Greetings Steve, Most interesting!
I call myself an atheist, because I do not believe in a God. That seems simple enough. But I do NOT favor scientism either. I do not accept the concept of God because it is far too limiting. Like any definition of DQ, or TAO, is not it. I reject anyone else's definition, the bible's, Ham's or the Pope's. (The idea of a puppetmaster in the sky is just ludicrous.) There is a line from a movie that goes like this: "There goes a very religious man, who doesn't believe in God". I am an atheist! Marsha At 08:10 PM 1/28/2008, you wrote: >Hi All, > >One reason that I have had negative associations with atheism is >because I see atheists as rejecting spirituality in favor of >scientism. This is a stereotype of course, and it doesn't apply to >all atheists, nor does it apply to Sam Harris. > >I found this speech where Sam Harris explains religious experience to >a bunch of atheists at an atheist convention interesting. He explains >mysticism in a very rational way. I'd be interested in your thoughts >on this excerpt from his speech "The Problem With Atheism": > >http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/ >the_problem_with_atheism.html > >"...Heres what happens, in the generic case: a person, in whatever >culture he finds himself, begins to notice that life is difficult. He >observes that even in the best of timesno one close to him has died, >hes healthy, there are no hostile armies massing in the distance, >the fridge is stocked with beer, the weather is just soeven when >things are as good as they can be, he notices that at the level of >his moment to moment experience, at the level of his attention, he is >perpetually on the move, seeking happiness and finding only temporary >relief from his search. > >Weve all noticed this. We seek pleasant sights, and sounds, and >tastes, and sensations, and attitudes. We satisfy our intellectual >curiosities, and our desire for friendship and romance. We become >connoisseurs of art and music and filmbut our pleasures are, by >their very nature, fleeting. And we can do nothing more than merely >reiterate them as often as we are able. > >If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of >accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about an hour, or >maybe a day, but then people will begin to ask us So, what are you >going to do next? Dont you have anything else in the pipeline? >Steve Jobs releases the IPhone, and Im sure it wasnt twenty minutes >before someone asked, when are you going to make this thing >smaller? Notice that very few people at this juncture, no matter >what theyve accomplished, say, Im done. Ive met all my goals. Now >Im just going to stay here eat ice cream until I die in front of you. > >Even when everything has gone as well as it can go, the search for >happiness continues, the effort required to keep doubt and >dissatisfaction and boredom at bay continues, moment to moment. If >nothing else, the reality of death and the experience of losing loved >ones punctures even the most gratifying and well-ordered life. > >In this context, certain people have traditionally wondered whether a >deeper form of well-being exists. Is there, in other words, a form of >happiness that is not contingent upon our merely reiterating our >pleasures and successes and avoiding our pains. Is there a form of >happiness that is not dependent upon having ones favorite food >always available to be placed on ones tongue or having all ones >friends and loved ones within arms reach, or having good books to >read, or having something to look forward to on the weekend? Is it >possible to be utterly happy before anything happens, before ones >desires get gratified, in spite of lifes inevitable difficulties, in >the very midst of physical pain, old age, disease, and death? > >This question, I think, lies at the periphery of everyones >consciousness. We are all, in some sense, living our answer to itand >many of us are living as though the answer is no. No, there is >nothing more profound that repeating ones pleasures and avoiding >ones pains; there is nothing more profound that seeking >satisfaction, both sensory and intellectual. Many of us seem think >that all we can do is just keep our foot on the gas until we run out >of road. > >But certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that >there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them >are led to suspect this by religionby the claims of people like the >Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such >a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attentionoften >called meditation or contemplationas a means of examining his >moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis >of well-being is there to be found. > >Such a person might even hole himself up in a cave, or in a >monastery, for months or years at a time to facilitate this process. >Why would somebody do this? Well, it amounts to a very simple >experiment. Heres the logic of it: if there is a form of >psychological well-being that isnt contingent upon merely repeating >ones pleasures, then this happiness should be available even when >all the obvious sources of pleasure and satisfaction have been >removed. If it exists at all, this happiness should be available to a >person who has renounced all her material possessions, and declined >to marry her high school sweetheart, and gone off to a cave or to >some other spot that would seem profoundly uncongenial to the >satisfaction of ordinary desires and aspirations. > >One clue as to how daunting most people would find such a project is >the fact that solitary confinementwhich is essentially what we are >talking aboutis considered a punishment even inside a prison. Even >when cooped up with homicidal maniacs and rapists, most people still >prefer the company of others to spending any significant amount of >time alone in a box. > >And yet, for thousands of years, contemplatives have claimed to find >extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast >stretches of time in total isolation. It seems to me that, as >rational people, whether we call ourselves atheists or not, we have >a choice to make in how we view this whole enterprise. Either the >contemplative literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, >deliberate fraud, and psychopathology, or people have been having >interesting and even normative experiences under the name of >spirituality and mysticism for millennia. > >Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, >that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their >emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical >intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of >subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like >meditation. > >Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what >contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have >discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the >mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into >consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously >spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves. > >Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to >himselfthat is, not able to censor himself in front of other people >hes probably mentally ill. But if we talk to ourselves all day long >silentlythinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior >conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didnt say, what >we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is >going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what >should have happened, what may yet happenbut we just know enough to >just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This >is perfectly compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the >experience of millions of contemplatives suggests. > >Of course, I am by no means denying the importance of thinking. There >is no question that linguistic thought is indispensable for us. It >is, in large part, what makes us human. It is the fabric of almost >all culture and every social relationship. Needless to say, it is the >basis of all science. And it is surely responsible for much >rudimentary cognitionfor integrating beliefs, planning, explicit >learning, moral reasoning, and many other mental capacities. Even >talking to oneself out loud may occasionally serve a useful function. > > From the point of view of our contemplative traditions, howeverto >boil them all down to a cartoon version, that ignores the rather >esoteric disputes among themour habitual identification with >discursive thought, our failure moment to moment to recognize >thoughts as thoughts, is a primary source of human suffering. And >when a person breaks this spell, an extraordinary kind of relief is >available. > >But the problem with a contemplative claim of this sort is that you >cant borrow someone elses contemplative tools to test it. The >problem is that to test such a claimindeed, to even appreciate how >distracted we tend to be in the first place, we have to build our own >contemplative tools. Imagine where astronomy would be if everyone had >to build his own telescope before he could even begin to see if >astronomy was a legitimate enterprise. It wouldnt make the sky any >less worthy of investigation, but it would make it immensely more >difficult for us to establish astronomy as a science. > >To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build >your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another >matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad >philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether >certain experiences are possibleand if possible, desirablewe have >to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be >able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for >a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is >not work that our culture knows much about. > >One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems >more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone >like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many >atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, >or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to >imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of >mind with which many of us are already familiarthe feeling of >scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, >artistic inspiration, etc. > >As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me >assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself >in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a >time, in silence, doing nothing elsenot talking, not reading, not >writingjust making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely >observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, >he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely >to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts >at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the >plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human >happiness..." > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ ************* DEFINITION of Marsha, I, me, self, myself, & etc.: Ever-changing collection of overlapping, interrelated, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of value. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
