Waking Up Sam Harris

[Anshu Bryson]

So, maybe... this comes down to what “atheism” means. I would suggest that the narrow definition is out of touch with the world we live in today and the painful cultural divisions of today. The actual general and deeply held usage of the term is a rejection of much more than a certain narrow style of the Sacred, or Divine. If it is just about labels then, to declare oneself an Athiest Buddhist is to declare Buddhism as standing on one side. That is not helpful for the Dharma blooming in the west. It is narrowing. That's obviously just one opinion.

Gassho
Daizan

I was going to weigh in again, not to argue with you, Daizan, but because I feel that somehow I haven't articulated myself well enough. But I have re-read the thread, and I'd only be repeating myself. Peace.

Gassho,

Bryson

[Risho]

This is my last post on the thread (so I don't beat it to death. lol), but to follow up:

Daitetsu -- I see where you are coming from; I haven't thought about it like that

Daizan -- your questions always cut through to my heart; they are awesome

I've put a request in to my local library to request this book; it is very popular; there are 11 requests ahead of mine but I have plenty of reading to keep me busy. lol

Gassho,

Risho

[Nindo]

Ummm... to maybe get back to the book, I only read a short summary online, but when I hear "A rational approach to spirituality" I immediately think of Unitarian Universalism. And secular (non-devotional) Buddhism. I wonder whether the "tools" offered by the book are similar to what these established traditions offer?

Unfortunately, both UU and Buddhism are minority congregations in the West. I truly believe that a) people are searching for spirituality that makes sense to them, but any religious references can be a barrier; and b) if the spiritual needs of more people were met with something other than consumerism, we could finally make progress on the pressing issues of the planet and our societies. Just my 2 pennies.

[Hans]

Hello,

the book does contain some useful information about the current status quo regarding the philosophy of consciousness, brain physiology etc., as well as a personal account of Mr. Harris's own journey, which was mainly influenced by many years of Theravada, Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen practise. Steven Pinker is a friend if his, so although I am sure one can disagree with him, he does know how to research properly.

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[Yugen]

To be an atheist requires a theism or "God" to reject, which is not a recognition of the latter's existence? In other words, a dualistic relationship....

I'm with Kyonin - I fall on the side of Buddhism as a philosophy and belief in other religions and spiritualities can inform this practice or not. This is an individual matter.

To pick and choose dualistic frames limits the boundaries of our exploration (and blue smoke comes out of my ears).

It's liberating for me to say "so what?"

Deep bows
Yugen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RichardH]

Daizan -- your questions always cut through to my heart; they are awesome

Thank you, Risho.

Daizan

[Daitetsu]

Hi Yugen,

To be an atheist requires a theism or "God" to reject, which is not a recognition of the latter's existence?

Lets imagine I say to you: "Yugen, I belive in pink unicorns."
And then you say: "Er, Daitetsu, with all due respect, but I don't."
According to the logic of your statement in the quote above, wouldn't this also be your recognition of the pink unicorn's existence?

An Atheist does not reject God, he just does not believe there is one.
If you don't believe there is X, there is no need to reject X.

A newborn has never heard about God and is thus an Atheist. So Atheist is the default state that can change into Theist, Deist or whatever. (And then maybe change back again.)
It's only because of belief systems that there is a need to give that default state a name.
The newborn also does not smoke. However, since there are smokers in the world, there is a need to give that default state a name - Non-smoker. If there were no smokers in the world, nobody would need to call themselves a non-smoker when they go to a party/restaurant.

So being an Atheist, Non-Smoker, etc. should not be seen as a conscious choice at the beginning of ones life. For that state to change something additional is required, like religious indoctrination and being offered a cigarette, respectively.


Anyway, words, words, words - like you said, it's good to not care about that.
(It can be interesting and entertaining to talk about such things from time to time though.)

Gassho,

Daitetsu

[Hans]

Hello dear folks,

how about some of you open another thread, since it seems that almost no one has read the book this thread was supposed to be about and the discussion is focussed on a different (albeit interesting) topic?

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[Jundo]

I have never met Mr. Harris, yet I believe in him. There is a book which purports to be written by him, but so is there a book purporting to have been written by Him, so can't be sure

In any case, Harris or no Harris ... I sit Zazen as what is.

Gassho, J

[Hans]

Hello Jundo,

but do you believe in the true threefold Sam Harris or the heretics' Sam Harris, whom they consider to be a mere human being with some fancy degrees to his name

Gassho,

Hans Chudo Mongen

[Meishin]

Hi,

I'm reading it now and finding it engaging. Thanks, Hans, for the reference.

Gassho

[Risho]

ok look to say that a baby is an atheist, is like saying they are safe drivers because they haven't gotten into accidents. Baby's are not atheists; they just have no concept of God or Gods.

But I think that our argument atheist or non-atheist is just us arguing with ourselves about our concepts of what we posit God to be in our head.

Anyway, I can appreciate both sides of this argument, and I'm going to read the book. Now, I promise I will no longer post in this thread unless it directly relates to reading this book.

Gassho,

Risho

[Daitetsu]

ok look to say that a baby is an atheist, is like saying they are safe drivers because they haven't gotten into accidents. Baby's are not atheists; they just have no concept of God or Gods.

It does not matter whether one is a non-believer, because one has no concept of God or because of a consious decision - both cases are Atheism.

If the baby never learns how to drive a car and thus never makes the driver's license she will never drive a car for the rest of her life - whether with 1 year, 15 years, or 21 years.
If the baby is not indoctrinated or actively influenced, chances are high that she'll stay a non-believer. And the older she gets the more likely she won't adopt a belief. Such a scenario is highly unlikely in the US, where you cannot escape religion, but if you take certain Scandinavian countries, not believing in a god is more or less the norm.
Here in Germany I know lots of people who were raised a-religious (careful, I don't mean anti-religious!). Most of them stayed non-believers for the rest of their lives - just because their parents did not care about whether they believe or not.

So the default state is IMHO that which is the case when we come to this earth and requires something to happen in order to change.


Babies might not be atheists according to your definition of atheism. But that's the "problem" - people define things differently.
I don't presuppose a concious decision for being an atheist (although in lots of cases there is a conscious decision). An Atheist in my book (and according to the majority of most Atheists I know) is simply someone who does not believe in a personal god - which is not dependent on the fact that it was a conscious decision (e.g. a Christian who does not believe anymore) or not (someone who grew up in a neutral environment and never developed a belief).

We would also have to define what we mean by "god". This requires characteristics/attributes, otherwise the term "god" would not make sense.
If you take Brad Warner's definition - then yeah, you can call me a believer!
If you talk about a god who had a son of flesh and blood that came to our planet, born by a woman that was still a virgin at his birth, then call me an Atheist.
The same holds true for Thor, Zeus, Osiris, etc.

Anyway, we are running in circles.

As Hans suggested we should split this thread.

Before I bow out of the discussion, I'd like to recommend these two short posts:

http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/04/what-is-atheism.html

and

http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/all-children-are-born-atheists.html

Just a short disclaimer: I don't know any of the other posts on that page, so what you'll find there won't necessarily be shared by me. I found those two posts helpful though.

@Hans:
Sorry for that discussion - I will read Harris' book, thanks for the recommendation.


Gassho,

Daitetsu

[Rich]

daitetsu, you just said that depending on how god is defined you are a believer or an atheist. What are you before anything is defined, believed or thought of? Harris has some interesting ideas but I'm not buying all his leaps of logic. Even he admits in his analysis of belief that no one really knows how it works. His condemnation of Islam because the Koran says kill the infidels is off the chart. All faiths are evolving and his catch phrase 'the end of faith' was just to sell books, right?

Kind regards. /\

[Peacemouse]

Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that there is life on other planets? Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that we are alone in the universe? Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that Buddha actually lived on this planet. Can one Practice Zen with a firm belief that Buddha was a largely made up story by people long after his lifetime? Can one Practice with a deep belief in post-this life Rebirth? Without such a belief?

In no case have you any proof of their existence, or personal experience, only suspicions and beliefs learned from others. Yet if you do believe ... NO PROBLEM! One can still Practice Zen just the same!

Zen is no more impacted by whether there is a "God" or no "God" than it is impacted by whether there is a table or no table in the same room where you sit Zazen. In either case ... table/no table or God/No God ... the sitting is the same. That is because we always sit as "what is" ... and if there is a table, that is "what is. If there is no table, that is "what is".

I often say ...



Gassho, J

im not sure if firm beliefs of any sort are very compatible with Right View - but then again, neither is equivocation.