Creationism: A House Divided?
May 20, 2014

In the Gospel According to Saint Mark, when teachers of the law accused Jesus of driving out demons in the name of the devil, he pointed out that this strategy would be ridiculously self-defeating (Mark 3:24-27):

If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.

Recent accusations between creationist Ken Ham and televangelist Pat Robertson suggest that the traditionally unified anti-evolutionist camp is a house divided against itself. Creationists in disagreement? Biblical fundamentalists being cross with each other over the age of the Earth? How can that be (and how can we encourage it)?

Just a few years ago Pat Robertson’s organization sold material claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted. But in November, 2012, Robertson seemed to break with his fellow creationists, disputing their claim that the planet is so youthful. Robertson claimed that James Ussher—the seventeenth century bishop who calculated the age of the Earth to be only 6000 years using biblical genealogies—was not inspired by the Lord.

While many creationists believe that Noah took dinosaurs on board his Ark, Robertson insisted that dinosaurs “were on the earth before the time of the Bible, so don’t try to cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years, that’s not the Bible.” Ouch. For fundamentalists who take the Bible as literally true and all-encompassing, saying that a claim is not part of the Bible is akin to saying it cannot be true. As the youngsters today might have tweeted, “#inyourface Ken Ham #lol.”

Ham replied to Robertson with his own salvo on his Facebook page:

Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson. This excerpt was posted on YouTube by a group that is a project of People for the American Way. Pat Robertson gives more fodder to the secularists. We don’t need enemies from without the church when we have such destructive teaching within the church.

Ham accuses Robertson of heresy and effectively aiding the enemy. Following the debate last February between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Robertson criticized Ham’s remarks on creationism as just plain nutty:

Let’s face it, there was a bishop [Ussher] who added up the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around for 6,000 years. There ain’t no way that’s possible. To say that it all came about in 6,000 years is just nonsense and I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible. We’ve got to be realistic that the dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there.

Wow—maybe Robertson is ready to come on NCSE’s rafting trip down the Grand Canyon, where we show why the young-earth creationist interpretation does not square with what is seen in the geological formation.

Don’t be too optimistic; Robertson still disagrees with “evolution as it is currently presented.” Does that mean as it is presented in science classrooms and at scientific conferences? Robertson also knocks creationists with a plea to his fellow congregationalists: “Let’s be real, let’s not make a joke of ourselves.” Robertson goes on:

You have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this Earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence, it just doesn’t, I’m sorry. To deny the clear record that’s there before us makes us looks silly,” he said. “There’s no way that all this that you have here took place in 6,000 years, it just couldn’t have been done, couldn’t possibly have been done.

Now things have escalated. No doubt inspired by what his sycophants regard as his smashing success against Bill Nye, Ken Ham has done the thing he does best: challenge an opponent to a debate. However, this time the gauntlet has been thrown not at a “godless evilushunist” but at Ham’s co-religionist Pat Robertson. A house divided, indeed!

I wonder if Pat Robertson would be prepared to discuss these issues with me or one of our AiG scientists on the 700 Club? Or maybe in some sort of debate format at Regent University? We are certainly willing to do that—maybe all of you reading this could challenge CBN/Regent University to allow such a discussion, debate, or forum to occur publicly. I wonder if Pat Robertson, who is allowed to state these things so publicly through CBN will agree to have his statements publicly challenged and tested!

For Ham, Robertson’s sin is caving in to “millions of years,” opening the way to the acceptance of evolution. That timeline implies that bloodshed, disease and death occurred before Adam’s original sin, and in Ham’s theology, this destroys the foundation of the atonement brought by the death of Christ on the cross. According to 1 Corinthians 15:54, sin and death have been swallowed up in victory through Jesus Christ. Thus the enormity of Robertson’s compromise is revealed: if he accepts millions of years he undermines the entire gospel message of Jesus Christ.

A popular if problematic Christian interpretation of Jesus’s death is that Christ shed his blood and suffered physical death to pay the penalty for human sin (this is what James McGrath rightly calls “the odious penal substitutionary theory of atonement“). In Ham’s fundamentalist view, teaching that millions of years of death, disease, and suffering occurred before Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden is a direct attack upon the rationale for Christ’s death on the cross. Of course, Ham’s take on theology is as distorted as is his understanding of science. For an excellent survey of both older, ineffective models of atonement and some that accord far better with what we know from modern science see George Murphy’s Models of Atonement (2013).

Ken Ham has thrown down the gauntlet of debate. He thinks Robertson’s acquiescence to geological deep time represents apostasy of the highest order that must be confronted, routed, and stamped out in very public forum. Will Robertson accept the challenge? That remains to be seen. If he does it will be like watching Godzilla battle Mothra—an entertaining fight, but one in which you are not particularly rooting for either party.

Photo by Paparazzo Presents, released under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license

Party Time! Part 1
May 20, 2014

Sorry. No funny hats, no crepe streamers, and no cake today. Instead, I’m talking about political parties, in particular state political parties in the United States. And I’m prompted by the news that the Alaska Republican Party recently revised its platform. According to Alaska Public Media (May 4, 2014), at its recent meeting, the party “condensed the Alaska Republican platform. Sections on education and crime were streamlined, and specific provisions on school vouchers, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, and the teaching of creation science were removed.” Removing support for the teaching of creation science in Alaska’s public schools from a party platform is just a wee bit overdue, twenty-seven years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that teaching creation science in the public schools is unconstitutional, but welcome nevertheless. Good job, Alaska Republicans.

The news reminded me that I haven’t recently skimmed through the platforms of the various state political parties to see what, if anything, they say about attacks on science education. It seems like a good time to revisit the issue, since the last time I conducted such a review was eight years ago. In 2004, I located seven state political parties with antievolution planks in their platforms: the Republican parties of Alaska, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas; in 2006, when Liza Gross wrote in a PLoS Biology article that “[i]n the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Missouri, and Texas all included demands for teaching creation science,” I commented, “NCSE is currently aware of eight state Republican parties that have antievolutionism embedded in their official platforms or policies those of Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas.”

Not all of those called for creation science as such, I added: “Five of them—those of Alaska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas—call for teaching forms of creationism in addition to evolution; the remaining three call only for referring the decision whether to teach such ‘alternatives’ to local school districts.” That’s accurate as far as it goes, but there’s actually a lot of diversity in the platforms, which called variously for:

  • equal time for creation science (Alaska)
  • equal time for creationism (Oklahoma)
  • inclusion of creationism (Oregon)
  • inclusion of “intelligent design” (Texas)
  • allowing teachers to discuss creation science (Minnesota)
  • allowing districts to decide whether to teach creation science (Iowa, Missouri)
  • allowing districts to decide whether to teach “intelligent design” (Iowa)
  • evolution to be taught as theory, not fact (Alaska, Texas)
  • disclaimers for textbooks that fail to present evolution as theory, not fact (Oklahoma)
  • science standards that present evolution as controversial (Minnesota)
  • presentation of the scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories (Texas)
  • teaching all science-based theories for the origin of life (Kansas)
  • public libraries to include creation science materials in their collections (Iowa)

Eight years later, there isn’t a whole lot of difference. NCSE is currently aware of eight state Republican parties that have antievolutionism embedded in their official platforms or policies: those of Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas. The roster is almost the same (Oregon was replaced with North Dakota), and the diversity of antievolution proposals is comparable:

  • equal time for creationism (Iowa, Oklahoma)
  • inclusion of Biblical creation (Oklahoma)
  • inclusion of creation science (Alaska)
  • inclusion of “intelligent design” (Alaska, Oklahoma)
  • teaching the evidence for and against macroevolution (Alaska)
  • allowing districts to decide whether to teach creationism (Missouri) 
  • allowing teachers to discuss creation science (Minnesota, Oklahoma)
  • allowing teachers to discuss “intelligent design” (North Dakota)
  • evolution to be taught as theory, not fact (Iowa)
  • teaching all science-based theories for the origin of life (Kansas)
  • science standards that present evolution as controversial (Minnesota)
  • ability to discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories (Texas)
  • school libraries to include creationism and “intelligent design” materials in their collections (Iowa)

Starting in part 2, I’ll offer pairwise comparisons between the seven platforms including antievolution planks in both 2006 and 2014, and I’ll also say a word about the platforms including proevolution—or perhaps antiantievolution—planks. First, though, let me share my data sources with you, so you don’t have to take my word for it.



Republican (PDF)










Democratic (PDF)



Democratic (PDF)













District of Columbia

Republican (PDF)







Democratic (PDF)


Republican (PDF)

Democratic (PDF)


Republican (PDF)



Republican (PDF)







Democratic (PDF)











Republican*** (PDF)

Democratic*** (PDF)





Republican (PDF)




Democratic (PDF)


Republican (PDF)

Democratic-Farmer-Labor (PDF)









Democratic (PDF)



Democratic (PDF)



Democratic (PDF)

New Hampshire



New Jersey



New Mexico



New York



North Carolina


Democratic (PDF)

North Dakota


Democratic-Non Partisan League





Republican (PDF)








Rhode Island



South Carolina

Republican (PDF)


South Dakota







Republican (PDF)

Democratic (PDF)


Republican (PDF)

Democratic (PDF)










West Virginia


Democratic (PDF)






Democratic (PDF)

* No platform located on-line; link is to party website
** Provided the national party platform only
*** Described as proposed or draft

Facts Are Such Stubborn Things
May 19, 2014

William Buckland was one of the great geologists of the 19th century. He gave the first Latin binomial to a dinosaur, named coprolites and showed how they could help us reconstruct the lives of extinct animals, and discovered the oldest anatomically modern human fossil in the UK. He was also a cleric, succeeding “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce as Dean of Westminster. He took on the task of explaining geology in one of the Bridgewater Treatises, a series of books funded with a mandate to explore “the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation.”

Early in his career, Buckland had advocated for a form of gap creationism, where the opening of Genesis starts after much of the world’s history had happened. This would mean that fossils of extinct organisms were vestiges of those past worlds, and need not all be products of a single, global, Noachian flood. In the treatise, Geology and Mineralogy considered with reference to Natural Theology, Buckland wrote:

The myriads of petrified Remains which are disclosed by the researches of Geology all…show that these extinct forms of Organic Life were so closely allied, by Unity in the principles of their construction, to Classes, Orders, and Families, which make up the existing Animal and Vegetable Kingdoms, that they not only afford an argument of surpassing force, against the doctrines of the Atheist and Polytheist; but supply a chain of connected evidence, amounting to demonstration, of the continuous Being, and of many of the highest Attributes of the One Living and True God.

In the course of things, Buckland became familiar with the idea of glaciation being popularized by Louis Agassiz, which forced him to revise his gap creationist model. Commenting on his change of course, Victorian science writer Mary Somerville quipped: “Geologists had excited public attention, and had shocked the clergy and the more scrupulous of the laity by proving beyond a doubt that the formation of the globe extended through enormous periods of time.…Dr. Buckland committed himself by taking the clerical view in his ‘Bridgewater Treatise’; but facts are such stubborn things, that he was obliged to join the geologists at last.”

That facts are stubborn things is, perhaps, the essence of what makes science work. People can approach science from many directions, but in the end, their claims have to confront the evidence, which can show someone’s theory to be powerful at explaining new and unexpected evidence, or powerless to predict anything novel.

I think of this because of a firestorm inspired by a passing phrase in an obituary Peter Hess wrote on this blog last week. In memorializing an astronomer and theologian whose work sought to establish a dialogue between science and religion without doing violence to either, Hess remarked:

Biblical fundamentalists and their opponents on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum of belief often share one significant assumption: in order to contribute to modern science you have to be an atheist. That is, you cannot at the same time believe in a personal God and accept the scientific explanations of Big Bang cosmology, of the age of our solar system, and of the evolution of biodiversity on Earth.

In due course, this led to an invective-laden response from evolutionary biologist (and atheist) Jerry Coyne, who emphasized that Hess was not accurately characterizing his views, clarifying that he thinks religious people can be good scientists, but “scientists who are religious are engaged in a form of subconscious cognitive dissonance.”

That last claim is, at least potentially, a scientifically testable hypothesis. Coyne takes the philosophical stance that science and religion are, in some sense, intrinsically incompatible, and he believes that a consequence of this incompatibility will be some sort of psychological conflict in the minds of religious scientists.

I happen to think that his philosophy is flawed, simplistic, and ill-argued, but that’s for another day. He’s claiming that the philosophical point makes a prediction about people’s mental processes, which should be testable. Facts are stubborn things, and a good scientist ought to be willing to adjust his philosophy in response to stubborn facts that stand at odds with those predictions.

People have been writing about the relationship between science and religion since before they were calling it “science,” so if there is an inherent cognitive dissonance that’s induced by accepting the truth of both, we ought to see it clearly. But we don’t. When we look at the writings of religious scientists from history like Newton and Galileo and Faraday, or modern religious scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller, they don’t describe a deep conflict that they’re trying to bridge, or even manifest, reveal, or evince the signs of such a conflict. They talk about a fundamental unity of nature, that the laws of nature they study as scientists are the expression of an organizing intelligence. They see their search for scientific explanations as unified with their search for an understanding of divine will.

To take an example, where is this cognitive dissonance in Galileo’s letter to Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany? That’s the one where he defended himself against any suggestion of impiety, indeed accusing his attackers of being less pious than he is. He insisted that, “having arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible and in the investigation of those meanings which are necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant with demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.” Galileo’s letter played no small part in his prosecution by the Inquisition (turns out that calling the leading figures in the Catholic Church impious isn’t the best way to appease the Inquisition), suggesting that he wasn’t choosing his words simply to mollify his critics and potential persecutors or paper over a deep conflict. If he thought religion (as he understood it) stood at odds with astronomical science (as he understood it), we could expect him to have dropped a hint.

Similarly, where is that cognitive dissonance in Isaac Newton’s writings, even the (in retrospect) crazy alchemical experiments and tedious computations aimed at working out exactly what time God turned on the light switch? Newton’s theology was, to be generous, heterodox. In his private writings, he denied the existence of the Trinity and the soul. If he secretly harbored doubts about the existence of a deity at all, we’d see those doubts playing out in his secret writings, but we don’t. Instead, he wrote that “nothing can rejoyce me more” than to find that his work in natural philosophy (or science, as we’d call it today) “might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity.” And his philosophy of science, one which was notably successful, drew on his theology: “It is the perfection of God’s works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. And therefore as they would understand the frame of the world must endeavor to reduce their knowledge to all possible simplicity, so must it be in seeking to understand these visions.” Far from evincing any sort of dissonance between science and religion, Newton saw a stupendous consonance.

This, then, is the simple fact of the matter: many religious scientists do not see a conflict between their science and their religion. They do not evince any evidence of “subconscious cognitive dissonance,” certainly not in any objectively testable sense. As such, while I applaud Coyne’s willingness to offer a bold and testable prediction based on his a priori philosophical commitment, I’ll have to hold off any high praise until he’s willing to bend his abstract philosophy to accommodate these stubborn facts.

Acts & Facts & Pacifiers
May 19, 2014

Acts & Facts is the monthly publication of the Institute for Creation Research, which equips “believers with evidence of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research…”

Here at NCSE, we maintain a subscription to Acts & Facts to remain informed of the ICR’s stance on various topics and as a reminder of what we face in defending science education. The May 2014 issue has an article by Dr. Jason Lisle—ICR’s Director of Research—that is a case study in avoiding worry and shirking responsibility by donning blinders in adopting a human-centric view of the universe.

(N.B. Blinders are those bridle attachments on racehorses to keep them from looking to the side and becoming distracted or ‘spooked.’ The Aussies call them pacifiers. )

Dr. Lisle has been contributing a series of articles to A&F on the solar system. He is well qualified as he has a doctorate in astrophysics from the University of Colorado. The articles have been quite well written and very informative.

His May article, “The Solar System: Asteroids and Comets,” started well—until he played down the threats posed by asteroids. Initially I wondered whether he merely wished to protect the readers from thoughts about random carnage, or whether his beliefs provide him with blinders that prevent his acknowledging the magnitude of this threat.

How would Dr. Lisle respond to the question of asteroids colliding with Earth? He himself poses that question:

It may seem at first that with so many Earth-crossing asteroids, a devastating collision would be inevitable. But, the asteroids do not orbit in exactly the same plane as the Earth’s. In most cases, their orbits never actually intersect, and therefore they can never collide. There are only a handful of known, relatively large Earth-crossers that pose potential danger for collision in the distant future. However, astronomers can accurately compute the future positions of these asteroids and have determined that none pose any realistic threat in our lifetime. A number of smaller Earth-crossing asteroids may yet be discovered. But smaller asteroids would cause less damage upon impact, and the smallest ones burn up in Earth’s protective atmosphere before they can reach the surface.

There is a lot of latent honesty in that paragraph.

  • “There are only a handful of known, relatively large Earth-crossers that pose potential danger.…” Uh, what about the unknown large Earth-crossers? The Sentinel Project of the B612 Foundation will likely locate bunches more.
  • “… none pose any realistic threat in our lifetime.” OK, what about a little further into the future? I do not believe we should shirk our responsibilities to coming generations simply because we will not be around.
  • “But smaller asteroids would cause less damage upon impact….” OK, what about the Chelyabinsk meteor, a tiny—about 20 meters across—asteroid that was not known? Had it approached that city from directly overhead, instead of at the shallow angle of around eighteen degrees, it would likely have destroyed Chelyabinsk and most of the million people living there. Instead, it released its energy—20-30 times more powerful than the Hiroshima atomic bomb—about 30 km above the city and damaged only 7,000 buildings and sent only a thousand or so people to seek medical treatment, some from ultraviolet skin burns. Dr. Lisle’s “relatively large Earth-crossers” presumably could wipe out entire population centers—or worse.

Dr. Lisle then turns to the topic of comets. Good reading, at least until he again dons his blinders and writes:

Both short- and long-period comets are a confirmation that God created them thousands of years ago, not millions or billions. Comets lose mass every time they pass through the inner solar system. We can estimate the mass loss from observations of the comet’s tail. Based on this rate, and the mass of the nucleus, a typical comet can last no more than about 100,000 years.

Credit Dr. Lisle with saying 100,000 years and not just the young earth creationist 6,000 to 10,000 years. And he did say “typical.” Without his blinders, he surely would be aware of atypical comets such as C/1980 E1. It had an orbital period of about 7.1 million years before its most recent inner-Solar-System excursion when it picked up additional velocity from a close pass with Jupiter. It is now on a course to exit the Solar System altogether (a situation that he mentions in the article).

Dr. Lisle’s perspective is narrowest in the final sentence of his article, “Who can guess what undiscovered gems the Lord has placed among the stars for our delight and His glory?”

“… for our delight”?!? Apparently Dr. Lisle believes that the universe was made for humans and, of course, that means that asteroids and comets cannot be a threat—at least with his blinders, a.k.a. pacifiers, properly in place.

Answer Monday!
May 19, 2014

Photo Credit: angela7dreams via Compfight cc

Last week on Fossil Friday, I gave you a pretty easy plant fossil to identify. Why so easy? Al though this fossil dates back to the Miocene, there are plenty of this same genus around today!

What was it? An Acacia of course, found in Mint Canyon in Southern California. I always thought of Acacia as an Australian tree, but according to the USGS there are some living in the US even today. According to Encyclopedia Britannica:

acacia, any of about 800 species of trees and shrubs comprising a genus (Acacia) in the pea family (Fabaceae) and native to tropical and subtropical regions of the world, particularly Australia (there called wattles) and Africa…Several acacia species are important economically.  A. senegal, native to the Sudan region in Africa, yields true gum arabic, a substance used in adhesives, pharmaceuticals, inks, confections, and other products. The bark of most acacias is rich in tannin, which is used in tanning and in dyes, inks, pharmaceuticals, and other products.

Thanks for playing this week. Stay tuned this Friday, when we keep the plant party going on Fossil Friday!

A Creationism Debate I Can Endorse
May 16, 2014

I have no expectation that televangelist Pat Robertson cares what I think. It’s even possible that, when it comes to creationism, his interests and mine may not be in full alignment.

But I think he should take Answers in Genesis and noted Ark enthusiast Ken Ham up on this offer:

I wonder if Pat Robertson would be prepared to discuss these issues with me or one of our AiG scientists [sic] on the 700 Club? Or maybe in some sort of debate format at Regent University? We are certainly willing to do that—maybe all of you reading this could challenge CBN/Regent University to allow such a discussion, debate, or forum to occur publicly. I wonder if Pat Robertson, who is allowed to state these things so publicly through CBN will agree to have his statements publicly challenged and tested!

I came across that challenge thanks to Right Wing Watch (where they watch Pat Robertson’s show so you don’t have to). Apparently Pat Robertson has been repeatedly taking swipes at young-earth creationism, calling it “a joke,” and insisting that you’d have to be “deaf, dumb, and blind to think that this Earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence,” adding, “it just doesn’t, I’m sorry.”

Ken Ham has various reasons to object to Robertson’s statements, and to challenge Robertson to a debate. He may believe that the 84-year-old Robertson would have more trouble with the rigors of a long stage show than Bill Nye did. Or that Robertson’s scientific misstatements on his widely-viewed 700 Club could leave an opening for Ham in a debate.

But in the end, I think Robertson would win such a debate, and so (in a way) would science education. First off, as to Robertson’s physical stamina, we shouldn’t forget his claim to have leg-pressed a full ton. Even if the octogenarian can’t really leg-press a ton and do multiple reps at 1400 pounds (he can’t), he still seems to maintain a heavy regimen of public events and television appearances, so I think he could handle a little time on stage with Ham.

Robertson’s media skills also nullify whatever advantage Ham might gain from a scientific slip up, especially since the debate wouldn’t be about science. Ham, Robertson, and the audience would all catch on fairly quickly that the point of the debate isn’t whether oil was formed from Jurassic dinosaurs, but whether Christians should be allowed to accept the scientific evidence for an old age of the earth.

That would be a key contrast with Ken Ham’s debate earlier this year with Bill Nye. Nye is famous as “the Science Guy,” and wisely steered clear of theological debate. He did emphasize throughout his performance at the debate that Ham’s theology is just one theological angle, and a minor one at that. But Pat Robertson would be in a position not merely to mention the existence of different views, but to lay those views out for all to see. And I think that would be to the benefit of a whole lot of people.

It’d benefit evangelical Christians by reminding them that even within their theological community, there are a range of responses to science, and they don’t have to set themselves at odds with science just because some of their fellow evangelicals interpret the Bible as saying something at odds with what science textbooks say. That is why Ham is so scared of Robertson’s repeated criticisms (and why Robertson seems to find Ham worthy of a response). Robertson may be the most visible American evangelical leader since the retirement of Billy Graham (who, despite what an earlier version of this post claimed, is still alive but has stopped making public appearances), and Ham would love to ride Robertson’s coat tails to evangelize and convert Robertson’s audience to his view, or even to take over Robertson’s role in pop- and evangelical culture and seize hold of that massive audience by force majeure. And Robertson sees Ham leading a large chunk of his flock toward absurd beliefs, and wants to hold onto them.

It’d also benefit the broader American Christian culture. For whatever reason, the media and the political sphere often treat American evangelicals as the default form of Christianity in the US, with Catholics treated as something vaguely “other” and mainline Protestant churches (the largest bloc of believers in the US) completely ignored. That means that Catholics and mainline Protestants wind up taking theological cues from evangelicals (however inadvertently), hence (in part) the spread of creationist ideas since the ’20s and anti-abortion politics since the ’70s. Seeing two evangelicals staking out a range of views on whether people of faith should automatically reject any science that might seem at odds with their religious faith could only help members of less conservative churches think more deeply about their views on science and religion.

And, in turn, that conversation in the pews could only help science teachers and other advocates for science. Too often, the loudest voices in a community can exert a heckler’s veto over lessons on evolution, the age of the earth, or climate change, and insisting that a lesson is anti-Christian can make school districts especially skittish. But whatever one might think of Pat Robertson, “anti-Christian” is not an adjective you’d probably apply to him, and the more prominently and publicly it is made clear that debates over young- earth creationism are debates within (a corner of) Christianity and about theology, it takes pressure off of teachers, communicators, and policymakers. The more clear it is that they are being asked to join a theological debate, the more safely they can decline without being perceived as at odds with Christianity itself.

I also happen to think Robertson would beat Ham in a debate about the age of the earth, and that wouldn’t be so bad, either.

Now, I still think debates about scientific matters of fact are bad ideas. John Oliver, on his new HBO show, did a brilliant (albeit profanity-laden) explanation of why debating science is so stupid, and that all applies as much to debating the age of the earth as to debating climate change. But this would be about debating evangelical theology, and on that front I think debate is probably a much fairer and more appropriate approach.

Fossil Friday!
May 16, 2014

This week on Fossil Friday, I bring you another green thing from ancient history. Of course, this plant is actually still around today, even though this fossil dates to the Miocene. This small leaf is about the size of a quarter and was found in Southern California. Though its living descendants are still found in tropical and subtropical regions, they are most commonly associated with Australia (at least that is how I first heard about them!). Can you guess what it is?

Teaching the Controversy in Rialto
May 15, 2014

About two thousand students in the eighth grade in California’s Rialto Unified School District—outside San Bernardino, in what Californians like to call the Inland Empire— were recently asked to “read and discuss multiple, credible articles on this issue, and write an argumentative essay, based on cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you [accept the view under discussion].” Students were reminded to “address counterclaims (rebuttals) to your stated claim.” Evidently the teachers who devised the assignment wanted to encourage critical thinking, to teach the controversy, to expose the students to all sides of the evidence, to present the strengths and weaknesses. A member of the school board explained, “Teaching how to come to your own conclusion based on the facts, test your position, be able to articulate that position, then defend your belief with a lucid argument is essential to good citizenship.”

Although the rhetoric is familiar, creationists weren’t on the barricades. What was at issue, then? The assignment began, “When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence. For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.” Contained in it, presumably as a “credible” article, was a text containing as its first sentence, “Within five minutes, any intelligent, open-minded person can be convinced that the Holocaust gassings of World War II are a profitable hoax.” Deborah E. Lipstadt, the historian who triumphed over Holocaust denier David Irving when he sued her in 2000 for calling him a Holocaust denier, commented, “After decades spent in the sewers of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, I don’t horrify easily,” describing the assignment as “the greatest victory for Holocaust denial in well over a decade, if not more.”

Holocaust deniers have long used the same sort of rhetoric that science deniers such as creationists use. When Eugenie C. Scott and I were invited to write a piece on challenges to evolution education for the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution in 2003, we chose to write about the then-emerging “teach the controversy” slogan. Conceding its superficial attractiveness, we warned,

But it is important to examine any such appeal carefully, because it is easy to abuse the public’s willingness to be swayed by such a call. Consider the following appeal: “students should be encouraged to investigate the […] controversy the same way they are encouraged to investigate every other historical controversy. This isn’t a radical point of view. The premises for it were worked out some time ago during a little something called the Enlightenment.” If the rhetoric strikes you as plausible, let us supply the word we omitted: “Holocaust.” If so vicious and sordid a movement as Holocaust denial is enamored of the call to teach the controversy, and uses it with a degree of success on college campuses, it is clear that not all supposed controversies ought to be taught.

We aren’t alone in noting the comparability of the rhetorical styles of creationism and of Holocaust denial. In a Scientific American column published in 2002, for example, Michael Shermer—the author of books on the creationism/evolution controversy and on Holocaust denial—described evolution denial as “the doppelgänger of Holocaust denial, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate.”

Creationists bristle at the comparison, of course, and it’s understandable. Nobody likes to be compared to a Holocaust denier. But their bristling is not so much principled as it is opportunistic, as is shown by their own willingness to compare their critics to McCarthyites, Stalinists, and, yes, Nazis. Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, reports that after attending a 2002 press conference in Columbus, Ohio, at which the biologist Kenneth R. Miller denounced the efforts of “intelligent design” advocates to undermine the treatment of evolution in the state science standards there, his Discovery Institute colleague Stephen C. Meyer “kept repeating Miller’s pompous declaration with a heavy German accent, sounding for all the world like Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s propaganda chief”—a comparison as accurate as it is tasteful: Hitler’s propaganda chief was in fact Joseph Goebbels.

In their use of slogans like “teach the controversy,” creationists are similarly opportunistic. If they really thought that appealing to the values of critical thinking, openmindedness, freedom of inquiry, and the like was of itself sufficient to validate a proposal for teaching a supposed controversy, then they should have been enthusiastically supporting the Rialto assignment. It’s to their moral credit that they weren’t, of course, but it proves—as if proof were needed by now—that “teach the controversy” and the like are merely rhetorical legerdemain intended to distract the spectator from the intellectual hollowness of the proposals they are supposed to support. There may be value in teaching about scientific controversies, but, as Minda Berbeco, Mark McCaffrey, Eric Meikle, and I recently insisted in The Science Teacher, “If a controversy is presented as a scientific controversy, it should be a genuine scientific controversy.” Ditto for history.

In Rialto, fortunately, the lesson was learned. After protests from parents and groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center—and, unfortunately, reported death threats—the district withdrew the assignment, amid profuse, contrite, and repeated apologies, as well as promises of sensitivity training. Regarding the latter, Lipstadt makes a good point in her commentary: “Sensitivity is not what was missing here. These teachers were not ‘insensitive’ to the victims of the Shoah or to Jews. They were just wrong. Critical thinking and a basic understanding of what happened in Europe 70 years ago are clearly in very short supply throughout the ranks of teachers and administrators involved in this fiasco. What they really need are history lessons.” What the remedy is for those people who are actively trying to confuse educators, and the public, about the scope and limits of critical thinking, however, is harder to say.

Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”
May 8, 2014

(Photo via Getty Images)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu in 1969. The daughter of a political opponent of the Somali dictatorship, she lived in exile, moving from Saudi Arabia to Ethiopia and then to Kenya. Like 98 percent of Somali girls, Ayaan was subjected to female genital mutilation. She embraced Islam while she was growing up, but eventually began to question aspects of the faith. One day, while listening to a sermon about the many ways in which women must be obedient to their husbands, she couldn’t resist asking, “Must our husbands obey us too?”

In 1992, Ayaan was married off by her father to a distant cousin living in Canada. In order to escape this forced marriage, she fled to the Netherlands where she was granted asylum and then citizenship. In her first years in Holland she worked in factories and as a maid—but she quickly learned Dutch and was then able to study at the University of Leiden. She soon began working as a translator for Somali immigrants, where she witnessed firsthand the clash between liberal Western values and those of Islamic culture.

After earning her M.A. in political science, Ayaan began working as a researcher for the Wiardi Beckman Foundation in Amsterdam. She eventually served as an elected member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. While in parliament, she focused on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society and on defending the rights of Muslim women. She campaigned to raise awareness about violence against women, including honor killings and female genital mutilation—practices that had followed Muslim immigrants to Holland. In her three years in government, she found her voice as an advocate for an “enlightened Islam.”

In 2004, Ayaan gained international attention following the murder of Theo van Gogh, who had directed her short film, Submission, depicting the oppression of women under Islam. The assassin, a radical Muslim, left a death threat for Ayaan pinned to Van Gogh’s chest.

In 2006, Ayaan was forced to resign from parliament when the Dutch minister for immigration revoked her citizenship, arguing that she had misled the authorities at the time of her asylum application. However, the Dutch courts later reversed this decision, leading to the fall of the administration. Disillusioned with the Netherlands, Ayaan then moved to the United States.

Ayaan is a fellow with the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School. She is also a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, currently researching the relationship between the West and Islam. Her willingness to speak out for the rights of women, along with her abandonment of the Muslim faith, continue to make her a target for violence by Islamic extremists. She lives with round-the-clock security.

In 2005, Ayaan was named one of TIME magazine’s “100 Most Influential People,” one of the Glamour Heroes, and Reader’s Digest’s European of the Year. She is the author of The Caged Virgin, Infidel, and Nomad. She is now working on Short-cut to Enlightenment, a dialogue between Mohammed, the founder of Islam, and three of her favorite Western thinkers: John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, and Friedrich Hayek. 

A few weeks ago, Ayaan and I had a long conversation about her critics and about the increasingly pernicious meme of “Islamophobia”—which our inimitable friend Christopher Hitchens once dubbed “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.” [NOTE 5/11/14: This wonderful sentence seems to have been wrongly attributed to Hitch (who was imitable after all). I’m told these words first appeared in a tweet from Andrew Cummins. Well done, Andrew!]

The following text is an edited transcript of our conversation.* * *

Harris: Ayaan, it’s great to speak with you. This conversation is obviously timely, given recent events. Unfortunately, a conversation about Islam is now always timely—and, I fear, will remain so for the rest of our lives.

We happen to be speaking just after the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing. The Islamic militant group Boko Haram has also been targeting innocent civilians in Nigeria—even going so far as to massacre schoolboys and kidnap schoolgirls. Needless to say, their justification for this barbarity is explicitly religious. There have also been atrocities carried out by jihadists in several other countries in recent weeks, notably in Iraq and Pakistan. So that is the context in which we are having this conversation.

Hirsi Ali: One just needs to open the newspaper on any given morning. It’s that crazy.

Harris: I know, and it has been this way for years. Of course, most of this suffering is visited on Muslims themselves, and on their neighbors in the developing world. In the West, we tend to focus on the threat that Islamic terrorism poses to our own societies. But as galling as that is, radical Islam currently causes much more suffering elsewhere, in the form of sectarian violence, the repression of women, and the suppression of free thought in dozens of countries that can ill afford to stifle so much of their populations—mired as they are in economic and political conditions akin to what Europe and America left behind 150 years ago. For reasons that are not especially mysterious, the House of Islam remains the most ramshackle house on the street.

There are two main issues I want us to tackle in this conversation. First, I’d like to talk about the way you’ve been treated by your critics. Second, I’d like us to address the issue of “Islamophobia”—which has become the catchall criticism applied to anyone who is more worried about Islam than, say, Mormonism.

Increasingly, questioning Islam results in a person’s being vilified as an “Islamophobe” and a “bigot”—or, in a ridiculous but omnipresent misuse of the term, as a “racist.” These charges come from Muslims themselves and from their apologists on the Left. Even major news sites, such as The Guardian and Salon, frequently publish these attacks.

Let’s begin with your experience as a public figure. There are certain aspects of your journey about which you are repeatedly and unfairly attacked. I’d like to address three of them in particular. The first relates to a comment you once made in a talk about Anders Behring Breivik, the lunatic who massacred nearly a hundred young people in Norway. The second relates to your immigration interview in the Netherlands. The third is your affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute.

The reason why I think it’s important to deal with these personal attacks—apart from your being a dear friend—is that you are also an incredibly valuable symbol. Unlike almost any other person on earth, you have fully recapitulated the Enlightenment in your own life. You went from being a devout Muslim standing barefoot in a village in Somalia to being a secular Member of Parliament in the Netherlands in a few short years. It’s astonishing to me what you managed to accomplish and the speed with which you accomplished it. If I had been obliged to follow in your footsteps, I’d still be struggling to learn Dutch.

I also find it very depressing, and rather ominous, that liberal women are not celebrating you as the best example in a generation of what could and should happen for nearly a billion of their sisters currently living under Islam. Your lack of feminist allies is alarming. And the fact that so many liberals ditch their commitment to gender equality and attack you in the name of “religious sensitivity,” despite all that you’ve been through—making your life both less pleasant and more dangerous in the process—is just infuriating.

Hirsi Ali: Thank you, Sam. I’m very happy to talk to you. Well, on the topic of Breivik, it goes without saying that I was horrified by his actions. He is one of the worst mass murderers in history, and there’s no question about that. Like most people, I had never heard of him before he went on his killing spree. However, he did write a thousand-page manifesto in which he quoted John Stuart Mill and other thinkers, and even me. Trying to use other people to justify your own actions is not unusual in mass murderers. Osama bin Laden quoted Noam Chomsky with approval. Does that make Chomsky in any way culpable for the behavior of bin Laden? Of course not. Just as no one quoted by Breivik is responsible for him.

In any case, I gave a speech at an award ceremony in Berlin, in the spring of 2012, on the shortcomings of policies based on the theory of “multiculturalism,” and I said that Breivik was one deeply unfortunate product of these policies, as are the rising number of European jihadis. They are unintended products, to be sure, because multiculturalism is all about good intentions. But an analysis of Breivik’s writing and testimony shows that he complains bitterly of seeing no way to engage in politics other than to use violence. I also said that I have come across many other people who complained in this way. Instead of violence, for now, these people preach apathy, distrust of the system, and “white flight.” But it is all too easy to see the progression from this type of thinking to violence, and that is a very dangerous place for society to be. Sadly, in extreme cases, until something changes, I think we should expect more violence.

My remarks in Berlin were a plea to lift the iron curtain of political correctness so that citizens can engage in politics through peaceful means and debate, and thus channel their frustrations with immigration and Islam through the system. This is elementary political science—but, of course, Islamists and their friends on the Left have twisted my words to make me sound like I was applauding an atrocity. Multiculturalist policies and political correctness make it easier for radical Muslims to preach, inspire, mobilize, and target immigrant communities on the grounds of religious freedom. And those who criticize them in Europe are silenced or branded as racist Islamophobes. In the long run, you get more jihadist ghettoes and intolerant right-wing enclaves. That is the tragic outcome of decades of policies that had good intentions in theory, but in reality have instead cemented divisions between groups and bred too much insularity and mistrust. We cannot be so afraid of causing verbal offense that we lose the ability to have open debate—because that debate will still be had, but by less peaceful means.

Harris: The unfair treatment you’ve received on this point illustrates the terrible irony of Breivik’s existence: He was obsessed with the problem of Islam in Europe, but his psychopathic behavior has made that problem much more difficult to speak about. The man has been a gift to jihadists and Islamists everywhere.

Let’s talk about the misconceptions surrounding your asylum in the Netherlands.

Hirsi Ali: When I arrived in the Netherlands, in 1992, I misrepresented the year of my birth at my intake interview. I said I was born in 1967, but I was born in 1969. I also changed my grandfather’s name. In many tribal societies, instead of a surname you have a string of names—I am Ayaan; my father is Hirsi; and my father’s father, when he was born, was named Ali. But later on, when he grew up and became a warrior, he was called Magan (Somali for “protection” or “refuge”), because he protected some of the peoples whom he conquered. Magan is, basically, a nickname that he acquired later in life. Technically, I did not lie about Ali, because that was also his name. I used it deliberately, because I figured that if I could get this intake interview, then my father or the man he married me off to could come and say that they were looking for Ayaan Hirsi Magan, born November 13, 1969, and they would find me very easily. I wanted to prevent that, so I called myself Ayaan Hirsi Ali and changed my birth year to 1967. I was trying to cover my trail just enough that I wouldn’t have the fear of being immediately found. I had never before lived in a system where there were any protections put in place for me.

Harris: So you did this because you were afraid that someone would come to the Netherlands for the purpose of harming you?

Hirsi Ali: Oh, yes. Absolutely. I was terrified that either my father or some of our clansmen—or the man whom I had been married off to—would come looking for me and find me. And they did come! My ex-husband was accompanied by three other men when he showed up at the asylum center where I was. But by then I had been in the country for something like four to six months, and even in that very, very short period, I came to understand that I had rights.

On the day that they showed up, I went to the reception center and confessed everything to one of the people working there. Her name was Sylvia, and she said, “You don’t have to go with him if you don’t want to. You’re over the age of 18. In fact, here in the Netherlands, your marriage isn’t even recognized, because he is Canadian and the marriage took place somewhere else. So we will just protect you. I’ll simply call the police.” It was in this period that I found my independence. I had been able to live on my own for months, so I thought I could live on my own for longer.

I don’t know whether things have since changed, but back then, if you asked for asylum, a member of the legal-aid community was referred to your case to prepare you for your interview. I told my legal-aid lawyer about my forced marriage, and she said that it was not sufficient grounds for asylum and that I would have to come up with something else. So, based on the information she gave me, I adapted my story.

In 1992, the civil war in Somalia was at one of its worst points, and most European governments were giving asylum to Somalis. In fact, it was almost enough to just say that you were Somali. So, during my interview, instead of talking about my forced marriage, or about living in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and Kenya, I just pretended I came straight from Somalia, and that I was fleeing the civil war.

Then, in 2002, the VVD, the liberal party, asked me to enter Parliament to help work on human rights issues related to Muslim immigrants—and I said yes. As a party, they give an in-depth interview to all potential MPs to determine whether there is anything in a person’s background that could produce a scandal. I was very honest with them and told them everything. The party leaders consulted lawyers to find out how problematic the details of my immigration might be, and the lawyers said, “Oh, no, voters will be far more interested in the fact that she has adapted so well to our society. No one will care about this white lie.”

So, when it became possible to tell the truth, I told the truth. Back in 2002, I was no longer afraid. I had found my way. I felt strong. I had a network of friends. So there was no need to keep up the lie. And since that time, I have given hundreds of interviews in which I have openly told the truth—that I had lived in other countries after Somalia and that I came to Holland fleeing a forced marriage.

The scandal arose only when the Minister of Immigration and Integration used what I had said in my original asylum interview as a political tool to take away my citizenship. The government forced her to give it back to me, and that’s what led to a political crisis. When she gave me back my citizenship, a member of a smaller coalition demanded that the minister resign, and threatened to pull out of the government. This coalition did pull out, and the government fell. That’s how that part of my life became a news story.

Harris: Clearly, you told the immigration officials what they needed to hear to ensure your own safety. You were fleeing people who scared you for reasons that are completely understandable. I don’t see how any serious person can hold this against you.

Hirsi Ali: They’re not holding it against me. It’s just an instrument. For a vilification campaign to be effective, you need material, and that’s one of the things they use. If she wasn’t always completely honest, then her statements about Islam must be a lie, too.

Harris: As though the claims you make about Islam are difficult to confirm. I sometimes think that it would be great, as an act of performance art, for you to come forward and say, “You caught me! I’ve been lying about Islam. Women have full equality with men under its doctrines—and there’s no problem for apostates or blasphemers either!”

Hirsi Ali: Yes—and honor killings, denying girls an education, denying women the right to leave their homes without permission from a male relative, performing marriages on girls as young as age 9, the continued practice of female genital mutilation for “purity,” the stoning of homosexuals, those are all just coincidences.

Harris: The last personal issue I want to address is your affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute. Tell me how you came to work at the AEI and why that made sense for you.

Hirsi Ali: Back in 2005, I already knew that I did not want a second term in the Dutch parliament. In my first term, I promised to address the issues of women’s rights and the integration of Muslims into Dutch society, and I felt that going back for a second term wouldn’t add much to what I had done already. In the Dutch system, you address a certain issue in one term and then you move to another issue in the next. But I didn’t want to move on to other issues. And I didn’t want a career in politics.

So I reached out to Cynthia Schneider, who had served under President Bill Clinton as ambassador to the Netherlands. I told her that I was going to be in New York, working on a book, and asked if she could introduce me to various think tanks, because I wanted to get back into academia. I also wanted to have a life, because in 2004 and 2005, the level of security that the Dutch government had me under was like living in a prison. It was also accompanied by considerable notoriety. I had paparazzi following me, and I couldn’t walk outside without being recognized. Holland is a very small country. I wanted a quiet life in academia, and I wanted to be safe.

So I approached Cynthia, and she took me to the Brookings Institute, and to Rand, and to Johns Hopkins, and to Georgetown—she took me to all these institutions, and there was no interest. They didn’t say it to my face, but I got the feeling that they were uncomfortable with what I had been saying about Islam.

Then, on the last day, just before I left the country, Cynthia suggested that we try the AEI. And I said something like “I can’t believe you’d take me there. It’s supposed to be a right-wing organization.” And she said, “Oh, come on. You Dutch people are too prejudiced against the U.S. Things here are really very different than you think. I was a Clinton appointee, and one of my best friends—one of Clinton’s best friends—Norm Ornstein, is there. So it’s not what you think it is. And it’s definitely not religious.”

So we went to the AEI, and I met with Norm Ornstein and a woman named Colleen Baughman, and they were so enthusiastic. They immediately introduced me to their president, who suggested that we talk again in a month. And we just kept talking. I spoke about my work; they told me about what they do. And I didn’t hear back from any of the other institutions that I had solicited.

Harris: So the truly mortifying answer to the question of why you are at the AEI is that no liberal institution would offer you shelter when you most needed it—and when your value to the global conversation about free speech, the rights of women, and other norms of civilization was crystal clear. And ever since, your affiliation with the one institution that did take you in has been used to defame you in liberal circles. Perfect.

Hirsi Ali: Well, it certainly seemed at the time that none of the other institutions were willing to talk about Islam in the way that I do—and specifically about its treatment of women.

Harris: And they still won’t. I consider this one of the great moral scandals of our time. How you’ve been treated reminds me of what many liberals did during the Salman Rushdie affair, blaming him for his recklessness in the face of the hair-trigger sensitivities of the Muslim community.

I’m a liberal by nearly every measure. Give me a list of liberal values and prejudices, and I will check almost every box.

Hirsi Ali: So will I.

Harris: But because of your association with the AEI, many people don’t know this about you. I remember what it was like when the Dutch government withdrew your security detail, and your friends—among whom I was very proud to count myself—were faced with the task of raising money to pay for your security. Without the AEI’s help at that moment, it would have been an even scarier time than it was. So the fact that liberals hold this affiliation against you is just shameful.

Hirsi Ali: I find it sad. And you should know that during all my interviews with the AEI and my subsequent years there, they’ve always understood that I’m a liberal. No one within the organization has tried to change my mind about anything—not about Islam, or euthanasia, or abortion, or religion, or gay rights, or any of the other things that many of my colleagues have problems with. They’ve never opposed my atheism or confronted me with anything I have said in public. It’s a wonderful institution.

Harris: As a relevant counterpoint, I should say that when I was raising money for your security, I got in touch with some of my contacts in the “moderate” Muslim community. In particular, I reached out to Reza Aslan, with whom I was on entirely cordial terms. I said, essentially, “Reza, wouldn’t it be great if the vast majority of Muslims who are moderate helped protect Ayaan from the minority who aren’t?” It seems to me undeniable that if people like Reza are going to argue that Islam is just like any other religion, they have a real interest in ensuring that people can safely criticize their faith—or even leave it.

But all Reza did was attack you as a bigot and deny, against all evidence, that you had any security concerns worth taking seriously. His response came as quite a shock to me, frankly. I was unprepared to encounter this level of moral blindness and ill will, especially at a moment when I was reaching out for help.

Hirsi Ali: Here’s the thing, Sam. Some moderate Muslims hate me—and yes, that’s a strong word, but I think what they’ve said supports it—because I make them feel uncomfortable. The things I talk about put them in a state of dissonance that they can’t live with. Many of them seem to hate me more than they hate al-Qaida.

Harris: Let’s explore why that might be the case, and turn to the subject of Islam in general. I doubt there is any daylight between us on this topic, but let’s go into it in some detail.

Hirsi Ali:  When I read the work of my critics, whether it’s a blog or an article or a full book, they introduce me as a “controversial figure.” I’ve been trying to wrap my head around what I say, exactly, that makes me controversial.

Consider my views about the treatment of women under Islam. Where is the controversy? Can anyone argue that women are treated well in traditional Muslim societies? Under Islam, every woman is a second-class citizen. She can inherit only half as much as her brother. Her testimony in court—say, in the case of her own rape—is worth half that of her rapist. A Muslim woman has to ask a male guardian for permission to get married or have a child—in some places to even leave the house. And all these various oppressions are justified using the core texts of Islam: the Koran and the hadith. I’m amazed by the accusation that something I’ve said on this topic is controversial. It’s simply horrible to treat women like this. Is that a controversial thing to say? Is it controversial to say that men and women should be equal? I would have thought this was the most boring statement a person could make.

Harris: It certainly should be. That’s what is so crazy about this Islamophobia charge. The people who commit the worse offenses—the honor killers, the suicide bombers, the Taliban gunman who attempted to murder Malala Yousafzai—are absolutely clear about their motives and articulate them at every opportunity. They are motivated by Islam. Yes, other religions have problematic doctrines. We can even concede that the Old Testament is the most barbaric scripture of them all. But Christians and Jews don’t tend to take the worst of its passages seriously, for reasons that can be explained both by the centuries during which these Western faiths have been weathered by science and secularism and by crucial elements of their own theology. Most important, in my view, is the fact that Christianity and Judaism do not have clear doctrines of jihad, nor do they promise, ad nauseam, that martyrs go straight to Paradise. Islam is truly unique in this respect, which helps explain the fanaticism and violence we see throughout the Muslim world. Of course, your focus has been on the plight of women and girls under Islam, many millions of whom live in conditions that are antithetical to the most basic human happiness, as you know all too well. And the rationale for their oppression is drawn directly from scripture.

Hirsi Ali: Absolutely. And when I expose these oppressions, along with their cultural and religious underpinnings in Islam, I’m not doing it just to annoy people. I’m working in the hope that debating and discussing these issues is going to lead to some form of positive change. Even for the people who disagree with me—even for those who call me naïve or stupid—I remain hopeful that their thinking around these issues will change. Clearly, I’m not doing this work for the fun of it. I take absolutely no pleasure in talking about Islam at all.

In the Netherlands, where the debate was a little more intense because I was in Parliament, at some point my critics shifted from discussing the substance of these issues to “It’s not what you say, but how you say it. We agree, Ayaan, there’s this problem with treatment of women under Islam, but we just don’t like how you say it.” So we would get into these absurd conversations where I would say, “Okay. How exactly do you want me to say it?”

How can you say these things in a way that is inoffensive to the very people who think that women are second-class citizens? There is just no way. I am surprised sometimes that we cannot find more common ground. Liberals notice these same oppressions, but they attribute them solely to economics or politics.

Harris: That’s a point I really wanted us to cover. Most liberals think that religion is never the true source of a person’s bad behavior. Even when jihadists explicitly state their religious motivations—they believe that they have an obligation to kill apostates and blasphemers, and they want to get into Paradise—liberal academics, journalists, and politicians insist on looking for deeper reasons for their actions. However, when people give economic, political, or psychological reasons for doing whatever it is they do, everyone accepts those reasons at face value.

If a man murders his neighbor because he wants to steal his property and doesn’t want to leave a witness, everyone accepts the killer’s account of his actions. But when he says, as every jihadist does, that he was driven by a sense of religious obligation and a yearning for Paradise, liberals insist that the search for an underlying motive must continue. So the game is rigged. If you’re always going to look beneath a person’s religious convictions for something else, of course you’ll never see that religion is an important driver of human behavior.

Hirsi Ali: And that’s where it becomes truly painful. All these Western apologists, no matter where they are on the political spectrum—left, center, or right—are robbing Muslims of the opportunity to reflect. It is very, very difficult in Muslim households, communities, and countries to reflect on Islam. Such a process of introspection and self-criticism has led to the reformations we have seen in other religions—and it’s being denied to Muslims by this focus on economics, politics, and all these other variables that are, in many cases, the result of Islamic doctrine. For instance, there is a very strong case to be made that the desperate economic situation in the Middle East is largely a product of religion.

Harris: You’ve pointed out similar ironies before. The very people who call us bigots are practicing a bigotry of low expectations with respect to the Muslim community. For instance, when those cartoons came out in Denmark, the message from liberal politicians was that Islam is a peaceful and noble religion that should be respected and that the West has callously overindulged its freedom of speech. Meanwhile, these same leaders were busily ramping up security or simply closing their embassies in anticipation of violence in dozens of countries. As you’ve pointed out, secular liberals are not holding the Muslim community to the same standards of civility and reasonableness that they demand of everyone else.

Hirsi Ali: Absolutely. And if we want the Muslim community in America to feel truly American, we have to apply the same standards to them that we apply to everyone else.

We criticize the Catholic Church for its treatment of women, for its sheltering of pedophiles, and for other harms it has caused. And we do this for the purpose of improving people’s lives. But we’re not doing this for the Muslim community. Meanwhile, there’s this assumption that if you engage in satire, or even serious debate, Muslims will fly into a rage and commit acts of violence. It then becomes this perverse process whereby the people who imagine that they are protecting the feelings of Muslims are actually hurting the most vulnerable Muslims, who now don’t have a voice; they are making it more dangerous for women especially to come forward and say, look, sharia law is being applied in parts of the U.S. These women have a much harder time than Mormons, Jews, and Christians do. In any of these other communities, if a woman summons the courage to leave her husband, or her faith, she will find the rest of America on her side. But Muslim women have no one to talk to. Even to address an incident of domestic violence as a policeman, for instance, is to risk being branded a racist. This is one of the problems that we address at the AHA Foundation. We talk to pediatricians, policemen, and other service providers who worry about being perceived as bigots when responding to the obvious suffering of women and girls in the Muslim community. Naturally, these people would rather not be accused of what you and I are accused of all the time. So they generally take a hands-off approach.

Harris:  You’ve just exposed another painful irony here. When our critics insist on cultural or religious “sensitivity,” imagining that they are protecting a vulnerable population, they are really protecting thuggish men who are oppressing women, spreading hate, and stifling freedom of thought within their own communities and freedom of expression everywhere else. Anyone who likens the criticism of Islam as a doctrine to a hatred of Muslims as people—or to anti-Semitism, racism, and other forms of bigotry—has made it more difficult for Muslims who are truly suffering to speak about their problems. It never ceases to amaze me that when one complains about Muslim theocrats abusing Muslim women and freethinkers, one inevitably gets accused of anti-Muslim bigotry.

It will probably seem tendentious to many readers for me to put it this way, but our critics are just dishonest. Which reminds me of something you said at the end of one of your public lectures: Someone was challenging you and insisting that Islam is no different from every other religion, and I think you said something like “If it’s the same as every other religion, why do I have to walk around with armed bodyguards?”

Hirsi Ali: Yes, yes. I think that was at the Intelligence Squared debate with Douglas Murray, three years ago.

Harris: Those kinds of reversals are often hilarious, and they ought to flat out end the argument. When the journalist Glenn Greenwald attacked me as an Islamophobe, insisting that my concerns about Islam were both irrational and a symptom of my own bigotry and white privilege, I responded by challenging him on Twitter to a duel of cartoon contests. He could hold one for Islam, and I would hold one for any other religion on earth. That shut him up immediately.

This disparity between Islam and every other religion is so obvious, in fact, that it is somehow considered a low blow to point it out. However, it remains the case that only the Muslim community reliably threatens its critics with violence—not just in the Middle East, but everywhere. Having observed the risks and hassles you’ve had to endure because of this, I find liberal obscurantism on this point just maddening.

Hirsi Ali: There’s also a sophisticated and well-financed radical Muslim lobby that is engaged on this front. These groups, including even so-called mainstream ones like CAIR, have found that people in the West are highly sensitive to accusations of racism. I’ll give you a concrete example: A couple of years ago, in El Cajon, California, an Iraqi woman named Shaima Alawadi was beaten to death. Her own daughter found her dying in a pool of blood. Beside her body was a note that read, “You terrorists, go home.” The interesting part of this case is that CAIR and other Muslim organizations pounced on it and started campaigning against Islamophobia and racism—explicitly linking it to the Trayvon Martin case. On the flimsy basis of this note, there were campaigns called “Hijabs and Hoodies.” And they succeeded in marketing it as a hate crime. Weeks later, of course, the husband was arrested. And just yesterday he was convicted of murdering his wife. She had asked for a divorce, so he beat her to death with a tire iron. It was a plain honor killing.

This sort of thing happens in the U.S., and CAIR and these other organizations don’t say a word about it. When they attack me, they sometimes concede that honor killings, female genital mutilation, and other acts of oppression are legitimate concerns—but somehow the most pressing issue is to silence people like me. And this is where they direct their energy and resources.

Harris: I have long considered CAIR to be an Islamist pressure group masquerading as a human rights organization. Is that too paranoid a description? The moment one says that a person or group is pretending to be one thing while trying to advance an Islamist agenda by stealth, one begins to sound like a right-wing crackpot. What do you think is true in the case of CAIR?

Hirsi Ali: Again, reasonable people need only look at the evidence. CAIR and these other organizations have mission statements, and these statements make it very clear that their agenda is to spread Islam. Initially, CAIR was collecting money for Hamas, and they were exposed for this during the Holy Land Foundation trial. They evolved and started to change their messaging, but today they are basically an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. This isn’t something that frightened people are just making up. It’s right there in their own paperwork.

Harris: I guess the most amazing thing, from my point of view, is that secular liberals act as though a person’s deeply held religious or moral beliefs do not matter.

Hirsi Ali: Well, they seem to make the greatest exceptions for Muslims.

Harris: Correct. In almost every other context, everyone understands that a person’s beliefs largely determine his behavior. For instance, last week, a former grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan murdered three people outside a Jewish community center in Kansas. This man spent his entire adult life espousing his hatred for Jews, and upon his arrest he shouted, “Heil Hitler.” There is not a person on earth at this moment who is wondering whether his beliefs about Jews were the effective cause of his behavior. And yet, if he had been a Muslim shouting “Allahu Akbar,” most liberals would say that his behavior had nothing to do with his religious beliefs.

Hirsi Ali: That’s the paradox of their argument. I saw someone being interviewed by CNN who made exactly the same statement, to the opposite effect: “If he had shouted ‘Allahu Akbar,’ we would spend so much time and money worrying about jihadist terrorism, when we face a much bigger threat from white-supremacist hatred in this country.” Which, obviously, is empirically not true.

Harris:  Especially if one considers the global reality of jihadist violence, the incredibly destructive aspirations of groups like al-Qaeda, the eagerness of their members to be martyred, and the support they have from millions of otherwise ordinary people in the Muslim community. The Ku Klux Klan and other white-power groups are a fringe phenomenon. But how many Muslims truly believe that apostates should be put to death? Is it 300 million? Or is it triple that number? It’s just a false comparison.

Hirsi Ali: And yet that is the way the comparison is used. Clearly, everyone understands that this white supremacist was driven by his beliefs. But for Muslims, we make excuses. And we ignore the fact that the idea of jihad is backed even by rich Muslim states like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and that Islamist movements across the world are destabilizing international politics, from Africa to Asia. You mentioned the Boko Haram in Nigeria that abducted more than 200 girls from their school. I’m going to quote from the reporting of PBS’s NewsHour, hardly a place of conspiracy theories and extremism: “Boko Haram insurgents have been trying for at least five years to turn Nigeria into a strict Islamic state. Lately, they have stepped up attacks on communities, most recently by burning a school and bombing a bus station in addition to the abductions.” The reporter, Larisa Epatko, goes on to say, that prior to the latest and largest school abduction, Human Rights Watch documented the kidnapping of women and young girls from the streets of Maiduguri in November. Boko Haram fighters would brazenly pick up the girl of their choice and throw a bit of money at the parents and declare they had taken the girl as a wife. And Human Rights Watch says the fighters are now using these women and girls “to take the place of their wives for domestic chores or sexual services.” How can speaking out about these kinds of atrocities possibly be seen as an assault on Islam?

Harris: One thing we should say at this point is that neither of us is arguing that Islam is the only source of terrorism or sectarian conflict. In fact, Islam doesn’t even have a monopoly on suicidal violence. Consider the kamikaze pilots in World War II, or the Tamil Tigers of Ceylon. Of course, these examples are frequently submitted as proof that suicide bombing has nothing, in principle, to do with Islam. But that is a logical fallacy. We can freely acknowledge that there are other paths to becoming a suicide bomber without denying the link between jihadist violence and the doctrine of Islam. Also, the kamikazes and the Tamil Tigers were local and idiosyncratic phenomena—and they no longer exist. With jihadism, we are talking about a worldwide movement supported by a theology that is accepted by most Muslims. What’s more, this ideology is contagious.

We now have myriad examples of ordinary Westerners becoming convinced of the necessity of waging jihad because they have converted to Islam. If they became Buddhists or Scientologists, there would be no possibility of their acquiring this belief. Again, we’re not talking about a distortion of the “true” Islam. The ideology that gives us jihadism is arguably the most plausible version of the faith available, according to an honest reading of the scriptures. That’s why millions of people venerate jihadis as martyrs when they die. Presumably, many of these people would never wage jihad themselves, but they understand it to be a central tenet of their religion. Similarly, I trust that most Muslims would not personally murder one of the Danish cartoonists, but vast numbers of them—a majority in many countries—would consider such a murder fully justified.

In fact, you’re in a position to talk about this with some authority, because you used to share this mind-set. Remind our readers how you felt about Salman Rushdie when you were twenty.

Hirsi Ali: I think of myself back then as analogous to a sheep. Everyone in my community believed that Rushdie had to die. After all, he had insulted the Prophet. I believed that if you insult the Prophet, well, then you have to face the consequences—which means you have to be killed. I didn’t question the merits of that idea. I thought it was moral for Ayatollah Khomeini to take steps to ensure that this apostate who had insulted the Prophet would be punished, and the appropriate punishment was death. I didn’t make that up, of course, and I didn’t just get the idea from my friends; it came from scripture and from my religious teachers.

Harris: Funny enough, that was something you had in common with Cat Stevens. Incredibly, it’s possible for a Western rock star, who has every advantage in life, to acquire such a view. And this is not an accident. Death for apostasy really is a tenet of Islam.

Hirsi Ali: Yes, absolutely. But I think the good news is that an increasing number of Muslims are growing uncomfortable with Muhammad and the Koran as moral guides. I don’t know if you recall the story of Hamza Kashgari, the twenty-three-year-old Saudi journalist who tweeted something like “Muhammad, I love you, but I’m not sure I follow everything you said.”

Harris: Yes, I remember.

Hirsi Ali: Everyone called for his death, and he fled. The Saudi government used its influence to get him back from Malaysia. But recently I heard that he was quietly released from prison. Examples like these reveal that I’m not the only one who has questioned the morality of her father’s and mother’s religion. More Muslims in more places are doing it.

I’ve been following what has been called the Arab Spring and its aftermath as closely as I can. Right now, in Tunisia, you have a face-off between people who want sharia law and people who don’t—all of them Muslims. In Egypt, we saw the same thing. They demonstrated against the first elected Muslim government, and there was a coup. But what this shows is that a substantial number of Muslims in Egypt do not want to live under sharia. And yet they think of themselves as Muslims. So, is there hope? Yes.

Muslims who do not want to live under sharia law are attempting to separate religion from politics. But they won’t be able to do that unless they address these doctrinal issues. They won’t be able to win the argument against the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, because like every other Islamist or jihadist organization, the Brotherhood is delivering a message consistent with what’s really in the Koran and the hadith. If you want to stand up to these people, you have to address the doctrine. You have to look at the Koran and say that there are parts of it you don’t consider moral anymore.

Harris: Which is obviously a very heavy lift. It requires that Muslims repudiate some of the central doctrines of their faith.

One thing I think we should concede is that the political grievances of Islamists, and even jihadists, are often perfectly understandable—or at least they would be understandable if these people weren’t being driven morally insane by their religious beliefs. Take Boko Haram, for instance: The Nigerian state is hopelessly corrupt. Who wouldn’t want to rebel against a government that has stolen something like half a trillion dollars from the people? But what explains the fact that these particular rebels are now kidnapping girls and blowing up children in their schools? The explanation is simple: Members of Boko Haram are not merely at war with a corrupt state. They are at war with what they consider the sin of Western-inspired secularism—and this delusional commitment is the direct result of their religious beliefs. So Western liberals are right to point out that corrupt dictatorships, which our governments often support, are part of the problem. But many of the people who are inclined to rebel against these dictatorships want to replace them with theocracies. The alternative to authoritarianism is often worse, given what the people believe about God.

Hirsi Ali: In a way, it’s easier for Muslims and their friends on the Left to go after people like me and you than it is to go after Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any of these other groups who say they are going to fight corruption by creating some kind of puritanical utopia based on scripture, because moderate Muslims share the teachings of the Koran and hadith. So, intellectually, they never get beyond the point of saying, “Oh, those passages have been misinterpreted.” That’s as far as they ever go.

The reason the so-called Muslim “extremists” are so successful at recruiting, keeping, inspiring, and mobilizing people—and then finally getting them to wage jihad—is that what they’re saying is fully consistent with the teachings of Muhammad. For an intelligent 20-something-year-old, if you say, “Don’t believe me; just read it in the Koran,” he will understand. And then he must make a choice. He must choose whether to stick with Islam or not. And those who stick with it tend to get sucked into this way of life. The moderates don’t do anything about this. They just come after people like you and me.

Harris: But this is the core issue: The moderates can’t reasonably claim to be representing Islam, because the faith has no truly moderate wing. There’s no branch of Islam that says, “Say whatever you want about our Prophet. He’s a big boy. He can take it!” Unlike Christianity and Judaism, every branch of Islam insists that scripture is infallible and that apostasy is a serious crime. Where are the moderate Muslims who will honestly discuss the gravity of this problem? Where are the moderates who have grasped its implications, realized that they are calamitous, and are working to transform Islam itself?

I’d like to recall a point that Paul Berman made in his great book, Terror and Liberalism. I think he was specifically talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but it applies across the board. He pointed out that liberals tend to assume that people everywhere want the same things and that they behave badly only when they’re treated badly. (Of course, this applies only to powerless people; people with power can more or less be counted on to be evil.) This liberal intuition suggests that if one sees otherwise powerless people acting in extraordinarily barbaric ways—practicing suicidal terrorism against noncombatants or using human shields, for instance—they must have some commensurately enormous grievances against the people they’re attacking. Thus, the nihilistic behavior of some Palestinians can only be explained by how extraordinarily badly they’re being oppressed by the Israelis. The same holds for 9/11 or any other jihadist atrocity—the fault must lie with Israel or U.S. foreign policy, because nothing else could account for the willingness of ordinary Muslims to murder innocent civilians and throw their own lives away so casually in the process.

Hirsi Ali: Yes, and every time there’s an incident, that reasoning is torn apart. Look at the Boston bombers: The brother who’s alive now and on trial clearly says that he was moved to act in this way by his religious convictions as a Muslim. He says, “As Muslims, we are one body. If you hurt one, you hurt everyone else.” And yet for a full year, we have heard the most ridiculous analysis about how this was a dysfunctional family. There are dysfunctional families all over the world—why doesn’t every one of them produce this type of violence?

Harris: The Boston bombing was an especially interesting case for me because I had just had a very public fight with Glenn Greenwald over his tarring me as an Islamophobe. Ten days later bombs exploded in Boston, and in the immediate aftermath, Greenwald wrote another silly article saying how terrible it was that there had been a rush to judgment defaming Islam.

Apart from one Saudi man who was briefly a suspect, not only was there no rush to judgment but we still can’t get people to admit that this was jihad. People seem to imagine that ethnic Chechens who were devoted to Islam could have a thousand motives for murdering and maiming their neighbors in Boston. The Tsarnaev brothers had every reason to be grateful for their chance to live in America. They had received a lot of help from this country and were living far better than they would have in Chechnya. Given their religious beliefs, however, it is no mystery that they felt a murderous hatred for infidels and a kinship with jihadists everywhere. Rather than a rush to judgment against Islam, we still see this commitment to discounting the role that its doctrines played in their thinking, even a full year after the bombing—and even with the surviving brother, Dzhokhar, still rattling on about jihad.

Everyone reports that the brothers were motivated by our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—the implication being that U.S. foreign policy is to blame. And yet, as you point out, the only plausible reason that a Chechen American would murder innocent people in protest over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be that he accepted the Islamic doctrine of jihad. Islam is under attack. The infidels have invaded Muslim lands—these grievances are not political. They are religious.

Hirsi Ali: It makes you wonder, when the surviving brother repeatedly says he was waging jihad, why hasn’t there been a single headline calling it jihad?

Harris: I remember what it was like to not know who had set those bombs and to wonder whether it was a homegrown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh or some other psychopath who had no connection to Islam. Everyone seemed poised to use this case to show that all forms of violence are equivalent, and that Islam really isn’t ever the problem.

But if the Boston Marathon bombing had been the work of someone like Timothy McVeigh, that wouldn’t exonerate Islam for all the other crimes that are clearly linked to its central doctrines—of which, once again, Muslims are the most frequent victims. Some young Sunni will wake up tomorrow morning, and despite the fact that he has other prospects in life—and probably a wife and 4.2 children—he will blow himself up in a Shia mosque somewhere. This act will have nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy. It will be based entirely on his belief that Shiites are apostates and that a person can get to Paradise by killing them.

Hirsi Ali: You know, Organization of the Islamic Conference countries send diplomats to the West to dictate what our newspapers may or may not write about Islam—restricting the use of the word “jihad,” for instance. That’s what I find so ridiculous: The leaders of these governments work harder at censoring the media in the U.S. and Europe than they do at addressing the problem of jihadis in their own countries.

Harris: And, of course, many of these states—Saudi Arabia in particular—actively export the ideology of jihadism and Salafi-style Islamism to mosques all over the world.

Hirsi Ali: And sadly, both Western governments and the Western press stay silent.

Harris: Well, Ayaan, I think we’ve gotten ourselves sufficiently worked up. There are surely many other things we could talk about, but this has already been a very long conversation, so I think we should leave it here. Thank you for taking the time to do this. I know that I speak for thousands of our readers in wishing you the greatest happiness and encouraging you to keep up your important work. When I announced that I would be speaking with you this week, many people wrote to me asking how they can support you. I believe I can answer that question: They can donate to your foundation and they can read your wonderful books. I hope they will do both. Thanks again, Ayaan.

Hirsi Ali: Thank you, Sam. It was great speaking with you.




Oklahoma, Where the Sun Shines Brightly in the Sky
May 6, 2014

When will voters in states like Oklahoma finally wake up and figure out what’s best for them rather than what’s best for the Robber Barons of the fossil fuel industry?

Christianity and Modern Science
Apr 21, 2014

There are many conflicts between science and basic Christian beliefs that are irreconcilable. Science is not likely to change to accommodate Christianity. If Christianity changes to accommodate science, it will be difficult to still call it Christianity.

Taming the Mind
Apr 13, 2014

(Photo via h.koppdelaney)

Dan Harris is a co-anchor of Nightline and the weekend edition of Good Morning America on ABC News. He has reported from all over the world, covering wars in Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, and Iraq, and producing investigative reports in Haiti, Cambodia, and the Congo. He has also spent many years covering religion in America, despite the fact that he is agnostic.

Dan’s new book, 10 Percent Happier: How I Tamed the Voice in My Head, Reduced Stress Without Losing My Edge, and Found Self-Help That Actually Works—A True Story, hit #1 on the New York Times best-seller list.

Dan was kind enough to discuss the practice of meditation with me for this page.*  *  *

Sam: One thing I love about your book—admittedly, somewhat selfishly—is that it’s exactly the book I would want people to read before Waking Up comes out in the fall. You approach the topic of meditation with serious skepticism—which, as you know, is an attitude that my readers share to an unusual degree. Perhaps you can say something about this. How did you view the practice in the beginning?

Dan: I was incredibly skeptical about meditation. I thought it was for people who lived in yurts or collected crystals or had too many Cat Stevens records. And I was bred for this kind of doubt. My parents are both physicians and scientists at academic hospitals in the Boston area, and my wife is also a scientist and a physician. I was raised in a very secular environment. I had a Bar Mitzvah, but that was mostly because I wanted the money and the social acceptance. My parents were also recovering hippies who made me go to a yoga class when I was a little kid. The teacher didn’t like the jeans I was wearing, so she forced me to take them off and do Sun Salutations in my tighty-whities in front of all the other kids.

Sam: Rarely has the connection between yoga and child abuse been illustrated so clearly.

Dan: No doubt. And the result was that not only was I skeptical about anything bordering on the metaphysical, which I assumed meditation involved, but I had a long-standing aversion to anything touchy-feely or New Agey. Meditation seemed like the quintessence of everything I was most wary of.

Sam: For those who are unfamiliar with meditation—in particular, the practice of mindfulness that we are discussing—I have described it in a previous article on my blog and also posted some guided meditations that many people have found helpful. But, in essence, we are talking about the practice of paying very careful, non-judgmental attention to the contents of consciousness in the present moment. Usually one begins by focusing on the sensation of breathing, but eventually the practice opens to include the full field of experience—other sensations in the body, sounds, emotions, even thoughts themselves. The trick, however, is not to spend one’s time lost in thought.

How did you get started practicing mindfulness, and what was your first experience like?

Dan: Well, the thing that got me to open my mind just a crack was hearing about the science. I think that’s true for a lot of people who have given it a try of late. You hear about the science that says it can do some pretty extraordinary things to your brain and your body: lowering your blood pressure, boosting your immune system, thickening the gray matter in parts of the brain that have to do with self-awareness and compassion, and decreasing the gray matter in the areas associated with stress. That’s all really compelling. I work out because I want to take care of my health, and meditation seemed like it could fall in the same bucket. But my first taste of it was miserable. I set an alarm for five minutes and had a full-on collision with the zoo that is my mind. It was really hard.

Sam: People who haven’t tried to meditate have very little sense that their minds are noisy at all. And when you tell them that they’re thinking every second of the day, it generally doesn’t mean anything to them. It certainly doesn’t strike most of them as pathological. When these people try to meditate, they have one of two reactions: Some are so restless and besieged by doubts that they can hardly attempt the exercise. “What am I doing sitting here with my eyes closed? What is the point of paying attention to the breath?” And, strangely, their resistance isn’t remotely interesting to them. They come away, after only a few minutes, thinking that the act of paying close attention to their experience is pointless.

But then there are the people who have an epiphany similar to yours, where the unpleasant realization that their minds are lurching all over the place becomes a goad to further inquiry. Their inability to pay sustained attention—to anything—becomes interesting to them. And they recognize it as pathological, despite the fact that almost everyone is in the same condition.

Dan: I love your description. Interestingly enough, the door had opened for me before I tried meditation, in the most unexpected way. One of my assignments at ABC News had been to cover basic spirituality. So I had picked up a book by a self-help guru by the name of Eckhart Tolle, who has sold millions of books and is beloved by Oprah. I had read his book not because I thought it would be personally useful to me but because I was considering doing a story on him. Nestled within all his grandiloquent writing and pseudoscientific claims—and just overall weirdness—was a diagnosis of the human condition, which you just articulated quite well, that kind of blew my mind.

It’s this thunderous truism: We all know on some level that we are thinking all the time, that we have this voice in our heads, and the nature of this voice is mostly negative. It’s also repetitive and ceaselessly self-referential. We walk around in this fog of memory about the past and anticipation of a future that may or may not arrive in the form in which we imagine it. This observation seemed to describe me. I realized that the things I’d done in my life that I was most ashamed of had been as a result of having thoughts, impulses, urges, and emotions that I didn’t have the wherewithal to resist. So when I sat down and had that first confrontation with the voice in my head, I knew from having read Eckhart Tolle that it wasn’t going to be pretty, and I was motivated to do something about it.

Sam: Why didn’t you just become a student of Tolle’s?

Dan: I think that Eckhart Tolle is correct, but not useful. I’m stealing that distinction from the meditation teacher Sharon Salzburg. I think his diagnosis is correct, but he doesn’t give you anything to do about it, at least that I could ascertain. He has sold millions of books about “spiritual awakening.” If he were truly useful, we should have a reasonable population of awakened people walking around, and I’m just not seeing them. I found Tolle to be both extraordinarily interesting and extraordinarily frustrating. The lack of any concrete advice was really the source of my frustration, alongside the aforementioned weirdness. I think Tolle deserves credit for articulating a truth of the human condition extremely well. But I also think that it’s a legitimate criticism to say he doesn’t give you anything to do about it.

Sam: It’s interesting that you mention Tolle, because when someone asks me for the two-second summary of my new book, I’m often tempted to say, “It’s Eckhart Tolle for smart people”—that is, people who suspect that something important can be discovered about consciousness through introspection, but who are allergic to the pseudoscience and irrationality that generally creeps into every New Age discussion of this truth. I haven’t read much of Tolle, but I suspect that I largely agree with his view of the subjective insights that come once we recognize the nature of consciousness prior to thought. The self that we all think we have riding around inside our heads is an illusion—and one that can disappear when examined closely. What’s more, we’re much better off psychologically when it does. But from the little reading I’ve done of Tolle, I can see that he also makes some embarrassing claims about the nature of the cosmos—claims that are unjustified both scientifically and philosophically.

However, in the man’s defense, this lack of usefulness you mention is not unique to him. It’s hard to talk about the illusoriness of the self or the non-dual nature of consciousness in a way that makes sense to people.

Dan: You know, I’ve read a little bit about non-duality, but I still don’t fully understand the distinction you’re making. I know you’re supposed to be interviewing me, but I would love to hear more about this from you. I’ve wanted to ask you this question for a long time. What is the non-dual critique of gradual approaches like mindfulness?

Sam: I think the best way to communicate this is by analogy. Everyone has had the experience of looking through a window and suddenly catching sight of his own reflection staring back at him from the glass. At that point, he can use the glass as a window, to see the world outside, or as a mirror, but he can’t do both at the same time.

Sometimes your reflection in the glass is pretty subtle, and you could easily stand there for ten minutes, looking outside while staring right through the image of your own face without seeing it.

For the purposes of this analogy, imagine that the goal of meditation is to see your own reflection clearly in each moment. Most spiritual traditions don’t realize that this can be done directly, and they articulate their paths of practice in ways that suggest that if you only paid more attention to everything beyond the glass—trees, sky, traffic—eventually your face would come into view. Looking out the window is arguably better than closing your eyes or leaving the room entirely—at least you are facing in the right direction—but the practice is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. You don’t realize that you are looking through the very thing you are trying to find in every moment. Given better information, you could just walk up to the window and see your face in the first instant.

The same is true for the illusoriness of the self. Consciousness is already free of the feeling that we call “I.” However, a person must change his plane of focus to realize this. Some practices can facilitate this shift in awareness, but there is no truly gradual path that leads there. Many longtime meditators seem completely unaware that these two planes of focus exist, and they spend their lives looking out the window, as it were. I used to be one of them. I’d stay on retreat for a few weeks or months at a time, being mindful of the breath and other sense objects, thinking that if I just got closer to the raw data of experience, a breakthrough would occur. Occasionally, a breakthrough did occur: In a moment of seeing, for instance, there would be pure seeing, and consciousness would appear momentarily free of any feeling to which the notion of a “self” could be attached. But then the experience would fade, and I couldn’t get back there at will. There was nothing to do but return to meditating dualistically on contents of consciousness, with self-transcendence as a distant goal.

However, from the non-dual side, ordinary consciousness—the very awareness that you and I are experiencing in this conversation—is already free of self. And this can be pointed out directly, and recognized again and again, as one’s only form of practice. So gradual approaches are, almost by definition, misleading. And yet this is where everyone starts.

In criticizing this kind of practice, someone like Eckhart Tolle is echoing the non-dualistic teachings one finds in traditions such as Advaita Vedanta, Zen (sometimes), and Dzogchen. Many of these teachings can sound paradoxical: You can’t get there from here. The self that you think you are isn’t going to meditate itself into a new condition. This is true, but as Sharon says, it’s not always useful. The path is too steep.

Of course, this non-dual teaching, too, can be misleading—because even after one recognizes the intrinsic selflessness of consciousness, one still has to practice that recognition. So there is a point to meditation after all—but it isn’t a goal-oriented one. In each moment of real meditation, the self is already transcended.

Dan: So should I stop doing my mindfulness meditation?

Sam: Not at all. Though I think you could be well served if you ever had the opportunity to study the Tibetan Buddhist practice of Dzogchen.

Dan: Joseph Goldstein, who’s a friend to both of us, recently put out this supplement to daily practice where he says, “Listen to all the sounds that arise in your consciousness and then try to find who or what is hearing them.” I find that when I do that, I’m directed into a space completely different from the one I arrive at when I’m sitting there watching my breath. I’m wondering if that is the kind of shift in attention you’re talking about. Is that what you would recommend as a way to bridge the gap you’ve just described?

Sam: Yes. Looking for the mind, or the thinker, or the one who is looking, is often taught as a preliminary exercise in Dzogchen, and it gets your attention pointed in the right direction. It’s different from focusing on the sensation of breathing. You’re simply turning attention upon itself—and this can provoke the insight I’m talking about. It’s possible to look for the one who is looking and to find, conclusively, that no one is there to be found.

People who have done a lot of meditation practice, who know what it’s like to concentrate deeply on an object like the breath, often develop a misconception that the truth is somewhere deep within. But non-duality is not deep. It’s right on the surface. This is another way the window analogy works well: Your reflection is not far away. You just need to know where to look for it. It’s not a matter of going deeper and deeper into subtlety until your face finally reveals itself. It is literally right before your eyes in every moment. When you turn attention upon itself and look for the thinker of your thoughts, the absence of any center to consciousness can be glimpsed immediately. It can’t be found by going deeper. To go deep—into the breath or any other phenomenon you can notice—is to start looking out the window at the trees.

The trick is to become sensitive to what consciousness is like the instant you try to turn it upon itself. In that first instant, there’s a gap between thoughts that can grow wider and become more salient. The more it opens, the more you can notice the character of consciousness prior to thought. This is true whether it’s ordinary consciousness—you standing bleary-eyed in line at Starbucks—or you’re in the middle of a three-month retreat and your body feels like it’s made of light. It simply doesn’t matter what the contents of consciousness are. The self is an illusion in any case.

It’s also useful to do this practice with your eyes open, because vision seems to anchor the feeling of subject/object duality more than any other sense. Most of us feel quite strongly that we are behind our eyes, looking out at a world that is over there. But the truth—subjectively speaking; I’m not making a claim about physics—is that everything is just appearing in consciousness. Losing the sense of subject/object duality with your eyes open can be the most vivid way to experience this shift in perception. That’s why Dzogchen practitioners tend to meditate with their eyes open.

Dan: So I would look at something and ask myself who is seeing it?

Sam: Yes—but it’s not a matter of verbally asking yourself the question. The crucial gesture is to attempt to turn attention upon itself and notice what changes in that first instant. Again, it’s not a matter of going deep within. You don’t have to work up to this thing. It’s a matter of looking for the looker and in that first moment noticing what consciousness is like. Once you notice that it is wide open and unencumbered by the feeling of self, that very insight becomes the basis of your mindfulness.

Dan: The way you describe it, it’s a practice. I get it. Tolle and the other non-dual thinkers I’ve heard talk aren’t telling us what to do. You’re actually giving me something clear and easy to understand. I think you could use that as a complement to and perhaps even a replacement for the mindfulness practice that stabilizes your attention and helps you recognize that you have an inner life worth focusing on in the first place.

Sam: That’s right. Mindfulness is necessary for any form of meditation. So there’s no contradiction. But there remains something paradoxical about non-dual teachings, because the thing you’re glimpsing is already true of consciousness. Consciousness is already without the sense of self.

Most people feel that the self is real and that they’re going to somehow unravel it—or, if it’s an illusion, it is one that requires a protracted process of meditation to dispel. One gets the sense in every dualistic approach that there’s nothing to notice in the beginning but the evidence of one’s own unenlightenment. Your mind is a mess that must be cleaned up. You’re at the base of the mountain, and there’s nothing to do but schlep to the top.

The non-dual truth is that consciousness is already free of this thing we think we have in our heads—the ego, the thinker of thoughts, the grumpy homunculus. And the intrinsic selflessness of consciousness can be recognized, right now, before you make any effort to be free of the self through goal-oriented practice. Once you have recognized the way consciousness already is, there is still practice to do, but it’s not the same as just logging your miles of mindfulness on the breath or any other object of perception.

Dan: I appreciate what you’re saying, but it seems to present a communication challenge or PR problem. I think most people will buy the basic argument for mindfulness. We all know that we eat when we’re not hungry, check our email when we’re supposed to be listening to our kids, or lose our temper, and then we regret these things later. We all know that we’re yanked around by our emotions. So most people will readily see the value of having more self-awareness so that they can have more—for lack of a better term—emotional intelligence. However, I don’t know that it will be readily apparent to most people why it would be desirable to see the self as an illusion. I don’t even know that most people have considered the nature of the self at all, because I certainly hadn’t. So to ask them to take the further step of considering whether it is an illusion—that requires a lot of work to even wrap your head around. That seems to me to be one of the big issues for non-dualists.

Sam: I agree. It’s a more esoteric concern, almost by definition—but it’s a more fundamental one as well. It’s the distinction between teaching mindfulness in a clinical or self-help context—whether to the Marines, to enhance their performance, or as a form of stress reduction in a hospital or a psychotherapy practice—and going on silent retreat for months in the hope of recapitulating the insights of a great contemplative like the Buddha. Some people really want to get to the root of the problem. But most just want to feel better and achieve more in their lives. There’s nothing wrong with that—until one realizes that there is something wrong with it. The wolf never quite leaves the door.

Ultimately, no matter how much you improve your game, you still have a problem that seems to be structured around this feeling you call “I”—which, strangely, is not quite identical to this body of yours that is growing older and less reliable by the hour. You still feel that you are this always-ready-to-be-miserable center of consciousness that is perpetually driven to do things in the hope of feeling better.

And if you’re practicing mindfulness or some other form of meditation as a remedy for this discomfort, you are bound to approach it in the same dilemma-based way that you approach everything else in life. You’re out of shape, so you go to the gym. You feel a little run down, so you go to the doctor. You didn’t get enough sleep, so you drink an extra cup of coffee. We’re constantly bailing water in this way. Mindfulness becomes a very useful tool to help yourself feel better, but it isn’t fundamentally different from any of these other strategies when we use it that way.

For instance, many of us hate to be late and find ourselves rushing at various points in the day. This is a common pattern for me: I get uptight about being late, and I can feel the cortisol just dump into my bloodstream. It’s possible to practice mindfulness as a kind of remedy for this problem—to notice the feeling of stress dispassionately, and to disengage from one’s thoughts about it—but it is very hard to escape the sense that one is using mindfulness as an antidote and trying to meditate the unpleasant feelings away. Technically, it’s not true mindfulness at that point, but even when one is really balanced with one’s attention, there is still the feeling that one is patiently contemplating one’s own neurosis. It is another thing entirely to recognize that there is no self at the center of this storm in the first place.

The illusoriness of the self is potentially of great interest to everyone, because this false construct really is our most basic problem in every moment. But there is no question that this truth is harder to communicate than the benefits of simply being more self-aware, less reactive, more concentrated, and so forth.

Dan: This is exactly why my book is a great prologue to yours.

Sam: Absolutely. And you’ve written a book that I could never have written. I became interested in meditation relatively early in life. I was a skeptical person, but I was only 19, so I didn’t have all the reasons you had to be skeptical when you first approached the practice. Nor did I have a career, so I wasn’t coming from the same fascinating context in which you recognized that something was wrong with your approach to life. I think your book will be incredibly useful to people.

Can you say something about what it was like to go on retreat for the first time? What sort of resistance did you have? And what was it like to punch through it?

Dan: I blame the entire experience on you. It was largely your idea, and you got me into the retreat—which, to my surprise, was hard to get into. I had no idea that so many people wanted to sign up for ten days of no talking, vegetarian food, and 12 hours a day of meditation, which sounded like a perfect description of one of the inner circles of Dante’s Inferno to me.

As you can gather from the previous sentences, I did not look forward to the experience at all. However, I knew as a budding meditator that this was the next step to take. When we met backstage at the debate you and Michael Shermer did with Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston, which I moderated for Nightline, I realized for the first time that you were a meditator. You recommended that I go on this retreat, and it was almost as if I’d received a dare from a cool kid I admired. I felt like I really needed to do this. It was as horrible as I’d thought it would be for a couple of days. On day four or five I thought I might quit, but then I had a breakthrough.

Sam: Describe that breakthrough. What shifted?

Dan: As I say in the book, it felt as if I had been dragged by my head by a motorboat for a few days, and then, all of the sudden, I got up on water skis. When you’re hauled kicking and screaming into the present moment, you arrive at an experience of the mind that is, at least for me, totally new. I could see very clearly the ferocious rapidity of the mind—how fast we’re hearing, seeing, smelling, feeling, wanting—and that this is our life. We are on the receiving end of this fire hose of mental noise. That glimpse ushered in the happiest 36 hours of my life. But, as the Buddha liked to point out, nothing lasts—and that did not last.

Sam: It’s amazing to realize for the first time that your life doesn’t get any better than your mind is: You might have wonderful friends, perfect health, a great career, and everything else you want, and you can still be miserable. The converse is also true: There are people who basically have nothing—who live in circumstances that you and I would do more or less anything to avoid—who are happier than we tend to be because of the character of their minds. Unfortunately, one glimpse of this truth is never enough. We have to be continually reminded of it.

Dan: This reminds me of the Buddhist concept of suffering. The term “suffering” has certain connotations in English and, as you know, it’s a poor translation of the original Pali term dukkha. The Buddhist concept describes the truth of our existence, which is that nothing is ever ultimately satisfying.

As you said, you can have great friends and live pretty high on the socioeconomic ladder—your life can be a long string of pleasurable meals, vacations, and encounters with books and interesting people—and, yes, you can still have what Eckhart Tolle describes as a background static of perpetual discontent. This is why we see rock stars with drug problems and lottery winners who kill themselves. There is something very powerful about that realization.

Sam: And this is why training the mind through meditation makes sense—because it’s the most direct way to influence the mechanics of your own experience. To remain unaware of this machinery—in particular, the automaticity of thought—is to simply be propelled by it into one situation after another in which you struggle to find lasting fulfillment amid conditions that can’t provide it.

Dan: What’s interesting is that so many people reflexively reject this—just as I would have five or six years ago—because of their misconceptions about meditation. I think there are two reasons why people don’t meditate. Either they think it’s complete baloney that involves wearing robes, lighting incense, and subscribing to some useless metaphysical program, or they accept the fact that it might be good for them, but they assume that they couldn’t do it because their minds are too busy. I refer to this second reason as “the fallacy of uniqueness.” If you think that your mind is somehow busier than everyone else’s—welcome to the human condition. Everyone’s mind is busy. Meditation is hard for everybody.

Sam: The first source of resistance you mentioned is especially prevalent among smart, skeptical people. And I’m a little worried that the way in which many of us respond to this doubt ultimately sells the whole enterprise short. For instance, consider the comparison people often make between meditation and physical exercise—in fact, you drew this analogy already. At first glance, it’s a good one, because nothing looks more ridiculous on its face than what most of us do for exercise. Take the practice of lifting weights: If you try to explain weightlifting to someone who has no understanding of fitness, the wisdom of repeatedly picking up heavy objects and putting them down again is very difficult to get across. And until you’ve actually succeeded at building some muscle, it feels wrong too. So it is easy to see why a naïve person would say, “Why on earth would I want to waste my time and energy doing that?” Of course, most people understand that lifting weights is one of the best things they can do if they want to retain muscle mass, protect their joints from injury, feel better, etc. It’s also extraordinarily satisfying, once a person gets into it.

Meditation presents a similar impasse at first. Everyone asks, “Why would I want to pay attention to my breath?” It seems like a shameful waste of time. So the analogy to exercise is inviting and probably useful, but it doesn’t quite get at what is so revolutionary about finally paying attention to the character of one’s own mental life in this way.

Truly learning to meditate is not like going to the gym and putting on some muscle because it’s good for you and makes you feel better. There’s more to it than that. Meditation—again, done correctly—puts into question more or less everything you tend to do in your search for happiness. But if you lose sight of this, it can become just another strategy for seeking happiness—a more refined version of the problem you already have.

Dan: I’m guilty of using the exercise analogy repeatedly. My feeling—and I think you’d agree with this—is that the analogy is good enough to get people in the door. It may be misleading, but I don’t think in a harmful way. Obviously, when done correctly, meditation is much more transformative than ordinary exercise, but you need to meet people where they are. I think that mindfulness, and potentially even non-duality, has the potential to become the next public health revolution, or the spirituality of the future. In order for that to happen, you need to communicate with people in a way that they can understand. Not to keep whaling on Eckhart Tolle, but part of my problem with him is that I just don’t know that anybody actually understands what he’s saying, despite the fact that he has sold millions of books.

Sam: This raises the question of how to evaluate the results of a spiritual practice—and whether those results, however transformative they may be for someone, can be credible to others.

What constitutes evidence that there is a path to wisdom at all? From the outside, it’s very difficult to judge—because there are charismatic charlatans who are probably lying about everything, and there are seemingly ordinary people who have had quite profound experiences. From the inside, however, the evidence is clear; so each person has to run the experiment in the laboratory of his own mind to know that there’s anything to this.

The truth is that most of us are bound to appear like ordinary schmucks to others no matter how much we meditate. If you’re lost in thought, as you will be most of the time, you become the mere puppet of whatever those thoughts are. If you’re lost in worries about the future, you will seem to be an ordinary, anxious person—and the fact that you might be punctuating this experience with moments of mindfulness or moments of non-duality isn’t necessarily going to change the way you appear in the world. But internally, the difference can be huge. This gap between first-person and third-person data is a real impediment to communicating the significance of meditation practice to people who haven’t experienced it.

Dan: I agree, although, as we’ve already mentioned, there are some external manifestations that one can measure—changes in the brain, lowered blood pressure, boosted immune function, lowered cortisol, and so forth. People find these things compelling, and once they get in the door, they can experience the practice from the inside.

I would also say—and perhaps you were just getting into this—it’s hard to gauge whether some spiritual teachers are telling the truth. I’ve been privileged to meet many of these people, and I just go by my gut sense of whether they’re full of crap or not.

I have to say that with Eckhart Tolle, I did not get that feeling. I got the sense that he is for real. I don’t understand a lot of what he’s saying, but I didn’t feel that he was lying to himself or to me. Obviously this isn’t really data, but I found it personally convincing. To what end, I don’t know.

Sam: As distinct, say, from our friend with the rhinestone glasses…

Dan: Correct. I think I say in the book that I had no questions about whether Tolle was authentic, although I had many questions about whether he was sane. It was the reverse with Deepak Chopra.

Sam: Now I find myself in the unusual position of rising to Deepak’s defense—I think this happens once a decade, when the planets align just so. As I was saying before, a person like Deepak could have authentic and life-transforming experiences in meditation that nevertheless failed to smooth out the quirks in his personality. If he spends most of his time lost in thought, it will not be obvious to us that he enjoys those moments of real freedom. We will inevitably judge him by the silly things he says and the arrogance with which he says them.

But I’ve learned, as a result of my humbling encounters with my own mind, to charitably discount everyone else’s psychopathology. So if a spiritual teacher flies into a rage or even does something starkly unethical, that is not, from my point of view, proof that he or she is a total fraud. It’s just evidence that he or she is spending some significant amount of time lost in thought. But that’s to be expected of anybody who’s not “fully enlightened,” if such a rarefied state is even possible. I’m not saying that every guru is worth listening to—I think most aren’t, and some are genuinely dangerous. But many talented contemplatives can appear quite ordinary. And, unfortunately, cutting through the illusion of the self doesn’t guarantee that you won’t say something stupid at the next opportunity.

Dan: I fully agree with you. I enjoy picking on Deepak, but the truth is that I like the guy.

Sam: Let’s leave it there, Dan. It was great speaking with you, and I wish you continued success with your book.

Dan: Many thanks, Sam.

Startling, provocative, and often very funny . . . [10% HAPPIER] will convince even the most skeptical reader of meditation’s potential. (Gretchen Rubin, author of The Happiness Project)

10% HAPPIER is hands down the best book on meditation for the uninitiated, the skeptical, or the merely curious. . . . an insightful, engaging, and hilarious tour of the mind’s darker corners and what we can do to find a bit of peace. (Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence and Focus)

The science supporting the health benefits of meditation continues to grow as does the number of Americans who count themselves as practitioners but, it took reading 10% HAPPIER to make me actually want to give it a try. (Richard E. Besser, M.D., Chief Health and Medical Editor, ABC News)

An enormously smart, clear-eyed, brave-hearted, and quite personal look at the benefits of meditation that offers new insights as to how this ancient practice can help modern lives while avoiding the pitfall of cliché. This is a book that will help people, simply put. (Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Pray, Love)

This brilliant, humble, funny story shows how one man found a way to navigate the non-stop stresses and demands of modern life and back to humanity by finally learning to sit around doing nothing. (Colin Beavan, author of No Impact Man)

In 10% Happier, Dan Harris describes in fascinating detail the stresses of working as a news correspondent and the relief he has found through the practice of meditation. This is an extremely brave, funny, and insightful book. Every ambitious person should read it. (Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith)

A compellingly honest, delightfully interesting, and at times heart-warming story of one highly intelligent man’s life-changing journey towards a deeper understanding of what makes us our very best selves. As Dan’s meditation practice deepens, I look forward to him being at least 11% happier, or more. (Chade-Meng Tan, author of Search Inside Yourself)

10% Happier is a spiritual adventure from a master storyteller. Mindfulness can make you happier. Read this to find out how. (George Stephanopoulos)