Last night I heard Deepak Chopra refer to Richard Dawkins as a scientific fundamentalist. I don't know if I know about the particular label as applied to Dawkins, but I can relate to the concept. Chopra was referring to scientific fundamentalism as anyone who subscribes to a materialistic world view that does not allow for possible mystery.
This would be the explicit denial that there can be anything beyond the material world. By "anything beyond" I don't mean in the supernatural sense. I mean it in the sense of a transcendent, unnameable Source of all that is. I believe this is what Chopra meant when he said science cannot explain higher level concepts such as inspiration, love, beauty, etc.
In other words, a scientific fundamentalist refuses to allow for anything that is not scientifically verifiable or falsifiable. Something along the lines of logical positivism I guess.
I mentioned in a previous post that Sam Harris was taking the discussion of atheism to a higher level by incorporating his insights from his time studying Eastern spiritual practices. To me this approach goes beyond scientific fundamentalism. Harris is allowing for the possibility of knowing a more transcendental reality through meditation practices. This perspective is an appropriate scientific stance, one that does not dogmatically assert that there is a binary choice between scientific materialism and supernaturalism.
To the contrary, there are many degrees along the spectrum. Believing that it is possible to access a higher reality through meditation or other spiritual practices is not believing in a supernatural realm. It is believing that there are higher and higher levels of consciousness available to us that we miss while we are lost in thought or focusing on the NEXT moment rather than being fully present in the current one.
Spirituality should be conceived as more of a holistic awareness and consciousness rather than belief in the supernatural. Faith should be defined as the opposite of fear and behaving as if it is impossible to fail rather than the irrational belief in things that do not make sense. Scientific Fundamentalism, with a rejection of any ideas that might have their roots in religion, dogmatically rejects the possibilities of higher forms of consciousness beyond logical thought.
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Toward a Reasonable Faith
While browsing YouTube over the last few weeks I became aware of Sam Harris, a neuroscientist/philosopher/author. I was lead there through exploring lectures and discussions around consciousness, quantum physics, religion and philosophy among other things. Ranging across Buddhist monks, New Age Philosophers, Quantum scientists, Evolutionary scientists, Comedians, and ultimately "New Atheism" I have been able to refine and contemplate nascent ideas I had in these areas. Wow, we live in a great era to be alive - all these ideas at our fingertips consumable in a variety of media formats.
At any rate, in one interview with Richard Dawkins, he mentioned that he was very impressed with Sam Harris. I had never heard of him, so I looked him up and started consuming some of his media appearances, lectures, interviews and discussions on YouTube. I quickly became impressed and inspired as well. Of course, Mr. Harris is branded as an atheist, or "New Atheist" as are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.
Each of these figures brings a slightly different perspective to the discussion and criticism of religion in general and of the most damaging or bad ideas inherent in the expression of some of them. I know more about Dawkins than the other two, but for the purposes of this blog entry, I will concentrate on where I think the ideas of Sam Harris are useful and interesting.
Even though Harris grudgingly accepts being labeled an atheist, he elevates the debate and raises consciousness for both traditional religious thinking as well as traditional atheist thinking. I admire Harris because he is courageously stating his case, perhaps at the risk of being targeted for harm or worse by the more extreme factions of some religions. I also admire him for elevating the discussion out of the divisive, narrow traditional bickering that usually goes on between theists and atheists.
One reason this is true is that Harris brings his personal experiences of meditation and Eastern religion to the table. He has experienced some of the beneficial effects of mindfulness and meditation. His personal perspective remains strictly secular, but he brings this awareness of a broader consciousness to his writing and arguments.
Off an on I have been in search of a reasonable faith most of my life. Like Harris, I reject the baggage that comes with traditional religions. Why wrap so much padding around the kernel of mystery that is the essence of theology and metaphysics? Why destroy the mystery by claiming certainty for things we do not know or for things that seem preposterous by our 21st century standards? Why cling to world views that are outdated and proved false by hundreds of years of scientific progress?
The things that I believe are necessary for a reasonable faith are: 1) Acceptance of the "facts" of science, 2) Rejection of superstition and claimed certainty, 3) Evaluation of religious ideas in the cold clear light of day, and 4) a modern definition of the word "faith". Regarding #4, I have long accepted the definition of the word "faith" as being that of acting confidently toward the future and acting if it is impossible to fail. I have rejected the definition of faith as that of believing in things that appear to be questionable at best regardless of logical inconsistencies or "proof" otherwise.
Faith is taking the positive experience of the Source and manifesting that abstract power into an individual expression in the relative, physical world. Harris makes a good point in one of his lectures that we will have evolved in consciousness once the word "Atheist" has no meaning anymore. My take on that is a future possibility where everyone is unified in the experience, appreciation and expression of the underlying mystery that is the ground of being for all that the Universe was, is and ever shall be.
At any rate, in one interview with Richard Dawkins, he mentioned that he was very impressed with Sam Harris. I had never heard of him, so I looked him up and started consuming some of his media appearances, lectures, interviews and discussions on YouTube. I quickly became impressed and inspired as well. Of course, Mr. Harris is branded as an atheist, or "New Atheist" as are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens.
Each of these figures brings a slightly different perspective to the discussion and criticism of religion in general and of the most damaging or bad ideas inherent in the expression of some of them. I know more about Dawkins than the other two, but for the purposes of this blog entry, I will concentrate on where I think the ideas of Sam Harris are useful and interesting.
Even though Harris grudgingly accepts being labeled an atheist, he elevates the debate and raises consciousness for both traditional religious thinking as well as traditional atheist thinking. I admire Harris because he is courageously stating his case, perhaps at the risk of being targeted for harm or worse by the more extreme factions of some religions. I also admire him for elevating the discussion out of the divisive, narrow traditional bickering that usually goes on between theists and atheists.
One reason this is true is that Harris brings his personal experiences of meditation and Eastern religion to the table. He has experienced some of the beneficial effects of mindfulness and meditation. His personal perspective remains strictly secular, but he brings this awareness of a broader consciousness to his writing and arguments.
Off an on I have been in search of a reasonable faith most of my life. Like Harris, I reject the baggage that comes with traditional religions. Why wrap so much padding around the kernel of mystery that is the essence of theology and metaphysics? Why destroy the mystery by claiming certainty for things we do not know or for things that seem preposterous by our 21st century standards? Why cling to world views that are outdated and proved false by hundreds of years of scientific progress?
The things that I believe are necessary for a reasonable faith are: 1) Acceptance of the "facts" of science, 2) Rejection of superstition and claimed certainty, 3) Evaluation of religious ideas in the cold clear light of day, and 4) a modern definition of the word "faith". Regarding #4, I have long accepted the definition of the word "faith" as being that of acting confidently toward the future and acting if it is impossible to fail. I have rejected the definition of faith as that of believing in things that appear to be questionable at best regardless of logical inconsistencies or "proof" otherwise.
Faith is taking the positive experience of the Source and manifesting that abstract power into an individual expression in the relative, physical world. Harris makes a good point in one of his lectures that we will have evolved in consciousness once the word "Atheist" has no meaning anymore. My take on that is a future possibility where everyone is unified in the experience, appreciation and expression of the underlying mystery that is the ground of being for all that the Universe was, is and ever shall be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)