Having established quite simply that Buddhism is a religion, we can now look at what else Harris says about it. In examining his treatments of certain ideas one can see a commitment, founded on faith, in Buddhist concepts. I do not want this Harris-spree to last forever, so I am going to compress the rest of my conclusions (at least those not bearing directly on Moral Landscape or Free Will) regarding his faith into this post. Brevity will naturally win out over comprehensiveness. However, readers are directed towards the cited sources, a number of which elaborate on aspects of the Harris’ hypocrisy [see: 11, 12, 13, and 14].
A rather direct exposition of Harris’ essentially religious commitment to the ‘teachings of the Buddha’ can be found in his “Killing the Buddha” piece. Originally published in the Shambhala Sun, the intro notes that it is written by “Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, who argues that Buddhism’s philosophy, insight, and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion” [1]. So we see an agenda quite plainly: to spread the content of Buddhist thought. That the intention requires divesting Buddhism of its status as a religion suggests that those Harris aims at would be less inclined to accept them if they knew the truth.
To say Buddhism deserves different treatment is logically equal to saying that the facets of Christianity should not be presented as religion. Let's examine the logical implications. Creationism (labelled as Intelligent Design) is presented as science; the Gospels are often presented as history. Does this mean that creationism and the Gospel accounts are scientific and historical rather than religious? No. It means that someone is either mistaken (if sincere) or deliberately trying to deceive. Such actions misrepresent what is being conveyed. Hence it is reasonable to say that Harris wants to misrepresent Buddhism. This shows Harris himself to be Buddhist in the same way as other religious persons who try to recast their belief system as truthful and non-contentious. He may claim he is talking about science but the truth of the matter rests uncomfortably beneath his grandiose verbiage.
“But wait”, a hypothetical interjector may say, “Sam says he isn’t a Buddhist.” That he does in his “Response to Controversy” piece [2]. It merits noting that this document was both created and maintained due to the fact that Harris was being ‘misunderstood’. In the previous post I mentioned the fact that he has a problem with communicating and this is some of the best proof of both his failures on that count and also his tendency to express divergent views. In a section concerning Eastern mysticism and Buddhism, Harris states: “While I consider Buddhism almost unique among the world’s religions as a repository of contemplative wisdom, I do not consider myself a Buddhist” [2]. Firstly, his language betrays the knowledge that Buddhism is a religion. Secondly, coming from Harris this assuaging of a label is meaningless. Elsewhere, when countering complaints about his views on the term atheism, Harris states, “My point, with respect to the term “atheist” (or any other), is that the use of a label invites a variety of misunderstandings that are harmful to our cause” [3]. Taken in the context of his own thoughts, not using the term Buddhist is entirely consistent with a general attitude towards labels and the goal of spreading certain ideas.
Here’s a simple illustration of his faith in Buddhism: by Harris own account “According to the teachings of Buddhism, meditation produces profound insights into the nature of human subjectivity; insights that can have a direct a bearing upon a person’s ethical life and level of happiness” [4]. Where that view becomes important is in the pronouncements that Harris makes without overt recourse to the fact he has effectively drawn these conclusions from Buddhist conviction. Consider the following:
“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.” [1]
“There is simply no question that people have transformative experiences as a result of engaging contemplative disciplines like meditation, and there is no question that these experiences shed some light on the nature of the human mind (any experience does, for that matter).” [2]
“I believe contemplative efforts of this sort [meditation etc.] have a lot to tell us about the nature of the mind” [5]
“What words should we use to acknowledge the fact that the happiest person on this earth at this moment might have spent the last twenty years living alone in a cave? Any experienced meditator knows that this is a serious possibility. (Indeed, I consider it not only possible, but likely.)” [6]
“As any serious practitioner of meditation knows, there is something to the claims that have been made by mystics over the ages” [6]
Regarding the last two one may say that whether anyone committed to a certain system of belief would admit of the possibility is irrelevant. Until there’s a fact there’s nothing but a religious concept. What is present in this statement if not faith? Looking back to the second statement it is plainly obvious that if “any experience does” then Buddhist practices are disinvested of their supposedly unique utility. Nevertheless, Harris suggests we use Buddhist “methodology” to produce a “contemplative science” [1]. Why Buddhist methodology? No convincing reason is given and we are left with Harris’ (pre-existent) belief that this can be done. Again, we have a conviction on the grounds of faith.
Harris suggests we shear Buddhist teachings of their religious attributes in order to create this “science of consciousness” [1]. To articulate the point he asserts “Christians invented physics as we know it, and the Muslims invented algebra”, therefore it is seen as no great leap to claim as he does that Buddhists could have invented a science [1]. He proceeds to state, “Today, anyone who emphasizes the Christian roots of physics or the Muslim roots of algebra would stand convicted of not understanding these disciplines at all” [1]. Unfortunately, but certainly not surprisingly in the context of Harris’ writing, no substantive explanation is offered to clarify the meaning of these claims. What does it actually mean to say “Christians invented physics”? Does Harris simply seek to make the observation that Newton, Faraday and other pioneers of physics were Christian (albeit of mostly different sects)? Does he actually want to argue that Christianity and Islam involve the nucleus of these scientific practices? Without clarification one cannot be certain which claim to address. Herein we see the aforementioned problem of engagement that plagues Harris’ work and leaves open the numerous doors through which he would abscond if cornered on the point.
While physics and algebra did first arise out of Christian and Muslim societies respectively this does not make them the inventions of religion. To say they were would require a clear linkage between religious beliefs and the final product. Saying that belief in an orderly universe, to take the Christian example often cited by proponents of the unification of science and religion, produced physics is insufficient. Why? Because all that belief does is to suggest a possibility into which one must look to find out what the reality is. That physics was the ultimate result is counterbalanced by the fact that other religious beliefs have failed to produce scientific disciplines. One is therefore not guaranteed of such a result as Harris suggests. As he typically does, Harris is imagining an allegedly possible future. In this case one where Buddhism turns out to have produced the next physics or algebra. He is free (well actually no, not according to Harris himself, who sees free will as an illusion) to have his fancies. None of these represent a convincing argument or a valid case though.
Overall the article seems based on circular reasoning: Harris assumes that Buddhism has something (scientific) to say and then calls for a new science to be developed based on its “methodology”. If Buddhism can make an empirical contribution to knowledge then I am happy to see it do so. However, the claim requires evidence before we can even validly state that it has something to contribute. Minus the evidence it is nothing more than one man’s belief. And that’s what religion often comes down to: one man’s belief, before and without the evidence to make it true.
Both in a spurious chapter of Moral Landscape and elsewhere Harris criticizes Francis Collins, current head of the NIH, for suggesting that his Christian beliefs (which are expansively liberal) do not conflict with contemporary science [7]. What’s the difference between Collins’ claims about Christianity and Harris’ about Buddhism? Both claims that their religion and science do not conflict. Accusing Collins’ religion of undermining his scientific capacity Harris asserts, “It can be difficult to think like a scientist ... few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion” [7]. That’s quite true. But it is a problem equally for Harris as it is for Collins. Moreover, to my knowledge Collins does not attempt to import his beliefs into science or suggest they can bring about new scientific disciplines. In that regard he is more reasonable than Harris.
It appears that Harris is simply being hypocritical, holding a double standard where his religion is valid while anyone else’s must be called into question. For posterity let me say I take an equally negative view of each. Furthermore, although he claims that science can address questions of morality, and rebukes Collins for suggesting that there are questions outside of the scope of science [7], Harris has this to say in End of Faith:
“The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it.“ (End Of Faith, p.208)
So apparently there are questions beyond the scope of science. It is just that those questions happen to be those which Harris’ religious beliefs depend upon instead of those that Collins’ requires. A Washington Post article based on an interview with him provides the following self-indictment: “Harris says ... Because Christians and Jews cling to their "delusions," they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs” [8]. Basically this amounts to the same moral as ‘the pot calling the kettle black’. Unfortunately for Harris he occupies an equally compromised position wherein the most he can do is rebuke the faith of others while resting on his own. Similar views are expressed by Harris in a New Statesman article where he is quoted as saying, “the devout tacitly reject thousands of gods, along with the cherished doctrines of every religion but their own” [9]. Again, this serves as an apt description of Harris himself: all religions are false save thy own.
It is hard to separate out the beliefs that Harris espouses and those of his Buddhist background. Although Harris has declared that he was formerly a “dogmatic Buddhist” [10], Theodore Sayeed rightly points out that Harris was not raised in a Buddhist context but rather chose to immerse himself in and convert to the belief system [11]. In asking whether Harris “mishmash of Buddhism and "Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown," might “weaken his case against Christians”, John Gorenfeld observes, “His answer is that Buddhism is a superior product” [12]. Consistently Harris has been shown to adopt the stable maxim of the religious that ‘my faith and beliefs are the true way forward’. As early as 2005 academic and science writer, Meera Nanda provided the following highly acute description of End of Faith:
“In his much acclaimed The End of Faith, Sam Harris declares the death of faith, only to celebrate the birth of spirituality ... This bilious attack on faith only sets the stage for what seems to be his real goal: a defense [sic.] -- nay, a celebration of -- Harris's own Buddhist/Hindu spirituality.” [13]
By not being a traditional or “dogmatic” adherent, Harris can most accurately be described as a religious moderate. On this point, Gorenfeld quite rightly observes that Harris, “Like any religious moderate ... has picked and chosen what he likes from a religion” [12]. Ironically, Harris reserves some of his most direct language for the denouncement of religious moderates. It is telling to see how sheepish Harris acts, when faced with an audience of scientists, regarding his other notable belief (in reincarnation – see: 14) when called out on his leniency towards Buddhism by Laurence Krauss [15]. Starting with Buddhism, Harris has built a faith out of the tenets of his former dogma blended with scientistic language and a few idiosyncratic motifs which make him a paradigm example of today’s spiritual landscape where religious doctrine is eschewed for personal identity bricolage.
In adherence to a religion one has a certain amount of vested commitment to specific ideas and metaphysical schemata. This commitment comes before, and is often seen not to require, rational or empirical deliberation. Having shown that when Sam Harris decalres the end of faith he really means the end of any faith he doesn't endorse, I will move on to critically examining Moral Landscape.
[1] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/killing-the-buddha/
[2] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/
[3] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-my-fellow-atheists
[4] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/a-contemplative-science
[5] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/consciousness-without-faith
[6] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/rational-mysticism
[7] http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/science-is-in-the-details
[8]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501998_2.html
[9] http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/07/god-evidence-believe-world
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd7u_JieXFI&feature=channel&list=UL#t=2m36s
[11] http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/sam-harris-in-full-court-intellectual-mystic-and-supporter-of-the-iraq-war.html
[12]http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/sam_harris%27s_faith_in_eastern_spirituality_and_muslim_torture
[13]http://www.sacw.net/free/Trading%20Faith%20for%20Spirituality_%20The%20Mystifications%20of%20Sam%20Harris.html
[14] http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter74.html
[15] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lXdIuxATtQ#t=1h47m52s For Krauss’ statements watch from 1:45. Note: Harris claims that his leniency is not because of an “affinity” born of either background or Buddhists but because of a subjective opinion – “I happen to think” – which directly illustrates Harris’ faith-based belief in that system of thought over others.
No comments:
Post a Comment