In Waking Up, his latest book, Sam Harris, prominent atheist, author and, in some circles, person of significant notoriety, writes eloquently about his conviction that humans can engage in spirituality without investing in religion.  There are indeed questions, he writes, that science cannot answer, but questions for which we do not need religion to study, ponder, or examine meaningfully.  Spirituality--but not religion--on the other hand, Harris contends, provides a way to explore the "deeper" things of life in a more rational way.  Certain aspects of spirituality, such as the meditative techniques of Buddhism, he says, are testable, measurable, and verifiable, and can be employed by the person of "reason" to good effect.
     What is this "good" effect?  It is, as Harris puts it, to live in the moment.  It is to live in what is going on right now, at this very point in time, to set aside the past and future to focus exclusively on the "now."  It's a subjective response to an objective reality.
     While I am happy that Harris has found meditation to be a useful way to deal with life's contingencies and that he has achieved a measure of meaning in this precarious existence, I nonetheless believe that his assessment of what is subjective is misplaced. By its very nature, feeling is subjective.  This applies to positive feelings one experiences through personal interaction, surfing, or drag racing, for instance, as much as it does to those which one experiences in religious worship or a-theistic meditation.  Harris seems to imply that although the positive feelings one gains through meditation can be measured empirically, those that one finds in religious worship cannot.  Science, he notes, has established the empirical validity of the subjective benefits of meditation.  But it has not--and cannot--do the same for those of religious experience.  Why?  Well, the latter are of "supernatural" origin while the former are not.
     Though I do not dispute the supernatural origin and character of religion, I do question that this means that we cannot establish or measure any of its benefits empirically. Subjectivity is subjectivity.  While we may not believe such benefits have a supernatural origin, we cannot say that they cannot be measured.  We live in an objective reality to which we respond subjectively, yes, but we should be able as rational beings to measure such responses--all responses--objectively.  We cannot have it both ways.