Sam Harris is such a great conversation starter! I think my statement was an epistemological assessment of the claim that one can have a subjective experience that can then make you confident that you "know" that Jesus is Lord". Of course people do it all the time. But in the systems of modern epistemology that I studied, this connection is not valid.
If you are a pure rationalist or even a solipsist, you can make this case, but neither of those positions have survived as supportable philosophical positions for decades. They do continue in the form of archaic philosophies like the Vedic tradition. Perhaps my statement lacked a bit of the humility that I claimed was needed! I think Sam's point is that cultures that follow this type of philosophical tradition need the same epistemological oil change that has dominated the development of liberal democracies. These ideas need to be challenged the same way we challenge a claim that someone is selling a magic pill that keeps you from ever dying. It is taboo in society to challenge the basis on which someone asserts that they "know" that Jesus is Lord., and even worse, what that means about how other people should behave. I think we are shaped by the religious societies that we live in. I don't know how that influence could be avoided by a child not raised by wolves. I know a few non religious parents who end up having to take their kids to church so that they can fit in with the cultural expectations. One sweet little 6 year old walked by a huge statue of Jesus in a garden center with lawn art and said "I wonder how he died?" It got her mom thinking she needed to fill in some gaps! As long as our money has "In God We Trust" on it and out president invokes the name of God as a political tool, I feel pretty confident that these ideas are going to shape a person's subjective experiences if they fall into one of the cooler transcendent subjective states. To say I "know" this may be a stretch, I agree. I agree with your connection of MMY's term innocence as less loaded than humility. I don't think he pulls off his own goal because he always combines the experiences his techniques invoke with a detailed understanding. But in the context of meditation is seems like a useful term. The fact that Sam is provoking this discussion in as wide an audience as he does makes me really happy. Sullivan's willingness to discuss it makes him cool in my book. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > I don't think this is what Sam is challenging. He is one of the few > > skeptics who validates transcendent experiences. The experience is > > real, and he has had them too. What he is challenging is what > people > > conclude after the experience involving what the > experience "means". > > Experiencing the feeling of being one with the universe doesn't give > > anyone the epistemological authority to claim that they "know" that > > Jesus died for their sins, or that the Vedic recitations contain the > > blueprint of creation. > > How can you possibly know that? Isn't it an > epistemological statement in itself that you > can't possibly back up? Who are you to put > limits on what a person can know on the basis > of inner experience? > > Harris dismisses Sullivan's assertion that he > always believed in God and insists Sullivan's > parents told him God existed when he was very > young. > > But Harris can't possibly know that. I've read > many accounts, from ordinary people as well as > spiritual luminaries, that their earliest > memories were infused with a sense of God's > presence. In some of these cases their parents > weren't even religious. They can't *prove* > their memories are accurate, of course, but > neither can anyone else prove they aren't. And > obviously even if their memories *were* valid, > it wouldn't prove God's existence. > > But Harris is very wrong to claim all such > memories are really culturally inspired. > > He is advocating that we start our inquiry > > into the study of human consciousness with humility rather then as a > > "knower of complete knowledge." > > I don't think anybody starts such an inquiry > with that idea. Sullivan in particular is quite > open in saying that there is a great deal that he > not only does not know but *cannot* know. > > (And it strikes me that what is being called > "humility" in this context is almost certainly the > same as what MMY calls "innocence." I'll bet he > considered and rejected the term "humility" > because *it* has more cultural connotations > than "innocence." You can get into heavy > moodmaking with "humility," but it's a lot harder > with "innocence.") > > That we know the differences between > > what we "know" and what we have decided to believe from stuff we > > have heard or read, or even imposed onto our abstract experiences > > as their meaning. > > But this is just what Harris claims to "know" > on behalf of others! >
