Mysticism is a rational enterprise, he argues. Religion is not.The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. ... Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. ...
While spiritual experience is clearly a natural propensity of the human mind, we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it. Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest concerns. It would also be the end of faith. (221)
Atheists regret this chapter - Harris seems to them to have sold out. One wonders why he insisted on using words like 'spiritual' and 'mystical' or mentioned 'Eastern religions' at all. Why not do what many Buddhist proselytizers of the last century did and argue that Buddhism is the answer because it's not 'religion' or 'spirituality' or 'mysticism' but 'science' and 'rationality'? I guess he wanted to shake up the smug atheists, too, and decided he wouldn't succeed if he merely accused them of being unscientific in their ignorance of non-theistic traditions. He knows them better than I, but my sense is he merely pissed them off without provoking any epiphanies.
Our discussion wound up being about what faith is, and I found myself making a pragmatist sort of suggestion. What is religious faith faith in? Is it faith in beliefs (rational or irrational)? Or is it faith in a person (e.g. credo in deo)? Or is it faith in a method? There's something to be gained from thinking through each of these, but the last is the new one, and adds something interesting to the mix...
