“E Pluribus Unum” – Latin for “Out of Many, One” 

This was the motto of the United States Of America from the time the Seal of the United States was first created in 1776, right up until the 1950′s, where during the height of the Cold War and the McCarthy communist fear, under the Eisenhower government, the term “In God We Trust” was added to all coins and bills from the United States. This show of  “Christian unity” was in reaction to the fear of the largely atheistic Russians, who were apparently everywhere, hence the McCarthy witch-hunt style communist hunts. Also during this period, the American “Pledge Of Allegiance” had the words “Under God” included in it;

“One nation, Under God, Indivisible, With liberty and Justice for All.”

It is interesting that many Americans think that “In God We Trust” has always been included on their money. For many, 1956 is long before they were born, so for them the money always included the phrase. Likewise, many people use the fact that this phrase is included on the money to back their position that America is in fact a “Christian nation”, and that all doings and goings-on in the name of the USA are also done under the watchful eye of the all powerful creator (Christian) god.

What is most tragic about this is that the term “E Pluribus Unum” has all but been overshadowed by the newer monotheistic motto. The original motto was chosen to show a unity of the people that went beyond religion, beyond origins, beyond race and colour. It showed a unity of people, in a strong nationalistic way, a secular way, that transcended the traditional and historical social boundaries prevalent in the Europe from which the country emerged. “Out of Many, One”. It also seems odd that the country, which was populated largely by people fleeing religious persecution at the hands of governments and societies in Europe, and whose constitution implicitly calls for a separation of church and state, should resort to becoming one of the most theocratic societies on earth. The Divided Theocracy of America.

To me the same motto, “E Pluribus Unum”, could just as easily be used to describe the growing atheist movement worldwide. Atheism knows no political, geographical or societal boundaries, no language barriers, no gender divide, and no boundaries of sexual orientation. Atheists come from all walks of life, and when combined as a movement, is as diverse and varied as possible. The people who call themselves “atheist” all share one fundamental principle only; the disbelief in a god or gods. From all corners of the globe, from all walks of life, from all nations and creeds, atheists emerge as a single solitary voice; “Out of Many, One.”

It is odd, given the only thing that binds atheists being the disbelief in a god or gods, should be a strong enough position to foster this kind of unity. As Sam Harris pointed out in his 2005 essay “An Atheist Manifesto“, atheism is a term that should not even exist. It should be the default state for all people of earth.

We are all born free from the idea of God or gods. As Professor Richard Dawkins points out in his book “The God Delusion”, “A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents.” We are all taught to believe in god, the belief in a god or gods is not present in us as as an innate human feature, but is instilled in us by our cultures and religions.

But given the amount of intrusion into all walks of life that religion presents us with, it is no wonder that those bound under the banner of disbelief should be so passionate about it. We see religion in both peace-time and war-time governments, in our policy and decision making, in our schools, in our daily routines, and in the case of the USA, on their money. We are united against these intrusions based on our disbelief, and are hounded for it.

In the 21st century, where cures for diseases seem only an arms length away, where technologies that could deliver us from poverty and ecological disaster, where communities form in virtual spaces online, where commerce and trade is done on a worldwide basis, I find it sad that the main reason for much of our unity is still being centred around whether or not one or another version of an all powerful deity exists. Yet here we are, still debating the “god issue”. I hope to see a day where atheism, as a movement, is unnecessary, and where we can all exist under the edict of “E Pluribus Unum”, an United Countries of Earth, if you will. Until that time, we will continue to gather under the banner of atheism

(8m 48s)

Between 1974 and 2010 the number of conservatives who say they trust information coming from science and scientific fields has dropped from 48% to just over 34%, a drop of 14% in just under 40 years suggested in a study published in The American Sociological Review.

In the political spheres, and especially in the rhetoric spewed by the conservative presidential candidates, we hear the distrust in science being depicted as untrustworthy, and the message is twofold; denial of science because of the perceived inability for science to make up its mind about facts (science is always proving itself to be wrong), and denial of scientists due to their perceived position as elitists in the community. People distrust science from this standpoint because they don’t understand science and the scientific method, and are bitter because they feel they are being told what to do by an elitist few.

A satirical piece from The Onion about science denial

Additionally, people see the information coming from science as “scary” or unpleasant, and would like to live their lives without having to worry about things like climate change, acidification of the oceans, deforestation, habitat loss and mass extinction. In their eyes, the information is being “invented” by the scientists, and if it weren’t for science these things would never be happening. Of course, we wouldn’t be where we are now if it weren’t for technology, but conflate the negative results of centuries of human activity with the progress of science is the wrong way to go about things. Science today is in the business of finding ways to do things better, rather than hanging on to our older and more destructive ways.

I can understand to a certain degree that some may feel alienated by science, that all those numbers and figures, diagrams and test-tubes filled with coloured liquid, they’re all so complicated, and it would be much easier to deny the findings and go back to playing Mario Cart on your portable hand-held device than try to learn about it. But just because something is difficult, or beyond understanding, doesn’t make it any less real. (Of course we’re talking about facts here, not stone-age musings on the origins of the universe).

One of the most damaging and disingenuous movements in science denial comes from what is known as “The Green Dragon” phenomenon, a pushback by Christian Conservatives which aims to blame the environmental movement and the information coming forth about climate change on a massive scale. In this way of thinking, god created the earth for mankind to live on, and there is no way that the same god would allow for humans to destroy the ecosystem to a point that the earth can no longer sustain human life. Only God can do that, and he will, soon. The main claim is that not only is climate change an anti-Christian plot, but that any form of environmental preservation or talk of sustainability, or even anything that might threaten the amount of petroleum available to the American people, is a giant conspiracy, led by terrorists who are hell-bent on corrupting the young away from Jesus and into the hands of Satan.

It is much easier to teach people that the world is only 6000 years old, that we are the centre of the universe, that climate change is a lie, that Jesus cures cancer or that God exists than it is to teach people the truth of the situation. Facts can be difficult and sometimes painful to deal with, and telling people that if they just have faith and stop questioning things that everything will be alright is an easy out for those unwilling to deal with facts.

Science denial is a huge worry, especially in times where we depend more upon scientific innovation to help us solve some of these problems. Those that deny science, while they play on their iPhones, drive their cars, fly around the planet and enjoy hot meals daily, are particularly blind to the fact that none of these things would be possible if it weren’t for science. The fact that they don’t have smallpox or polio, that they still have teeth, that they didn’t die from the flu or heart-failure should be enough to sway their opinions, but unfortunately the deniers don;t see things this way. Denial of the real impact science has had on our lives can be illustrated in many ways, but when presented with these facts, the and the deniers find themselves faced with cognitive dissonance, clam up and end any attempts at reconciling these views in opposition of each other.

This phenomenon is not restricted to the USA. As Dr Paul Willis, paleontologist and Director of RiAus, wrote a piece last week about the dangers of science denial, and how it seems we are inheriting some of this denialism here in Australia. Using a recent episode of Q&A on climate change to illustrate where we are headed, he states:

I share Dr Willis’ concerns, but see that the only way to combat this is through education. Not just primary, secondary and tertiary educations, but a general education of the people in their daily lives, to bolster scientific literacy in the community through the media. We need to demystify science, and show that while it may not be possible for us all to understand everything science shows us, that if we understand the scientific method, we can then understand what certain scientific studies and findings show us. We don’t all need to be scientists (I’m not), but if we have a grasp on science, we can use that understanding to help make the world a better place.

Download the MP3 here.

My main focus in this blog is “atheism”. But to me this is less of a topic and more of a “stepping off” point for commentaries about the world, it’s politics and it’s people. There’s not much to be said about “atheism” than just a simple lack of a belief in a god or gods, nothing more. I’ve noticed a tendency for people to conflate this lack of belief with human rights issues, animal rights issues, political issues and garner equality, but really there is no guarantee that such a link exists; it’s the individual and their personal stance on the outlying topics that brings the ideas of godlessness into line with the big moral and ethical issues of our times. To start a commentary on any issue, the question of god often pops up; faith in a divine creator and all it’s baggage so often finds its way into our lives via politics, cultural practices, education, humans and animal rights issues that it’s sometimes hard to separate the “god issue” from the topic at hand. Very often, blind belief in a creator and the dogmas that bolster it into position are at odds with the present and future world we want to see develop.

When I started this blog I had the intention of writing how I felt about the issues we face as a planet for the excluse purpose of just getting all this information out of my head. In the process writing has become much more; it has become the ultimate learning tool for me. Every issue is heavier than it first appears, and the causes for our current situation in the world so often has its roots deep in history, culture or some skewed political agenda. Some feminist issues and misogynistic practices worldwide owe their existence to centuries of oppressive behaviours perpetrated under social and political ideologies, presented under the guise of religious dictates. Political issues between countries and states, particularly in less developed nations, owe their existence to disputes over land and resources, and are justified by invoking god or gods. Social issues, be it the caste system of India (still alive and well, though nobody talks as if it exists anymore after it was dismantled last century), or the misogynistic practices perpetrated by Afghani men, are seen as political and human-rights issues, but have their roots in ideologies around belief. Financial issues caused by a monetary and trading system which seems to have had its day, are often overseen by people no use their faith as their guide, and care not for the future of a planet that has been foretold will be destroyed by the hand of god.

Every one of these issues on the surface appear to be social social problems, but when you scratch the surface, in almost all cases, the purported belief in divinity and it’s dogmas will play a role, sometimes smaller, sometimes larger. So if we want to talk about these issues, inevitably it will come back to the topic of religion. Not atheism, but religion.

The discourse around religion and its role in the future seems to be gaining much more publicity in recent times. We see this when more and more people worldwide are no longer afraid to step forward and declare that they don’t believe. We have seen an unprecedented increase in gatherings of atheists like two Global Atheist Conventions held in Melbourne, the Reason Rally in the USA, and many others being held worldwide, where people such as myself are willing to openly admit that we think that the time for religious intrusion into our lives has come to an end, if such a time ever practically existed at all.

Sam Harris wrote in 2005 an article titled “An Atheist Manifesto“, which closes with these two paragraphs:

I agree with his standpoint here on what atheism is. To me, however, I see the term “atheist” as a term that oughtn’t exist. Not believing in something for which there is no compelling evidence is not something that should be given a name. Instead, not believing in the proposition of a creator should be the default position, a blank canvas as you will, which then over time may or may not arrive at the conclusion that a god doesn’t exist. We all have our reasons for how we see the world, but atheism is not one of them. Rather, it is a conclusion based on evidence. Those who purport that there is definitive evidence for the existence of god have stopped looking too soon.

I hope that I never stop questioning things. I hope that my mind and body can sustain me for long enough to keep questioning and learning. I hope that something that I’ve written will help others to see that they may not be thinking clearly, and that an reevaluation of their standpoints on the topics that matter in the life no longer need the input from an imaginary being and a bronze-age book. I hope that one day, the millstone of religious intrusion into our societies and cultures becomes nothing more than a personal belief set, and that we can be freed from this burden.

400 posts is really just an arbitrary celebration, but I take this opportunity to just talk to you. You, the reader, is the reason I do this, and I thank you all for your wonderful support and commentaries. I look forward to the next 400 posts.

“But I thought the constitution says we have separation of church and state,” I hear you say.

Well, our constitution was written in such a way that it might seem that we were meant to, but the wording is ambiguous enough that the Australian Parliament has interpreted it in a different way. The section of the constitution that covers the separation of church and state is Section 116 which reads:

This on the surface seems like a declaration that Australian governmental practices were intended to be secular in nature, and that religion should be kept out of the political sphere. But there is some controversy over the wording of this tract which gave rise for the establishment of the mandatory chaplaincy system in our schools, where religious education must be taught for an hour a week in all primary school classrooms. This was pushed by groups like the ACL (Australian Christian Lobby), who we have seen is actually a small group with very few members, but who use their media clout to pretend to stand for all Australian Christians.

“So we’re not a secular country? What does the constitution of the USA say?”

The First Amendment of the United States constitution states:

This is possibly the single most important part of the United States constitution. At first glance it would seem that Section 116 of the Australian constitution and the First Amendment of the United States constitution are very similar, which they are. But the inroad for religious (read: Christian) education in Australian schools takes advantage of the difference between the American use of the word “of” where the Australian constitution reads “for”. It’s a very small difference, but it has made all the difference in this country for the rights of the people, where religious freedoms, and freedom from religion is concerned. I’m not sure if fully understand how they came to this conclusion, but it shows how a single word can change everything. You can read more about it here, the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) case of 1981.

Because of this interpretation of a single word in Section 116, the Government has backed the Chaplains In Schools Program, where an unqualified volunteer delivers an hour a week’s worth of information about Christianity and the bible. On its surface the provision says that the volunteer can be from any religious background, but because most of the chaplains are chosen by evangelical Christian groups, 98.5% of the chaplains are Christian, and are teaching Christianity.

She also highlighted the High Court Challenge being launched by Ron Williams, fighting for a truly secular education for his children. You can read about it here.

I don’t really feel I can do Leslie’s talk any justice here, she is so very knowledgable and passionate about this subject. But what is important here is that we can take action. She highlighted a few things we can do:

• Like Australian United for Separation of Church & State
• Like Australian Freethought University Alliance
• Donate to Ron Williams www.highcourtchallenge.com
• Support Foundation Beyond Belief

The separation of church and state is necessary unless we want to live in a theocratic society, whose laws and regulations are based upon a holy text rather than the needs of a society.

This video by Hungry Beast gives a good run-down of the Chaplains in Schools program and how it is being implemented in our schools.

You can download the slides from Leslie’s talk here (.pdf).

This only problem is, I fear this report is actually baseless, and Egypt has been the victim of the internet, and its propensity for spreading rumours faster than the facts can be checked. No less than 68 individual newspapers online and blogs worldwide have reports on this supposed “law”, all parroting what was said in the original piece, and accompanying the articles with evocative pictures of scarved women yelling in protest.  According to The Christian Science Monitor’s Dan Murphy:

Murphy goes on to reveal that he thinks the chances of a law such as this being passed in Egypt are “zero”, and that the opinion piece was purposefully inflammatory and designed to discredit the Islamic Brotherhood, now in power in Egypt. The website Tunisia Live backs this position and says:

I knew I could smell a rat when I first read the article, so thought it better to do a little digging before going off half-cocked. American Muslim has a good rundown of the facts and fictions from this report, but uses “Islamophobia” as the reason for the speed of the spread of this “news”, and unchecked “facts” of this case.

It doesn’t mean, however, that all is well and good within the Egyptian borders. Buried in the inflammatory report was a couple of proposals that are alarming. The first is a proposal to lower the marriage age for young women from 16 to 14, and the other are a series of laws designed to keep women from education. All this less than a week after the article by journalist Mona Eltahawy, titled “Why Do They Hate Us?” was published, which I wrote about on Wednesday.

It seems to me  that the countries that have sought and fought revolution in North Africa are in a perilous position, where the minor voices of extreme views can be heard equally as loudly as those more moderate ones, and that the Internet is amplifying them equally.

I have written before that there are extreme misogynistic tendencies in Islamic states, but the absurd notion of a “sex after death” clause is not one that would particularly worry me. It’s sick, and any notion of it makes me ill just thinking about it, but in the end it would be a choice for the sick individual who would want to practice such an act. The lowering of the marriage age however is quite alarming, and any laws that seeks to deny women the education they deserve should be frowned upon. These stories are yet to be confirmed, but it has piqued my interest nonetheless.

I’ll be keeping my eyes on Egypt and the Middle East. It’s an unstable place, and one that should be monitored to make sure that any new laws that are passed by these governments is not the decision of overly zealous theocrats hell-bent on keeping their women in chains or as chattels.

Ms Ali’s talk showed how the Arab Spring has turned into what she called “The Islamic Winter”, and she highlighted some of the very dire situations these people are facing now, and into the future, particularly women under these regimes. She certainly presented a scary future for  these people and urged people of the West to not turn a blind eye to these troubles being faced.

On day 3 of the convention, a group of Muslim men, dressed in traditional gear protested outside the front doors of the Melbourne Convention Centre, brandishing placards and chanting some rather unpleasant things to the slowly gathering crowd. One of the placards read in all-capitals black lettering:

At one point, the chant rose among the convention attendees: “WHERE ARE YOUR WOMEN? WHERE ARE YOUR WOMEN?” As could be expected, there was not a woman among them.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a permanent accompaniment of bodyguards following her wherever she goes because of just such threats. For a full blow-by-blow account of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s talk, go see Chrys Stevenson’s blog. She’s done a great job documenting all of the speakers’ talks.

My blog today is on a slightly different topic though, and based on some thoughts from the talk, and in particular an article that came to my attention only yesterday, featured in the online magazine Foreign Policy. The article is by journalist Mona Eltahawy and is titled “Why Do They Hate Us?” It is an emotional ride through stories of oppression at the hands of a land that is supposed to be enjoying the freedoms brought about by the overthrow of governments. I’ll admit the article is intentionally emotive, and uses language and examples that intentionally evoke an emotional response, it is a powerful and through-provoking piece well worth reading. The article further incites emotions by including pictures of a nude woman covered in black paint with only her eyes showing, accompanied by quotes from the piece itself.

The article also admits that the rights of women worldwide have still got a long way to go, but highlights the fact that things are particularly bad in the Middle-East with this paragraph:

Defenders of the Islamic states always point at culture as the reasons for the mistreatment of women, and people in the west are loathe to criticise culture for fear they might offend someone. But is this really justified? Should cultural practices be given a free-pass when they are at odds with what the more developed nations are trying to achieve, namely equality and justice for all of earth’s people, particularly women? Can someone rightly say that a practice such as genital mutilation, or cloaking a person from head to foot to “protect them”, or treating women as little more than infants and giving them as much rights as children, and insisting that the women never leave the house without a chaperone “for their own safety”, that just because it is deeply ingrained in their cultural heritage that it is right? And who determines what is wrong or right?

Any practice which stifles the rights of its people, physically, emotionally, politically or socially, is a practice worth turning our attention to. These age-old practices are the result of interpretations of their holy books, always by men, and the practises of the religion itself is controlled only by men. But there are always the defenders of these cultural practises, who claim that life for women under Islam is just peachy, and that Islam and the cultures under which it operates does so to protect the women from “other men”. Here’s an example of a rebuttal to Eltahawy’s article entitled “Dear Mona Eltahawy: You do not represent ‘Us’” by blogger Samia Errazzouki. In her article she defends the Niqab and the women who wear them, as well as telling Eltahawy why she is apparently misrepresenting women under Islam. Her defence of the Niqab, and her reasons why the above image is wrong are threefold:

This is precisely the kind of defense of cultural practices I am talking about. Deep cultural ties make it accepted, and expected behaviour. But the reasoning for her defending the Niqab is something I see again and again by women who “choose” to do as they are told by their culture. It’s the ultimate Stockholm Syndrome, where those who are held as captives come to love their captors and their situation, backed by culturally ingrained behaviours and expectations, and bolstered by a sense of apparent “freedom” of choice, as their would-be oppressors present it.

I see the Niqab as a symbol of all of the other oppressive behaviours perpetrated by men against women in Middle-Eastern cultures and the Islamic religion. The men claim it is there to stop women getting raped by strangers on the street. Likewise, the fact that in some Islamic societies, women are not allowed to leave the house alone, if at all, is cited as protecting the women from rape at the hands of strangers. You and I know that a society can and does operate quite comfortably without these kinds of extreme actions in order to “protect our women”. Even the idea that the women belong to the men, like some kind of pet or belonging, is abhorrent.

There is no doubt that women living in Islamic theocratic states are oppressed. It is in the culture of these lands to do so, and backed by the doctrines of Islamic law as laid down by the Quran and the Hadith. In some countries it is better than in others, but in all of these countries, women are treated as second class citizens.

This is not anti-Islamic (I am equally astounded and dismayed by the cultural practices of other religions), nor can I be accused of racism (Islam is not a race). This is a human rights issue, one where no matter what your cultural history says, no matter how long this practice has been around, no matter if it’s “the way we’ve always done things”, if it oppresses and violates the basic human rights of people, it is NOT OKAY.

Some might say I have no right to comment on this, for several reasons:

a. I am not a woman
b. I do not live in the Middle-East
c. I am not Islamic
d. I have never lived in the situations described above

To that I say, it does not take a genius to see that women are being oppressed. I am a citizen of the world, and therefore I claim the right to criticise when I see injustices being served. I will not pussyfoot around cultural oppression of women, and I will not pussyfoot around religions. If this is what the religion means, then it must change or continue to be criticised by the likes of myself.

Finally, I want to just put this forward. Why is it that when a woman, who seem to be the main victims of oppression at the hands of these theocracies, openly and publicly criticises Islamic practices, that she is instantly disparaged as a liar, and then threatened with hell or death? Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Taslima Nasreen both know of this, and I wonder how many others do also.

In an interview with ABC Australia from 2010, Robertson states his case, particularly against Benedict himself:

The problem is very widespread, and it seems that it is within the culture of the Catholic Church to accept cases of rape among their clergy perpetrated mostly on young boys, as “an undesirable thing that happens”. The reaction to allegations of child abuse at the hands of clergy has been typically to sweep it under the rug and move the priest to a new location where he is unknown. Of course the only thing this does is allow the paedophile priest opportunities for new victims, and the cycle continues. In some cases the offending priests have been defrocked, stripped of their rights as a priest.

It is this very culture that makes this a difficult case to pursue. Dr Cathy Kezelman, the president of Adults Surviving Child Abuse wrote in a piece in The National Times:

Currently here in Victoria, the State government has decided to go ahead with an inquiry into child sex abuse cases within the Catholic church, which is welcome news for those who have been abused. But I say this is not enough. There should be a Full Royal Commission into these abuse cases, and those found guilty should be tried and charged as any other member of society would be tried and charged. There is a danger that if this case is not handled with enough force that the rates of suicides among victims could increase. Dr Kezelman urges that this must be only the beginning of a larger investigation into child sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy.

As would be expected, The Mad Monk and would-be Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Tony Abbott, says that we shouldn’t just blame the church, but seek out the real causes of child abuse in society at large. In response to the Victorian government’s investigation into child sex abuse claims against the Catholic church, he says:

“There has been a lot of pretty gruesome behaviour in many institutions over the years and we should be careful not to single out particular institutions, given that a lot of this has been or it was pandemic a generation ago.”

While this is true, the Catholic Church’s actions should not be ignored simply because the problem is more widespread. Mr Abbott is known for his strong religious views, so is it any wonder that he’s loathe to point the finger at the church as the source of these problems? Abbott should, if he had a conscience, be standing firmly behind the decision to investigate the paedophile priests, but his religious ties, and his pandering to the Australian Christian Lobby prevents him from doing so. But Mr Abbott is quite right in stating that it is more widespread than just the Catholic church. In 2009 the Anglican church released a report on 191 cases of abuse perpetrated between 1990 and 2008. This really is just the tip of the iceberg.

It seems to me that these cases of abuse are not taken seriously enough by those with the power to make changes, and bring these paedophiles to justice. Mr Robertson has quite a task on is hands if his case against The Pope is to prove successful, but I applaud his efforts and hope that the victims of child sexual abuse at the hands of priests can one day have some sense of respite and see justice done.

For further information and to keep up with the cases within Australia, have a look at SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) and Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia.

The third part of Sam Harris’ talk was about the mind, and how everything we experience is a product of the mind. I’ve written at length about the mind being all and everything before, but it is worth revisiting.

Before I start, I just want to say in this piece I will use the word “brain” to describe the organ itself and its chemical processes, and “mind” to describe the experience and our consciousness.

Every part of your daily experience is interpreted by the mind, and delivered to your consciousness by the very same mind. Your brain not only takes in all the information you receive, but takes that information, deciphers it and delivers you it’s interpretations on the fly. When you see anything, be it a red balloon or a scruffy dog, it is your mind’s interpretation you are experiencing, not the actual balloon or dog. If you pat the dog, and see that it’s happy, it’s not the dog or it’s happiness you are experiencing, rather our brain and mind’s reaction to the stimuli experienced. This may seem overly bleak to some, but let me continue.

When you meet a friend on the street and give them a hug, the embrace brings with it a group of sensations and stimuli which the brain delivers to the mind, and the outcome is the experience we perceive; the feeling of warmth and the comfort of the embrace, the texture of your friend’s clothes, their smell, and also the emotional feelings of well-being, and any memories that may be attached to past dealings with your friend.

Pain and suffering occur in the brain too, only because these are reactions to the body’s natural defence system and its aversion to pain for the reasons of self-preservation, we often think of them as external to the brain, as if the apparent source of discomfort is the actual site of the pain. In fact the pain is in your brain, your body sending signals to the brain, your brain deciphers it, and sends this to our conscious mind in the form of pain seemingly coming from the site of the injury, illness or cancer.

Some would say this brings up the idea of the mind/body duality, that the mind controls the body, and the body reacts to the mind’s whims, but of course the brain and body are part of one system; the brain cannot exist without the body, and the body is useless without the brain. (As it stands we have not been able to make a fully functioning “brain in a jar” or disembodied mind, and I’m not going to discount possibility. If this were possible, what kinds of questions would this raise? Would a fully functioning brain without any external input contain a mind?)

Memories and ideas of the future are brought about by the brain as current thoughts, not some disembodied future/past thought dragged up from the lower reaches of our brains. The reactions we have to painful past memories and the trepidation or excitement we feel about our futures are happening in the present. Given this, the idea of past and future dissolve, in an abstract sense, into part of what is happening now. Everything we experience is happening to us now, including past and future. (I covered this in part 2 of this blog piece).

What Harris bravely attempted to show in his talk was that there is a way to alter our perceptions of our own consciousness, and become acutely aware of what the body is, and a way to focus our minds on the fact that what we are experiencing in the “now” is everything we are. What is difficult is to consciously realise this. What is contentious is the standpoint taken by people of the skeptical and critical thinking crowds, which was most of the audience, as we tend to see anything “metaphysical” as non-existent, or at very least unprovable. Convincing a room of 4000 atheists and skeptics that mindful meditation is something worth considering was a big task, but Harris manages to spring this on everybody, and quite successfully too.

After pointing out the fact that the brain is the cause of every feeling or sensation we encounter in life, Harris guided the audience into a state of relaxation and awareness, where the lines between the physicality of our bodies and the mind became somewhat blurred. I am familiar with this kind of thing, having practiced very similar meditation techniques as a young man. Most of what I experienced was tied into some new-age spirituality, full of chakras, reiki and crystal gazing, not unlike the kind of “woo” pedaled by the likes of Deepak Chopra. It’s because of this I’m sure that many atheists and skeptics are wary of any kind of meditation, or anything appearing to be “metaphysical”.

What Harris did was not, however, metaphysical, but a physical process. Slowing the breathing and concentrating on the physical sensations around you can increase calmness and help to manage stress. Some studies have suggested it actually increases a sense of well-being, and also helps alleviate pain or at least assists in the management of chronic pain. Other studies have shown meditation can improve attention and self regulation. I have no doubt that at least some of these claims and studies pan out since we can control our minds’ and bodies’ activities by simply practicing a few simple techniques. But the problem lies in how to measure and conduct a study into the efficacy of meditation, as many of these techniques could occupy the same realm as “the placebo effect”, and there may also be many different ways to arrive at the desired effect.

Meditation, like the placebo, is still not fully understood, but this is not what Harris’ experiment on the 4000 GAC attendees was intended to do. The intention of showing us this technique was to highlight the fact that everything is in the mind. By using these simple techniques and by relaxing, the lines between our physical and mental selves begin to dissolve. It highlighted what he was saying, that all our experiences are mediated by the brain, all our perceptions and cognitions are the product of the brain and mind. And it helped give a real sense of “now” as opposed to the preoccupations we have with past and future.

Sorry for being overly wordy with these 3 pieces, but I thinkI have a conclusion for you.

Harris’ talk was definitely confronting to many of the attendees of the GAC, including myself. The parts about death and mind were nothing new to me for the most part, but the illustration of a kind of presence of mind in the “now” he showed was eye-opening; I’m still not sold on meditation for the control and management of pain as anything but a glorified placebo, but what if the processes in it could be harnessed and utilised on demand? I think the biggest thing I took away from the presentation is a notion of what it means to live in the “now”, to appreciate what and where we are right at this moment, to know that what we are experiencing is all we can ever experience, and that we can let go of the past and future, at least occasionally.

There is no sense in letting go of our memories, or fighting to maintain a planet we can live on in the future, because that too is a reality of our lives, of our minds and of our brains. We still need to maintain the fight against climate change denial, we still need to stop the pedophiles preying on our young, we still need to fight for the rights of women in the face of sexual discrimination. But couldn’t we all do with a little clarity of mind while doing this? Maybe Harris has part of the answer here.