Interview with Sam Harris -- Conclusion

In Part 5 below, atheist blogger Under No Circumstances concludes the questioning of author Sam Harris, whose book The End of Faith won the Brian Flemming's Weblog 2004 Book of the Year Award, one of the most prestigious awards to be invented in the past five minutes.

As Harris mentions in his postscript below, this five-part interview was focused on just one brief chapter of The End of Faith. The laser focus on the one issue about which the interviewers are skeptical might give you a distorted impression of this book. Also, the chapter on mysticism is the least interesting and most brainiac-oriented in The End of Faith. Looking over this interview, I realize that someone who hadn't read the book might feel it is an academic discussion of one obscure area.

To be clear: Sam Harris's book is accessible and brilliant, taking on religion in uncompromising terms and making a solid case against religious tolerance. Not for nothing did the New York Times reviewer state, "The End of Faith articulates the dangers and absurdities of organized religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read it, vindicated, almost personally understood...Harris writes what a sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say in contemporary America."

Buy it.

(UPDATE: Strange Doctrines has written a post-interview review.)

The conclusion of the interview...

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES: The technique of bio-feedback is currently used to help humans learn to consciously control their own brain patterns or physiological states, and could have great potential for use in training humans to induce meditative brain chemistry or electrical activity. How would you say that would compare to more traditional methods of teaching meditation? Would the attention to raw, neurological data detract from the consciousness-dependent "mental" activity, or would it merely be another way of learning the necessary discipline and focus? Is experiencing the ultimate meditative state the goal in and of itself, or is it essential to use a specific process for arriving at that state?

HARRIS: EEG-based biofeedback (also called "neurofeedback") is still pretty primitive. The problem is that the electrical signal at the scalp is extremely noisy and rather nonspecific as to underlying brain states. I've experimented with this technology a little and never found that modulating the canonical waveforms (like alpha or theta) correlated with important changes in my mental state. This is not to say that mechanical methods of entraining meditation are not possible; it's just that the technology is not there yet. In principle, however, I think it should be possible to build a machine that would be extremely helpful for the cultivation of positive mental states and meditative insights.

Postscript by Sam Harris

Dear Atheist Friends --

Before signing off, I would like to clear a up a few points of confusion and controversy:

1. My remarks about the mysteriousness of consciousness (i.e. the fact that we don't know the relationship between consciousness and the physical world) were intended to convey the state of our scientific ignorance on this subject (as well as to hint at some of its conceptual difficulties). I was not suggesting that we have good reasons to believe that consciousness floats free of the brain at the moment of death. Nor was I suggesting that one need believe anything spooky about consciousness in order to meditate. Many diehard philosophical materialists have derived great benefit from meditation.

Most atheists appear to be certain that consciousness dies with the brain. Given the state of the science, this is a false certainty. To my mind, the only intellectually rigorous position to stake out here is to say that we don't know what happens to consciousness after death. Once again, I am not suggesting that one make a religion out of this uncertainty, or do anything else with it. It is just over-reaching to say that we know that consciousness arises from neuronal complexity (or anything else). It is not, however, over-reaching to say that the faculties of mind (language processing, proprioception, etc.) arise in this way or that most religious beliefs are preposterous (they are).

2. My comments about spiritual teachers, retreats, and the difficulties of learning to meditate were not meant to minimize the dangers of cults. Cults are scary. Mainstream religions are nothing more than cults by another name (and with millions of members). I consider the problem of cultic irrationality to be the central problem of our time. Reason is the antidote, but it is difficult to apply in sufficient quantities.

3. The purpose of this interview was to clear up some of the concerns that atheists have raised about the last chapter of my book. Consequently, we focused on the esoterica of meditation, spirituality, consciousness, etc. Those of you who have not read my book are likely to get a distorted picture of its contents from this interview, as The End of Faith has very little to say about the mystery of consciousness or the usefulness of meditation. Most of its pages are dedicated to exposing the noxious absurdity of religious faith. It is, therefore, ironic that some of the harshest criticism of my book has come from atheists who felt that I had betrayed their cause on some peripheral issues. If there is a book that takes a harder swing at religion, I'm not aware of it. This is not to say that my book does not have many shortcomings -- but appeasing religious irrationality is not among them.

It was a pleasure to be in dialogue with the Raving Atheist, Brian Flemming, and Under No Circumstances. Given the level of religious idiocy in this world, there is no shortage of things for us all to make noise about. Keep it up, my friends.

I wish you all the best.

Sam