Reddit mentions of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

That's your definition. I'm an atheist, don't believe in souls, and I consider myself quite spiritual. Looking forward to this book

Atheist here. There really isn't a lot of literature on what you're talking about so I'm going to recommend a book that I actually didn't like much but it does address this topic that you bring up. It's called, Waking Up: A Guide to Sprituality Without Religion by Sam Harris. Maybe the comments can give you a useful overview and a lead on other books that talk about the topic. His basic thesis is meditation is a form of spirituality.

Personally I enjoy backpacking and hiking and find a lot of solace in nature. I don't claim to find God or god there. I just feel more comfortable there. Some parts of California have atheist/agnostic churches where people can gain a sense of community without the religious belief but I don't see them spreading across the country anytime soon.

Edit: Enjoy your search. There's spirituality and peace in that as well.

Check out Sam Harris.

He's talking and writing a lot about meditation and Spirituality without Religion, and is also working on a meditation app that's not yet out.

Nah nije imas pun kurac ljudi koji vjeruju u boga ali misle da je crkva pizdarija. Misle da je bog neki uber holy spirit is sta vec.

To ti je sada najveci trend.
http://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion-ebook/dp/B00GEEB9YC

Funny how the mind works and can create so much suffering. I recommend taking up meditation.

You could start by reading Sam Harris' new book Waking Up.

You could also take up a meditative practice. If you're unfamiliar with this territory, Sam Harris has some nice guided meditation audio here.

Don't take this as an endorsement; I'm just showing that it's out there:
https://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion-ebook/dp/B00GEEB9YC

Not sure why people are downvoting you. I think it's perfectly acceptable to seek scientifically valid information and try to avoid some of the seemingly wild claims out there. There is a lot of pseudo-science pushed around in the realm of meditation which can be used to exploit people.

The problem I found is that science still has a long way to go in studying and understanding meditative practice. I think there is significant lag between what science has shown, and legitimate claims made by experienced meditators. So as u/macjoven mentioned, at this point you often have to take what you can get.

The best way to verify some of these esoteric claims is to meditate yourself and experience these things for yourself.

If you like reading, Sam Harris' most recent book Waking Up isn't bad; it approaches many of the claims made by gurus with a very open minded but critical perspective which is characteristic of Sam. I haven't read Dan Harris' book 10% Happier, but I suspect it might be a good read as well.

Edit: added some words.

I think Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion would be right up your alley. Sam Harris is a fantastic author and orator in the world of atheists and the non-religious. He generally has a more positive and uplifting vibe than people Hitchens (who I also love) and Dawkins.

I would recommend Sam Harris' "Waking Up" to the Awareness & Spirituality section. Interesting read on spirituality from a religiously sober perspective. I got a lot of formative insights from this book and would say that it acted as a catalyst for my self-development.

(2/2)

>Read the CMV title again. "If Sam Harris had been given enough opportunity to respond, it would have been clear that he won the debate."

Unless you're suggesting that Harris would have retracted and restated what he said to mean something other than what he actually did say, I don't see how delving into his other work would help. Considering his other work, I'm even less convinced. He is neither honestly conciliatory towards religious reformers nor does he hide his distaste for religion. I think the snippets he threw in where he suggested the reformers actually weren't taking their faith seriously is indicative of his tone and honest belief. I think he made no misstatements and expressed himself accurately in the clip.

>>a and his psuedospiritual quackery...I'm not really inclined to dig to deep on him. I've read enough to know he's not worth more of my time. If you want to summarize compelling arguments and try to convince me otherwise, feel free.
>I'd say it's abundantly clear you haven't made an attempt to understand his arguments.

Do you have thoughts on his new book "Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion"? Color me simple, but I'm not spending money to read that.

As to his other work, I'm familiar with his attempts to prove that free will doesn't exist and that a rationally achievable objective morality does (because he keeps his philosophical discourse current /s). I'm also aware of his failures in those pursuits and his refusal to respond adequately to them. He embraces physicalism unquestioningly and refuses to entertain or answer any criticism on that count. He presumes the 'suffering=bad" premise in his attempts at moral philosophy (to be fair, most moral philosophers will also presume that), but he won't entertain or defend against any criticism on that count. In his exceptional arrogance, he believes he has solved philosophical problems without sufficiently arguing for them or addressing subsequent criticism.

In short, he tries to fix possibly insoluble philosophical problems with nothing but scientism and a massive ego. That, along with his new book on spirituality, keeps me confident that I shouldn't delve much farther into his work. It will be dated, poorly argued, preachy, arrogant and boring.

>A necessary primary cause implies that the factor must be present to produce the outcome in any scenario. Harris appears to be arguing that Islam is a sufficient cause, which is that the factor in conjunction with other variables will reliably produce the outcome.

I think that's reading quite a bit into Harris' statement. I say that because I don't recall him saying anything like that. I understand that you may believe that, but I don't think that he does. I think you're projecting your own argument and assuming that Harris would agree. To be fair, I think he might say that he agrees, but I think he would also slip in an insult to Islam to make his real feelings known (as he did in the video).

As to the argument itself, I don't think it's correct. I don't think you can call Islam the primary cause of these problems in any meaningful sense. You could say that nobody would care about apostasy if there were no religion, but I don't think the religion alone caused the attitude or that the religion should even be criticized for condemning apostasy. I don't think killing people for it is okay, but I also think that that can be addressed more effectively without attacking the religion wholesale.

>When beliefs are motivating behavior that causes suffering, subjugates women, stifles freedom of speech and expression, I disagree completely. We have a moral obligation to fix those problems if value human well-being.

I agree, but talk is cheap. Are you planning to go fight ISIS? Do you plan to overthrow regimes across the Middle East? Because this otherwise appears to be a very weak moral imperative for you and Harris. You are willing to address practices you disagree with, decry them as immoral and place blame at the feet of an abstract idea; but you don't appear to back this stance up with any action or plan of action.

If you follow a Harris-esque moral consequentialism, then you should follow the most productive course of action that will lead to change. There appear to be two options: coerce Muslims or convince them to reform. The latter is what arguments from within the faith or that do not address the faith at all try to do. They are not existential threats, they are ways out of uncomfortable orthodoxy. They work when they are addressed to any receptive audience.

Harris' arguments are not that, and I know you agree on that point. But he didn't say what he did under a rock. He was addressing liberals in a public forum and trying to convince them of this message: "we should be willing to criticize Islam, the source of all this badness". Not "we should be willing to criticize the practices of Muslims." While he said the latter, it was only a facet of an argument for the former. And that is the big problem: he was telling liberals that the should eschew their respect for the faith because that respect was holding them back. If that disdain and condescension towards Muslims become a part of the liberal zeitgeist, the only result will be inaction or confrontation between liberals and Muslims.

While I agree with the article, I can't help but notice how well it's paralleling the release of Sam Harris's new book.