Recently I’ve become quite obsessed with the ideology of one particular speaker and thought leader by the name of Sam Harris. As an individual he’s a trained scientist working in the space of neuroscience and philosophy, particularly in the area of human society, morality and, promoting atheism. I was first introduced to Sam Harris through a friend of mine who sent me a Google buzz link to his brilliant TED speech he made just recently. The title of his presentation was called, Science can answer moral questions. Before you read the rest of this post, I would _strongly_ suggest you watch this presentation in full. It’s only 23 minutes long and could quite possibly change your whole way of thinking.

[[I'm going to assume at this point that you did watch the presentation, and have an understanding of what I'm talking about in the next paragraphs]]

What really struck a chord with me in Harris’s presentation was his statement that most people are willing to suspend the reason that they use in their every day life for purposes of believing in a religious framework. Let me give you an example if this isn’t clear. If I was to start a new website called ‘The Truth of the New Lord’, and in the first post explain that a voice from the ether called to me and bade me stand on top of some hilltop where upon a burning bush spoke to me and gave me instructions on how to live a moral life, how many people would believe it? Well I’d say none. There is a well known truism that states extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, yet this is just not the case when it comes to religion, particularly Christianity, which was the religion assigned to me by my parents at birth.

I feel a particular anger towards Christianity because I feel it is one of the faiths that lies almost completely to it’s followers, who in turn really must lower their mentality to that of a fucking moron to accept the doctrine that it lays down. It’s a vicious and dogmatic faith that rules by fear, and presents nothing in the way of universal truth that will make sense to a individual possessed of intelligence and critical thinking.

Yet Christianity is really just a derivative of Catholicism, both of whom believe literally what is written in The Bible. If these “stories” were in any other place besides The Bible we would simply discard them as rubbish if it wasn’t purported to be fictional literature. But because it is The Bible people forgo reason for madness; they accept the writings as gospel and use it as the foundation for a moral life!

Back to Sam Harris.

His paradigm faces a new direction, he is one of a handful of thought leaders that are using science in a new way, a way that provides answers to the questions of morality and human well being. He states clearly the reasons why science can answer these questions, and explains that in order for society to flourish organised religion must be put out of practice for society to move forward. In a conversation on this with my friend, I believe that there can’t be more than a small percentile of any societies population that could truly accept this paradigm and move forward with it.

It’s not an easy thing for an individual to radically change their viewpoint on something so core to our own psychology as religious or spiritual views. However this doesn’t mean that just because it’s a sensitive topic that we should shy away from heavy discussion on the basis of respect. If we fail to engage in debate with others simply because it’s considered polite to let them have their views, then we simply encourage ignorance. Reasoning individuals shouldn’t stand next to a person proclaiming the world is flat, and respectfully agree with them out of a sense of tolerance. Clearly there is right and wrong in moral standpoints, as measured by the well being of any and all citizens of a society. Which means we should not have to accept that all religions have something to offer a society just because they say so.

I face now towards a new direction, and no longer consider myself religious, but instead a reasonist. Atheist is a term that doesn’t fit with me in its current vernacular. I believe that there is still value in my beliefs as a Buddhist, but this is because Buddhism is in itself critical of its doctrine. The Dalai Lama has said that where the Buddhist Dharma is in conflict with science, the Dharma shall be resolved. This is a sweeping statement; the doctrine of faith that all Buddhists follow will be updated as science broadens our knowledge and disproves fundamental doctrine text. As far as I’m aware, no other religion has taken the equivalent position. Dare I be so bold as to state, only Buddhism stands as a truly enlightened religious framework, and perhaps the only one worth considering in the new frontier of the paradigm of scientific morality.

While it’s difficult to understand at first the far reaching consequences of accepting a new paradigm of belief and letting go of an old one, it creates its own sense of comfort knowing that the path ahead leads away from useless archaic traditions and in the direction of a truly utopian society.

The more people who make the same journey bring that dream ever closer to reality.

Andy.