Islam and takes on European multiculturalism.

All in all I feel that WIE didn't do enough justice with what the New Atheists represent. Yes, it's true that there's nothing new with majority of their philosophical arguments that the Enlightenment thinkers hadn't already dealt with. Then again, the New Atheists are tackling the same issue on a different interconnected global stage. So the stakes are much higher and the dynamics more complex than it was during the Age of Enlightenment. Never before in our recorded history that the issue of science, religion, and Atheism capture the attention of the global media (e.g. news network, newspapers, internet, blogosphere, etc.), and the New Atheists deserve credit for reviving this age-old philosophical debate, no matter how limited their perspectives may be.

That said, I hope that this is only WIE's intro feature on the New Atheists. I'm looking forward to WIE teasing apart, ranking, and then putting the New Atheists on a more integral perspective.

On Manifesting Awesomeness

There's a featured article on Louise Hay on NYTimes Magazine. Check it out and see how the New Age movement impacted (and continues to "manifest awesomeness") Western culture. Hint: AIDS and cancer were among the driving forces.

"LOUISE HAY IS ONE OF THE BEST-SELLING AUTHORS IN HISTORY, and none of the women who have sold more — like J. K. Rowling, Danielle Steel and Barbara Cartland — owned a publishing empire. They did not change the spiritual landscape of America and several of its Western allies. They were not pregnant at 15 and they did not lack high-school diplomas. Finer writers they may have been (depending on your taste), and wealthier women, but it would be hard to argue that any was more interesting than Louise Hay." [read more]

Interspiritual Panel Discussion with the Dalai Lama

Today is the final day of the Seeds of Compassion gathering. I'm watching the live webcast right now of the Interspiritual Panel Discussion with the Dalai Lama via UWTV.

"The Dalai Lama will be joined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and several other leading spiritual leaders will discuss themes common to all spiritual traditions." [watch it]

For the past few days the central message of the Dalai Lama is that love and (unbiased) compassion are secular values which come before (and beyond) religion. He also stressed the role of science in teaching compassion to the young generation through secular education. I dig that. His more-embracing world-centric attitude is what separates the Dalai Lama above and beyond other religious leaders who are still wallowing in their fundamentalistic belief systems.

I'm inspired by the Dalai Lama's presence here in Seattle. I could literally feel the outpouring of compassion and kindness here in the Emerald City even if I'm just witnessing the live event via cable. Majority of people in Seattle are not very religious but the essence of spirituality is overflowing during the 5-day celebration. The seeds of compassion had been planted here in the Emerald City. Looking forward to it to continue blossoming, and rippling on the surface and depths of our collective being.

NOTE: The moderator for the discussion is Roshi Joan Halifax. She also rides with Gaia :) Check out her Gaia Profile: http://jhalifax.gaia.com. I'm watching her being introduced right now.

I am watching the Live Webcast of Children and Youth Day with the Dalai Lama

We're currently watching the live webcast of Children and Youth Day with the Dalai Lama via UWTV. Young minds awakening to a more embracing notion of compassion sending shivers up and down my spine.

"A day specifically for children with performances and programs designed to teach children about compassion. His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be joined by 15,500 students and educators from 25 counties in Washington state." [watch it]

The Emerald City is basking in good karma right now, reverberating to all corners of this Kosmos.

Seeds of Compassion On Cable and Online

Since I didn't get my tickets for the Seeds of Compassion event, I'm now here at home watching the event live on cable. You can do that too by checking out http://www.uwtv.org/dalailama/

I just watched the panel discussion on The Scientific Basis for Compassion wherein the Dalai Lama talked with a group of scientists to discuss the psychological and biological basis of compassion. I particularly liked Daniel Siegel's talk and his question to the Dalai Lama.

Siegel shared a story about a mother who had an accident which damaged the pre-frontal lobe of her brain. As a result, the mother had lost her compassionate and loving qualities. Siegel seems to suggest that the pre-frontal lobe correlates with our capacity to extend compassion and empathy, without it our reptilian brain would take over making us no different with animals. He then posed a question to the Dalai Lama on how we can extend our circle of compassion. The Dalai Lama went on to describe levels of compassion. According to the Dalai Lama our sense of compassion grows as our intelligence develops, from a biased and limited compassion to unbiased and unlimited compassion. Children seem to exhibit more unbiased compassion, but as we get older and our intelligence develops we pass through a biased and limited stage of compassion, our task is to keep on growing and develop unbiased and unlimited compassion by widening our circle of awareness and extending it to all human beings.

(For integral geeks: Note that this is not an instance of pre-trans fallacy. The Dalai Lama didn't say that we have to go back and re-capture our childhood. His opinion is for us to keep on developing our intelligence and go beyond it. It's a continuous developmental process as opposed to going back to our infantile or childhood stage.)

What I find most interesting is the Dalai Lama's high regard for science and secularism. His answer to Siegel's question -- on how to develop and increase one's circle of compassion -- is to have a more secular education in order to go beyond the boundaries of religion. From this context the Dalai Lama then said that scientists and the scientific community have more responsibility than a religious person like him. Very fluffy.

The Dalai Lama is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) spiritual figures in our time, yet I find him to be the most humble and least fundamental with his religion. His humility, openness, humor, and friendly attitude to the scientific community continue to inspire me.

For more live webcasts of the Seeds of Compassion event, watch here. I'm leaving my TV tuned in to UWTV for the whole afternoon to participate in the spirit of this event.

Red ~C Diary: Witnessing the Metaverse

'After catching the first Matrix film with some RealNetworks colleagues, Rosedale left the theater glum, announcing to them, "But that's what I was gonna make!"' - Philip Rosedale via The Making of Second Life

My avatar is already more than a year old but it wasn't until I attended virtual Conversation Week that my interest in SL was rekindled. Serendipitously, last week while I was browsing the bookstore at Dublin airport the book, The Making of Second Life by Wagner James Au, jumped right at me. I took it as a sign and devoured it during my 14-hour flight back home.

In one sitting I was educated with the history of SL, its ups and downs, its current impact on our culture, business, politics, economics, and its (almost sci-fi) potentials similar to Neal Stephenson's vision of the metaverse. I particularly enjoyed reading about the mirrored flourishing stories of in-world residents, the virtual revolts and cultural transformations of virtual groups and societies. From a psycho-social point of view, watching the history of SL is like witnessing the cultural evolution of humanity, in hyper-speed. Linden Lab (creators of Second Life) is akin to a group of benevolent dictators and Philosopher Kings who maintain order in a virtual world by allowing residents to do as they please within the bounds of SL's code of conduct. When viewed from an integral perspective, SL is a grand experiment on integral in-world governance. And when viewed from a psycho-spiritual perspective, explorations in SL can be used to aid in one's witnessing practice.  (I'll groove more on the topic of using SL for spiritual practice in future posts. In the meantime, check out a parallel discussion on Open Source Integral.)

During the past week I have immersed myself in the virtual realm of Second Life® before retiring to sleep. I've meditated on air at SL integral, explored the green and sustainable community at Etopia Eco-village, did Tai Chi in a silk blue kimono, dressed up as a Samurai wielding the "three buddhas" katana, drank unlimited cans of Red Bull, practiced Tibetan Buddhist meditation, took a crash course on machinima-tography, sat on a campfire near a pyramid in Mexico, all the while taking snapshots of my in-world explorations using my trusty old Macbook Pro.

So what did I get out my in-world explorations? I'm glad to report that I'm now up to speed with SL. I've become proficient with navigation and the basics of in-world content creation. But more importantly, I've forged new connections with like-minded creative people who are out there exploring in-world and dreaming up better worlds. (We've also started a Metaverse Pod @ Gaia for members who want to meet up and learn together in virtual reality.)

Second Life is only one of the big slices of the metaverse but its on a category of its own. It mirrors real life (and wonderland) more than any other MMORPGs. It's not a game, it's an experience. But unlike the web, SL is not (yet) for everyone. Its early incarnation is still clunky. It has a high barrier to entry, a steep learning curve, as well as a need for a shift in mentality to be able to embrace and welcome its possibilities.

I harbor no illusion that SL is an "escape" from for the "real" world (what is "real" anyway?). SL is just another medium. It's a tool to be used for rapid prototyping of one's vision, expressing individual and collective creativity, and experiencing a richer sense of community not possible in meatspace. In short, SL is an extension of consciousness projection.

In the meantime, I'll continue with my in-world explorations. SL made it possible for my blogging persona to have an avatar form. In essence, my SL persona is a "third-order reality." Technically, my SL avatar is not my "second" life because I consider my blogging persona as my "second." My SL avatar is a digital incarnation of this blogging persona, not my "first" life. Yet they're all inseparably connected and meshed together in a single conscious life-stream I call "I."

"Real" world blogging on real world topics resumes shortly. But expect to see in-world blogging from time to time.

Practicing Tibetan Buddhist Meditation @ Second Life

Second Life® doesn't have to be all about parties, sex, concerts, gambling, or hooking up with the opposite (or same) sex avatars. There are virtual places where residents can do virtual spiritual practice.

Here's a snapshot of my avatar practicing Tibetan Buddhist meditation.

Some meditation purists might say that doing meditation in a virtual world is ludicrous. Maybe. But I find it quite interesting. Why? Well, in the Tibetan tradition a big part of spiritual practice involves doing "visualization." For example, in the Tantra techniques, Tibetans use the mandala to aid them with their visualization. Tibetans are also known for using lucid dreaming techniques in their Dream Yoga. And to me, Second Life is like being in a lucid dream! If you explore SL enough you'll understand what I mean.

I used to practice lucid dreaming techniques. I've had some interesting experiences but it was a hit and miss. Sometimes I get lucid in the dream state and do amazing things in the dream world but more often than not I get lost in the dream. I find that SL is very similar to practicing lucid dreaming. You can be any persona, gender, creature in SL, fly around and teleport to the most profane and profound locations, create almost anything that you can imagine, and then settle on a meditation cushion in an environment created by residents who value spiritual transformation.

I'm not saying that SL meditation practice should replace actual practice in real life. But virtual meditation practice could aid in the visualization process. It's also a good way of projecting consciousness into some other realm where everything is possiblle.

Using the principle of Mirrored Flourishing, I think it's possible that the good karma in-world would eventually spill over in the real world. It's all a matter of intention.

7even Days: Easter Compassion of the Third Jesus

Today is Easter Sunday. It's the day when Christ resurrected from the dead; a metaphor for a new life and transformation; a completion of a cycle of psycho-spiritual development. Deepak Chopra eloquently captured this metaphorical transformation with his interpretation of Christianity in the book, the Third Jesus. It's not the typical homily we'd hear on Easter Sunday but I think Chopra's interpretation is more sophisticated, contemporary, and healthier. 

"The first Jesus was historical, a rabbi living in first-century Palestine whose life profoundly changed religious belief in the West. The second Jesus is the core of a religion, which has its particular dogmas, rituals, priests, churches, and scriptures. These two Jesuses are undeniably real, but the second one--the Jesus of organized religion--has been subject to human whim and change. Right now, if you are not a fundamentalist, he seems to have been hijacked in the service of intolerance, bigotry, and war. A religion that began in the name of love has reached almost its exact opposite--not for the first time, of course.

"The third Jesus is not rigidly sectarian. He falls into the world tradition of spirituality. This Jesus speaks for peace and love; his morality includes all peoples; his Father is a universal deity. I was well acquainted with the third Jesus as a child in India. I could love and revere him. It never occurred to me that he would ever become an enemy. This Jesus doesn't speak of non-Christians as pagans. He raises human nature to its highest ideal, along with the saints and sages who have guided humanity for centuries.

"I don't think that well-intentioned fundamentalists mean to pervert the third Jesus; I suspect they've never heard of him. He has one great disadvantage, however. You can't own him. You can't say "he's all mine and nobody else's." The third Jesus won't work if you need to justify a war, if you need evil enemies, or you want to brand "them" as godless."

I'm not religious but I'm looking forward to go to mass here in Ireland. I'm curious to observe how the Irish celebrate the most important religious feast in Christianity.

But as far as homilies go Karen Armstrong's TED Prize wish -- a Charter for Compassion -- is a perfect message for this Easter. It's a remembrance of the common thread that runs through all religions. It may be a over-simplistic orienting generalization, but still a necessary reminder for us all.

This is my last post for the 7even Days series this Lent. Below are links to all the post in this series. Thanks to all who've tuned in.

Happy Easter! May you have peace, love, happiness, and Divine discontent.

7even Days: God is Dead On Black Saturday

7even Days: Bloody Good Friday

7even Days: For My Fellow Filipinos On Holy Thursday

7even Days: Archbishop Attacks Creationism, and Neo Darwinism

7even Days: CBCP Holy Week Sermons On Youtube

7even Days: Saint Patrick's Day Marches On

7even Days: CBCP Holy Week Sermons On YouTube

When I was young I saw Holy Week as the start of a boring and sad week. In a predominantly Catholic country like the Philippines, Lent is observed and taken very seriously. And yes, even literally. It's the time of the year when every Catholic in the country is reminded that Christ died for our sins.

Before the advent of cable, internet, and satellite radio, me and my generation had to endure religious programs on TV and radio during Holy Week. Regular programming gave way to religious themes and classics, like the Ten Commandments. I remember being very disappointed because I would miss an episode of MacGyver. Putragis! So I looked forward to Easter.

But now it's the other way around. Technology paved the way for the Attention Economy. Attention has become a scarce "commodity," especially with the younger generation who grew up in the age of the Internet. Unless you're living in a communist country like China where the government has total control of the media, you are free to choose whatever programming you want. Your attention could go wherever your curiosity flows. This is as true for developed nations as for developing nations.

Case in point: With the ubiquity of cable, broadband connection, cell phones, and online videos, the Catholic Church had to fight for the attention of its constituents. The Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has embraced Youtube. The CBCP now has an online video channel for delivering sermons. Check out this sermon. Very useful for those who don't want to miss the sermons for the Holy Week.

Some people living in developed and secular nations might be smirking right now thinking that posting religious (Catholic) sermons online is laughable at best and appalling at worst. But from the perspective of the Church this is an excellent way of reaching its target audience around the world.

Consider this context: Youtube is very popular in the Philippines and to millions of Filipinos living abroad. Majority of Filipinos had a Catholic upbringing and still believe in its teachings. So why not embrace technology and reach as many adherents as possible?

The bottom line: Technology is the driver. Even the powerful Church has to bow down to the power of technology when it comes to competing in the age of Attention Economy.

Oprah and Eckhart Tolle: A Match Made in New Earth

My buddy Vince digs Oprah and Eckhart. Who wouldn't? A New Earth Web Event is a success! It's "one of the largest single online events in the history of the Internet." Oprah is single-handedly pushing nondual spirituality into the mainstream.

I think Eckhart Tolle is an excellent representative. He has no controversial baggage and is not aligned with any particular religion or tradition. His "awakening" is a by-product of serendipity, not via rigid spiritual practice. The guy is almost certainly authentic as far spiritual teachers go. He seem to embody what he teaches. You can hear it in the tone of his voice. You can see it in his serene demeanor. More importantly, his teachings are easy to understand and relay to a mass audience. No hifalutin jargons. No esoteric hubris. Yep, it can sound New Agey but it's packed with enduring wisdom. No wonder Tolle is a hit with Oprah and her audience.

Of course, not everyone is happy with the Oprah-Tolle pact. Some call her New Age Oprah - World's Most Dangerous Woman. I think some of these people are uninformed about cross-cultural mystical literature and they tend to conflate spiritual teachings (that don't agree with their ideology) into the pejorative term "New Age." But anyway, Oprah still has the last laugh. I'm glad that she picked a good representative of the spiritual domain in the person of Eckhart Tolle.

For those who are interested, you can download the web event here. Here's part one via Youtube. More videos here.

Seeds of Compassion: The Dalai Lama in Seattle

I almost this missed event if not for Michele. Thanks Michele!

I'm looking forward to attend the public gathering with the Dalai Lama as well as The Scientific Basis of Compassion forum. Hopefully, my ticket orders get through.

For those who are interested to attend see below.

Here's to sowing the seeds of compassion!

--------

Seeds of Compassion: April 11-15, 2008, Seattle, WA

An unprecedented gathering to engage the hearts and minds of our community by highlighting the vision, science, and programs of early social, emotional, and cognitive learning.

Anchored by the deep wisdom of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, this community–focused event will celebrate and explore the relationships, programs and tools that nurture and empower children, families and communities to be compassionate members of society.       

Each of the five days will provide parents, educators, business and community leaders with an opportunity to better understand the real benefits of compassion, and concrete steps on how to bring compassion into their lives.

For tickets, see: http://www.seedsofcompassion.org/event/tickets.asp

More details at http://www.seedsofcompassion.org

   

Seeds of Compassion is honored to welcome His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama to Seattle to participate in dialogue with leading educators, researchers and policy makers during the 5-day event. (VIEW VIDEO)

Application of Black Swan to Theology

Here are two theological blogs grooving on the "skeptical empiricism" championed in The Black Swan.

via The Presbeterian Polis: Theory-based or Experienced based

"Does this mean that all theology is wrong-headed. No. It simply means that theoretical systems are idealistic human creations that seek to create a coherent perspective based on a selection of ideas from Scripture and the history of the church.

"If you look at the conflicts that afflict us, at the heart of them are claims of truth that start as an idea in search of scriptural justification and end up as a tyranny upon unsuspecting people.

"If all this seems far fetched, I encourage you to read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's The Black Swan where he addresses this topic in a very different context.  I'm convinced that he is right.  His perspective is a great challenge to all those for whom the church is some idealized image derived from the Scripture. The reality is life is messy, and it is far more dependent upon God's grace and our daily receptivity of it than any preacher can imagine or express.  And I would not have it any other way."

And Pastor Rod asked: "So what do you think? Do you see similar danger in overly rigid theological systems? Do you epistemological arrogance as a more serious problem than epistemological humility?"

Good question. My problem with Theology (and other theories and beliefs that are not supported with data and experiential knowledge) is that it starts from grand abstract assertions (i.e. existence of God) and then looks for logical proofs as confirmations of axioms. It's exclusively a top-down approach. Historically,  "applications" of skewed theological constructs (i.e. the Holy Trinity, purgatory, proofs of God) dumbed down the masses, justified holy wars, all the while deifying the powerful bishops and kings.

In short, Theology falls for the traps of confirmation bias, silent evidence, narrative fallacy and ludic fallacy.

But Theology is not all bad. It's good exercise as far as philosophy and logic go. Similar to philosophy, it could generate insights into the mystery of one's existence. The problem is when these insights are conflated, used as conceptual social models and believed (and taught) as literal "truths." Theology, without practice and empiricism, is only storytelling. Some are good stories that teach us wisdom. But most are just pure bunk. Most theologians and priests are simply too arrogant to utter the phrase, "I don't know." They replace it with "only God knows" and gullible people fall for it.

Digitizing Life

I've been waiting for this video! Check out Craig Venter at TED 2008.

Thanks to my buddy ~Matthew for the heads up!

American Religious Affiliation and Spirituality in College

Here's a couple of interesting articles on The Pew Forum On Religion & Public Life.

Study Finds Americans Fluid in Their Religious Affiliation
"The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, released Monday (Feb. 25), estimates the religious makeup of the country's 225 million adults in groups as large as evangelical Protestants (26.3 percent) and as small as Unitarians (0.3 percent).

"The study also paints a picture of people who often move from one faith to another, as well as the religious landscape of various parts of the country." [read more] 

UCLA Study: Students Become More Spiritual in College
"With a six-year grant from the John Templeton Foundation, UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute conducted a longitudinal study to assess the spirituality of college students during their undergraduate years. The study finds that while attendance at religious services decreased dramatically for most students between their freshman and junior years, the students’ overall level of spirituality, as defined by the researchers, increases. On hot-button social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, the study finds that students become increasingly liberal." [read more]

Draw your own conclusions.

Will the REAL Evolution Debate Please Stand Up! (Reloaded)

A little more than a year ago I blogged about a WIE issue entitled, The Mystery of Evolution. During that time the entire article was not freely accessible online. But now it is. So check it out if you still haven't read it.

The REAL Evolution Debate - "Everything you always wanted to know about evolution but the mass media wouldn't tell you."

The common notion is that the evolution debate is only between intelligent design proponents (aka creationists) vs. evolutionists. That's only a small picture. There are debates among evolutionists themselves. There is a spectrum of evolutionary thought from the Neo-Darwinists to the Transhumanists to the Integralists. WIE did an excellent job at presenting various perspectives on evolution in this issue.

For those who have a knee-jerk allergic reaction to "spirituality," I ask that you suspend your cynicism for a while and look at this article as objectively as you can. There's more to the evolution debate than you probably think.

Oprah Endorses Eckhart Tolle

When Oprah is not busy endorsing presidential candidates like Barack Obama she's out there endorsing nondual mystics.

Case in point: Oprah is hosting an interactive web seminar with Eckhart Tolle.

"For the first time ever, you can join Oprah and best-selling author Eckhart Tolle as they teach A New Earth in Oprah's worldwide classroom live Monday nights on Oprah.com."

Nice.

Thanks to Daniel @ I-I Pod for the heads up!

Why Sam Harris and B. Alan Wallace Should Talk

Scott Parker has a succinct review of Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation over at Integral World. Nice. Below are some relevant quotes:

"It is a silly thing for a book such as Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation to appear atop the bestseller lists. A wise nation might find such a trenchant criticism of religion almost charming in its quaintness, yet moot musings no longer relevant to the concerns of serious people. But, Harris didn't write his letter to a wise nation. He wrote it to America. And the only thing sillier than the need for a book like Harris' is how desperate that need is....

"For integral thinkers who are inclined toward the subjective, even the mystical, there is a danger here of wanting to form an ally with religion, as the latter at least offers some space for inner exploration. The implied contrast being that science offers no space for such explorations, and some space, even if it is squarely enclosed in the four walls of a church, is better than no space. This is exactly where integral could be helpful in using the subjective to complement science, rather than rejecting it, as religion would have it. But that opportunity is lost if integral builds on that faulty foundations of religious mythology."

Very well put. Parker continues:

"And Harris would espouse something similar; his letter betrays no scientism. He understands that people have wide-ranging subjective experiences that cannot be explained away in the language of cells and action potentials. "There is no question that it is possible for people to have profoundly transformative experiences. And there is no question that it is possible for them to misinterpret these experiences, and to further delude themselves about the nature of reality" (89). The problem is not the experience. The problem is that, because we lack alternatives, these experiences are held up to support religious worldviews.

"That, I believe, will be the divided response of the integral types. Some will find Harris' letter harsh and hyper-rational. Others will agree that religious sympathies are consequent to nihilistic concessions."

Exactly!

I think Parker hit on a crucial point here. I noticed that a lot of integrally-informed people have negative response to Sam Harris in particular and the New Atheists in general on their confrontational approach to the science and religion. I, however, choose to align myself with the New Atheists in general and Sam Harris in particular on applying "conversational intolerance" when it comes to religious dialogues and intellectual debates. On matters of faith and reason, I prefer not to be a fence sitter. Integrally-informed people who are trigger-happy on critiquing postmodernism, New Age, and scientism should be as equally passionate in confronting magic and mythic beliefs (when appropriate) which are inherent in all religions, especially when the stakes are high (e.g. intelligent design vs. evolution, injecting religion into politics, questioning religious faith of political and leaders, etc.).

In my observation, the knee-jerk reaction of integrally-informed people are that of dismissal of the New Atheists coupled with an aloof attitude (i.e. their philosophy is not sophisticated enough; nothing new with their arguments about God; they don't define religion; science is not that great; they don't get subjectivity; they are rational fundamentalists; etc.). Yet they seem to miss the point that the critiques of the New Atheists are targeted at those people who don't give a hoot at integral ideals to begin with. Without first talking to each other and taking the discussion to the next level, the result is immediate disconnect between the New Atheists and integral thinkers. They tend to start off on the wrong footing.

Here's a case in point.

In B. Alan Wallace's review  of Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation, Wallace re-iterated the argument that early scientists "were devout Christians who acknowledged that their religious beliefs strongly influence scientific thinking." He then went on to lecture Sam Harris on the history of science, as if Harris doesn't already know that. Then he brought up the "subjective experience" gambit, as if Harris is not a proponent of meditation. But worst of all, Wallace regurgitated the atrocities of atheistic regimes to critique atheism, as if Sam Harris hadn't already addressed that argument in his book The End of Faith. I give B. Alan Wallace the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me that he didn't take the time to read the other book of Sam Harris, or read his essays, or watch his interviews. Hence, the disconnect.

So naturally, Sam Harris responded to B. Alan Wallace with an equally sharp intellectual aloofness.

"Consequently, I am at a loss for how to reply. I will grant that Mr. Wallace appears to have read Letter to a Christian Nation, as he quotes and misquotes from it readily, sometimes without attribution. But he has not understood it. While it would, of course, be very sportsmanlike of me to concede that Wallace has put forward many fine points that demand my further reflection, he hasn’t—and I am left to reflect only on the evident limits of written communication. I have neither “idealized” science, nor denied the profundity of contemplative experience, nor committed any of the other sins with which Wallace seems so (over) eager to charge me. There is only one point on which Wallace has offered a useful criticism: I am now convinced that I should have used the phrase “do not accept the idea of God” rather than “reject the idea of God” when referring to the religious attitudes of our most elite scientists. There is undoubtedly a difference between these two phrases, and I am embarrassed not to have caught it prior to the book’s publication. And yet, it is a difference that does not make the slightest impact upon my argument as a whole. The truth is that Wallace’s reaction to my book is symptomatic of the very political correctness and intellectual apathy to which Letter to a Christian Nation is itself a response. While my book undoubtedly has many flaws, Wallace appears to be precisely the sort of reader who cannot find them."

Unfortunately, their conversation seemed to have stopped there. I find this tragic. Why? Because Sam Harris and B. Alan Wallace have more in common than their bickering about science and religion. Let me to count the ways:

-- They are both passionate with meditation and neuroscience.

-- They are both Tibetan Buddhist practitioners. Wallace is a Tibetan Buddhist scholar and practitioner, while Harris also practices Dzogchen.

-- They are both proponents of Contemplative Science. See B. Alan Wallace's talk at Google, Towars the First Revolution in the Mind Sciences. See Sam Harris' infamous speech during the 2007 Atheist Alliance International (AAI) Conference.

-- They are both integrally-informed. Harris cited Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality in his book The End of Faith. Wallace is one of the teachers at Integral Spiritual Center.

-- And, lastly, I'm quite sure that they both want to have a saner and more peaceful world where fundamentalism of any kind (whether science or religion) would give way to reason and expanded awareness.

If there is something they should be debating/dialoging about it should be on fleshing out their ideas about Contemplative Science. Wallace favors integrating neuroscience and Buddhism, while Harris goes even further as to strip off meditation of its Buddhist roots. Now that's the level of discussion I want to see. As of now, I could only wonder.

And that, my friends, is one example of why I think the New Atheists and Integral Camp should talk.

The Next Buddha is 'WE'

The next Buddha will not be a He, nor will be a She, but We. That is according to this fascinating essay by Michel Bauwens.

Next Buddha Will be a Collective

"Religious and spiritual expression is always embedded in societal structures. If social structures are moving towards the form of distributed networks, what kind of evolution of spiritual expression can we expect? In this essay, we will first describe the general societal changes that we see emerging, and expect to become more prevalent in the future, then examine to what degree these changes will have an impact on individual and collective spiritual expression."

Read more.

Very, very, very fluffy.

Deepak Chopra On Ever-Present Awareness

"For the last ten or twelve years, at night when I go to sleep, I meditate for half an hour, then sleep for half an hour, meditate for half an hour, sleep for half an hour. And when I’m sleeping it’s a totally witnessing sleep. My wife knows this, because she sees me sitting up in bed. And I’ve started to have a very sober non-dramatic, but very distinct, ever-present witnessing awareness, whether I’m sleeping or dreaming or in a waking state. The witness is always there; it’s there now for example. And it’s not dramatic, but it’s very much part of who I am at the moment. I don’t prepare for lectures anymore. I used to prepare, like to speak at Harvard Medical School, where my brother is the dean, which I do once a year. But now I find that I give my lectures very naturally. It comes spontaneously and there is a witnessing quality as I am speaking."

(via Deepak Chopra @ Andrew Cohen's Blog: The Universe Project Continued..)

Thanks to Albert for the heads up!

Am I a Agnostic Buddhist?

Like Sam Harris, I don't like putting labels on my belief and faith. But this is very close to what I subscribe to:

"So what would be the features of an ‘agnostic Buddhist?’ Such a person would not regard the Dharma as a source of ‘answers’ to questions of where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death. He or she would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuro-science etc.  An agnostic Buddhist would therefore not be a ‘believer’ with claims to revealed information about supernatural or paranormal phenomena, and in this sense would not be ‘religious.’ An agnostic Buddhist would look to the Dharma for metaphors of existential confrontation rather than metaphors of existential consolation. He or she would start by facing up to the primacy of anguish and uncertainty (dukkha), then proceed to apply a set of practices to understand the human dilemma and work towards a resolution.  An agnostic Buddhist would eschew atheism as much as theism, and would be as reluctant to regard the universe as devoid of meaning as endowed with meaning.  (For to deny either God or meaning is surely just the antithesis of affirming them.)  Yet such an agnostic stance would not be based on disinterest. It would be founded on a passionate recognition that I do not know.  It would confront the enormity of having been born instead of reaching for the consolation of a belief. It would strip away, layer by layer, the views that conceal the mystery of being here at all."

-- Stephen Batchelor, The Other Enlightenment Project

Thanks to Ottmar for the link.

Five Favorite Dharma Books

I've been tagged by Bill @ Integral Options Cafe to present my five favorite dharma books. Here they are:

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - Shunryu Suzuki
The Crystal and the Way of Light - Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying - Sogyal Rinpoche
Ethics for the New Millennium - The Dalai Lama
One Taste - Ken Wilber

So, I tag seven people for good luck :)

Ryan @ Zaadz
Jake @ Zaadz
Albert @ Zaadz
Brian @ Zaadz
~Matthew @ Zaadz
Mikaila @ Zaadz
Jim Paredes @ Multiply

In God's Name @ CBS

Albert just gave me a heads up on a CBS documentary entitled, In God's Name. Too bad I missed it.

"The program marks the first time that this distinct group of leaders has appeared in one broadcast. These spiritual beacons speak out about violence and hatred and reveal their own thoughts about faith, peace, unity, tolerance and hope. Viewers will see them in intimate settings, including their homes and personal places of worship. Ultimately, through the eyes of these 12 very different religious figures, the filmmakers discover the common ground among believers around the world. "

The trailer looks interesting. Dramatic even. This documentary will show the Pope and The Dalai Lama in one program. I'll wait for the program to appear on YouTube or Google Videos. It's interesting to see how different religious are portrayed in this documentary.

Anybody seen this documentary? Is this another one of those multicultural/postmodern view of religious beliefs? Does this documentary have depth?

Speaking of the Pope and the Dalai Lama, I can't help but be reminded by this quote from Sam Harris:

“Attentive readers will have noticed that I have been very hard on religions of faith–Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and even Hinduism–and have not said much that is derogatory of Buddhism. This is not an accident. While Buddhism has also been a source of ignorance and occasional violence, it is not a religion of faith, or a religion at all, in the Western sense. There are millions of Buddhists who do not seem to know this, and they can be found in temples throughout Southeast Asia, and even the West praying to Buddha as though he were a numinous incarnation of Santa Claus. This distortion of the tradition notwithstanding, it remains true that the esoteric teachings of Buddhism offer the most complete methodology we have for discovering the intrinsic freedom of consciousness, unencumbered by any dogma. It is no exaggeration to say that meetings between the Dalai Lama and Christian ecclesiastics to mutually honor their religious traditions are like meetings between physicists from Cambridge and the Bushmen of Kalahari to mutually honor their respective understandings of the physical universe. This is not to say that Tibetan Buddhists are not saddled with certain dogmas (so are physicists) or that the Bushmen could not have formed some conception of the atom. Any person familiar with both literatures will know that the Bible does not contain a discernible fraction of the precises spiritual instructions that can be found in the Buddhist canon. Though there is much in Buddhism that I do not pretend to understand–as well as much that seems deeply implausible–it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge its preeminence as a system of spiritual instructions.”

He and his Buddhist bias :)

Sam Harris on Buddhism

The more I read about Sam Harris, the more I realize that I resonate well with his views. We have so much in common when it comes to views on science, religion, politics, ethics, spirituality, and even sensitive topics like reincarnation and the paranormal.

I especially like his views on Buddhism. Case in point: Here's what he wrote on Killing the Buddha.

“The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi is supposed to have said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Like much of Zen teaching, this seems too cute by half, but it makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught. In considering what Buddhism can offer the world in the twenty-first century, I propose that we take Lin Chi’s admonishment rather seriously. As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism.”
…
“It is true that many exponents of Buddhism, most notably the Dalai Lama, have been remarkably willing to enrich (and even constrain) their view of the world through dialogue with modern science. But the fact that the Dalai Lama regularly meets with Western scientists to discuss the nature of the mind does not mean that Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or even the Dalai Lama’s own lineage, is uncontaminated by religious dogmatism. Indeed, there are ideas within Buddhism that are so incredible as to render the dogma of the virgin birth plausible by comparison. No one is served by a mode of discourse that treats such pre-literate notions as integral to our evolving discourse about the nature of the human mind. Among Western Buddhists, there are college-educated men and women who apparently believe that Guru Rinpoche was actually born from a lotus. This is not the spiritual breakthrough that civilization has been waiting for these many centuries.

“For the fact is that a person can embrace the Buddha’s teaching, and even become a genuine Buddhist contemplative (and, one must presume, a buddha) without believing anything on insufficient evidence. The same cannot be said of the teachings for faith-based religion. In many respects, Buddhism is very much like science. One starts with the hypothesis that using attention in the prescribed way (meditation), and engaging in or avoiding certain behaviors (ethics), will bear the promised result (wisdom and psychological well-being). This spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree. For this reason, the methodology of Buddhism, if shorn of its religious encumbrances, could be one of our greatest resources as we struggle to develop our scientific understanding of human subjectivity.”

Read more…

Sam Harris is my kind of (non)Buddhist Geek :)

Review: The End of Faith

"How can we encourage other human beings to extend their moral sympathies beyond a narrow locus? How can we learn to become mere human beings, shorn of any more compelling national, ethnic, or religious identity? We can be reasonable. It is in the very nature of reason to fuse cognitive and moral horizons. Reason is nothing less than the guardian of love."

....

"We do not know what awaits each of us after death, but we know that we will die. Clearly, it must be possible to live ethically--with a genuine concern for the happiness of other sentient beings--without presuming to know things about which we are patently ignorant. Consider it: every person you have ever met, every person you will pass in the street today, is going to die. Living long enough, each will suffer the loss of his friends and family. All are going to lose everything they love in this world. Why would one want to be anything but kind to them in the meantime?" 

-- Sam Harris, The End of Faith

I finally finished reading The End of Faith by Sam Harris. It took me more than a week to finish this book because I only have time to do my reading at night before I sleep. That's bad, because I tend to sleep after 20 pages or so. This book had been my sleeping pill for the past week.

I'm not saying that the book is boring. Far from it! In fact, I'm glad that I took the time reading it because I now have a deeper understanding of where Sam Harris is coming from. If you think this book is only about the boring and tired science vs. God/religion debate, then you probably have a shallow reading of it or that you're too defensive of your own beliefs, religious or otherwise. If you think Sam Harris is an ultra-rationalist who reduces consciousness and spirituality to its neurological correlates, or that Harris is evangelizing his own flavor of Buddhist spirituality then you probably didn't take the time to digest the End Notes. Speaking of End Notes, a whopping one fourth of the book consists of end notes and bibliography. A patient reading of the end notes would reveal that Sam Harris is a broadly-read philosopher, a non-conventional scientist when it comes to the ultimate mystery of consciousness, and, for lack of a better secular description, a hard core non-dualist mystic in the Buddhist (specifically Dzogchen) tradition. Here's what he has to say about Buddhism, on Notes to Page 215 (end note 12):

"Attentive readers will have noticed that I have been very hard on religions of faith--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and even Hinduism--and have not said much that is derogatory of Buddhism. This is not an accident. While Buddhism has also been a source of ignorance and occasional violence, it is not a religion of faith, or a religion at all, in the Western sense. There are millions of Buddhists who do not seem to know this, and they can be found in temples throughout Southeast Asia, and even the West praying to Buddha as though he were a numinous incarnation of Santa Claus. This distortion of the tradition notwithstanding, it remains true that the esoteric teachings of Buddhism offer the most complete methodology we have for discovering the intrinsic freedom of consciousness, unencumbered by any dogma. It is no exaggeration to say that meetings between the Dalai Lama and Christian ecclesiastics to mutually honor their religious traditions are like meetings between physicists from Cambridge and the Bushmen of Kalahari to mutually honor their respective understandings of the physical universe. This is not to say that Tibetan Buddhists are not saddled with certain dogmas (so are physicists) or that the Bushmen could not have formed some conception of the atom. Any person familiar with both literatures will know that the Bible does not contain a discernible fraction of the precises spiritual instructions that can be found in the Buddhist canon. Though there is much in Buddhism that I do not pretend to understand--as well as much that seems deeply implausible--it would be intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge its preeminence as a system of spiritual instructions."

Word. Sam Harris is no ordinary atheist. He's a Buddhist Geek ;) Anyway....

A lot has been said already about the God/religion vs. science perspective that this book had covered. In fact, during the first year of its publication, Sam Harris had taken heat from different camps--religious camps for his "angry" and non-compromising critique on religion (particularly the Abrahamic religions); liberal camps for his critique on postmodernism and moral relativism; atheist camps for his championing of Buddhist practice and his non-conventional scientific views on consciousness. Harris had addressed most of these criticisms in the Afterword section of the paperback edition of the book. If you're interested in other critical reviews of the book, you can start with the The End of Faith entry on Wikipedia and the customer reviews on Amazon.

My main criticism with this book is that, although Sam Harris had acknowledged the stages of moral development of culture and society (for example, he compared the violence and non-tolerance in contemporary Islam to fourteenth century Christianity), he didn't expound on the moral and psychological development of individuals (i.e. stages of faith) which could've shed more light and supported his argument that blind mythic faith belongs to a lower rung of psychological development than reason. I've pointed this out in my review of his book, Letter to a Christian Nation. So I won't repeat it here.

I'm not suggesting that Sam Harris is ignorant of the moral stages of development and even multiple intelligences in people. Far from it. Harris is a wide and deep reader. So I suspect that he has a solid grasp of those ideas as well. In fact, I was a bit surprised that he's also familiar with integral theory/philosophy. He even cited Ken Wilber's pre/trans fallacy in the End Notes. (Yep, Wilber's Sex, Ecology & Spirituality is included in the bibliography along with other mainstream and academically recognized philosophers.) In some sections of the book, I can sense Wilber's influence on Harris (or at least the similarity in their views) especially when it comes to his critiques of postmodernism, New Age and his championing of nondual spirituality.

Speaking of Wilber, I wonder if Harris had read Wilber's Marriage of Sense and Soul. I find it interesting that it's not included in his recommended reading list since I see a lot of similarities in their views. So I'd like to hear his take on it. For example: How would he classify Wilber's approach at integrating science and religion? Would he agree with it? Would he object to it? Would he embrace Wilber's view on integrating spirituality and science yet maintain his non-compromising stance on religion? I can only wonder at this time. But the main difference I see between Wilber and Harris is that, while Wilber's Integral Spirituality uses a conveyor belt metaphor when dealing with religion, Sam Harris wants to teleport everyone (or at least the key people--leaders--in society) to a rational view of reality. A dialogue (or even a debate) between those two thinkers would shed light on their similarities, as well as their differences.

But in the meantime, take for example, Wilber's approach. In his Liberalism and Religion - We Should Talk article, Wilber wrote:

"The way it is now, the modern world really is divided into two major and warring camps, science and liberalism on the one hand, and religion and conservatism on the other. And the key to getting these two camps together is first, to get religion past science, and then second, to get religion past liberalism, because both science and liberalism are deeply anti-spiritual. And it must occur in that order, because liberalism won’t even listen to spirituality unless it has first passed the scientific test."

In contrast, instead of getting religion past science, then getting religion past liberalism, so that he can integrate authentic spirituality with science, as Wilber suggested, Harris had declared war on religion, spit on the moral relativism of postmodern liberalism (e.g. he made a case against the war on illegal drugs, a philosophical defense of torture, and a pot shot at pacifism), and happily took a stab at integrating spirituality and ethics with science, all in one book. Very ballsy. As a result, Harris had put himself smack in the middle of those warring camps (science and liberalism; religion and conservatism). No wonder he's getting heat from all sides, including from his fellow atheists. Take this excerpt from the Afterword:

"I have also taken considerable heat from atheists for a few remarks I made about the nature of consciousness. Most atheists appear to be certain that consciousness is entirely dependent on (and reducible to) the workings of the brain.... The fact is that scientists still do not know what the relationship between consciousness and matter actually is. I am not suggesting that we make a religion out of this uncertainty, or do anything else with it. And, needless to say, the mysteriousness of consciousness does nothing to make conventional religious notions about God and paradise any more plausible."

And this speech by Sam Harris at the Atheist Alliance Conference:

“While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the “new atheists” or “militant atheists” has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them. And while our books have gotten a fair amount of notice, I think this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism.  

“So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.”

(see also Rational Mysticism wherein Sam Harris responded Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry magazine, and Response