Blogger ~C4Chaos continues the Integral-Atheism discussion:
“Excellent discussion guys. allow me to address both your points with a link to a debate between Sam Harris and Scott Atran (post-Beyond Belief 2006 conference).
i do like Sam Harris, but i think Scott Atran had the upper-hand in this exchange due to Atran’s field experience and his implied approach of meeting people where they’re at, in short, Atran’s arguments is more “integral” than Harris’s arguments, especially when it comes to the discussion of sacred values.”
My response:
I’ve written about this many times before, but it always amazes me when highly intelligent people disagree. What does it say about reason that we can support almost any claim? That’s a whole other discussion, I know.
I must have some bias for Sam Harris’s way of thinking, because I always seem to agree with him. He has a real knack for cutting to the quick:
“The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that all bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad, or wrong, or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful, less dangerous, more in touch with reality, etc. ) than dogmatism. The degree to which science is committed to the former, and religion to the latter remains one of the most salient and appalling disparities to be found in human discourse.”
Ironically (as a supposed, pro-evidence guy), what I didn’t like about Atran’s essay is his continual referencing of social science studies. Whenever someone says “Studies show…”, I get very skeptical. Without the study in front of me, I have only the author’s interpretation to rely on, an interpretation which I may or may not agree with. I’ve always preferred common sense arguments to “Studies show” arguments. Working in the mental health field as long as I have, I’ve seen first hand how economic, political, and personal agendas can distort the process of scientific research. This too, is another discussion, although I’m surprised religious-minded folk don’t use this argument more when railing against a science-based society. Scientific conclusions are often not nearly as objective as people might think.
Wilber is a master at stretching the “Studies show” spiel to support a conclusion that he undoubtedly arrived at long before digging up the research. Look how much mileage he’s gotten out of Taylor’s TM study. I’d be more impressed with AQAL if Wilber came right out and said “I just came up with this shit, because it makes so much sense” — instead of trying to make it look like a model built from the ground up through careful examination of empirical evidence.
With that, I’m WAY off topic and revealing to myself (and probably to all of you) what MY not-so-hidden agenda in all this must be, namely to shoot down Ken Wilber and to prop up Sam Harris. WHY I’m compelled to do this, only semi-consciously, I’m not sure. I’ll have to sit with that a bit.
Good stuff from ~C4Chaos:
Bob said: “Wilber is a master at stretching the “Studies show” spiel to support a conclusion that he undoubtedly arrived at long before digging up the research. Look how much mileage he’s gotten out of Taylor’s TM study.”
i get your point. i’ve ranted about that too on the I-I pod.
anyway, to continue with this discussion, i’ll take Atran’s side. i undertand your concern for the “studies show…” however, i think you may have missed the fact that Atran is an anthropologist specializing in Middle East conflicts. compared to Harris, Atran is closer to where the action is, and he does the research and science while he’s at it. while Harris maybe looking from 5,000 feet above the forest, Atran is immersed in the trees, hence their disagreements.
i’d like to highlight Atran’s statement in rebuttal to Sam Harris:
“My approach to dogmatism is to practically engage irrationality where I believe it is most dangerous and where I think I can have the most effect (for example, in negotiations with Hamas and Israel to stop Qassam missile attacks, or in field investigations of beheadings in Azad Kahsmir – efforts reported in the last two issues of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). If I employed Harris’s recommendation for dealing with irrationality in such cases, by lambasting the conflicting parties with how preposterous are their core beliefs, I would probably be kicked out or killed (and in misjudging the ways reason is best advanced, I have on a few occasions been very nearly killed).”
this sounds like a more practical approach because it recognizes a developmental and political perspective as well.
here’s another quote from Atran. notice the phrase “in my own studies.”
“In fact, there is now a substantial body of empirical research indicating that core religious beliefs are literally senseless and lacking in truth conditions. For example, in my own studies with Ara Norenzayan, Ian Hansen, Mark Schaller and others (first reported in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences article that Dennett recommends in his most recent book as a good summary evolutionary account of religion) we find that what allows religious beliefs to win out in the competition over other ideas in human memory is that they are counterintuitive. What does “counterintuitive” mean? To answer this requires a short digression into the cognitive theory of religion.”
Harris also cited a lot of research in his book, The End of Faith, particularly surveys on religion from Pew Internet research. so what does that tell you? will you take surveys over empirical research?
my point is: when it comes to complicated issues where common sense is neither enough nor acceptable, we (lay people) are at the mercy of people who have the skill, talent, resources, and knowledge to do the actual research and interpretations thereof. we pick our battles and bias depending on the situation. we stand on the shoulder of giants.
~C
Good points ~C:
I didn’t realize there were TWO essays by Atran on that page you linked to. Your quotes above are from the one I didn’t read (until now). My thoughts:
1) It’s hard for me to respond to some of the more academic points Atran makes, because I don’t have the time and inclination to review the data myself. He lost me at various points in his critique, because of what I see as an over-reliance on “weighing the evidence.” I get your point about us lay folk being at the mercy of experts, but I think that’s true only to a certain extent. Especially in the social sciences and when making philosophical, ethical, or moral arguments, the limits of accepted research methods make a strictly “empirical” approach to understanding such things untenable, I think. Here’s where I love the integral approach. One can take in an “occasion” from as many perspectives as possible, informing ones intuition as it were, but in the end we act on what we feel “makes sense” on a gut level.
2) Atran makes some excellent points when focusing on the issue of skillful means when dealing with real life conflicts and situations. Here’s where his EXPERIENCE makes his perspective worth taking seriously, and you’re right, he does take into account developmental levels, making his a more “integral” approach, in the Wilberian sense. I’ve seen so many Sam Harris videos that I couldn’t tell you where I heard this, but I remember him very humbly admitting that what he’s doing (in his books and talks) is probably not the most skillful means of dealing directly with political conflict. What he is doing is only addressing a small part of the issue. Harris is mainly addressing well-educated Westerners, mostly middle class American Christians, in his books. I believe that in this context, his approach IS a kind of skillful means. I say this because an appeal to reason and the raising of conscious/cognitive dissonance has been sufficient to break me out of many a “spell” in my own life. But, of course, I wouldn’t send Sam Harris to broker a Middle Eastern peace treaty. Atran would be a much better choice.
3)This a great discussion! When we dialogue around specific issues and struggle toward practical applications of our understanding, we really get somewhere with all this Integral stuff. If only Integral Institute wasn’t such a closed-loop organization. If only Wilber didn’t take himself and his theory so god-damned seriously!
Eric said:
Bob,
“I just don’t know what this means in terms of taking action, right now, today. HOW do you find ways to provide for the healthiest possible setting for each structure? HOW do you increase opportunities for all people to explore and develop into higher structures?”
Reference Don Beck’s work with SDi for some concrete examples.
“People’s already established capacity for reason needs to “develop” from pathological distortion to healthy clarity.”
I think you’re distorting lines. First you have to specify what someone is reasoning about: Just because I can do algebra does not mean I’m at post-conventional moral reasoning. Kohlberg found that most adults don’t make it to a worldcentric stance, and I’m not aware of any studies that show that you can just argue people into it.
“The vast majority of religious people have highly developed powers of reason in all areas of their lives EXCEPT when it concerns their religious beliefs.”
Again, this is where recognition of lines of development is important along with stages. Most people in America will probably have to have some formal-operational awakening if they’ve graduated high school, but the cognitive line is not sufficient for the other lines. So formal-operational on Piaget’s chart does not automatically mean someone is at post-conventional on Kohlberg’s chart, or at a rational/mental-egoic spiritual stage of orientation.
“I’ve yet to hear a single practical solution to any specific problem from Ken Wilber or his followers.”
I don’t think we’ve highlighted a specific problem here yet, but AQAL is a tool for orientation that helps make sure the manifold nature of lifeworld contexts are not approached with insufficient complexity, and I think that’s pretty darn practical.
I’m not saying what Sam Harris is doing seems useless to me. I just don’t find what I’ve encountered from him so far very integral, and so I’m still interested in why Julian does.
Regards,
Eric
Eric,
I appreciate you hanging in there with me, but I think I’ll bow out for now and wait for Julian to chime in on your original question. I’m WAY too lazy to go searching through Don Beck’s work for concrete examples of anything. And I think our dialogue would have to veer off in an entirely tangential direction in order to continue. Perhaps we can carry this forward another time.
Your responses to me assume the validity of Wilber’s AQAL theory, in all its nuances. I’ve been studying Wilber’s work for fifteen years, and I consider him an intellectual hero of mine. But the truth is I just don’t buy into the model — in all its specifics — anymore.
I agree that “Integral” is a powerful orientation that can inform practical strategies in many useful ways. But when I think “Integral,” I think of the general principles of 1) taking into account multiple perspectives (particularly the interior and exterior dimensions of the individual and collective); 2) grounding theory in direct experience (integrating theory and practice); and 3) acknowledging some form of developmental depth (which does not necessarily mean buying into Beck’s or Wilber’s versions, which I don’t. For instance, I think “Second Tier” is a completely bogus concept.)
I’ve said this before in my characteristically confused way, but there comes a point (I think) when AQAL ceases to be a tool for orientation and instead conditions us to see things from a particular perspective, i.e. Wilber’s, and holding the model too tightly (which I believe Wilber and most of his followers do), it can start to filter out as much as it illuminates.
Theodore Dalrymple is a pretty crusty old doctor who treats the poor and prisoners in England. I read his book called “Life at the Bottom” He wrote a good, but long response to the New Atheists here. He has strong words to say about Harris. http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html
I have been following your blog for a while and you seem pretty thoughtful. We’ll probably not agree on this subject. But that’s OK. At the same time, it seems you have a pretty open mind about these things.
I rather liked the Dalrymple article. He makes several great points. Myself, I’m somewhat caught in the middle of the tug of war between Atheism and Science. It is my sense that neither enterprise has done a good job at honoring what is most essential and important in life (to me, anyway). I am against religion, at least as I see it practiced all around me, and yet the ONLY thing that matters to me is the realization of a transcendent level of consciousness. I’ve directly experienced moments of self-transcendence in my life, which I’ve understood in psychological terms, and based on these experiences I KNOW that there is a transcendent level of being. If I “believe” in anything, it is in the notion of spiritual enlightenment. I just think religion does a terrible job of making this level of experience available to people. From what I’ve seen, religion can be the antithesis of spirituality, in that reason (an important aspect of our humanity) is distorted and negated. True transcendence is inclusive. Spirituality goes BEYOND reason, while fully including it, fully honoring it. The LIMITS of reason are transcended in the depths of our being, not the very heart of reason.
The so-called “New Atheists,” with the exception of Harris, deny the transcendent and the transpersonal. Dalrymple misses this crucial distinction. Harris wants the “baby” of transcendence rescued from the abusively incompetent “caretaker” of religion and placed in the hands of a revisioned science and secularism.
Well, that’s what I want anyway, and that’s where I find common ground with Harris.