The GnuAtheists: Sam Harris
 
Saturday, October 30, 2010
# posted by Hidari : 2:09 PM

With the Popinjay apparently soon to pop off this mortal coil, this might be a good time to look at his fellow GnuAtheists, those self-proclaimed apostles (sic) of reason and rationalism. Future episodes will look at the extremely minor academic philosopher Dan Dennett, and maybe Ayaan Hirsi Ali (if I can be bothered) but for now let's look at creepy weirdo Sam Harris (picture of him to the left looking creepy. And weird).
Sam Harris is of course one of the most controversial of the Nooatheists, for his, shall we say, idiosyncratic views on Islam, which few of his fellow atheists have openly condemned, and which some (e.g. Hitchens) would seem to agree with. But before we go onto that, let's look at Harris's basic views: let's see where he's coming from.

To begin with, let's state something that is absolutely obvious: atheists are not necessarily any more rational, or moral, or intelligent, or 'rational', or anything else, than anybody else. And it couldn't be otherwise. All atheists are, are people who don't believe in something. To say that atheists have something in common is like saying that people who don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, should band together, maybe form a think tank, or a political movement.

And let's make something even more clear: to be an atheist does not necessarily imply commitment to the scientific method or materialism (something that will become relevant when we come to discussing Harris). To quote Wikipedia: 'Atheism (Sanskrit: nir-īśvara-vāda, lit. "statement of no Lord", "doctrine of godlessness") or disbelief in God or gods has been a historically propounded viewpoint in many of the orthodox and heterodox streams of Hindu philosophies. Generally, atheism is valid in Hinduism, but the path of the atheist is viewed as very difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.'

Assuming one accepts that Hinduism is a religion, this of course means that one can be the follower of an organised religion and an atheist: there is no necessary dichotomy. And Hinduism isn't unique in this. Most Buddhists are atheists. There are Jewish atheists, even Christian atheists (whether or not there are Muslim atheists depends on what you mean by a 'Muslim': there are certainly people who would self-identify as being culturally Muslim who do not believe in God).

Which brings us to Harris. For whatever Dawkins, Myers and others may choose to believe, the simple fact is, Harris is not, and never has been, a scientific materialist. To quote Neera Manda: 'In his much acclaimed The End of Faith, Sam Harris declares the death of faith, only to celebrate the birth of spirituality. He wants to convince us of the proposition that “Mysticism is rational…religion is not” (p. 221). Traditional Judeo-Christian and Islamic conception of God who heeds your prayers is a mere leap of faith, “an epistemological black hole, draining the light out of our world”(p. 35). Faith in a personal God is “intellectually defunct and politically ruinous” (p. 221). It is time to grow up, Harris tells us, and trade faith for spirituality or mysticism, which is “deeply rational, even as it elucidates the limits of reason” (p. 43). Unlike religion, mysticism is only a “natural propensity of the human mind, and we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it” (p. 221)....'

This is an absolutely crucial insight, and helps to explain his view of Islam. Manda continues: 'Brushing aside all political and historical factors that have contributed to religious extremism in the contemporary world, Harris singles out theological beliefs as the primary and pretty much the sole cause of religious violence. He indulgently turns a blind eye on the “spiritual” teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism, both of which have a proven track-record of justifying nationalistic wars and ethnic cleansings. Instead, he saves all his venom against the Koran, condemning it as if it were a manual of war.'

One cannot, in other words, separate Harris's view of Islam from his own spiritual views. What are these views? Manda explains: ''This bilious attack on [Islam] only sets the stage for what seems to be his real goal: a defense – nay, a celebration of – Harris’s own Buddhist/Hindu spirituality. (He has been influenced by the esoteric teachings of Dzogchen Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and has spent many years practicing various techniques of meditation, Harris informs his readers). Spirituality is the answer to Islam’s and Christianity’s superstitions and wars, Harris wants to convince us. While he is quick to pour scorn on such childish ideas as the virgin birth, heaven and hell, the great rationalist has only winks and nods to offer when it comes to such “higher” truths as near-death experiences, ESP and the existence of disembodied souls, all of which he finds plausible. Our fearless crusader against faith puts his reason to sleep when it comes to the soul-stuff of the Eastern faith traditions that he himself subscribes to.'

In other words, Harris's hatred for Islam can't be separated from the current political situation in India. India is,amongst other things, an institutionally Islamophobic society, where the sinister BJP party and other right wing Hindu groups have pitted Hindu 'spirituality' against Islamic 'irrationalism' (sound familiar?). Harris has swallowed this line hook line and sinker, and it is his right wing support of the most reactionary aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism that is his real agenda. Given that this is the case, one might infer that Harris is not and could not be genuinely devoted to science, reason and evidence and in fact he is not. On the contrary, his preferred mode of argument is the 'truism', the anecdote and the generalisation. Manda explains: '(Harris is) a Trojan horse for the New Age. While Harris tries to distance himself from the more extravagant Whole Life Expo type fads (crystals, colonic irrigation and the like), he ends up endorsing fundamental New Age assumptions as rational alternatives to traditional religiosity.' (to be continued).

Labels: , , , , ,

 
<< Home
 
Search
Google Custom Search
Contributors

Previous Posts
Archives
Contact Us
Send tips or questions to hitchenswatch@gmail.com
Hitchens Said!

“The enemies of intolerance cannot be tolerant." • "If it is an offense to justice to hold people who may have been victims of mistaken identity or of vendettas by other factions, then it is also an offense to justice to release psychopathic killers who believe that they have divine permission to throw acid in the faces of girls who want to attend school." • "Don't be such a lesbian! ”

Blog Roll
Our visitors
Donate

xtrastats free counter