BobSpence1 wrote:

And now you claim you haven't shifted your position?? 

I guess I will have to repeat myself because you are evading my last post.

Here is the definition of the term "mystic" that you yourself provided in this thread (I cannot cite the source because you did not provide it in your original post):

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'. However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

I am a mystic. Why? Because I am "a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

How does saying that qualify me as a liar? What exactly am I lying about? That I do not really practice contemplation? That I do not really believe that the practice of contemplation will lead to union with the divine? That I do not really believe in the "spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect?" What exactly do you believe that I am lying about here that does not qualify me as a mystic?

Paisley wrote:

I am a mystic. Why? Because I am "a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect."

How does saying that qualify me as a liar? What exactly am I lying about? That I do not really practice contemplation? That I do not really believe that the practice of contemplation will lead to union with the divine? That I do not really believe in the "spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect?" What exactly do you believe that I am lying about here that does not qualify me as a mystic?

You are a liar because you clearly did shift your position, as I demonstrated by the sequence of successively elaborated definitions of what you actually practiced.

Paisley wrote:

The only person shifting positions on this subject matter is you. And I will prove my point by asking you one simple question. Did Sam Harris promote

mysticism

in "The End of Faith?"

If you haven't shifted your position, why did you not embrace that full definition immediately after I quoted it - instead you merely made the 'weak' assertion that you practiced contemplation. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley, you linked to a definition of 'mysticism', not 'mystic'.

However, here is a definition of 'mystic'

Quote:

a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

The first part is what most of us were thinking of as a 'real' mystic.

But, to be fair, your position could fit the second part of that definition, although it seems a weaker sort of 'mystic'.

IOW someone who believes in the validity of the mystic idea, but doesn't necessarily practice mysticism.

I practice contemplation (a.k.a. meditation) daily. Therefore, I practice mysticism.

Sam Harris did not 'promote' mysticism, he promoted the idea we should empirically study what mystics practiced for anything that might be more generally applicable to improving our quality of mental life. I have repeatedly explained this to you.

On both counts, you are a Liar.

Why is there a god rather than no god? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You are not only ignorant on the subject matter of

mysticism

, but also intellectually dishonest. This explains why atheists like yourself are bamboozled into believing that both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism (Sam Harris promoted both in his first book...see pg. 215) are compatible with a materialist worldview.  

Prior to my quoting that definition, you had made no reference to practising contemplation. That is still not fully embracing the definition, which refers to "seek[ing] by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute". IOW 'contemplation' is only a part of the definition, and then only as a tool to pursue the specific end, which you did not mention until more recent posts. You are still a Liar.

You are either an idiot, a jerk, or a combination thereof. All evidence seems to suggest the latter. Are you actually implying that I am practicing contemplation without any specific religious or spiritual goal in mind whatsoever? Please tell me that you are not really that dense.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Sam Harris is not 'promoting' those religious systems in "The End of Faith", he is pointing out that the "great philosopher mystics of the East" (note: not so much the religious mystics) seemed to have achieved more insight into "the nature of consciousness" (bottom of pg 216) than any Western philosophical or religious traditions.

Also note what he means when he refers to "spirituality":

Sam Harris wrote:

It is difficult to find a word for that human enterprise which aims at happiness directly - at happiness of a sort that can survive the frustration of all conventional desires.The term "spirituality" seems unavoidable here - and I have used it several times in this book already - but it has many connotations that are, frankly, embarrassing. "Mysticism"has more gravitas, perhaps, but it has unfortunate associations of its own. Neither word captures the reasonableness and profundity of the possibility that we must now consider: that there are is a form of well-being that supersedes all others, indeed, that transcends the vagaries of experience itself...... .... our discussion will focus on a specific insight that seems to have special relevance to our pursuit of happiness.

("the End of Faith", pp 205-206)

Liar. 

This is where you are revealing your complete ignorance of the subject matter. One of the great philosopher mystics whom Sam Harris praises is "Shankara." Adi Shankara is basically to Hinduism what St. Thomas Aquinas is to Catholicism. Here are Shankara's insight into the nature of consciousness:

Quote:

Bhagavatpādācārya and Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, was an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta. His teachings are based on the unity of the soul and Brahman.

(source: Wikipedia: Adi Shankara)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

The part of the quote that describes a "form of well-being that supersedes all others, indeed, that TRANSCENDS the vagaries of experience itself" is a reference to the Buddhist concept of "nirvana" or the Hindu concept of "sat-chit-ananda."

Quote:

Saccidānanda, Satchidananda, or Sat-cit-ānanda (Sanskrit: सच्चिदानंद) is a compound of three Sankrit words, Sat (सत्), Cit (चित्), and Ānanda (आनंद) (the ā is of longer vocal length), meaning existence, consciousness, and bliss respectively. The expression is used in yoga and other schools of Indian philosophy to describe the nature of Brahman as experienced by a fully liberated yogi.

(source: Wikipedia: Satchitananda)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sat_chit_ananda

This is what motivates the contemplative. This is why he practices contemplative prayer and/or meditation religiously. He endeavors to experience absolute bliss consciousness - i.e. the union of the atman (or soul) and  Brahman. That is mysticism. And this practice has been co-opted by many who consider themselves to be "naturalists" (read materialists).

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ok, so you are not a Liar, just a Fool.

Man, did you just figure that out??? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

You are either an idiot, a jerk, or a combination thereof. All evidence seems to suggest the latter. Are you actually implying that I am practicing contemplation without any specific religious or spiritual goal in mind whatsoever? Please tell me that you are not really that dense.

Just stating the truth that 'contemplation' can encompass a whole range of things, of which that state of mind aimed at "mystical contact with absolute" is just one.

In fact, the totally unfocussed "loss of self", for its own sake, is indeed one possibility.

No, this is not what you are "just stating." You have clearly gone on the war path and personally attacked me in this thread, labeling me a liar. What exactly am I lying about? That I really do not have a meditation practice? That I am not really practicing meditation with the intent to have a religious or spiritual experience of the divine? Who is the one lying here?

Yes, there are various definitions for the terms "contemplation" or "meditation." But I am definitely using the terms in the context of mysticism. And I can assure you that Sam Harris was using the terms in the same context when he wrote about spirituality and mysticism in "The End of Faith." 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Paisley wrote:

This is what motivates the contemplative. This is why he practices contemplative prayer and/or meditation religiously. He endeavors to experience absolute bliss consciousness - i.e. the union of the atman (or soul) and  Brahman. That is mysticism. And this practice has been co-opted by many who consider themselves to be "naturalists" (read materialists).

Harris is explicitly focussed on the "experience [of] absolute bliss consciousness" and related states, not so much any religious motivation for the practice, or any subsequent religious interpretation of what it signifies, such as  "the union of the atman (or soul) and  Brahman". If you can't see that distinction, that is your problem. You still apparently don't get what he is referring to as the "embarrassing connotations" and "associations" of 'spirituality' and 'mysticism'.

Ok, so you are not a Liar, just a Fool.

You keep engaging in intellectual dishonesty and/or willful-ignorance. You refuse to acknowledge that Sam Harris explicitly denounced the materialist worldview in "The End of Faith." Moreover, you refuse to acknowledge that Sam Harris continues to defend his view that "physicalism is little more than an article of faith." Why does he continue to defend this view? Because he obviously believes in his heart of hearts that the "absolute bliss consciousness" (a.k.a. Brahman) is the basis of reality.

That a so-called "atheist" is a proponent of contemplative prayer is laughable. That a militant atheist (that would be you) is defending this is even more laughable. What is next on the agenda for atheistic spirituality? Praying in tongues? (Apparently, Sam Harris supports a form of this.)

You are either an idiot, a jerk, or a combination thereof.

 

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

Promoting spirituality/mysticism was one of Harris' primary intents in "The End of Faith." If you did not come away with that, then you completely failed to grasp his message. Apparently, hardcore atheists engage in some form of cognitive dissonance in regards to Sam Harris. They gleefully embrace his vitriol of religious faith (or should I say his strawman version of religious faith?) while blindly ignoring his enthusiasm for spirituality/mysticism.