Science has not replaced religion, nor does it have the potential to do so. The two amount to different ways of knowing: objective and subjective; ascending and descending. Science pursues knowledge of the objective realm in an effort to master it, while religion pursues knowledge of the subjective realm in an effort to serve therein. Science can tell us much about the objective world in great detail, and this in turn gives it credibility. Religion, on the other hand, can tell us much about the subjective world, which is naturally elusive in comparison to the objective realm.

I was recently asked if there is a form of secular meditation that I could recommend. Considering the inquiry, I become more interested in the reasoning behind it than in the question itself.

I think it is fair to say that enlightenment is ineffable: it lies beyond the limits of speech. So how can we say anything about it at all? Dilemma. One way around this might be to speak about that which enlightenment is not, and there is much to be said about that. Avoiding such things one could arguably back oneself into enlightenment—whatever it is. Indeed, is enlightenment anything more than ceasing from acts (karma) that do not constitute it? Or is there another way around the dilemma presented thus far.

Sam Harris, the best-selling atheist author, has done it again! In 2004, the American neuroscientist published End of Faith, securing his position as one of the “Four Horsemen of Atheism,” among the ranks of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. A few years ago, when I glanced at his best-selling End of Faith in the bookstore, I just happened to open to his section on mysticism. There, in a few paragraphs, he differentiated mysticism from religion, identifying religion as a belief or faith and mysticism as rational.