DT Strain Philosophy Blog

Welcome to the DT Strain Philosophy Blog Archive (2004-2008)

2008-06-12T20:59:00.000-07:00

This blog was active from 2004 to 2008. It is no longer updated, but remains here an an archive of my philosophic thoughts and studies over the course of those years. Many of these thoughts developed into my new and main website, The Humanist Contemplative. Please feel free to visit that site!

If you would like to browse these archives, there are at least three ways:

1) The Best of DT Strain Philosophy Blog
You can click HERE to see a list of the best blog entries over several years. Please keep in mind there are many others.

2) Search Terms
You can use the search field above to search this blog. Suggested terms include: Stoicism, Buddhism, Taoism, Complexity, Science, Religion, Jesus, Christianity, Humanism, Violence, and more.

3) Dates
There are links to the right for different months and years for chronological reading.

There is also a sister site to this one, which contains many of my longer essays. The DT Strain Philosophy Site can be accessed by clicking HERE. That site is also now retired, but still contains these essays. Both of these sites have been rolled into my current one: The Humanist Contemplative.

Thanks for visiting and for your time! :)

Some Precepts to Consider

2008-01-20T14:22:00.000-08:00

I've been sitting on these for almost two years, occasionally adding to them or filling them out with references. I plan to consider adding more detail and links into them eventually, but I think I'm ready to post now. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the following:

THE 20 SYNTHOPHIC PRECEPTS

Update, January 30, 2008: I have made some wording adjustments after some questions by friends to be more clear. I have also added links in the notes section.

Not Half The Man I Used To Be

2008-01-04T06:44:00.000-08:00

Recently in the Advayavada Network, Mike posted the following:
Here's an interesting observation by the physicist and naturalist Steve Grand (naturalist in the sense that he finds no justification for believing in anything supernatural such as a soul, a spirit, or a god):

"Think of something from your childhood. Something you remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there.

After all, you really were there at the time, weren't you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you weren't there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. What ever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made."

This puts a new and interesting spin on Robin William's classic observation that, "If you remember the sixties you weren't there." It also gives a new point of entry into the question, "What, if anything, is the 'Self'?"
In a sense Mike (and Steve Grand) is perfectly right. It's true that:

(a) Not an atom in my body was present at the event I remember, and

(b) I am not the stuff (atoms) of which I am made.

This is where complex systems theory comes in. In complexity science, there is a process called 'autopoiesis'. This is a process whereby you have a stable complex system that maintains its form, but every particle of which it is constructed switches out over time. Biological life forms are the most obvious example of this, but not the only. Another example of a structure that undergoes autopoiesis is the 'red spot' on Jupiter. In a more abstract sense, we might say that a mathematical formula embodies a structure of relationships whereby the actual variables can be exchanged without the structure being lost. I don't think that counts literally as autopoiesis but it might help communicate the concept.

Of course, all I've done here is given a name to the phenomenon Mike describes, and pointed out that the concept is addressed in science and that it is a very real thing.

Philosophically, this helps to point out that there are many things that are real and actually exist, but which are not particles per se - rather, they are relationships between particles. Other examples of 'relational facts' that are real but not supernatural and not physical would be 'democracy' or 'hive'.

In my essay, "A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma and Rebirth", I use the analogy of a wave to discuss how Karma can be a real thing without being a distinct 'force'. Like a wave, it is a conceptualization of relationships. We treat waves as real entities - even computing mathematical solutions concerning their activities. However, when we see a wave move from left to right, no "stuff" (to use Steve Grand's wording) has in fact moved from left to right. Merely, a relationship of cause and effect has taken place in one position, and the one next to it, the one next to that, and so on.

This is one key to understanding waves, understanding autopoiesis, understanding mind, understanding the Tao, understanding karma, understanding self, and understanding how we can be something other than our atoms without resorting to dualism or supernaturalism.

Are We All Faithful?

2007-12-18T11:50:00.000-08:00

I'd like to use this post to respond to a comment I received from a theist regarding something I wrote. This comment refers to a general line of argument I have heard several times before, and it deserves addressing. It has to do with faith and we might call it the "everyone does it" argument (maybe there is a more technical name for this already). In any case, here is the form it recently took:

"I have yet to find anyone, religious or atheist, who doesn't operate on faith. Both are highly dogmatic, as evidenced by the strength of your value judgments, which can only come from a priori, non-empirical stance. We ALL operate on the basis that some things are true, yet without adequate proofs."

Before I can address this it is important to draw out and make plain all of the implications of the above statement. By saying that we "ALL" operate on the basis of some things without adequate proofs, the author is implying that empiricists are in the very same boat with all others. The author also implies there is no difference in the reasonableness and no distinction among varieties of belief or the sources from which they spring because ultimately, we all rely on faith. These are important implications and need to be put into words.

The author is correct in the last sentence of what he says. However, if we think closely about this, we can see that this is not a statement belonging to the faith-based side of the argument. This is a statement of empiricism. It is the empirical approach, which makes the profound realization that we "ALL operate on the basis of some things without adequate proofs". This is why the empirical approach is to say that we never know anything for certain, and must continually question and test our assumptions through a continuous pursuit of new evidence.

The faith-based position, on the other hand, says the opposite. When a believer says, "I believe in God", they are not claiming to "operate on the basis" of God existing "without adequate proof". To claim this is for the theist to put on empiricist clothes and seek to look like one of them for the sake of persuasion. In reality, the faithful mean something very different when they state their belief in God.

Rather, what the theist is saying is that "God is real" - he does in fact exist; not merely that they will "act as though God exists" for some pragmatic purpose. But it goes further than this. The theist claims to have knowledge of God's existence. This use of the word 'knowledge' is also very different than the empiricist's use of the word, for it is absolute. There is no such non-provision "knowledge" in the empiricist's lexicon. This faith-based 'knowledge' might come through some revelation or communion, through biblical teachings or experiences of events. All of these are very different than empirical methodology and miss the mark.

1) Revelation or communion:
This is a claim that knowledge (justified & true belief) can come to us through something other than our five senses. No such phenomenon has ever been shown to be true. Certainly empiricism is contrary to this belief.

2) Biblical teachings or events:
This is where someone claims to have 'figured out' that God exists by reading 'His word', or by observing something in nature, or by experiencing some unlikely event. Yet, if we are to examine the logic behind all of these claims, we find they violate core principles of empiricism.

So, it is the theist who believes that, contrary to "operating on the basis" of some things being true, he or she can "know" things with certainty, and without any (proved) causal connection between the object and the alleged knowledge in his or her head. This is why the faithful are not keen on their claims being tested and why they refer to changes in scientific theories over time as though it were a weakness rather than a strength. Arguments for faith and theism will commonly try to "wear empiricist clothes" but these are very different approaches to knowledge and one should be careful not to confuse them.

Yet, what if we look at empiricism itself, on its own merits? Doesn't empiricism rely on unproved axioms at some level?

At the base level of all knowledge, we ultimately can't know anything for certain, other than the fact that we, ourselves only, exist in some form or another. I might be a brain in a jar, or I might be some cosmic goo that's living a life of fantastic delusion. But at least I know there is something that is thinking about it because I'm the one doing the thinking. This was the essence of René Descartes' famous argument, "...I think, therefore I am".

No faith yet.

From there, we have to start making some assumptions. For one, we have to assume that what we can sense about ourselves and our surroundings are in some way connected to a reality of some type. It is true this is an assumption. However, how could we do anything unless we at least assume this?

Still, even this most fundamental of assumptions, for the empiricist, is but a pragmatic conceit. It is "operating on the basis of". And still, the true believer's claim that God exists exceeds even this foundational assumption in its certainty. Anything less would mean doubt, and men have been killed for less.

After this unavoidable 'foundational pragmatic assumption', we then get into matters of induction vs. deduction. Deduction is where we begin with known premises and end with a conclusion that follows from them. This form of logic is the most sound and, provided there is no faith within the premises, very few would argue faith is involved in these conclusions. That is, unless one wants to say that a computer or a robot can have 'faith'.

Induction is where things get trickier. With Inductive reasoning, we often move from the specific to the general, or from past experience to future prediction. For example, because the sun came up yesterday and all days previous, we will assume it will come up tomorrow. Because we have not been poisoned by carrots before, we will assume we can eat carrots in the future. Because all dogs we've seen have naturally had four legs, we will say that dogs, in general, have four legs. This is shakier than deduction because it is easy to go wrong. For example, if we had never seen a tree over 12 foot tall, we might induce that no trees are taller than 12 feet.

Yet, unfortunately, one will find that almost all thinking requires some form of induction. Even the strictest of deductive logic relies on some premises which result from induction, and even the belief that deductive logic is sound and will remain sound for all phenomena and all time is an act of induction.

In some of the very foundations of science, we inductively reason that physical laws apply universally, that they are internally consistent, that we can decipher them with logic and reason, and that knowing them gives us predictive power in computing future events. The very practice of science would not be possible without these inductions. This, no doubt, is to what the author of the comment above was referring.

The question we should examine is this: is induction equal to faith?

In other writings I have noted that 'faith' is used in many ways in our language, and it is important to delineate between them. I draw a distinction between 'faith' and 'confidence'. Often when we say, "I have faith in my friends" what we really mean is, "I have confidence in my friends". To test that out, imagine saying, "I have faith in that random stranger". We might let our friend hold our wallet but not the stranger. The difference here is that we have past experiences which give us a pattern by which we can make future predictions. Certainly the predictions are not infallible, since people and things can sometimes behave much differently than a past pattern suggests, and we cannot directly observe the future - but they would seem to be more reliable than taking random actions.

So, confidence is "belief because of the evidence." Meanwhile, the faith that people like myself criticize is "belief lacking evidence or possibly even despite the evidence" - a very big difference.

What induction is not is the reaching of a conclusion because of no evidence. Induction is also not the reaching of a conclusion based on things for which we have no reason to suspect are connected to our conclusion. This would completely rule out #1 above (revelation or communion). What's left would be #2, Biblical teachings or events.

Here we might be in the realm of induction. However, there is a range of quality and good sense between instances of induction. Not all induction is of the same quality (remember the good and bad examples mentioned above). Not only are faith and induction distinct, but the comment also implies that one induction is as good as the next. This is plainly not true.

It is at this point that we get into the basics of good skepticism. Carl Sagan said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and that seems to be sensible advice. If I notice that after many times I leave my trash can in the street, a neighbor moves it onto my lawn, then I can reasonably suspect that it would happen again. Here we have a rather ordinary claim, and it requires only ordinary evidence. However, if I notice that many times I bet on the horse races and wore green socks, that I won, it would not be reasonable to induce that green socks were causally linked to my winning. That is because such a claim would be extraordinary, and the simple correlation between the green socks and winning at a bet would not be of an extraordinary level to justify such a claim.

The claim that an invisible all-powerful personified entity created the universe and plays a role in it is so extraordinary, that a reasonable person would need some sort of absolutely extraordinary evidence before deducing or inducing such a thing. And, even if such a thing were done, the layer upon layer of further extraordinary claims leading to the specifics of Christianity or any particular religion would each be even more extraordinary than the last because of their increasing specificity. Even if this could count as some form of induction, it is clear that it is of far less reasonable nature than the inductions normally employed by scientific empiricists.

In the end, however, it is doubtful faith-based notions even qualify as any form of sound logic or reasoning. At their heart, they are superstition and ideology from a previous irrational era in human history, and ultimately incompatible with even the basic foundations of modern human rationality. But that won't stop the faithful from trying (earnestly and honestly in most cases) to find some way of equating that irrationality with modern thought. By imagining there is some comparison, it makes it easier not to look squarely at the fact that they have been trapped by a medieval (at best) perversion of reason that preys on our weaknesses and imperfections as thinking beings. In this way, people convince themselves there is some compatibility between what they want to believe, and what they know makes rational sense - it is a coping mechanism.

The employment of this coping mechanism stems from a more fundamental belief that life is somehow meaningless without god/s or the supernatural, or that not believing in such is somehow immoral. Both of these misconceptions are deeply ingrained in our culture and history. Until someone understands the true (and secular) basis of ethics, and until they really understand that a meaningful and happy life is possible without supernatural beliefs, they will continue to harbor that strong desire to believe such things, and a deep fear of disbelieving them. Those desires and fears will continue to trump their good sense - the same good sense they are perfectly capable of applying in all of the other mundane situations in their life. Thus, they will concoct all manner of rationalizations and self deceptions to maintain unfounded beliefs. One of those rationalizations, which I have discussed here, is the attempt to equate empirical reasoning with superstitious faith.

Wafa Sultan

2007-12-12T14:36:00.000-08:00

I was recently made aware of this interesting clip by my friend, Al Robison (thanks Al). It is a Syrian-American psychologist named Wafa Sultan, appearing on Al Jazeera. As you can see here, she is very critical of Islam, and has apparently been making quite a stir since September 11, 2001. Although she "doesn't believe in Islam" she still calls herself a Muslim. She also says that she is a "secular human being". It would be interesting to learn more details about how she views the differences in these terms.

LINK: WAFA SULTAN ON AL JAZEERA (at YouTube)

LINK: WAFA SULTAN ON WIKIPEDIA

TED & Rev. Tom Honey on God

2007-12-09T04:44:00.000-08:00

I've been meaning for some time to post on a wonderful website of which my brother made me aware. It's called 'TED' (www.ted.com), which stands for: technology, engineering, and design. However, its topic is more broad than one would imagine, for all three of these terms are meant in their widest possible sense. In effect, the site features talks by some of the world's best professionals and thinkers in a wide variety of fields. The talks are always stimulating and deal with cutting-edge ideas. I can't recommend this site enough.

But this post is about one talk in particular. Under the section 'Is there a God' one will find a good assortment of speakers. But the presentation that I thought most profound was Rev. Tom Honey's. Honey is a vicar in the Church of England. He addressed his deep questions on God in the wake of the south Asian tsunami of 2004. Rarely have I seen such humble and honest introspection; such personal integrity and sincerity in a public presentation. In addition, Honey's ideas are stimulating and moving, his conclusion possibly the best that we see in the future evolution of human religion. I look forward to his continued exploration of these thoughts.

His conclusions in the last segment are worthy of quoting, but I'd prefer not to spoil his presentation, and recommend viewers simply watch the whole (nearly) 20 minutes.

LINK TO TOM HONEY ON TED

THREE YEARS OF BLOGGING!

2007-11-30T20:31:00.000-08:00

Well, this November marked the third anniversary of the DT Strain Philosophy Blog! After three years of blogging, I've collected a journal that has been helpful to me in remembering my own philosophical explorations over this eye-opening period.

I have been thinking about whether or not to continue this blog, and considered ending posts but leaving it up as an archive. The main reason for this has been my busy life lately. In either case, I would continue to add essays to the Philosophy Site over time.

Nevertheless, I've decided to keep the blog going. It's simply been too valuable a tool to me. As I look back over these posts, I'm reminded of important thoughts I've had in my own explorations that I would normally have forgotten. I've also gained insight by all the kind people who have left comments and alerted me to tangent thoughts.

But, while the blog will continue, I think I will narrow its focus some. In the past, posts have consisted of whatever happened to have crossed my mind, plus commentary on some major events of the day. What I plan to do this coming year is focus on helping to develop a Humanist philosophy more fully.

By that, I mean to work on developing thoughts to 'fill out' Humanism more in the area of addressing one's personal needs, ethics, and life practice. What we'll ultimately need is a new manifesto specifically aimed at personal life practice, ethics, and needs - something far more robust than the broad principles and 'social issue oriented' objectives in the current one (although the current manifesto has nothing but good and proper material within it - it is necessary, but not sufficient). In that endeavor, I plan to take inspiration from ancient philosophy, science, psychology, modern pragmatic wisdom, and my Humanist brothers and sisters who are engaging in similar thought. Many of us have had the notion of this endeavor for some time, but it has remained largely ungrounded. For more on this, see the website of my Humanist Contemplatives Club.

So, this being the end of my third year in blogging, here is a summary of the TOP TEN POSTS from 2007!

TOP 10 POSTS FROM 2007
I Am A Believer
Either/Or's and Iraq
Socrates & The "Soul"
Increasing Wisdom
Humanist Ritual
How Messed Up Is This?
Analysis: How News Misleads
What Can't Be Proven?
Complexity, Economics, and Libertarianism
Why Determinism Doesn't Get Us Off The Hook

These posts do not include the often-longer essays on my Philosophy Site. Also, see "The Best of" page for a summary of the Top Ten Posts of ALL TIME for my blog.

Here's wishing all my readers a happy new year and looking forward to more interesting posts :)

A Subtle Distinction

2007-11-14T12:20:00.000-08:00

Recently a reader, J.L.A., commented on my post: Responses to Dr. Francis Collins. Thanks very much to him for reading and for the comment.

Dr. Collins had characterized atheists as being opposed to the 'possibility' of a God, and I corrected that this is not what atheism is. Rather, atheism is merely the lack of a belief that a God does exist; a subtle distinction in itself, though not the one that is the subject of this post. J.L.A. wrote in response:

It is certainly true Dr. Collins is overgeneralizing the view of some atheists. However, there are some atheists who are convinced that there is no god and think that anyone who believes in one is deluded (I have had the misfortune of knowing several of them myself). Unfortunately, they are often the most vocal people in the group and that is often the reason that others misunderstand the meaning of the term "atheism".

I think there is a subtle distinction at play here that goes unappreciated. This unappreciated distinction makes it appear there are more 'strong atheists' (those stating certainty that God is non-existent) than there actually are. In reality, in all my dealings with atheists, I don't know that I have ever really met one.

The subtle distinction is this:

While we cannot know whether or not the claim of a non-physical entity immune to empirical observation is true are false, we do know that it is irrational to hold a belief in either position - specifically due to that fact.

Therefore, people who believe in God are deluded. And, even if they someday die and find themselves looking at God in the face, they will still have been deluded during their lives.

In such a case, they would not have been deluded about the existence of God itself, but deluded in thinking that it is reasonable or rational to accept as true such an extraordinary claim without empirical evidence.

It would be like being convinced that J.L.A. is actually an alien from a planet on the other side of the galaxy, posing as a human. Even if this bizarre claim turned out to be correct by chance, one would be no less deluded in thinking it reasonable to hold such a belief without justifiable, rational reason. In fact, even a much more likely possibility, such as believing J.L.A. to be 110 years old, would be irrational without some sort of evidence to believe it.

So, what happens is that believers encounter an atheist of this nature, who certainly doesn't believe God is impossible or claim to know that such a being could never exist. But the atheist unfortunately projects a sense that he sees the believer as generally silly, irrational, and wrong. The perception on the part of the theist is correct, but they confuse the source of the atheist's attitude as being a belief that they are wrong about God, when in fact, the source of their attitude is the belief they are wrong in their belief in God, regardless of whether or not there is actually a God.

In that judgment, the weak atheist is correct: the theist is objectively wrong.

Where these kinds of atheists are wrong, however, is in their attitude; and I think this is what you may really be referring to when you mention your unfortunate association with such people. I would advise all atheists not to project such attitudes in the first place. Aside from it simply being uncivil and rude, it is also unfair and conceited. Of our many millions of thoughts, we are all wrong (i.e. deluded) about something, and there is no evidence that a person is necessarily dumb or deserving of such treatment merely for being a theist. Most people are deserving of respect, and that in no way requires any censorship of the substance of our critiques. Furthermore, such attitudes only serve to raise walls and hamper communication. And, of course, it also leads to this common misunderstanding about atheists in general as being people who deny even the possibility of a God.

Mature people should be capable of communicating their positions clearly without smugness, intolerance, or demeaning attitudes. We are all part of the same human family and all attempts to convey truth or reason should be made with compassion in mind, and with the attitude that engenders.

As for those few people who might actually claim to know that a God cannot possibly exist, I consider them equally as wrong in that extraordinary claim.

Weighing Up Democracy

2007-11-06T09:32:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows by now that Pakistan's president Musharraf has declared a 'state of emergency' and suspended democracy in his country, postponing elections and putting a stop to a court case that was deciding the legitimacy of his presidency. Pakistan has allegedly been an ally in the 'war on terror' and has been given billions of dollars by the U.S. to help fight it.

Philosophically it would be impossible for the purpose of the war on terror to be 'defending democracy' (as has been claimed) if it were a higher priority than democracy itself. If one is willing to put the means before the ends, this would be an indication that those means exist for something other than the stated ends - some other unstated ends.

What Musharraf has done in his country does not overly surprise most Americans. But it seems unimaginable to Americans that such a thing could happen in the U.S. What is more important to American president George W. Bush: the 'war on terror' or democracy? There's a good way to know where your president's priorities lie.

The Bush Administration has stated they are opposed to Musharraf's 'extra constitutional measures'. Statements are easily made. You can determine a person's priorities by where they spend their money. If Bush agrees to a suspension of funds to Pakistan until democracy is restored, then we will know that he values democracy more than the war on terror. If he does not suspend funding, then we will know he values the war on terror more than democracy itself.

And, what would the implications be for a country if its president, when faced with a contradiction between democracy and fighting terrorism, preferred the latter to the former?

Addendum:
In my haste I neglected to address another huge factor, which is the danger of extremists within the country taking over a democratic Pakistan with nuclear weapons. Here we see an example (like Iraq) of what democracy could unfortunately be when it isn't coupled with that other pillar of a just society: individual rights. Democracy without a doctrine of rights (and the cultural foundation that supports such notions) is merely mob rule. Among those rights; the separation of religion and state. So, it's not just the weighing of democracy but the weighing of democracy with or without individual liberties that must be considered. In that respect, it's possible Bush could have a logical 'out' in this case, regarding funding support.

This also really highlights the possible mistake of thinking that a people, if given the vote, will automatically vote themselves rights. The United States during its founding was inspired by a solid foundation of Western philosophers whose ideas helped shape the Bill of Rights. Without that cultural foundation, might a people unwittingly vote tyranny for themselves? Such is the madness of dogmatic religious fundamentalism that only a Western fundamentalist leader could fail to understand - and such is the danger we find ourselves in if we collectively lose that cultural philosophy.

Why Determinism Doesn't Get Us Off The Hook

2007-09-25T06:22:00.000-07:00

This post is about comparing the two seemingly contradictory concepts of determinism and moral responsibility. On one hand, if everything is determined by causality and physics, and this includes our brain activity, memories, thoughts, choices, and actions, then how can we be responsible for what we do?[1] On the other hand, it sure seems like we should be held responsible for what we do. If we weren't, couldn't we use that as an excuse to be even worse than we might be otherwise? Wouldn't all of ethics and morality fall away as being some sort of sham?

I believe these issues clear up considerably when we have clear definitions of things like: 'morality', 'responsibility', 'will', 'free', and so on. In my view, what is happening here when we perceive a conflict between these two concepts is that we are assigning meanings to one or the other which are inappropriate.

First, start with the premise that it's all "atoms and the void", interacting in a causal nexus according to the laws of physics. What will happen will happen.

Next, imagine there are various subsets of these atomic structures with various sorts of behaviors that emerge out of these complex interactions. We, as thinking beings, assign various names to clumps of these atoms, to various forms we find repeated throughout nature, and to various sorts of activities within and between these clumps.

One of the clumps of atoms we see repeated is what we've called 'human beings'[2]. We've also observed that these 'human beings' have various sorts of common behaviors. Among them is the tendency to coordinate on opinions regarding the acceptability or unacceptability of other behaviors - mostly those that deal with how they interact with one another. These notions tend to shift over time in the culture in response to environmental factors, conditions, and human nature. They are generally 'enforced' through social pressures, ranging from social discomfort to the use of force, depending on how important the behavioral rule is generally held to be. This is human morality[3]. Forming these social norms is a tendency toward which all humans seem to have an instinctive, inborn natural inclination. This is evidenced by the fact that all human cultures have formed these social norms, even if the specifics of those norms vary. It seems quite obvious the reason Homo Sapiens evolved this tendency is related to the fact that humans are social animals and there is some survival benefit to coordinated cooperation and society-building in general. Our numbers seem to indicate that it is a particularly potent survival trait at that[4].

So, when we talk about morality, we should remember that we are talking about a human-level phenomenon, with human-level functions and roles. Certain concepts simply don't apply on certain scales. For example, one cannot meaningfully discuss 'air pressure' with respect to one atom of oxygen because the concept of pressure is inherently about the relationship between several molecules.

We need to ask ourselves why it is important for human beings to be held accountable for their actions? Why is it important for them to feel pity, remorse, shame? Why is it important for us to shun those who do wrong?

If we understand the survival benefits of morality, and we further understand the benefits to ourselves as individuals, then we can see that ethics is important, morality is important - not only despite its inherently human origins and function - but specifically because of that. Since ethics is important, its maintenance is as well. This means teaching it to children, encouraging it in peers, developing it in ourselves, and applying those social and legal pressures to those who do not comply (including punishments).

But what of our notion that a person shouldn't be responsible for something if they 'couldn't help it'? Let's look at the sentence: "Tom isn't responsible for his actions because of determinism." What we have to remember is what exactly we mean by "Tom" in that sentence. "Tom" is the name we have given a certain clump of atoms. When we look deeper at what we mean by the word, that clump doesn't necessarily refer to the clump of atoms that is Tom's body. Rather, we're talking about a 'person'. In other words, we're talking about the pattern of interaction and data that is maintained through the ongoing activity of atoms making up regions of a brain. 'Tom' is a pattern of information that interacts within itself as a complex system. The ability of that system to make selections between data and initiate actions is Tom's "will". Tom's will has a 'normal function' to it and when it is functioning properly and unhindered we can define this as being 'free' - free of obstruction or intrusion from unusual phenomena not typical to its normal operation. Tom therefore has a 'free will'. Thus, in talking about 'free will' much is cleared up by precisely defining what we mean by 'will' and what it means for a will to be 'free'. These are pragmatic and practical means of defining these characteristics in a way that is meaningful and useful.

In a deterministic universe, a person will operate causally, according to its natural function in interaction with its environment. Therefore, if ethics is important to humanity and beneficial to individual human beings, we must attempt to build an environment in which that person will adapt to be more likely to operate in the manner needed. We have found this is accomplished through social pressures such as shunning, blame, praise, and in more extreme cases punishment, confinement, etc. There are more artful ways of accomplishing this than through brute force, which often include more creative 'carrots' than 'sticks', but the bottom line is the same - human beings must be held accountable for their actions, precisely because we live in a deterministic universe. Meanwhile, to the contrary, it remains somewhat of a mystery as to why we should punish people if they are so free from causality that our punishments will have no causal effect on their future actions.

When we choose whether or not to hold a human being accountable for a moral misbehavior, we should look at whether or not the will was operating freely in the manner described above. The reason for this is that it is the will which that accountability is designed to mold. Guilt, pride, contentment, peace, unhappiness, shame, are all experiences which shape the will such that it will more often make certain choices and avoid others.

However, if we determine that a moral outrage took place because of some unusual interference with the will, such as a mental illness or brain damage, this is another matter. Similarly, if we find that the action took place due to accident beyond control of the will, it is also another matter. In both of these cases, there is no functional purpose to holding the person morally accountable because (1) the event was not an indication of the nature of the person's will we seek to mold, but rather some other phenomena effecting it, and (2) accountability is not capable of molding the external forces that were acting on the person's will, nor is accountability capable of molding anything having to do with incidental accidents which could happen at any time. Thus, accountability should only apply to cases of a freely operating will. Only there can it have the molding effect it is designed to.

Meanwhile, to apply such accountability (and the discomfort or displeasure that often accompanies it) in a case where the will was not free, would be giving those negative experiences to a will that was already properly formed or did not have the defects the accountability is seeking to dissolve. In such a case, the accountability may have an adverse affect, molding the will in unpredictable or undesired fashion such that inappropriate behavior is actually increased. In addition, it is a violation of a social contract with which we have agreed that we will not do to others what we would not want done to us (namely, applying negative experiences when we have done nothing negative ourselves). Should that contract be weakened, we all experience less enjoyable events on average. Therefore violations of it should be avoided where possible.

As you can see, moral responsibility and free will are phenomena like 'air pressure' which only make sense on a certain scale (a human scale). Meanwhile, determinism is a much more fundamental property. In this regard, it is simultaneously possible (even mutually necessary) for determinism to be true, the will to be free, and people to be morally responsible - so long as we define these concepts precisely and pragmatically. At least, that's my take.

For a nice essay on how the Stoics reconciled moral responsibility and determinism, see Dr. Keith Seddon's article: Do the Stoics succeed in showing how people can be morally responsible for some of their actions within the framework of causal determinism? [LINK HERE].

Notes:

[1] In dealing with this conundrum, I'm going to go ahead and assume that determinism is true - that we do indeed live in a completely mechanistic and causally determined universe. I'm also going to ignore quantum mechanical considerations on the basis that, even if randomness plays a role at the most fundamental levels of the universe, it averages out on larger scales that even brain activity statistically behaves as though it were more or less determined. Some say there might be exceptions whereby quantum fluctuations in portions of the brain might create a chain reaction leading up to the larger scale in our neural networks, thereby possibly resulting in different thoughts and actions. However, I'm going to discount this as well for these purposes, since randomness presents the very same conundrums where moral responsibility is concerned, in that it is still a phenomenon which may result in our choices and actions which is something other than a completely sovereign 'will'.

[2] The fact that we are the human beings is incidental to the fact that we can still observe ourselves objectively from an 'outside perspective' as we would any other phenomenon.

[3] For a more complete explanation, please see: Natural-Objective Ethics on my philosophy site.

[4] That is, if it doesn't turn out that our intellects, growth rate, or other traits result in overpopulation and stripping of the planet's resources, or possibly devastating warfare, destroying ourselves in the process. The answers to these questions remain to be seen.

Comparing Budhism and Stoicism

2007-09-17T09:11:00.000-07:00

In a recent online conversation, several members of the International Stoic Forum and myself had a wonderful conversation on the similarities and differences between Stoicism and Buddhism. I have collected and edited the conversation on my philosophy site for easy reading. I've also included some commentary and conclusions at the end. If you'd like to read the conversation, please click this link:

Buddhism & Stoicism:
A Conversation Among Stoics

Many thanks to all who participated!

Debunking 9/11 Nonsense

2007-09-17T07:36:00.000-07:00

I have recently been looking for a good website to direct people to, who have unfortunately been snickered into buying the conspiracy theories about 9/11. I had previously found a lot of good information out there debunking the ludicrous claims of the conspiracy theorists, but the site below seems to be a good single location where they have been collected together.

As with cults or some religious people, reasons for being invested in these ideas are sometimes more personal and broad than the actual facts. Therefore, deprogramming someone from these ideas can be very challenging. Most of the 9/11 misinformation is intentionally being concocted by people who get off on it, as a power trip or to see how many people they can hoodwink into believing them. If you know someone suffering from their vile efforts, this site can be a good starting point:

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories:
Exploding the Myths
www.debunking911.com

If you know of other good sources debunking these conspiracy theories, please leave them in comments, thanks.

(note: links and long arguments for the conspiracy theories themselves will be deleted until or unless I see something new to convince me they aren't nonsense. I'd prefer that I and my websites not contribute to the spread of blatant disinformation and will treat such comments the same as a religious zealot's preaching).

Responses to Dr. Francis Collins

2007-09-13T07:05:00.000-07:00

Recently on the excellent podcast by the Center for Inquiry called Point of Inquiry, Dr. Francis Collins was interviewed on scientists and faith. Dr. Collins is author of The Language of God and head of the Human Genome Project. A scientist and a man of faith himself, Dr. Francis argued that good scientists can also be theists. He stated that one being a believer doesn't prevent one from doing science properly to understand the natural universe.

I couldn't agree more with this. The scientific method is specifically designed to address those things which can be empirically measured. Claims that are about things which are 'outside of nature' and not amenable to scientific measurement, cannot be addressed by science in the first place, much less result in any finding for or against. Dr. Collins displays great intellectual honesty and scientific integrity in the interview. He admits the case for evolution is overwhelming, laments the evangelical church's attachment to creationism and Intelligent Design, and says that his arguments cannot 'prove' the existence of God.

Where I differ with Dr. Collins is not on matters of science, which I wouldn't possibly presume. Rather, Dr. Collins has a distorted view of atheism, thanks in no small part to people like Dawkins mucking things up. As Dr. Collins states in the interview:

"...I had to conclude that atheism was the least rational of all choices because it assumed that the atheist knows so much as to be able to exclude... the possibility of something outside of nature; namely God. And, that seemed to be a pretty arrogant position - a position of some hubris for anybody to take and certainly not one that you could defend on rational grounds."

However, atheism does not exclude the possibility of God:
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a God. One could lack a belief that God exists, and lack the belief that God does not exist. This would be an atheist because he would be without theism - without the belief that God exists. The lack of the latter belief would be incidental to the term. Atheists such as myself say clearly that God cannot be proved or disproved and we cannot have knowledge, one way or the other, of such a being. As such it would be foolish to believe in God, and it would also be foolish to claim that such an entity couldn't possibly exist. Still, the lack of the former is enough to fully and completely count as an atheist (a-theist, or non-theist).

More importantly, theism is not the belief that God is possible:
Theism is the belief that God is real - that God exists. Therefore, to back up that claim, one need do far more than argue for God's possibility. One must show there is a positive reason to believe that God is, in fact, independently and objectively real and actual. That alone is theism and, lacking that, all other positions are atheism[1].

On a second matter, Dr. Collins states:

"A purely naturalistic worldview is impoverished in certain important ways. It basically says some questions are just 'out of order' like 'what's the meaning of life', and 'why are we here', and 'is there a God'."

Later he suggests that some think these questions are simply "not worth asking". I think that Dr. Collins, like his nemesis (perhaps too strong a word) Richard Dawkins, both suffer from an abundance of focus and experience in scientific practice. I'm sure in both of their fields, these questions seem to be 'out of order'. However, as interviewer D.J. Grothe points out, these are questions that atheists commonly enjoy tackling. From my philosophic point of view, I'd say it's not these questions that are out of order so much as it is definitive answers that are out of order. We can ask ourselves if there is a God in all sorts of ways, and explore possibilities in all sorts of ways. But in the end we must admit that we couldn't know such a thing.

However, Dr. Collins handles the issue in another way. He mentions sources such as C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and says that such arguments presented therein show belief to be "more plausible" than non-belief. He then concluded this was enough to take a 'leap of faith' and thus believe in God.

This is an approach I've seen many times and in many varieties. The problem behind this approach is the unstated premise that we must reach a final conclusion. That, for some reason, it is important for this little short-lived microscopic primate crawling about a speck of dust in a nameless corner of the vast cosmos for the tiny sliver of time it occupies, to submit an affirmative proclamation to the universe on the existence or non-existence of a deity.

For one, to think such a creature even has the means to submit a meaningful answer on the question is comical. Secondly, to think the rest of nature even cares what it has to say on the matter is equally comical. But thirdly, and more importantly, is the fact is that the question is irrelevant and ultimately inconsequential to anything of substance in our lives. It ranks #2 on my personal list of 'completely ridiculous and meaningless wastes of time in philosophy', just under the issue of whether or not we have 'free will' (and yet, here I am again, sucked into spending time on it).

Most people make decisions and live their lives by anything but their belief in a deity. There is no evidence it effects our morality, our ethics, our happiness, our meaning, our ability to explain nature, or our society in any way that numerous examples haven't shown are equally obtainable absent an invisible intelligent architect. Sure, I along with any number of other people, can be convinced that the meaning of life is to eat bananas but that doesn't make life objectively meaningless without bananas.

In fact, many people are fully content to leave matters as 'unknown' or 'unknowable' and that's what a truly rational and humble person must do when it comes to questions beyond our means to answer[2].

We basically live our lives as normal - without any sort of appeal to unproved claims in invisible entities, but remain open to the possibility and ready to change that behavior should any new evidence come along in the future. In the meantime, we can rationally argue that those who do go out of their way to worship, appease, or address such alleged entities are thinking 'out of wack'.

Perhaps the most revealing statement by Dr. Collins was his take on morality. After siting C.S. Lewis, the issue of our ingrained moral sense came up. Dr. Collins was unconvinced that evolution has explained all of our moral behaviors and speculated that it couldn't explain all of them, but perhaps only some superficial and direct tendencies[3].

Then came the bomb:
He asked, if our morality was just about biology, just an "evolutionary artifact" and an "illusion", then who cares about morality? He wondered why an atheist should care about morality.

Thus we see the real hole in Dr. Collins' perspective, and it again has to do with an abundance of scientific knowledge and practice, with very little philosophical foundation. Dr. Collins, like so many of us, suffers from the affliction of ignorance concerning virtue and ethics: the lack of knowledge that they are, in fact and in themselves, good for us. I am convinced that, at the root of much theism, is the view that ultimately, ethical conduct is some sort of 'sacrifice' we make, for some other external reward or punishment, rather than it being a reward in its own right. I think if more people understood that ethics and virtue is 'good medicine' and fully comprehended Epictetus' statement that virtue alone "is both necessary and sufficient for happiness", then such questions would dissolve.

What is also ironic about Dr. Collins question is its circular nature. If morality is an evolutionary artifact, that would mean that it had some survival benefit. Therefore, it would necessarily be something we should 'care about'[4].

Notes:

[1] According to my anecdotal experiences with many who are not theists, it seems the person who will claim that any sort of God-entity cannot exist and is impossible, is few and far between (I couldn't recall one by name that I have met personally). However, that vocal group of anti-theists get all the press and have convinced huge numbers of people into thinking of atheists as something they aren't. Another factor in this is the common apologetic theist straw man that seeks to get off easy by merely arguing for God's possibility. Such a tactic demands an opponent whose position is the impossibility of God - thus that sort of person is highlighted despite being almost unheard of, even among atheists.

Many atheists, perturbed by this persistent mischaracterization, have opted to use the term 'non-theist' to help highlight these points. But technically, lacking theism, they are still atheists, as are most agnostics (who lack theism as well). I would recommend not using any of these labels and simply having substantive conversations about specific beliefs and positions. Given the distortion of these labels, I think more meaningful communication of the reasonableness of positions is only possible in this way.

[2] I conversed with one person who pointed out that such people actively behave as though there is no God, even if they say the matter is merely unknowable. But this is the way we always act about unknown things. For example, suppose we knew there was a planet full of pre-industrial but fully intelligent people on a planet in our nearest star system of Alpha Centauri? How do you think that might affect NASA's budget or the speed with which we get probes and people there? Of course we don't know such a thing, but one would have to be quite ridiculous to say it is impossible. In fact, given what we know of biochemistry, our own planet, and astronomy, life (even intelligent life) is probably more likely than not somewhere in this universe. We simply don't know if there is a life-bearing planet somewhere in a nearby star system yet. But the default position is to behave in a fairly regular fashion until or unless such is shown to exist.

[3] On a side note, it was interesting that he later admonished this very same 'attacking the gaps' strategy of the creationists against evolution and felt comfortable that new information to come would fill in those gaps. When Grothe earlier brought up that possibility with Dr. Collins on the matter of evolutionary morality, he said he'd be interested in seeing what resulted, but still appeared to hinge the weight of C.S. Lewis' argument on the assumption that evolution couldn't explain our moral sense.

[4] For a more complete description of this, please see my essay on Natural-Objective Ethics.

Shermer Speaks Up

2007-08-22T19:42:00.000-07:00

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine, and author of several books on reason and rationality. He has written a letter that appeared in the September 2007 issue of Scientific American. It addresses what many are calling the "new Atheists" who have been writing some books on atheism that many have described as quite aggressive and confrontational. Examples ranging from accusing religious moderates of aiding in the causes of terrorism and extremism, to calling religious parents child abusers, to an outright rejection of religious tolerance where theists are concerned, and more.

Shermer's position is a brief but concise summary of many of the arguments against this approach, which support my stance and the fourth of five basic concepts on which the notion of the Humanist Contemplative is based.

If you would like to read the article, you can order back issues from Scientific American, or read it on their website by clicking the link below. To subscribe to Scientific American you can click here:

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:
Rational Atheism: An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, by Michael Shermer

It is best if you can read the article from the original source. However, if the link above has expired or been lost, I have archived on my philosophy site, LINK HERE.

Many thanks to Mary Beaty, who first alerted me to this letter.

Health Care & Religion

2007-08-22T13:50:00.001-07:00

Earlier this week I had an interesting discussion with Dr. Cayla Teal from the Baylor College of Medicine. She is studying issues of how health care quality is effected by racial and ethnic issues. In the process, she discovered that issues of religion also played a role. Now she is putting together some survey questions designed to measure people's preferences and attitudes about their health care service as it pertains to all of these issues.

She had contacted me, as president of the local Humanist organization here in Houston, in order to get perspectives and input from Humanist and nontheist points of view. This was specifically in regards to the sections of the survey dealing with religion.

I wasn't being asked the questions themselves (I'm not part of the survey). Rather, I was being asked for input on how the questions could be formulated so as to be of most relevance to the widest religious variety of people, and how they might better gather the specific information being sought without misunderstanding.

We talked about how different groups use terms like 'religious', 'spiritual', 'God' and so on. We also talked about instances where one could answer a question in a way that was technically correct, but gives an opposite impression from the reality of the subject's position - because of unfounded assumptions inherent in the wording of the question. This often took the form of bias in the questions that assumed the subject was some form of theist; a common bias that atheists probably notice more than theists.

Another interesting issue was how differences in people's conception of 'faith healing' could result in meaningless answers to the questions. For example, some people might say that faith helps one get better because they think something supernatural is going on, while others may say the same thing, but because they believe it is a placebo or other biological process effected by a hopeful and positive psychological attitude. These differences can make a huge difference in what a person actually believes, even though they might answer questions in the same manner, if they are not carefully worded.

Similar issues arose because different subjects have different ideas about how God works, how the 'idea' of God works, and what role (if any) such a deity plays in our lives. Do we pray for the strength to accept whatever is God's will for our heath, or do we pray for God to actively change our health? These sorts of questions went beyond what would be relevant to a naturalist such as myself, but they are important things to consider when phrasing questions about faith and health.

I can't tell you what the questions are, as I promised Dr. Teal I would not. But they were generally about discovering what patient's desires were for their health care provider, given their religious views (or lack thereof). However, Dr. Teal has told me she will inform me once the study has been completed and published, which I look forward to seeing - and will post some information on here.

Cassiopeia

2007-08-20T07:21:00.000-07:00

We have a new kitten. I was out walking one morning under a covered area during heavy rains. I saw, in the middle of the wet pavement, what appeared to be a small wet rat and started to walk around it. As it turned out, it was a baby kitten, soaking wet and abandoned. It was so young it couldn't even raise its head. Her paws were pink and not even covered with fur yet. She was barely moving so leaving her would probably mean her death, either by starvation, the elements, or animals. I took her home and warmed her up and dried her. We took her to the vet when they opened and they checked her out. She was healthy, and the vet set us up with a lady named Betty, who specialized in raising baby kittens up to an age where she could eat solid food and we could leave her at home when we're gone. So, that's what she's doing now for us.

We've decided to name her Cassiopeia (or 'Cassie' for short). In Greek mythology, the original Cassiopeia was the beautiful wife of King Cepheus, who boasted that she was more beautiful than all the Nereids, the nymph-daughters of Nereus the sea god. Poseidon then brought his wrath upon her kingdom. It seemed a fitting name given the puddle in which she was found.

Political Compass Graph

2007-08-17T08:43:00.000-07:00

There is a very interesting little test that defines the subjects' political and social views. One axis defines the spectrum of left to right economic views (left meaning socialistic/communistic, right meaning free market/capitalistic). The other axis defines social authoritarianism (what they call fascism, which is questionable) to libertarianism (or anarchism at the extreme). I thought readers might be interested to take the test themselves, and I also thought it might be nice to document where I fall here on my blog.

If you would like to take the test, you can visit www.politicalcompass.org and click the 'take the test' option in the upper left of the screen.

I would advise doing so before reading the rest of this blog post, as reading some of my comments on the test questions may taint your results...

As for my results, you can click on the image here to see a larger version of it. I have combined my results with those of famous people as provided on the website, and have combined labels from several of the graphs they provided, into one for ease of use.

It did seem to me the test had several shortcomings. Too often the questions seemed to use inexact terms, sloppy phrasing, and assume that we would think along conventional lines. It says things like "x is natural". It's obvious the statement is implying that x is ok. What if we think its natural but not acceptable or proper? One could easily give an opposite impression of what they really think by answering accurately.

Another example would be the question as to whether violating 'international law' is sometimes necessary. What if you don't believe such a thing as 'international law' actually exists, because no political legislative body has ever been created on an international level that has the legitimate popular mandate to create 'laws'? It becomes somewhat of a 'did you stop beating your wife' question.

One other question was "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." Now, what if I believe that is a significant advantage of a one-party state in many cases, but I believe that other advantages of democratic multi-party states far outweigh that advantage? If I answer honestly, the test program will likely think I view one-party states as favorable in some way.

Another problem with the test is that one can easily see the political liberal mindset in the phrasing of the questions. Perhaps due to a lack of imagination or role-playing ability, what is assumed and what is taken for granted gives the neutrality away. For example, no one who thought that the interests of trans-national corporations was beneficial to humanity would have stated it as, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." This either/or leaves such people with truly no representative answer to give. And people who have agreed with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in some cases of international politics of late, would never state that as an absolute. They would say, rather, something like, "In some cases it is useful to make cooperative deals with the enemy of my enemy, even if we normally would not approve of such people."

Having said that, the test probably measures what it sets out to in fairly close-enough terms. I say that judging by my own results and the results of many people I know well who have taken it. Perhaps those difficulties with the questions are some advanced psychological technique to make us answer without being able to 'figure out' the test. That may well be the case :)

Television Program with Comments

2007-08-05T13:26:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned a while back, I was recently a guest on the Houston PBS television program The Connection. Online video of that program is now available here, along with commentary (it may take a few moments to load):

LINK: The Connection

At the bottom of the page, I make some additional comments on things we didn't have time to get into in the program.

Complexity, Economics, and Libertarianism

2007-07-31T07:03:00.000-07:00

Jim, a member of a Humanist email list I'm on, made an interesting post recently mentioning emergent complexity in economics (he gave this Wikipedia link). Jim seems to be an economic libertarian and sited this as a support to his position. I am a big enthusiast of complexity theory and the work of the Santa Fe Institute for many reasons. As such, his mention peaked my interest, but I think there is something important to note, at least insofar as my position is concerned.

I don't think complexity necessarily justifies libertarian economic philosophy on the grand scheme of things.

To be sure, it certainly suggests we allow economies to function naturally as much as possible. Taoism, in many respects, contains realizations which are ancient precursors to many notions found in complexity science. Naturally, we similarly find a connection between its observations of the world and prescriptions on 'how we should be'. For example, Chuang-Tzu warns of over-intrusive government, saying it is a sign of intolerance of people's natural proclivities and inclinations (On Intolerance), and encourages corruption and oppression (Horses Hooves).

All of these notions point to the same realization, which is that free market economies will tend to operate as a self-organizing complex system with an organic structure (or 'Li', as the Taoists might say) with all of the advantages of growth and adaptability thereof. Government intrusion, then, hampers the free operation and efficiency of that system.

Yes, economics will self regulate as a system. For example, wages will rise and fall because of the supply of certain professionals and the demand for them. Over time, if the wages get too high, too many people will choose that as their profession and supply will exceed demand. Employers will recognize they can get away with paying less because they'll have plenty of desperate people in need of a job. As wages get too low, employers will find that no one wants to work in that profession and will therefore need to raise their rates. The system corrects itself in a beautiful organic process!

But before we kneel at the altar of the economic complex system, we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

First, we must realize that this economic organism is not 'us' individually. Nor is it 'us' in terms of it being humanity. It is not even 'us' in terms of it being our society. It is an independent system in its own right, that yields conditions we suffer or enjoy.

As such, it is not an end unto itself, but rather a means to an end - that end being to provide an ethically sound environment in which people can live well.

As a system, while the economy will indeed correct itself, in the process its variable flow into highs and lows that have little respect of 'what is right' or 'what is humane'. One might think that we drive these variables by our likes and dislikes, thus 'humaneness' and 'rightness' is inherent in the system because those are things we like. However, this simply isn't the case in practice. In reality, wages will often rise above what is excessive and harmful for individual lives and society (which includes more than the economy, but also our social networks, morale, etc). More importantly, wages will sometimes fall well below what is a humane level of compensation for the work done, leaving desperate people with no realistic alternative. The same is the case for all of the economic variables throughout the entire economy. Most of the time it works, but occasionally it veers without concern into environmental conditions which are inherently inhumane and ethically unacceptable.

People who marvel at that intricate and amazing complex system that is our economy, tend to focus all of their thoughts and attention on how best to make it run more smoothly and efficiently. They look at 'averages' and 'trends' and 'indexes' as indicators of whether or not things are 'going well'. Little concern is given for the individuals getting tossed about on the fringes of those overall curves.

Unconscious and as well intentioned as it may be, this is worship of the 'economic organism' at the expense of people, the expense of ethics, and the expense of basic human compassion.

We must instead keep the larger view in mind: that the economy is here to serve human beings as one element in the grand mix of our larger concerns as good people - and we are not here to serve the needs of the economy. When we do, we realize that, yes, we want a smooth running economy that yields good fruits for us. But, we also recognize there are certain conditions and situations that are morally unacceptable, regardless of the indexes, averages, trends, or long term self correcting mechanisms. When that happens we must, as a people (i.e. government) step in and say "no".

Will that hamper the efficiency and health of the economic organism? Yes it will - and that's ok. Some things are worth the price of apples being higher or the growth of new businesses being lower this quarter.

Unlike what Libertarians will tell us, this sort of judicious ethical intrusion in certain areas while being appreciative of the need of an economy to evolve freely, will not necessarily lead to all-controlling socialism, communism, or bureaucratic oppression. We must simply judge these things ethically as we go, considering those factors as well. Tough decisions? Yes. But to simply say that all eyes should remain on the economic organism and trust that individuals will get their just rewards for their obedient worship of that entity, is a harmful notion in my view, that misses major concerns about our humanity.

PS:
It is also good to note Wu Wei, a philosophy specifically designed for skillfully working in and with complex systems. If we use 'skillful means' in our decisions, we see that there is almost a 1-to-1 correlation between money spent on education or on jails. Low wages lead to desperation, which leads to crime, which leads to money spent fighting crime and jails. Thus, the 'interconnectedness of all things' means that we pay either way - it's just a question of how smart we are about it.

Some may be too consumed with judgments about 'what others deserve' and 'who should get what' to look at things as a dynamic system without preconception. That individual therefore puts himself in the very role he would forbid the state, as being inhumane and oppressive.

Therefore, we are benefited in subtle ways by being ethical first. The maxim is maintained: there is never a distinction between what is virtuous and what is wise. Any notion to the contrary is an indication that we are suffering from a delusion about either wisdom or virtue.

Leadership and Stoicism

2007-07-16T08:49:00.000-07:00

Two of Stoicism's most prominent philosophers were Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. As professor Michael Sugrue of Princeton University observes in his wonderful lecture on Marcus Aurelius: one of the wonderful ironies about the history of philosophy was that the former was a slave and the latter an emperor. That speaks greatly to the flexibility and applicability of Stoicism, but it also has recently brought to my mind another thought.

In this year I have found myself in a leadership role in my community organization, my profession, and soon, my family. This has made me recognize new aspects of Stoicism. Previously I had conceived of Stoicism as especially useful to those with little or no power. As such, it helps us to focus our energies on the things we can control and learn to accept that which we cannot.

But lately, as my 'say-so' has risen (power is too strong a word), I have found that my stress has risen with it. Given that we are always seeking greater control, one might expect the opposite. But I think this happens because power is a strong temptation. When we are put in charge of something or made responsible for it, we get used to having more control than ordinary. We soon find ourselves expecting that greater level of control. It becomes even easier to fall prey to the delusion that we can control more than we do, and as that delusion intensifies, so too does our suffering.

So now I am thinking that I must begin to approach Stoicism less from an Epictetan point of view, and more from an Aurelian one. Surely the emperor saw something of use in Stoicism that he chose it as a remedy for his affliction of power. We'll see how this line of thought progresses.

God who?

2007-07-10T13:47:00.000-07:00

A reader named James recently wrote in with a letter full of questions about my position on God. I have placed his letter and my response on my philosophy site, as I thought James had brought up some great questions:

LINK: Letters on God

What is A Contemplative?

2007-07-01T08:09:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking recently about ways to highlight the personal introspective and spiritual, if you will, in Humanism. I call this the Humanist contemplative thought. The first step was forming a club within my local Humanist group called the Humanist Contemplative Club, which has been active at a modest level just over a year now. I have also been making contact with several people who have a similar vision for the expansion of Humanism into a more robust and person living philosophy. Recently, I've come across a nice website and organization called The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. Their classes seem quite pricey and I couldn't, of course, vouch for them personally as I don't know a lot about them. But their website seems to have distilled the essence of the 'contemplative life' which may be of great use:

LINK: The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society

LINK: The Tree of Contemplative Practices

Their list of contemplative practices is excellent and would be worthy of a Humanist Contemplatives time to investigate. Some of them, of course, involve supernatural concepts which are irrelevant to Humanists, but most do not. The video that plays automatically on their home page is nice, but I really recommend the second part of Dan Kowalski's film introducing the work of the center:

LINK: "Part 2: Application"

This video really sums up nicely the essence of contemplative thought and practice. In it, several good points are listed, paraphrased below:

1) Working to integrate contemplative awareness and contemporary life to help create a more just, compassionate, and reflective society.

2) Contemplative practices have been developed over centuries in both secular and religious traditions.

3) They include meditation and yoga, other movement forms like Tai Chi or Qi Gong, contemplative dance, silent reading, times in nature - any activity in which you regularly engage which helps you increase your awareness and compassion can be a contemplative practice.

4) Contemplative practice is designed to help us be more effective in life and integrate our 'hearts' with our 'heads'.

5) As you practice and apply what you learn to your daily life, you being to develop what could be called a 'contemplative perspective', which includes many enhanced qualities, skills, and values:
- Calmness, which allows stability in life;
- The ability to be 'in silence' and learn from that;
- Clarity and spaciousness of mind, which helps us to see things as they are rather than as we want them to be (I and Buddhists would call this mindfulness);
- The ability to act from passion rather than anger;
- Increased kindness and compassion
- The ability to hold two conflicting ideas in the mind at the same time;
- The ability to act from an ethical understanding;
- To be non-judgmental but still hold a discriminating awareness for making decisions;
- The ability to appreciate the interconnection of all people and all life.

What Can't Be Proven?

2007-06-24T14:01:00.000-07:00

Matt (aka The Dude) writes in with this question:

"What can't be proven?... I often get into debates, especially religious, where the point gets to someone saying "You can't disprove it, so I'll just keep believing it." My point is this: Lack of evidence, by default, points to non-existence, it does not give rise to limitless possibilities.

I can't disprove unicorns don't fly around Pluto, but it doesn't mean they're there.

I'm usually at a loss for words when people throw that argument forward. How would you deal with that objection?"

I agree such people are using faulty logic, and I have had similar experiences. But I would differ with the questioner on one point. He says, "Lack of evidence, by default, points to non-existence, it does not give rise to limitless possibilities". I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Indeed, the lack of disproof does give rise to limitless possibilities. We live in a reality that may ultimately be far more ancient and vast that we can ever know - perhaps infinitely so. Many things are possible - but that isn't the point. The point is, why should someone believe in one specific possibility without any positive proof therein?

The first thing I would note in answering that question is this:
Theism is not the belief that God is possible.
Theism is not the belief that God is likely.
Theism is the belief that God is real - that she/he/it does, in fact, exist.

Given that, we then have to ask ourselves how things would work if we were to have a similar belief about anything and everything that could not be disproved. Clearly, there are many claims and possibilities that, while possible on their own, are contradictory with other equally possible claims that have not been disproved. Therefore, it would be madness to accept every possibility that has not been disproved as real.

On my philosophy site, there is a conversation I held with another person which I've titled "How Do You Determine Truth?". In it, I say that we basically have three options for dealing with claims for which there is no proof or disproof:

1) Believe them all unless or until they are disproved.

2) Believe those things we like believing and disregard the rest.

3) Believe in none of them unless or until they are proven.

I've already noted that #1 would require a person to hold an infinite variety of contradictory claims as true. The most common response seems to be #2, even if only subconscious. Even we skeptical minded folks are guilty of this from time to time about various beliefs we take on in our lives. But only #3 is consistent with genuine reason. Of course, the above simplifies the matter considerably since, in reality, things are rarely either 100% proved or 100% disproved. But the simple delineation of these three options illustrates the essence of the matter.

Therefore, perhaps a more practical way to look at it would be as Carl Sagan suggested: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I like to note the implication of this, that ordinary claims require ordinary evidence - thus, the degree of belief in a claim should be proportionate to the degree of evidence for a claim. And, of course, all positions should be provisional and open to reassessment in the light of new evidence.

But perhaps your conversant is someone of a more romantic approach. In this case, it might be more effective to point out the inherent arrogance of making claims about things for which we have no evidence. More effective that accusations of arrogance would be to speak positively of the humility required to acknowledge our limitations to know when we have not received verifiable evidence. Thus, the lack of that humility is implied with the opposite position. This approach is more fully explored in my essay titled, "The Humanist Contemplative".

Thanks for writing! :)

Better Ways to Express Humanism

2007-06-14T07:48:00.000-07:00

It's just occurred to me that an essay I wrote a while back for a club's website in my local Humanist group has never been put on my philosophy site. So, I added it today. It's called "The Humanist Contemplative". In this essay, I outline a particular focus within Humanism that our club is based around. But I think the essay has broader value to me because it shows a way of talking about and presenting Humanism that I think should be more common. Throughout the explanation, I utilize concepts from the following...

- Complex systems theory (science)
- Buddhism or the Buddha (3 general references)
- The Kalama Sutra (Buddhist)
- ‘The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow’ (Buddhist)
- Dalai Lama (Buddhist)
- Stoicism (2 general references)
- Epictetus (Stoic)
- The Christian Bible
- The three pillars of Anglican/Episcopalian faith (Christian)
- Jesus (Christian)
- Chuang-Tsu
- Frederick Edwords (2 references)
- Albert Einstein
- Sam Harris
- Paul Kurtz
- Ayn Rand
- Carl Sagan
- Socrates

To read the article, see my philosophy site or click this link:

The Humanist Contemplative

To Be Appearing on Local Television

2007-06-01T10:33:00.001-07:00

I have just returned from the studio of the Houston PBS station, where I was invited to be part of a panel on a local television program called "The Connection". The subject was about whether a good and meaningful life is possible without a belief in God. I was announced as the President of the Humanists of Houston. The other guests on the program included Nancy Fay, a retired teacher and a Freethinker who is a Director at the Houston Church of Freethought (and a friend), a Methodist Pastor named Thaddeus Easland of the Hope Church, and Rabbi Stuart Federow of Congregation Shaar Hashalom. The host (and the woman pictured here) was Doris Childress.

For those capable of viewing Houston local PBS, the program will air at 8:00pm on July 6, 2006, and again on July 8th, at 5:00pm.

After both airings have shown, I will try to find a way to take the VCR tape of the program they gave me and convert it into a video that will be available on this site and on the HOH website.

The program went well I thought. Everyone was cordial and we hit on some good points. The program was only a half hour and it passed quickly, leaving still many things unsaid. The host of the show has communicated to me that they would like to do more shows on similar subjects in the future, and may like to invite me back to be on those, which I said would be fine.

Rabbi Federow informed me before the show that he hosts a radio program on 950AM KPRC called 'A Show of Faith' and might like to invite me or the others to be a guest sometime. I told him I'd be pleased to.

After the show has aired and I get the video up on this site, I'll also include some additional commentary and responses to things in the program which I didn't have time to cover.

Update June 2, 2007: Originally this post had incorrectly said the airing would be June 1st and 3rd. Unfortunately, the assistant producer gave us the wrong dates originally. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Update August 5, 2007: Online video of this program is now available on this site. Click HERE to see it, along with some additional comments at the bottom of the page, on things we didn't have time to get into. These may take a few moments to load.

How Messed Up Is This?

2007-05-23T14:52:00.000-07:00

I've recently come across the surprising statistic that about 71% of the population of the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa is suffering from malnutrition. Almost all of the other nations in Africa that are marked as having malnutrition are around 35% - still highly tragic numbers, but not near the unbelievable rate in DR Congo[1]. This is where a lot of the skeletal children you see pictures of come from.

But that's not the messed up part. The messed up part is who was behind it...

I decided to read up on the history of DR Congo to see what in the world happened to cause their unique situation. What I found began around 1960, during the height of the cold war. At that time, the Congo was controlled by Belgium, as it had been since 1908. This was a remnant of the history of the colonial empires, whereby almost all of Africa had been sliced up by different European nations (you'll recall that apartheid South Africa was controlled by the British, for example, and that British colonialism was also at the root of the beginnings of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict after they closed up shop and left abruptly). During WWII the United States got the uranium it needed for its nuclear bombs from the Belgian Congo, which was rich in the stuff.

The Belgians gave no political power to the Congolese people. The educated people there eventually started a campaign to end the inequality. Following some riots, the Congolese won legalization for their own political parties in 1959. In May 1960 they elected a President and a Prime Minister, and won independence by the end of June. In 1962, Belgium also granted neighboring Rwanda self-government, which it also controlled - thus leading to intense racial conflict between the native Hutu and Tutsis, after an abusive majority came to power.

Back in Congo, however, two provinces didn't like the situation and struggled to secede. In that disorder, a dispute broke out between the President and the Prime Minister. Now, the Prime Minister had previously appointed a man named Mobutu as chief of staff of the new Congo army. By 1965 Mobutu had garnered enough support within the army to take advantage of the leadership crisis and mount a coup against the democratically elected leaders. The President was overthrown and the Prime Minister assassinated. Mobutu renamed the nation Zaire, erected a one-party dictatorship with himself as Head of State and "father of the nation", and was accused of many human rights abuses and corruptions.

Mobutu conducted this military coup against that democracy with the financial backing of the United States (CIA) and Belgium.

As it was, Mobutu was against communism and leftist ideas. He would therefore allow U.S. companies to export the natural resources of Zaire without worrying about environmental, labor, or other regulations. Belgium would also retain mining rights for copper and diamonds.

Now we skip ahead to the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. decides that Mobutu is no longer a necessary ally and relations cool. Without that backing, Mobutu's opponents inside Zaire begin to step up demands for reform. Mobutu conducted a lot of 'fake reforms' supposedly to be democratic, but were more cosmetic than anything else. Finally in 1997 a rebellion forced Mobutu to flee Zaire, which was renamed back to the DR Congo[2].

Since 1994, DR Congo has been waylaid by ethic strife and civil war, with its society virtually collapsed. There was also the genocide in neighboring Rwanda, which has resulted in a massive inflow of refugees. The current president, Joseph Kabila, in 2006 became the first Congolese President to be democratically elected by universal direct suffrage (meaning, everyone can vote regardless of race, gender, etc). I read he's trying to implement reforms to combat the malnutrition crisis but we'll see. Kabila is also working with the World Bank in an effort to improve the economy. But here's at least one point of view on the World Bank (from Wikipedia)...

"Corporatocracy is also used by John Perkins in his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man to describe a system of governance controlled by "big corporations, international banks, and government" (Perkins / Plume paperback edition, 94). Harking back to the "military-industrial complex," Perkins claims the corporatocracy is manifested in the following cycle: the World Bank issues loans to developing nations to pay for large-scale development projects; contracts are then doled out to a handful of American engineering firms; as a result, these countries become ensnared in a net of interest payments and debts they cannot repay. American corporations benefit through increased profits, and the U.S. government benefits through securing its political clout and control over developing countries with vast natural resources. According to Perkins, the majority of people in those countries do not benefit since a large portion of their country's budget goes toward servicing the national debt instead of improving living conditions.[3]"

If this is correct, then it could be that the Congo is still the pawn of the U.S., in an even more subtle scheme.

I'm also actually a supporter of capitalism (although not completely Laissez-faire). However I'm not sure that being opposed to mega-corporate rule is inconsistent with that. It could be that such notions as the international mega-corporation are actually contrary to real capitalism.

Three interesting thoughts:

1) Much of the current problems in the world we are paying for today can be traced back, not only to the cold war and ww2, but to 18-19th Century European colonialism.

2) Was the cold war really about the evil Soviet empire that wanted to invade the U.S. and make us all wait in line for toilet paper? Or was it more about stoking that fear for the sake of expanding opportunities for U.S. corporations?

3) Could it be that as far back as the economic buildup after WW2 which catapulted us to superpower status, we've been a de facto Corporatocracy and didn't even realize it?

4) How much of what goes on today with U.S. international policy is about stoking fear for the sake of serving the interest of our corporate oligarchy? 100% maybe?

I'm not one to use the propaganda tactic of making unsubstantiated claims, about things I really already believe for certain, in the form of questions. The above reflect real questions I'm actually wondering about.

[1] United Nations World Food Program Interactive Map [link]
[2] Wikipedia article on DR Congo [link] (other connected articles also used)
[3] Wikipedia article on Corporatocracy [link]

Zeno lives!

2007-05-17T19:49:00.001-07:00

In April of 2006 I made a post called Evil and Ignorance. The picture for it was a statue of Socrates that I colorized and tried to bring to life. It was alright but a rush job. I decided to try again, this time with the founder of Stoicism, Zeno. In the Socrates picture, the weakest points were the sculpted hair (which doesn't look right even if you colorize it) and the eyes. So this time I decided to take the Zeno statue and blend in some similar eyes I found online (from a mug shot of some guy), and got the hair from Daniel Dennett's beard, then blended in patches to make it match the shape and style of Zeno's. After that I painted in the various skin tones, added highlights and shadows, and colorized the clothing and background. I think this version came out better. It might be the closest thing we have to what Zeno may have really looked like - I hope anyway!

Update May 23, 2007: Dr. Keith Seddon of the Stoic Foundation has decided to place my picture the foundation's homepage at www.btinternet.com/~k.h.s/stoic-foundation.htm. He put a neat fading effect between the two images, which can be seen in MS-Explorer. Firefox shows the two back and forth, but without the fade.

Analysis: How News Misleads

2007-05-12T07:19:00.000-07:00

CBS Channel 11 in Dallas/Ft. Worth recently aired a segment, "Does God Exist?" in which they announced that mathematical physicist Frank J. Tipler has claimed to prove the existence of God through 'hard nosed physics'. I started this entry with the intent to critique Tipler's claim. However, seeing as how his claims have already been thoroughly critiqued in other sources, I have decided instead to critique, not the claims, but Channel 11's coverage of them - a wonderful example of the serious problems inherent in the way news is so often covered.

First a little background on Tipler's claim in two paragraphs. Tipler claims that God is an artificial intelligence or 'Omega point' - a cosmological singularity. He claims that we will eventually create artificial life forms that will go out and populate the universe, gathering so much information that this super intelligence is inevitable. He also claims that this intelligence will love us and thus resurrect all of us in a simulated environment, first by creating every possible combination of gene codes possible for humans, and then by running simulations of history for every possible outcome. Thus, all of us would be sure to somewhere in this vast simulation (or 'emulation' as he calls it to represent a more philosophically real and detailed version of simulation). He claims this intelligence is the God described in Abrahamic religion and several other belief systems, and more specifically connects it with the Christian scheme of things. This paragraph above somewhat encapsulates the general nature of his claim, although I'm sure I haven't captured every detail perfectly. For more information, you can check out Tipler's own website or works HERE, or read his entry in Wikipedia HERE.

This second paragraph will tell you the next important thing you need to know about Tipler and his claim; and that is where they fall in the overall scheme of science and religion. Has Tipler revolutionized physics and religion, or is he a crackpot on the fringe of society? Are his claims being debated seriously among the intellectual and religious elites of our nation or are they not taken very seriously as a real debate at all? In both cases, it would seem the latter is the case. As the Wikipedia article states, the prominent scientific magazine Nature reviewed Tipler's book and called it a "masterpiece of pseudoscience... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline." Tipler's work has also been critiqued by Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, Victor J. Stenger, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, which you should read HERE. It should be noted that Stenger also moves beyond the realm of science in his book, God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. However, I think his critique here is representative of the overall scientific consensus on Tipler (and, by the way, where was Channel 11's groundbreaking report on this book?).

Now that you have some background, take a look at the segment CBS Channel 11 aired and come back to read my analysis...

CBS Channel 11: Does God Exist?
(click the link at the end of the sentence "To hear Tipler explain his ideas, click here")

I have written before about how news media can and does often mislead their audience without ever making any false claims in the segment. As you can from viewing the clip, any person who watched this segment could easily come away with the following impressions:

1) Tipler's work represents a new and profound event.
2) Tipler's claims have caused a large controversy within the scientific and/or religious community.
3) Tipler's claims involve the traditional concept of the Christian God.

All of which are, of course, false. Curiously, one thing we don't get from the segment are what Tipler's claims are! Of course a mathematically detailed presentation of them would be unsuitable for general audiences, but we don't even get an overview of the claims in layman's terms. Rather, we are supposed to make due with a hand writing "=> God exists" on a chalkboard while hearing monk chants.

It is quite easy to imagine and suspect that, the next day after this segment aired, thousands of believers returned to their water cooler at work to talk about how 'even science is coming around and understands that God is real' while atheists are stubbornly clinging to outdated science because they missed last night's program.

Let's take a look at the segment in more detail. It opens with:

"Does God exist? That is a question that is a question which, through the ages, has been mostly a philosophical one. That is until recently..."

Here is where the viewer gets the impression that some new breakthrough has been made. This would be a false impression for two reasons: (1) Tipler's claims are not very new in substance and he himself has been making them for some time, and (2) What he presents is imaginative speculation with a bunch of math thrown in to make it sound scientific. Nothing he presents is truly a breakthrough of any kind. Tipler has not left the realm of philosophy in the least (not to mention that he hasn't even left the realm of 'bad philosophy').

The piece goes on to show Tipler saying that he became a committed Christian of 12. This in itself illustrates a pre-determined conclusion before his work even began. No mention is made of the obvious possibility that he is looking for arguments to prove a pre-determined conclusion, something completely contradictory to the scientific approach.

Nearly a third of the way into the segment we are now hearing how Tipler ignores the notion that science and religion are separate - a common position of many philosophers, scientists, and theologians, which has nothing to do with Tipler's specific claims. We have still yet to hear them.

"Tipler calls God the cosmological singularity stemming from ancient theologians' definition of God."

If ancient theologians called God a cosmological singularity, some affirmation of that or references would be nice. It is obvious here that the reporter spoke only with Tipler himself and basically regurgitated what Tipler said in a nicely edited package.

"Tipler uses hard-core science: Einstein's principles of general Relativity and quantum mechanics."

First, there is no "hard-core" science. There is simply science and non-science. Secondly, the fruitcakes and quacks that try to suggest we have psychic powers and that space aliens built the pyramids also "use" relativity and quantum mechanics to 'prove' their claims. The reporter, Maria Arita, simply states these things in a very gullible and credulous manner, encouraging the same in the viewer - as if she were the spokesperson for Tipler's infomercial.

Now for the part where 'balance' supposedly comes in.

"But not everyone agrees..."

"Not everyone" is a far cry from "almost no one" which would have been closer to the truth in terms of the impression it gives.

"Avowed atheist Dr. Tim Gorski of Arlington says the mere question of God in a scientific sense is flawed."

First of all, why do they need to go to an 'avowed atheist' to ask about this? Addressing God scientifically is a flawed notion and not what science is designed for. Any reputable scientist could have confirmed this; theist or atheist. By going to an atheist the reporter (1) brought people's disliking of atheists into the mix, and (2) made it seem like his position was the oddball minority one, instead of the reverse. Then they go to two different denominations of Christians who say that belief in God is about faith.

We are now two thirds of the way into the segment, and still no details about what Tipler's claims are.

"Professor Tipler knows there are skeptics at church. Even some of his colleagues don't believe."

This is another grievous example. "...there are skeptics at church" Yes - how about, "...at church, a huge number of believers say that God is a matter of faith". That might have given a more accurate impression than a simple acknowledgment that "there are skeptics".

The second sentence is even worse: "Even some of his colleagues don't believe." Yes - how about, "...The vast majority of scientists and major scientific publications consider his claims unscientific." Maybe that would generate a more accurate impression in the viewer than "some of his colleagues".

"Still, Tipler says, God is the divine substance outside of space, time, and matter."

Earlier when responding to Dr. Gorski's statement that science doesn't study the supernatural the reporter retorted, "But the notion that God is in the natural appears to be exactly what Tipler is saying" - well which is it? Is God natural or the divine substance outside of space, time, and matter? To whatever degree it is the latter, it is outside of the realm of science because such things are not susceptible to its methods (not without Tipler's unbridled and pseudoscientific imagination that is).

"And theologians appear to have mixed feelings about the idea, but the debate rages on."

Which debate? The debate about the existence of God? If so, that's true - but it is not the impression this closing line gives. Closing the piece in this way gives the impression that the debate over Tipler's claims 'rages on' - as if his notions have caused a real stir.

Thus, most viewers come away with the impression that some major ripple has happened within science and now there is a big controversy that rages on. Unfortunately, a more accurate description would be that one fringe Christian mathematician is making unfounded pseudoscientific claims largely rejected by any serious sources from religion or science - one of a long line of such people.

If you think I mean that they shouldn't have reported this because it is false, then you have missed a very important point - that's not what I'm saying at all. Reporters don't need to judge the truth or falsity of claims like this - and they should report them. But they should not take fringe claims and set them along side the vast majority of accepted claims as though they have achieved some balance. This misrepresents the overall situation. As such, the report has betrayed everything news is supposed to be about - it is supposed to make people more informed about their world. It is not supposed to give them false impressions about the world.

So, the next question should be, why do reporters do things like this?

First, there is a general inclination to favor anything religious or godly in the news. This is because, as a corporation, the news outlet knows that the majority of its viewers are believers. In addition, many of the news reporters and writers are believers and may not even realize the bias.

Secondly, it is important for a reporter to make her story sound as though it is significant and as timely as possible. Thus, it wouldn't be very exciting without making it sound like some important event has taken place rather than a story about 'yet another fringe crackpot'.

Next, we have the old notion that news seeks out the most extreme and unusual of events to report on. In terms of science, this means that the fringe people, the pseudoscientists, the weirdest and most bizarre people, are the ones that are reported on. Rarely would mainstream accepted views be deemed anything worth reporting, unless we're talking about a news show dedicated specifically to science.

Lastly, there is the matter of time crunch and resources. We see this happen a lot more in local news. Often the reporter has to put together a story and doesn't have a whole lot of time to gather interviews, get input, etc. This can mean only talking to one person or source extensively. The result can then be a simple rehash of only one position to a greater extent than is reasonable.

I would suggest that news agencies can still make compelling news without such distortions. If they want to report on fringe elements in science that's fine. These stories can be very interesting. But they should at least report where that fringe claim stands among the whole of the scientific community.

Claims like Tiplers come and go, and there will always be a degree of pseudoscience out there - that's not extraordinary or newsworthy. The newsworthy item in this situation, however, is the unusual and bizarre practices of our news media - a news media that constantly misleads and misinforms the public. Unlike the continuing existence of unscientific fringe claims, that is something that needn't happen, and something can be corrected.

Thanks to my wife, Julie, for providing the links and info on this.

Officially a Minister

2007-05-08T15:06:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been rather busy lately with a new job as Marketing Manager of a major non-profit medical organization, beginning the process on a new townhouse (our first), serving as President of my local Humanist group, and many other things.

Among these recent things, I have presided over my first funeral and my first wedding as a Humanist Minister. I suppose that makes it official. The funeral was for the wife of a friend from our Humanist group, and I think we gave her a ceremony she would be happy with. Her husband seemed satisfied with the ceremony and I was honored to be a part of it. The wedding was this past Saturday and was quite an experience. There were many Christian family members there, but everyone was very kind and seemed pleased with the ceremony. I have been very fortunate to have the mentoring and assistance of more experienced Humanist Minister Ross Henry.

After serving as Minister for both of these, I feel this is something I'll be happy doing over time. I don't think I'll try to make a career of it, but it can be something I do on the side.

I was thinking recently that my efforts as a Humanist Contemplative seem to be helped by serving in a ministerial capacity. One thing I'm trying to do with the contemplative program is focus more on the personal, applied, and compassionate side of Humanism. It seems that being a part of these important human events is helping to keep me in touch with that aspect of Humanism - so I think this will be a helpful and enlightening experience.

I've also heard from a like-minded Humanist in the UK recently who enjoyed my take on the Humanist Contemplative and has been kind enough to converse with me about these thoughts. I feel over the past decade or so, we have been seeing a number of really exciting things brewing for naturalistic spirituality. It will be wonderful to be a part of it as things develop in the future.

Muslims Not Capable of Secular Government?

2007-04-29T06:40:00.000-07:00

Throughout the conflict in Iraq, I've heard it claimed that Muslims aren't capable of a secular government - that their culture and religion would never permit it. Many people seem to forget or be unaware of Turkey. This is a nation that is about 95% Muslim, yet they have a completely secular government. The Turkish government goes even further than the U.S. government in not allowing religious dress in public buildings. This law has apparently been upheld in the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate"[1]. Given France's recent move to disallow the Muslim head dress in public schools that's not surprising.

This brand of 'enforced secularism' is not something I find proper. In the U.S., anyone can wear the garments and symbols of their faith. The idea that the government could tell them not to would seem absurd and a violation of personal liberty to most Americans. The European system seems to take the perspective that the Government should be telling religious people 'you can't bring your religious stuff in here' and so on. Meanwhile, the approach of the U.S. government is that secular government is a government that is restricting itself - not restricting citizens. For instance, when the U.S. supreme court ruled against school prayer, the ruling was that government employees may not lead the students in prayer or use school property to conduct it. Students, however, are perfectly free to pray when and how they wish. The overall philosophy is a 'hands off' restriction on the government. In Europe, it seems to be more of a 'hands on' active secularizing of the people through intrusive restrictions. I find this harmful to personal liberty.

In any case, this more extreme European secularism is strongly in place in Turkey, and has been since 1923. According to a recent AP article, About two weeks ago, about 300,000 Turks (presumably many of them Muslim) staged a massive protest against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his pro-Islamic agenda. Today about 100,000 protested. The protesters claimed his faction wanted "to drag Turkey to the dark ages". They also disapprove of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul's wife, Hayrunisa, living in the palace while wearing traditional Muslim dress.

I would conditionally tend to think that both democracy and secular government are fully within the ability (and desire) of all human beings, including Muslims. However, when a nation doesn't have the past tradition of it like Turkey, it can be a long uphill climb. Ideally, not something that can (or should) be imposed from a foreign force, as is the attempted case in Iraq. But regardless of other immense problems with the Iraq war, I must at least say that claims Muslim populations are incapable, in principle, of secular government seem greatly inaccurate.

Humanist Ritual

2007-04-23T08:08:00.000-07:00

A reader has asked recently about Humanist rituals:

I'd be interested in hearing your take on creating humanist rituals. There seems to be an innate human need to create ceremonies and do things that have a feeling of "sacred space".
This was actually the topic of the day at the most recent session of my Humanist Contemplatives Club. A complete report of our conclusions on this can be read on our Club's journal (link HERE), but I've repeated the core part of the summary here...

1) We acknowledge that Humanists already engage in many rituals. These include various meetups, weddings, funuerals, baby namings, etc.

2) There seems to be a major distinction between rituals, based on why they are conducted. In one sense, you have the 'superstitious ritual' in which the practitioner believes these acts to be accomplishing something disconnected from the typical natural cause-and-effect we know of empirically. Examples include rain dances and prayer. The second sense of ritual is the 'symbolic ritual' in which the practitioner is conducting an activity in order to symbolize a concept. These rituals are designed to create a sense of solemnity, help us adjust our mindset and focus on the reasons behind the ritual, cement social interactions, and mark special events or notions. It was concluded quite easily that Humanist ritual must be exlusive to this latter form.

3) Future Humanist rituals should take advantage of the rich cultural lineage behind it. This includes elements of art, music, poetry, literature, and other elements by past Humanists or humanistic artists and thinkers. This should bring in a sense of tradition such that the ritual does not feel extraneous or contrived.

4) Rituals should be 'multisensory' experiences. They should tap as many of our senses as possible; having visual, audial, olfactory, and possibly tactile elements. Internally, they should tap both the intellect as well as the emotional, intuitive, and imaginative.

It was also mentioned that science fiction can be an inspiration for creative ideas. At the same time, a Humanist ritual must be something with real functional purpose - even if merely social or emotional - or else it will seem contrived.

Diane Mobley Strain 1950-2007

2007-04-12T03:40:00.000-07:00

My mother, Diane Mobley Strain, died on the first day of spring; March 21, 2007. Her lungs were inhibited by pulmonary fibrosis (also called interstitial lung disease) - an illness which gets progressively worse over time, until eventually the victim can't get enough oxygen. It's cause was never clearly established since ILD can have a wide variety of both biological and environmental causes.

For a time, she was sleeping with an oxygen tube at home and riding a scooter around since any extended walking would leave her coughing and short of breath. One day, she fell and severely broke her shoulder. She had to have surgery which included taking a piece of bone from her hip to rebuild the shattered shoulder area. However, the hip became infected and she had to then undergo a number of other surgeries to clean out the wound. Over this time, she was bedridden and became weakened. This, plus the anesthesia and general stress of the procedures accelerated her ILD to a critical point.

As she wished, she was asleep under the influence of pain killers once she had to have a ventilator. It was hoped that her body could get enough oxygen and clear out the CO2, but there simply wasn't enough lung tissue left for her to recover. With her family and closest friends around her bed, holding her hands, she passed away without any discomfort or suffering.

But the important thing about my mother is not how she died - rather, how she lived. She was many things to many people, but of course, my comments will focus on what she was to me as a mother. My earliest memory of her is sitting with me at the dining room table, struggling through my homework. As a child I'm told I was difficult because, although I wasn't mean or disrespectful, I had a tendency to daydream. This meant I had trouble in elementary school and it was very frustrating getting me to concentrate on my homework. Of course, I was completely incapable of appreciating her efforts at the time but she sat with me constantly, making sure I learned. In her unending attention (what a child would think of as strictness), she handed over all of her time to teach me about responsibility and give me a sense of living by principles.

But what was really rare about her was her combination of principled responsibility with incredible love, compassion, and sacrifice. She demanded a lot from others, but she always gave more than she got from the world.

She not only sacrificed her time, but she and my father sacrificed their money at a time when money was scarce in the family. This included things like sending me to private school to get me over my school difficulties, but it also included giving my brother and I the best childhood they could. They'd make huge sacrifices to provide special Christmas gifts for us like large high priced toys and computers - things most children from higher income families would be lucky to get.

My mother's compassion extended to those outside our immediate family as well. My parents were always taking extended family and friends into their house when they fell on hard times or needed support. In addition, she worked with my father in their churches to help feed, clothe, and provide companionship to the poor and homeless without making any demands of them.

I wasn't present, but my father told me about a time when he saw her admiring a very nice (and expensive) coat. She was surprised and thrilled when he unexpectedly bought it for her. It was cold that day so she put it on and they went out to run some errands for the church. Arriving at the home of a poor woman to bring her some things, they saw her sitting on the front steps, shivering. She had no money for heating and no coat. My mother instantly took hers and put it around the woman. She could see it looked like a very nice new coat and said, "I can't take this". My mother replied, "This old thing? I was about to throw it out anyway" and left her with it.

We also had a lot of good times. My mother could really appreciate and enjoy special times with the family and going to do fun things. She really glowed when she talked about them and I think enjoying things in life is part of what makes a person able to sacrifice where important and give where needed.

As I look over pictures of her I've found some we took when we were visiting Los Angeles. A relative knew one of the guards at Paramount Studios so we were fortunate to get to tour the studio where they were filming Star Trek: The Next Generation. I have a picture of myself sitting in Captain Picard's chair, with my parents sitting in the chairs on either side. We also got to see the Cheers set and took a picture of all of us standing behind the bar holding up glasses. In all of these photos, including others from Christmas time and so on, I've noticed something. She always had a big smile, but it wasn't the same as mine. I could see in her face that it wasn't merely the event, or the trip, or seeing these things that was making her smile - it was that she was happy for us - and happy that we were having fun together.

From the time I was born (actually before) to the day she died, for 35 years, her commitment to being the best mother she could be was absolutely unwavering. At one point as a teenager, when my brother was having problems, my mother told him that there was nothing he could do that would ever cause her to abandon or give up on him, and he says that knowing this was a point that saved him. Throughout our lives, her priorities were never confused. Her love was like the firmament of stars in our universe - it was as dependable as the sun's rising.

My mother's conscious experience in life has ended, but she has made an impact on her world and left it a better place than she found it. She and my father have made my brother and I what we are today, and her life has given inspiration and example to others, having subtle and far reaching effects beyond what we will ever fully realize. Through our experiences with her, she has passed on a part of who she was so that we may go on consciously experiencing the world through her eyes when we keep her in our thoughts. This is the best way we can honor her. She once carried me inside her, and I'll carry her inside me the rest of my life.

Kurt Vonnegut Dies

2007-04-12T03:10:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, April 11, 2007, American Humanist Association Honorary President and Legendary Writer Kurt Vonnegut died. The story was reported by AP and the Yahoo news article can be read by clicking HERE. If that link has expired, I have reposted the article on my philosophy site HERE.

Update, April 13,2007: The American Humanist Association also has an article, "Humanist President Kurt Vonnegut Mourned": LINK HERE.

Parenting Beyond Belief

2007-03-19T03:58:00.000-07:00

Editor Dale McGowan has sent me a notice about a new book coming out soon. I get a few requests to feature things on my blog from time to time, and don't always respond. I have also had contact in person and online with many people looking for advice on parenting without religion, so I've decided to pass this along. Mr. McGowan writes:

I'm getting the word out to freethought blogs about a forthcoming book I've edited titled Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, which is headed for an April launch. An excerpt from the book flap:

"Parenting Beyond Belief is a book for loving and thoughtful parents who wish to raise their children without religion. There are scores of books available for religious parents. Now there's one for the rest of us. Includes essays by Richard Dawkins, Julia Sweeney, Penn Jillette, Mark Twain, Dr. Jean Mercer, Dr. Donald B. Ardell, Rev. Dr. Kendyl Gibbons, and over twenty-five other doctors, educators, psychologists, and secular parents."

The book's website www.ParentingBeyondBelief.com includes an FAQ, contributor bios, excerpts, and a fledgling discussion forum.

Pace's Morality

2007-03-13T04:18:00.000-07:00

You may have read recently that the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, has said that homosexuality is immoral and therefore the military should not allow gays to serve openly. What ever happen to the claims about it destroying unit cohesiveness? I thought that was the rationale? I suppose someone finally spilled the beans on the real thinking behind this policy - not much to our surprise I think.

According to a recent AP article, Pace compared homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral. He said, "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." General Pace is probably a good man and means well according to his upbringing, but it seems his upbringing wasn't sufficient in the area of ethics.

When General Pace said the U.S. was not well served by a policy saying it is OK to be immoral "in any way", he sets up a condition that is impossible to fulfill. This, because there are many 'ways' in which things can be said to be immoral or not, and many opinions regarding morality. Some people believe that eating pork is immoral. Does the military serve pork in its lunch lines? And what about allowing Wiccan chaplains on base - something the army is doing which evangelical Christians consider highly immoral, if not blasphemous. Then there's that thing about all the killing, which pure pacifists would find immoral under any conditions.

What if I believe that it is immoral to oppress or ostracize people simply because of which consenting adults they choose to have intimate relationships with? Well, he might say, I am not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Pace's morality is one of simplistic authoritarianism: a matter of obedience to a code etched in stone. This is a cheap immature stand-in for real ethical understanding that so many people are stuck in. This is why his notion of what is immoral includes victimless actions between consenting adults and why he can't see the distinction between homosexuality and adultery, where there is a person who is being betrayed and harmed. Morality is not about following dictates under threat of punishment (eternal or otherwise) - it is about human beings working together, living and acting responsibly and compassionately toward one another for their own wellbeing and the betterment of all.

Pace's notion of morality is not only primitive and misguided, but it is woefully insufficient for dealing with a modern diverse society with a variety of specific religious beliefs. Pace is not an instructor at a private school or the head of a private company - he is an official in a government that is the property of all of the people who pay his salary: straights, gays, men, women, blacks, whites, latinos, asians, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Humanists, Wiccans, and more.

Note, for example, Pace's analogy of homosexuality to adultery. Pace said he "supports the don't ask, don't tell policy" where gays are allowed to serve if they keep their homosexuality private. Can you imagine the military having a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy about adultery? Can you imagine the chairman saying that, as long as they keep their adultery secret they can serve in the military? This points out the hypocrisy such a ridiculous ethical system encourages.

Pace finds himself in a precarious position within a world that is rapidly changing around him. Such a simplistic childlike notion of morality may have worked back in his home town as a growing boy but he, like so many others with such notions, will find their authoritarian outlook increasingly divisive and incompatible with the real world. Only a broader more mature understanding of ethics and morality will be consistent with a peaceful, prosperous, and secure society - something I'd think the military should be interested in.

Increasing Wisdom

2007-03-11T19:44:00.000-07:00

Matt writes:

"What is the best way to increase wisdom? Rote reading? To be able to apply wisdom, we must first know it, see it works, then we can own it, though repetition is the only way I know for that 3rd step. The goal being a fearless, tranquility, and freedom."

There are a number of interesting leads in this. I also like the last sentence, proposing an ends to increasing wisdom. Is this the purpose of wisdom; to allow us to be fearless, tranquil, and free?

The question about rote reading and talk about learning something, applying it, and 'owning it' seem to imply that wisdom is knowledge - more specifically, that wisdom is knowledge of a large set of algorithms or procedures which we can first memorize, then apply for specific effects.

This doesn't seem right to me. Knowledge, or perhaps life experience, is certainly helpful in living a happy life. But in reality, knowledge itself is a commodity, and to assume that we increase wisdom by our accumulation of knowledge, seems to me dangerously similar to thinking that we can increase wisdom by our accumulation of material goods, friends, or status.

Are educated people more wise than people lacking formal educations? Can I become more wise by reading Plato, Socrates, Epictetus, Kant, and Hume - or by reading the various self help books of our age? Maybe these things, if learned and applied, might improve our skill of 'life practice', but that still doesn't seem like wisdom to me.

I saw a bit of a recent television program where a young girl, 18, wanted to get married and she was arguing with her mother, who was trying to tell her it was foolish at her age. The mother brought up some points and the girl answered with responses that seemed to miss the point. What often happens with young people is they believe they can figure out all of their actions and their future effects logically. When told something is a bad idea, they want specific reasons that will show how things will turn out badly, and if they don't find them convincing they will plow ahead. I remember when I was that age and older people would say, 'you'll learn when you get older'. I would ask them to just tell me now! When they couldn't I assumed they were simply ignorant or trying to use their age as justification for a position that had no merit.

What less experienced people don't yet understand is that some realizations can't be communicated simply with words or simple 'this leads to that' formulation. If they could, then all you'd have to do to make a young man as wise as an older man would be to sit him down and explain to him what he's going to learn over the next 40 years that is so damned important. But this isn't possible.

Perhaps wisdom includes a very subtle and complex 'weighing of the facts' that is the accumulated perspective one gets after millions of observations which, individually don't mean much and may even be forgotten in an ocean of fine-tuned neurons over a lifetime. Thus, explaining why an 18 year old shouldn't get married to a 40 year old is easy, but almost impossible to an 18 year old. When she gets to 26 she starts to say, 'oh! I get it now', but alas, when she tries to tell her little sister, regardless of the detail of her arguments and her eloquence of speech, the little sister simply doesn't have a sufficient reserve of experience to fully grasp or appreciate (grock) what is being told to her.

The image pictured with this post is a sort of wisdom labyrinth which represents walking the path to wisdom. There is a church my wife and I visited when we were in California which has this pattern in a large courtyard. It was designed for people to start at the outside and meditatively walk slowly the entire path to the center. This ritual is designed to instill in our minds that we can look at the path, we can know the path, and even memorize it - but we can't have wisdom until we actually walk it ourselves. I think some of what I've been writing about above must relate to this notion.

There are also important discoveries being made about changes in body chemistry and brain structure that happen as we enter different periods of our lives. These may indicate that certain realizations, perspectives, dispositions, and responses in various situations may be incredibly difficult for some people to achieve at certain times - regardless of what they have read or memorized.

Therefore, I would advise to the seeker: yes, keep reading, learning, and applying. But have patience with yourself and others. What may be difficult or unclear now may become easier with age and experience. You may find yourself returning many times to material you thought you understood years ago, but then suddenly grasp it on a deeper level - as if looking at one of those optical illusions that look like one subject until you stare at it long enough and see another. I would also therefore advise (especially for those in their early 20s or younger) that it is equally important to have some degree of trust in your elders and understand that they may know things which you simply cannot grasp at the moment, regardless of explanation. This trust includes some degree of obedience to proper authorities without always having full understanding. For adults, it means not assuming that older people may not have many things to teach us, even if they haven't read as much as we.

Several years ago, when I began actively looking for ways to increase my wisdom, I began first with the question: what exactly is wisdom? What I thought would be the first step turned out to be the journey. Above all I would recommend: ask the question. As I have explored what wisdom is and what it means to be wise, I have found this very exploration helpful in increasing it. I'm still no wiser than many people, but I can't help but think that careful and detailed pursuit of this question has helped me.

Thanks for the question Matt!

Incidentally, over at my philosophy site, one section of my 'Noble Conspectus' is titled 'Wisdom' [link HERE]. It may contain some more thoughts on Matt's question. More than myself however, I'd recommend any number of wiser people, perhaps starting with some on my recommended reading list.

A Question

2007-03-05T07:24:00.000-08:00

"Since before your sun burned hot in space and before your race was born, I have awaited a question" -- The Guardian of Forever

Anyway, I have noticed that many of my best thoughts have been inspired by the questions and posts of others. I find myself writing quite a bit in response to these, and then suddenly have to look at a blank screen when it comes time to make my blog posts.

Therefore, I'd like to open the blog up to philosophical questions from readers. These can be quirky questions or serious questions relating to our approach to life and specific issues. They can range from analytical to more accessible philosophy.

Of course, I'll still post on other things when they come up, but if you folks send me some interesting issues and questions, then not only would it help inspire me but it would also ensure that this blog remains focused on subjects of most interest to you!

So please, ask away in comments to this post!

Being Religious? $20

2007-02-28T17:51:00.000-08:00

Interesting story - I leave it to the reader to decide the message...

I attend this gathering of Humanists called the Humanist Contemplatives Club. We meet at the Rothko chapel each month. The Rothko Chapel is sort of a multi-faith chapel used for many reasons. The Contemplatives Club is about exploring a more 'spiritual' aspect of naturalistic Humanism, so we chose the Chapel because it's a very serene and beautiful location.

Anyway, I come out of there one night and see I have a ticket on my windshield. Even then I had to look carefully to see why. There isn't really a parking space at the chapel; cars just park on the street. But there are parking signs all around on the curbs. They're all normal except the one I was next to, which was a handicapped sign. Unfortunately, the signs are turned parallel to the curb so that you can't see them when you're approaching, and they're pretty high up too, so they're past the view of my little car's windshield. Not only that, but it was pitch black night around there and no street lighting.

The ticket was $205 so I decided to see if I could plead my case.

Several days later, I went to the area of the courthouse where tickets are adjudicated. I had never done this before so I didn't know what to expect (I've never even been in a court before). They had me sit in this little waiting room that felt kind of like the principle's office.

Then this guy comes and gets me, who looks very 'lawyer-like'. As it turns out he's a judge. He showed me to his office and I sat in the seat in front of his desk. He then turned on a tape recorder and told me to raise my right hand and swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (I noted that he fortunately didn't say the "so help you God" part). For a moment, I thought about saying, "You can't handle the truth!" but instead just said, "I do".

Then he looked at me with a cynical look on his face like, "here's yet another joker trying to BS his way out of a ticket." I told him I was guilty, but that I'd like to throw myself before the court and beg for mercy. Then I told him that it was an accident and there were many good spaces available, and I'd never do that, but before I could even get to the stuff about the darkness and the angle of the signs he said, "ok I'll knock it down to $75" and wrote it down on some form. I thanked him humbly.

Then a weird thing happened. He turned off the tape recorder and started to tell me something about how the reflective material on those signs is falling off and it turns out the stuff is radioactive. In retrospect, that might be an important thing to know, but I wasn't really sure what was going on. 'Are we chatting now?' I thought. I sort of went along with it, then he asked me why I was in that area - if it was to see the game (I guess there's a stadium or something nearby, I'm not into sports).

So I told him it was to go to the Rothko Chapel. He didn't know what that was so I explained it was a multifaith chapel. Then he said as he wrote over his previous figure, "ok, I'll cut it down to $55 - I wouldn't want to discourage you from being religious."

Hmm - too much there to think about in an instant so, rather than debate the finer points of what "being religious" meant, I decided to nod, thank him, and get out of there.

Change of Pace

2007-02-13T10:00:00.000-08:00

Well, as you can see from the past two weeks, posts haven't been coming out on Fridays as usual. There have been some changes in my life that haven't left me as much time to explore and read new philosophy, much less think of ideas and write about them. This includes becoming president of my local Humanist group, a Humanist Minister, and several other responsibilities. I have reason to suspect the situation will get even tighter, so I considered bringing my blog to a close. However, I've recently received some nice comments from readers, which has inspired me to continue. Still, I think to be more realistic I'll change the name back to "DT Strain Philosophy Blog" (from "Philosophy Fridays") and then post whenever I can. Hopefully you folks will be understanding and not leave me. I'll try not to be too infrequent.

If You're looking for an easy way to know when new things have popped up here, you can add this blog's site feed to your Yahoo or Google homepage (or other home pages that allow feeds). As for the philosophy site, that will continue as it always has, with occasional additional essays.

Socrates & The "Soul"

2007-02-04T07:55:00.000-08:00

Modern conceptions of the supernatural and the soul have developed over many centuries with a complex array of influences. One major influence on today's concept of the 'soul' seems to have come from the Gentile tradition, which in turn came from ancient Greek thought. Socrates had his own ideas on the soul and his original arguments may have had a large impact on the concept of the soul in modern Christianity.

In an essay I've just completed, I go back and take a look at the arguments Socrates used to justify the existence of a distinct soul...

Simmias' Harmony: Socrates' Arguments for A Distinct Soul Dissected

(note: Sorry for the late posting of this - it took me longer to complete than I had anticipated)

Changing the Brain

2007-01-21T06:47:00.000-08:00

A fascinating new article by Sharon Begley has appeared in the Wall Street Journal called, "How Thinking Can Change The Brain". The article explains how the Dalai Lama is helping scientists understand the power of the mind to 'sculpt our gray matter'.You can read it at MoneyWeb HERE. If that link has become nonfunctional, I have also archived it on the Humanist Contemplatives website HERE. Many thanks to my friend G. Alan Robison for bringing this to my attention on our local Humanist group's email list.

Goings Ons

2007-01-19T13:41:00.000-08:00

Well it is yet again time for another blog entry. I've decided to be a little more traditional and 'blog-like' in this post and talk about what's happening with me lately. This shouldn't be too far out of place since what's been happening with me has a lot to do with philosophy.

Firstly, I'll just mention that my certification from the American Humanist Association as a Humanist Minister will be going into effect very soon. Already, there is a couple inquiring about a secular wedding ceremony. Fortunately for me, there is another experienced Humanist Minister nearby (who actually married my wife and me). His name is Ross and he's agreed to help me out on this first wedding. We are both meeting with the couple next week to discuss the content of the ceremony with them.

In addition to this, I've been elected as President of the 'Humanists of Houston' (HOH). This local Humanist group has been around since 1978 and many of its members are my elders and much better educated than myself. So it's a big honor that they would see fit to elect me - I hope I do HOH well.

Although HOH has been around a long time, it's still a fairly small organization. This is partly because through much of its history there have been a variety of ideas on just what sort of group it should be. As it stands today, the membership is disproportionately 'gray'. We could also stand a few more females in the mix. HOH has, at least in recent years, become somewhat of a 'scholarly' type group with book clubs and lectures and such.

While we'll always keep the academic options, my aim is to do more outreach to a younger more diverse crowd. In order to be more attractive, we'll need to be a fully robust Humanist organization. That means we need to have more activities outside of the meeting rooms, and more activities that involve more than lectures and book clubs. I'm hoping we can get a Social club going which will include movies, plays, game nights, outings, and more. I also hope that we can establish a Women's club. We will be reformatting the monthly meeting to have a reception and be geared more toward positive Humanist values that are practical and applicable for people, rather than so much religion-bashing which has been the focus of late.

Second to making HOH more attractive to a wider variety of people is letting them know about it. I have high hopes for our outreach efforts which will include newsletter ads, T-shirts and other merchandise, and maybe radio spots. Getting more active on the web is also crucial. I've begun by refurbishing their website, which should be going live in the next few days. Eventually I hope to get us more involved with MySpace, YouTube, and more. One of our members has already been part of a growing Humanist group in Second Life.

In addition to these other efforts, we hope to have more public events, the first will be a Darwin Day celebration at a local bookstore. So, I'm quite excited about the possibilities for HOH and fortunately, the current members seem to like these directions. Tomorrow we'll be having our first planning meeting to get things going.

HOH hopes to get out in the public eye a little more and promote Humanist philosophy and values while at the same time provide a home for humanists, nontheists, and freethinkers in this area. This is a good example of living, applied philosophy (at least, one type of philosophy) so I thought it might make an interesting post for this week.

As a bonus post, I plan to soon complete something I'm calling "Simmias' Harmony". It's a detailed examination of the arguments Socrates uses for a distinct soul - the basis of which went on to inspire Stoicism, Gentiles, Christianity, and the modern conception of souls. I hope to be able to post this in the next few days.

Soon after that, I have another article in the works which will take a look at what seems to be an explosion of secularism, religious criticism, and/or atheism among the youth over the web. As always, thanks for reading :)

A Remarkable Woman Discusses A Remarkable Man And Their Remarkable Ideas

2007-01-12T05:17:00.000-08:00

Ann Druyan is the widow of Carl Sagan and so much more. Not only is she a gateway to learning about Sagan the man, but Druyan is a remarkable woman herself. She has produced great media productions and lectures, and contributed greatly to many causes.

I recently heard this month's episode of the webcast, Point of Inquiry, which interviewed Druyan. It was amazing to hear her eloquently explain the perspective she shared with Sagan on the universe and spirituality, as well as her defense of that approach in the light of modern issues. It seems to me that she is ahead of her time in terms of science, religion, and spirituality. Many of her thoughts are exactly what I am aiming to do with the notion of the Humanist Contemplative. Lastly, to hear her descriptions of the person who was Carl Sagan was both inspiring and amazing. Surely, it was one of the best webcasts I've heard and I highly recommend it.

Point of Inquiry: Ann Druyan - Carl Sagan and The Varieties of Scientific Experience

You can also catch Ann Druyan at the Beyond Belief '06 event on YouTube:

Beyond Belief '06 - Ann Druyan (part 1)
Beyond Belief '06 - Ann Druyan (part 2)
Beyond Belief '06 - Ann Druyan (part 3)

Either/Or's and Iraq

2007-01-12T04:22:00.000-08:00

I had been thinking of this very thing, and intending on posting, when I saw Senator John Cornyn (R- Texas) just now on MSNBC perfectly (but unintentionally) encapsulate the error everyone seems to be making regarding the President's so-called 'plan'.

Senator Cornyn said something to the effect of (paraphrasing), 'There are two options here: we can win or we can lose, and we can't win if we don't even try. So I'm in favor of giving the President's plan a try.'

It's amazing to me that grown men who are capable enough to become Senators can make so many logical errors in a single thought - or, even worse, that they have such a low opinion of their constituency and such a loyalty to their party that they can willfully make illogical statements like this in the hopes of passing them off as genuine arguments. I have no idea which is the case here, but I suspect a little of both. I'll only spend time on one of the logical problems with Senator Cornyn's statement.

On July 22, 2005, I made a post on this blog titled "Too Many Either/Or's". This is a case where people are falling into the trap of thinking there are only two alternatives: (1) go with the President's plan, or (2) 'fail' in Iraq. Now I have the chance to take my Either/Or post from 2005 and apply it to real life...

--------------
Whenever faced with an either/or situation, or one where you feel cornered by two unattractive alternatives [in this case, sending more troops versus losing in Iraq], consider the following:

1) Question the definitions being used. It could be that the two alternatives aren't really opposed or limiting if each uses a different sense of the same words.

In this case, what do we mean by 'failure' in Iraq? Could the definition of 'failure' also include the loss of even more troops, further escalation of hostilities, and an even more disastrous outcome from troop increases and an extended conflict? In such a case, both apparent options might be a path to failure and not really be an either/or at all.

Conversely, could 'success' mean starting our exit from Iraq, thus pressuring the Iraqi government to get its act together to fill the void, and perhaps deescalate the tensions our very presence is causing? If so, then the apparent 'failure' option may not be anything of the sort.

2) Consider how the either/or's might co-exist or both be true.

As explained above, increasing troops might lead to failure just as a complete and instant withdraw might. Similarly, not increasing them (or even decreasing them) might be a part of a plan that leads to success. The increase/decrease variable and the success/fail variable are not inherently tied together as many presuppose.

3) Could the two alternatives be rooted in a shared principle or motive?

Of course, both of the options with regard to troop levels share the same motive: a stable, free Iraq and a secure America. Efforts to link those proposing one plan or another to other motives are plainly political rhetoric.

4) Think of how the either/or may be the same thing in some sense.

Many would argue that following the President's Plan is the same thing as failure in Iraq. Others would argue that not following the plan is part of a plan for success.

5) Consider whether there really are just two options - try to think of 'third options'.

If we don't increase troop levels, it doesn't mean that our only alternatives are to keep going as we are or withdraw on an artificially quick time table, allowing Iraq to fumble into whatever state it does. There are many more options.

One 'third option' might be the following:

- Increase funding, support, and personnel training and recruiting Iraqi army and police.

- Given the to-be new levels, estimate the maximum rate at which Iraq might be able to increase its levels if really desperate.

- Reduce all U.S. forces at a rate that forces Iraq to hustle to fill the void, but not so fast that they have no hope of it.

- Make exceptions to avoid the disastrous consequence of a forceful coup. This would include leaving a strike force inside the Green Zone, which could be called into action if the very existence of the elected government came into danger of being assaulted or ousted by force. It could also include a continued presence out in the countryside along the Syrian and Iranian border.

The important thing in this 'third option' would be that we get out of the business of walking urban streets, busting down doors, and so on - and yet do not risk the elected government falling by force and still continue training of Iraqi forces and monitoring the borders. There are many other 'third options' which get into details of military tactics, political maneuvering, diplomatic initiatives, unorthodox approaches, and so on.
------------------

It could very well be that a troop increase is the best option, but to believe that we are stuck between accepting the President's shift from "stay the course" to "more of the same" or accepting chaos and defeat in Iraq is nonsense. It may be helpful to those pitching the plan, but not very close to the truth of our situation. Of course, we all know that truth ranks low in matters of politics and war.

I Am A Believer

2007-01-11T15:23:00.000-08:00

I was thinking recently about the labels 'believer' and 'nonbeliever'. I have decided not to use them anymore for the very simple reason that the labels imply an unstated default phenomenon in which we are to believe or not believe. However...

I believe that the natural universe is an amazing and wondrous thing.

I believe that life is beautiful and valuable.

I believe that all human beings are worthy of compassion and concern.

I believe that reason, including science, is the best tool for understanding nature.

I believe that a virtuous life is the best path to a happy life.

I believe that ethics are best based on their effect on human wellbeing.

In my book, I am not a nonbeliever - I am a believer. Those other people:

the superstitious who disbelieve in the use of reason and evidence for claims,

the dogmatic who disbelieve in freethought,

the credulous who disbelieve in healthy skepticism,

the extremists who disbelieve in humility and limits to our knowledge,

the intolerant who disbelieve in universal compassion

- they are the nonbelievers.

Note: this post was edited on January 4, 2008 for bullet formatting.

Modern Persuits of Eudaimonia

2007-01-05T17:03:00.000-08:00

Just as Socrates, Epictetus, and the like thought greatly about 'the good life', today the field of Positive Psychology is the study of what allows a person to have a fulfilling and happy life. It is an offshoot of the Humanistic Psychology of the 60s and 70s. It began in part as a response to the realization that psychology was always used to address illness, but never toward wellness. Positive Psychology attempts to gather hard scientific data on the consequences of our choices when it comes to behaviors.

Sounding not too dissimilar from Marcus Aurelius' list, the "Character Strengths and Virtues" manual lists six core virtues: Wisdom & Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, and Transcendence (for the naturalists among us, that last one speaks to the appreciation of beauty and excellence, rather than transcendence to a supernatural state).

The Positive Psychology Center lists, in their FAQ, several interesting facts psychologists have determined:

Wealth is only weakly related to happiness both within and across nations, particularly when income is above the poverty level (Diener & Diener, 1996).
Activities that make people happy in small doses – such as shopping, good food and making money – do not lead to fulfillment in the long term, indicating that these have quickly diminishing returns (Myers, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Engaging in an experience that produces ‘flow’ is so gratifying that people are willing to do it for its own sake, rather than for what they will get out of it. The activity is its own reward. Flow is experienced when one’s skills are sufficient for a challenging activity, in the pursuit of a clear goal, with immediate feedback on progress toward the goal. In such an activity, concentration is fully engaged in the moment, self-awareness disappears, and sense of time is distorted (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
People who express gratitude on a regular basis have better physical health, optimism, progress toward goals, well-being, and help others more (Emmons & Crumpler, 2000).
Trying to maximize happiness can lead to unhappiness (Schwartz et al., 2002).
People who witness others perform good deeds experience an emotion called ‘elevation’ and this motivates them to perform their own good deeds (Haidt, 2000).
Optimism can protect people from mental and physical illness (Taylor et al., 2000).
People who are optimistic or happy have better performance in work, school and sports, are less depressed, have fewer physical health problems, and have better relationships with other people. Further, optimism can be measured and it can be learned (Seligman, 1991; Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005).
People who report more positive emotions in young adulthood live longer and healthier lives (Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen, 2001).
Physicians experiencing positive emotion tend to make more accurate diagnoses (Isen, 1993).
Healthy human development can take place under conditions of even great adversity due to a process of resilience that is common and completely ordinary (Masten, 2001).
There are benefits associated with disclosive writing. Individuals who write about traumatic events are physically healthier than control groups that do not. Individuals who write about the perceived benefits of traumatic events achieve the same physical health benefits as those who write only about the trauma (King & Miner, 2000). Individuals who write about their life goals and their best imagined future achieve similar physical health benefits to those who write only about traumatic events. Further, writing about life goals is significantly less distressing than writing about trauma, and is associated with enhanced well-being (King, 2001).
People are unable to predict how long they will be happy or sad following an important event (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg & Wheatley, 1998; Wilson, Meyers, & Gilbert, 2001). These researchers found that people typically overestimate how long they will be sad following a bad event, such as a romantic breakup, yet fail to learn from repeated experiences that their predictions are wrong.

Religious Leaders & Sexual Issues

2006-12-29T19:42:00.000-08:00

Most are aware of the Ted Haggard scandal at New Life Church involving homosexual activity and drug use. In another recent news item involving a gay sex scandal, Paul Barnes has resigned from his pulpit at the Grace Chapel megachurch in Denver. In yet a third news item, back at New Life Church, another pastor, Christopher Beard, has admitted to sexual misconduct and resigned. Of course, we all know of the many allegations against Catholic priests in the news media as well. I do not mention these to 'kick a religious group when it's down', but rather to ask what in the world is going on here?

Many don't remember this, but just prior to the attacks of 9/11/01, the top news item across several networks was the alleged shark attack epidemic. As it turned out, the rate of shark attacks was unchanged. What happened was a strange phenomenon of news reporting. Apparently, whenever something is considered a 'hot topic' within the 'reporter and producer subculture', every opportunity to report on it is seized, I'm guessing so as not to let competing networks get all the credit for reporting something they didn't. Or, possibly this happens because news people get it in their heads that the subject matter is something with teeth (pun only partially intended).

In any event, the result is a public that walks away with the overall impression of something that isn't true about their world. I have written about this disservice to the public, which can happen even if no particular lies are told in a specific case. In reality, the rate of sexual misconduct for religious leaders is no higher than for the rest of the population, and in many cases quite a bit lower, including even for teachers.

But even acknowledging this, there is something especially egregious about this sort of abuse when committed by a person who is supposed to be a moral authority. Even if we realize that we needn't be disproportionately frightened of religious leaders pouncing on us in dark alleys, it becomes a fascinating question to ask, in the cases that do exist, why did they happen and (for these individuals, not the group) is there some strange psychological connection between choosing a social role of projecting morality and their own individual downfall?

Over at the Self Help Magazine website, Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr ask the question, is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? There seems to be a connection and this may explain some of these cases, but it is too easy to fall into the temptation to brand all anti-homosexuals as having homosexual tendencies, simply because we know it will irk them so.

In other cases, it may be that the feelings of guilt over what they've been raised to believe is evil may cause them to try and make up for their feelings by acting in the opposite extreme. Or perhaps the reason is less personal and more abstract - meaning there is a philosophic perspective that people need rigid authoritarian ethical institutions to 'keep them in line' because they know from their first hand experience how difficult it is to self regulate. In cases involving celibate clergy, it may simply be that this lifestyle attracts people with a variety of personal or social difficulties involving sexual relations or the perceived need to hide them.

I'm sure, as with all things involving people, the reasons are varied and complex, which is what makes it an interesting and important topic if explored thoughtfully, fairly, and without exaggerating frequencies or simplistic agendas of demonizing or making fun of other groups.

Many thanks to my wife Julie, who supplied me with many of the linked references for this post.

New Parent ISO Reason & Truth

2006-12-22T12:51:00.000-08:00

A reader named Matt recently wrote to me to ask about Stoicism and with a dilemma that I think must be fairly common in the Western world these days:

"I wanted to thank you for the brilliant website you maintain. I have found it to be tremendous and thought provoking resource as I have been researching and understanding various philosophies of life. What has recently intensified my search for a new philosophy of life has been the recent birth to my wife and I our our first child. My belief is that I have a duty to provide to our son a logical and moral system of beliefs that he can use to deal with the difficulties of modern life and use to live a happy, fulfilled and moral life.

"While not a regular church-goer, I have been nominally Christian for much of my life. However, since my middle teen years, I have been increasingly unable to reconcile so many precepts of Christian faith with logic and reason. The traditions, sense of community and fellowship, and generally sound moral guidance that are part of many churches are a wonderful thing. However, I find it difficult to reconcile myself to what I see as the inherently hypocritical position of belonging to a church when I do not in my heart believe in the most basic 'supernatural' tenants of Christian faith."

We had a nice exchange on the issue and I thought it might be useful or interesting to others. Therefore I've posted the full email exchange on my philosophy site, which can be read by clicking the link below...

Stoicism and the Search for Truth

The Supernaturalization of Scripture

2006-12-22T12:04:00.000-08:00

My wife, Julie, has recently alerted me to an interesting article at the Freedom From Religion Foundation website, extracted from an earlier book, Abuse Your Illusions. The article is called, "Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?" by Dan Barker. In the article he point out several discrepancies in detail between the gospels. More interesting is his data showing the rise of extraordinary (usually interpreted as 'supernatural') events in the scriptures as time went by. One would tend to think that if these extraordinary events actually took place, they would be the first events reported, with the mundane details being elaborated upon later, rather than the reverse.

Astoundingly, former preacher Barker reports:

"Many bible scholars and ministers--including one third of the clergy in the Church of England--reject the idea that Jesus bodily came back to life. So do 30% of born-again American Christians!"

The references to these claims can be found in the notes of the article. He also reports:

"Bible scholars conclude: 'On the basis of a close analysis of all the resurrection reports, [we] decided that the resurrection of Jesus was not perceived initially to depend on what happened to his body. The body of Jesus probably decayed as do all corpses. The resurrection of Jesus was not an event that happened on the first Easter Sunday; it was not an event that could have been captured by a video camera. . . . [We] conclude that it does not seem necessary for Christians to believe the literal veracity of any of the later appearance narratives.'"

The article can be read by clicking this link:

Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?

Susan Blackmore & the Paranormal

2006-12-15T22:57:00.000-08:00

I've recently discovered the website, work, and existence of a very interesting woman. Her name sounded familiar to me so I may have read her work before, but Susan Blackmore is a freelance writer and lecturer who apparently writes about memes and other interesting stuff. With a degree in parapsychology (as well as psychology and physiology), she used to write about and investigate paranormal claims. In the article linked to below, she explains why she's given up on investigating the paranormal. I hope to look into her other work more when I get the time.

Why I Have Given Up, by Susan Blackmore

Update, January 10, 2007: Susan Blackmore was a featured guest on the December 15, 2006 edition of the webcast "Point of Inquiry" (link HERE).

Panel: Faith & Morality

2006-12-08T06:54:00.000-08:00

This December 2, 2006, Professor Thi Lam hosted a Philosophy of Religion Panel Discussion at San Jacinto College. It was subtitled, "Exploring the Relationship Between Faith & Morality". The panel consisted of four participants: Jim Ashmore representing Freethought, Zeeshan Ramzan representing Islam, Patricia Gehret representing Christianity, and myself (DT Strain) representing Humanism. It was attended by approximately 200 people.

The panel was asked four questions on the Divine Command Theory, morality, teaching morality to children, and the meaning of life. To read the questions and my response to them, you can click HERE for the full article on my Philosophy Site.

Update, December 14, 2006: A video of the conference is also available. Part I is HERE and part II is HERE.

Kurtz on "Atheism News"

2006-12-08T05:31:00.000-08:00

There is a website called "Atheism News", and this November they posted a video from the Center for Inquiry, which is run by the Council for Secular Humanism. In the video, founder Paul Kurtz explains, "What is Secular Humanism?"

The video lasts about an hour and makes for a good overview of the Secular Humanist approach to those not familiar with it. To see the video, click the link below.

What is Secular Humanism?

TWO YEARS OF BLOGGING!

2006-12-04T05:20:00.000-08:00

With the passing of this November, the two-year mark has been reached for this blog. As an anniversary special, I've decided to look over all my previous posts, and list the 'Top 20 Posts' from the past two years (or, ever, in other words). These are posts that I thought were either the most interesting, the most important, or represented some of the more significant notions I've considered or learned about over this time.

There were several other posts that I was sad to weed out of this list, but didn't quite make the cut. These can still be read by seeing the archives, of course. In addition, much of the significant work I've done over the past two years can be found as articles at my Philosophy Site, and were never blog posts, so they aren't present here.

Many thanks to all my readers and please spread the word to your friends about this site, so that we may continue on! :)

DT STRAIN PHILOSOPHY BLOG
TOP 20 POSTS FROM 2005 & 2006
(in order of posting)

Summary of the Primary Virtues
Virtual Virtue: Your Online Self
The Nature of the “Force”
Life & Death Are Not Opposites
The Big Deal About Complexity
Cultural Conceptions of “Life”
Good for the Individual & Society the Same
Forgiveness Is A Gift To Ourselves
Terrel Pough & Being Good
ISO The Real Buddha & Jesus
Philosophy or Religion?
Exploring Meditation
Denver on Nature & Life
Revulsion at the Natural Brain
The Minions of Hitler
Consciousness Around Us?
The Puzzle of Our Time
Notes on “Christianity Without God”
Threads on Violence
Dehumanization: A How-To

The R-word

2006-12-01T11:30:00.000-08:00

I would like to make a plea to all philosophers, theologians, and others who would write formally on the topic of religion. But first some background...

Last Sunday my wife and I attended a presentation by Reverend Robert Tucker at a service of the Unitarian Fellowship of Houston. The presentation was, "A New Debate of Religions: Atheism and Belief". His presentation was a criticism of recent atheist authors such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. However it was his juxtaposition of religion and science that got me wondering about the use of the word 'religion'. Certainly, his use of the word was very different from Harris' use of it.

Then I thought about Buddhism. Some say it is a religion and some say it is a philosophy (or both). In another example, we have things like Humanism, which people also debate about as being a religion, or an alternative to religion. Even within the fundamentalist evangelical Christian movement, you have some Christians actually saying they 'aren't religious' - that it's "not about religion but about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ". My wife pointed out that when a person says they are a Christian, we really don't know much about what that even means. They could be a Jeffersonian deist, to a follower of the historic Jesus' teachings, to a liberal traditional Christian, to a fundamentalist evangelical biblical literalist, or anything in between.

More importantly, are the differences of meaning when it comes to serious formal articles and arguments on 'religion'. In some cases, the author may be speaking of a bundle of practices, traditions, and rituals - blurring the line with culture. In other cases 'religion' may mean a community of people. Then there is the 'religion' which refers to a body of beliefs, scriptures, myths, and dogma.

When Sam Harris criticizes religion, he is criticizing things like supernatural beliefs based on no evidence, dogmatism, violence, and so on. When asked, "what about Stalin?" he responds that what he's really talking about is more broad, and that what Stalin was practicing was a 'secular religion' just as steeped in the problems he is attacking as traditional religions are. When someone asks him about his support of certain Buddhist practices, he says that Buddhism isn't really a 'religion' in the same sense.

But consider people like Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) himself. As I have often mentioned, when he was asked about souls and the afterlife and such, he specifically said he had not elucidated on such things. And he said the reason he had not done so was because these things were not relevant to religion. The Buddha seems to have a completely opposite view of religion to Harris. To him, all of that stuff about superstition, dogmatism, and mythology is not religion, but rather true religion are those things which help us experience happiness and contentment in this life.

This is a similar view to that found in a quote often spuriously attributed to Einstein, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatism. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism."

So here is my plea...

I would move that scholars, academics, theologians, philosophers, and anyone else involved in formal writing on these matters cease using the word 'religion' altogether. I would have it officially declared a nonsensical word with no formal value.

This would be similar to what has happened with the word "race" in formal biology circles. Race is no longer considered a real concept in biology. It's simply a cultural label applied to certain groups who have shared traits. According to biological science, if we took all the left handed people in the world and considered them "the race of left handed people", this would be as biologically irrelevant as "the race of dark skinned people" is.

Likewise, formal writers on matters of human spirituality should henceforth consider the word "religion" a layman's informal word - a cultural label with no concrete meaning of purpose in serious work.

If this practice were adopted, it would have several effects:

Firstly, we would have to develop a new vocabulary with formal functionality to it. As you can see above, I wasn't even able to write this article without paradoxically using the word 'religion' myself, so that you'd know what I was generally talking about. We have to find new ways of discussing these concepts that are more precise and meaningful.

The second effect of discarding the R-word is what I really like about the idea. That is that when people like Sam Harris and Reverend Tucker converse, it would force them to get on the same page. Instead of saying that religion is harmful, Harris would have to say that superstition is harmful. Instead of saying that religion helps people, Tucker would have to say that fellowship helps people.

I think we could get much further in debates and discussions if we stop relying on such a blunt term, and start focusing on the individual practices, beliefs, traditions, behaviors, and structures. In this way, we could carry on meaningful dialog without being distracted by the war on the side over what religion is or isn't. If we do this, it seems likely that we will be able to save a lot of time and see that we really agree on much more than we think we do.

I seriously doubt the term is actually going to be abandoned, but at least by thinking of the issues I've raised, it's my hope some people may not be so sidetracked by what is, in the end, a word that's more trouble than its worth.

Dinner & Religion

2006-12-01T11:28:00.000-08:00

An interesting multifaith group has formed in Houston to gather and discuss religious issues over dinner. It is sponsored by the City of Houston, The Boniuk Center for Religious Tolerance at Rice University, and Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston. The project seems to be inspired by a book called The Amazing Faiths of Texas by Roy Spence. The website for these dinners is http://amazingfaithshouston.org. I and a friend in my Humanist group have signed up for a dinner around January 20th. I guess we'll see what happens and report back after.

Sci-Fi Takes Its Next Step After 'The Matrix'

2006-11-24T22:26:00.000-08:00

This week I saw The Fountain. While I'm not surprised to see a number of folks hating it, I for one thought it was inspiring, amazing, and genius. I won't attempt a full review or a decipher right now. I'm going to wait until I see it again on DVD, at which point I'll write my interpretation, similar to what I wrote on the Matrix. However, I will say that the film incorporates Eastern and Western philosophy, iconography, and religion, has a profound message, and delivers it in a devilishly confounding manner. If you don't like film as interpretive art or puzzle, then stay away. But if you, like me, relish in films that challenge the viewer's comprehension and have no need to establish an 'official' interpretation, then The Fountain is wonderful.

For now, let me list some articles of my own that touch on its themes, and then some links to reviews and articles I thought were written by some people who are on the right track...

Articles that touch on themes in The Fountain:

• A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma & Rebirth
• 2.16 Meaning of Life, Transience, and Hope
• Life & Death Are Not Opposites
• The Shimmering Voice
• and possibly, Black Iron Prison
• and I would say my Notes on Chuang-Tzu, however it would be best to read a more full translation available on another site, particularly this chapter on "The Preservation of Life"

Reviews and articles I find near or on the mark (but I always recommend seeing a film before reading reviews!):

• Review by Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat
• Review by Walter Chaw
• Groucho Reviews
• Groucho Reviews interview with creator Darren Aronofsky

Dilbert Artist Adams on Atheism

2006-11-24T20:27:00.000-08:00

Scott Adams, cartoonist for the famous Dilbert cartoon strips, maintains a blog on his website that is frequently as funny as the strip. In a less-funny, but very interesting post, he has recently written of Atheists and their seemingly increased profiles since 9/11. I'm not sure myself if this is in fact the case, but Adams' post makes for good reading nonetheless.

Link to: "Atheists are the new gays"

Decency Prevails

2006-11-24T20:17:00.000-08:00

I wasn't planning on writing about the OJ Simpson incident this week. While I do want to incorporate current events in my blog from time to time, I've decided to only do this in relation to what I have to say about an event and what relevance it has to something that is important enough to be mentioned - and not to incorporate current events in proportion to how much hoopla they are causing in mainstream media.

The new book and Fox special where OJ Simpson describes how he 'would have' killed two people there is much evidence he in fact did kill, was one of those big stories which nevertheless had little place on my blog. It was something so obviously bad that to say it here would be offering nothing new.

However, something somewhat rare happened this week when both the book and the special were canceled in response to the outcry from the public and criticism from rival media companies [article HERE]. In this rare instance, the public actually said in full force 'no' to vulgarity and in another rare instance, a large corporation actually listened rather than going forward despite controversy, knowing that people's base curiosities would yield profits. What this tells us is that when enough people speak up loudly enough for decency, change is possible. It also tells me that there are still some people out there who will not be lead merely by their own morbid curiosity.

Unfortunately, it seems Simpson was still compensated a portion of the original moneys he would have received, but possibly the pressures of this outcry might help ensure that the money does indeed go to his children as has been claimed.

As an aside, what does this say of 'freedom of speech' for Simpson, Fox, and book publishers? It says that you are free to say anything you like, but you are not free to avoid the free actions of others in response.

Moral Strategies

2006-11-17T05:13:00.000-08:00

Yet another example of how philosophy directly effects the lives and well-being of people: In an article at globalaidsalliance.org titled "Fairy-Tale Failure" [link HERE], Esther Kaplan explains how AIDS cases in Uganda were decreasing until the U.S. began emphasizing 'abstinence-only' programs. After that, HIV infections doubled in two years.

The article itself is not long and I hope readers will click the link above and take a look. But there is one point I wanted to note. Uganda's AIDS commissioner, Kihumuro Apuuli, says at one point:

"There must be evidence-based strategies—not moral strategies—if we are to break the cycle of infections."

How sad that the twisted notions behind abstinence-only philosophy have so consumed the moral spotlight that sensible programs are not even seen as 'moral strategies' - as if morality were some sort of extraneous concern independent of practicality or effectiveness.

More people should be aware that evidence-based strategies (not only here, but in life) are moral strategies. It is precisely because of the harm the abstinence-only philosophy does that makes it immoral.

People who proclaim morality and then proceed with willful ignorance of facts and ideological rejection of reason - to the detriment of innocent people - are not moral at all, but rather immoral charlatans. Ethics are to be judged by their effect on human happiness and well-being. Just a hint: anytime you're doing something and you notice millions of innocent people are suffering and dying - it might be a clue that something you're doing is immoral. The struggle of organizations like Planned Parenthood to give people full information to make informed choices is not merely a strategy - it is a moral cause.

The New Atheists

2006-11-10T06:35:00.000-08:00

Recently Gary Wolf wrote an article in Wired called, "The Crusade Against Religion" [link here]. In it, he describes the works of authors Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. These three authors have been writing books highly critical of religion, each from a different perspective however.

As a Humanist, I certainly agree with their conclusions about forming our beliefs based on rationality and evidence, rather than authoritarian dogma or unreliable 'feelings' and intuitions. I also agree with their conclusions that faith-based thinking is pernicious and does more harm than good to people. And then there are the institutional criticisms of religions, which even the religious will often agree with.

I don't, however, agree with the insulting and combative approach that Dawkins and Harris seem to advocate. Dawkins wonders aloud if we shouldn't have the state grab up children from parents who try to teach them their religions, while Harris even directly rejects the notion of religious tolerance itself in his book The End of Faith.

Within my local Humanist and Freethought organizations, there have been many debates on these authors and what they say. We have picked over their words (especially Harris') wondering just what it is they do and do not advocate. Many of their words would seem to encourage the basis of a totalitarian anti-religious regime of sorts, but when pressed they always come back to water down their statements until it resembles nothing more than: "atheists should feel free to express their beliefs openly".

Dennet seems the most palatable to me, although I disagree with him on the other end. In the article it seems he is far too willing to say, 'yes it's all silly but we really should just look the other way and permit some silliness for the sake of functionality'. I tend to think that reason and compassion are sufficient when employed in concert.

To me, the best summary Wolf gives of the confrontational atheist approach outlines its key flaw:

"The New Atheists never propose realistic solutions to the damage religion can cause. For instance, the Catholic Church opposes condom use, which makes it complicit in the spread of AIDS. But among the most powerful voices against this tragic mistake are liberals within the Church -- exactly those allies the New Atheists reject. The New Atheists care mainly about correct belief. This makes them hopeless, politically."

I think it is far better to always voice our own beliefs, but do so respectfully and with a sense of compassion. Humanists should focus on the positive things that are beneficial in the naturalistic and Humanistic outlook, and trust that reason will tend to prevail when given a chance to flourish in human minds. Instead, what many of these types of atheists stoke in those of other beliefs is their base animal defensive impulses. This is the opposite of what is needed for rationality to blossom.

Personal Humanism

2006-11-03T08:01:00.000-08:00

I recently received my latest issue of The Humanist magazine. It had many well written and interesting articles as usual, but I was again somewhat disappointed to see it so heavily focused on politics. Even the subtitle to the magazine is, "A Magazine of Critical Inquiry and Social Concern". Both of these things are important, but where is the personal Humanism that is supposed to guide and enrich our daily life practice?

Paul Kurtz (ironically, the strongly self proclaimed Secular Humanist) has done an excellent job of outlining many elements of this personal Humanism, its virtues, and the pursuit of excellence in life in his books, including Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism, and The Courage to Become: The Virtues of Humanism.

Getting to the personal side of Humanism as a life practice is precisely why I have formed a local activity called the Humanist Contemplatives Club, as a focus group with my local Humanist group. I was seeking to improve my lifestyle, my values, my commitments, my habits, etc. and decided I needed the feedback and support of others in these efforts. After participating in these explorations for some time now, getting the latest issue of The Humanist was a stark contrast to a very different focus concerning Humanism. It's not that there isn't room within Humanism for different foci, but I wish more Humanists were working on what I'd call 'Natural Spirituality', which seems to be the best direction for human religion (in the broadest sense of the word) in the future.

So I went to the web and ran a search for "personal Humanism". Ironically, my own site came up high on the list, but I also found another article by the former Director of the American Humanist Association (which published The Humanist), Frederick Edwords. I would recommend reading this wonderful article, especially to my fellow Humanists...

Life Is To Be Lived Now: A Vital, Personal Humanism

Take Care :)

A Tale of Two Philosophies

2006-11-03T08:00:00.000-08:00

I have just recently run across this amusing but poignant clip on YouTube called, The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus. It is an animated version of Al Franken's skit about the story of Supply Side Jesus, who espouses the values of the modern American right. Far from a satire on Christianity, it rather defends what most people think of as Jesus' teachings against those who allegedly follow them. The contrast it paints is amazingly sharp. I think many Christians would be in agreement with the point of this clip...

Click Here to watch The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus (5:32 in length)

Physics

2006-10-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

This is a Stoic poem by Joe Wells, who posted it recently on the International Stoic Forum...

Physics

Pneuma folds fields, encompasing Kosmos
in fiery generation. Me, a puzzle piece
yet whole. A gentle conception lost most
often. I flow freely and feast
outside rigidly defined self. Between
dog and me, nothing. Each a vortex
a singularity of mind softly seen
spinning in space-time. Psyche soar
in the place where causality is
chance, wave functions prance and
reality unwinds into strings. Fists
full of tachyons engorged with sand
of primal tide. Star born child
frolics in cognitive field, wild.

Secular Parenting

2006-10-27T06:31:00.000-07:00

The Houston Church of Freethought has been developing a Sunday School for the members to bring their children to. Like the HCoF, the Sunday School will be nontheistic in nature, and there is discussion going on as to how to form the Sunday School and also how to attract more nonreligious families. Here is one member's thoughts on parenting as atheists, which I thought might be interesting for my readers, regardless of their own views...

-----------------
1. There seems to be a general belief among parents that assuring your children attend church services and sunday school is part of being a good parent, and something that many parents do just for that reason. I honestly don't believe that it has much to do with any religious conviction but rather an idea that if you want to teach your kids to be good moral citizens they have to have religious instruction. So I think even couples who were not church attendees before they had children start attending as part of raising their children. Perhaps we could counteract this by having some moral message in sunday school?

Personally, I think it is my job to teach my children right from wrong and I want them to do the right thing, not because they think some god is watching them and will punish them if they don't, but rather just because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether anyone is watching! This is what I would tell anyone who asked how my children can have good moral characters without religion. I teach them self respect and compassion and empathy for others, and that (hopefully) is why they do the right thing, not fear of divine retribution. Using religion for moral instruction is like telling your children Santa will only come if you are good, and he will somehow know if you are not. That might make them behave better, for a while at least, but it won't teach them right from wrong. So far this seems to be working out as my children are not little monsters, don't get in trouble, are Honor Role students, have plenty of friends, and have both received awards for citizenship.

2. Overcoming cruelty from other children and parents also probably keeps families away. By raising our children atheist we have caused them to experience some unpleasant treatment from other children who have the unfortunate stereotypical view of athiests as moral degenerates. This hasn't happened very many times, as it's not something kids discuss much, but maybe as they get older it will happen more frequently. So far there have only been a few times when they have been excluded from playing with all the other kids in the street, and told "since you don't believe in god, you're bad, so you can't play with us." I have explained that it is not acceptable for the other kids to treat them that way, just as they know they must respect other people's beliefs. Still they find it upsetting of course. I can't say that anyone has every told me to my face that I am a bad parent because I am raising my kids atheist, but I am sure there are those who feel that way. The fundamentalists across the street who tell my daughter she is going to hell because she reads Harry Potter, are not really among those whose opinion I value too much anyway.

3. Maybe the shock and disapproval of family and friends is much more severe when children are concerned. I am sure that no one is happy if they are strongly religious and their son or daughter is athiest, but when that son or daughter starts raising their child atheist the objections increase. It was easy for [my husband] and I as we were not raised by religious parents and have both been non believers all our lives. If you come from a family that is religious I can imagine that deciding to raise your kids as actively athiest would be very difficult. I don't see what HCoF [can] do about that, like anything else with parenting you have to do what you think is right no matter what other people say, but I can see that it would keep people away. We could offer support of like minded parents. Perhaps that is a good selling point, because athiest parenting can be a lonely task.

Dehumanization: A How-To

2006-10-20T08:05:00.000-07:00

This week something very interesting happened to the United States. It moved, yet another step away from the United States even people my age grew up in – not the dictatorship that reactionaries might characterize things, but not quite the free democracy that the founding fathers envisioned either.

Last Tuesday, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was signed into law[1]. It is, yet again, one of those tools we’ve created to fight against the bad guys. What has this got to do with philosophy?

Philosophy includes religious ideas, political principles, the concept of rights, and more. What is terrorism? When should it, if ever, be used? What do we do in response to it? How many lives are worth a change of government? What is torture? Should we torture? How many rights are worth our security? What practical options are there to war? How should we treat our enemies? All of these are philosophic questions and, far from sitting on dusty bookshelves, they are profoundly impacting our world and our very lives today. The ‘War on Terror’ itself is an ideological battle, strewn throughout with conflicting philosophic ideas and ideals. This philosophical struggle is not merely between the terrorists and the rest of the world, but it is also between different nations, and different groups and individuals within nations.

So, when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA2006) was signed last Wednesday, it was based on a philosophic vision of how things ‘ought to be’. Much more, it solidified that philosophic vision into policy. Some of the key points of interest in this act are as follows:

1) It defines who is an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ and solidifies broad power of the President to, for all practical purposes, unilaterally declare someone as such (as long as he can find three officers to appoint to a tribunal who will go along with it).

2) An ‘alien unlawful enemy combatant’ is defined as being an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ who is not a citizen of the U.S.

Once the President (in effect) has decided you are an ‘alien unlawful enemy combatant’...

3) You may not invoke Geneva Convention protections in this or any other American court.

4) Effectively, the right of Habeas Corpus is nullified.

5) The President has the sole authority to determine whether or not all of this is in compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

6) Hearsay evidence may be used against you.

7) Evidence may be used against you that was obtained without a search warrant.

8) Evidence, if the government decides it is classified, may be used against you which you are not allowed to see.

9) Evidence may be used against you when the degree of coercion (including torture) used against you to obtain it is disputed. In other words, if the people who tortured you say they didn’t, that’s enough to admit the evidence.

10) Only a 2/3 vote is needed to declare judgment on you.

11) Narrows the effective definition of torture to ‘severe’ physical or mental pain or suffering.

All of the above are contrary to the many protections the U.S. Bill of Rights affords to its citizens. These same protections can be found in international common law and the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are designed to make trials more fair, impartial, and accurate than they would be otherwise. Without the sort of protections nullified by the above, proceedings tend to evolve into ‘kangaroo courts’, where a person who the prosecutors want to find guilty, will be found guilty regardless.

Amnesty International says of this act that it allows[2]:

- Secret detention
- Enforced disappearance
- Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
- Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating treatment
- Denial and restriction of habeas corpus
- Indefinite detention without charge or trial
- Prolonged incommunicado detention
- Arbitrary detention
- Unfair trial procedures

Some might take comfort in knowing that this sort of process has been used before, or that it can only apply to alien unlawful enemy combatants and not citizens. Indeed, there is a great debate going around on whether or not these provisions of the MCA2006 could in fact be applied to a U.S. citizen.

In the draft legislation Domestic Enhancement Security Act of 2003 (also referred to as the Patriot Act II), the Department of Justice suggested (in Section 501) that U.S. citizenship be stripped of anyone the President decided to call a ‘terrorist’[3]. If something like that act were to go into effect, then a U.S. citizen could quickly go from being an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ to being an ‘alien unlawful enemy combatant’ where all of the MCA2006 would apply. All of this categorization would happen based on nothing substantially more than the President’s individual desire.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley (who testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment, by the way) said of the MCA2006, “The framers created a system where we did not have to rely on the good graces or good mood of the President... people have no idea how significant his is.”[video here] [4]

Constitutional law attorney Alison Nathan wrote, “...the U.S. Constitution establishes as a fundamental structural premise that there will be three independent branches of government that serve as checks and balances upon each other. Removing entirely the independent judiciary from any role in checking the conduct of the Executive and Congress is a substantial alteration to that structural premise.”[5]

There are those who simply hate the Republicans or the President and make wild statements for this or other political reasons. They will invoke all sorts of conspiracy theories about 9/11, make melodramatic statements about dictatorships, or have ridiculously wide-sweeping definitions of terrorism such that it includes their political opponents. This is not unlike wild claims about liberal agendas or of President Clinton having murdered troublesome people. Philosophers who concern themselves with Truth and genuine wisdom must be above this sort of political demagoguery. What is more difficult is parsing our fact from fiction; spin from genuine reason. Those who make overstatements and distort information for some perceived greater good, are as much of a problem as those they criticize, for they make it difficult for reasonable people to understand what is really happening and to then do something about it. Further, they create a sense of helplessness by suggesting that things are far more hopeless and ‘rigged’ than they really are – thus minimizing the public’s willingness to act.

Still, all demagoguery aside, reading several sources, one can’t help but get the feeling that there is something happening in this nation - something disturbing for which we are all to blame, regardless of party or position. Even on the highly and inflammatory conservative radio talk show of Michael Savage, where pleas to bomb the entire Sunni triangle are the norm, a loyal listener and Christian conservative asked, “I wonder if some of these laws we’re passing might come back to hurt Christians later on?”[6]

Professor Benjamin Davis of the University of Toledo College of Law says, “Something deep in the American soul was stirred by the 9/11 events. Something that reminds me personally of what one sees in the eyes of lynch mobs in the old pictures.”[7]

This mentality is playing out in our courts and in our laws. If someone were to declare an outright coup and attempt a dictatorship, that would probably be preferable. At least then it would be obvious what is being done and by whom, and what must be done to stop it. But it seems our loss of liberty is not to come with the marching of soldiers down our street. More likely, it is slowly degraded away law by law. For people about my age and older, it is easy to forget that there are people who can vote now with no active memory of the Soviet Union or even a world before the first Gulf War. Each generation that grows up will think it’s normal for a President to be able to sweep people off the street by declaring them ‘terrorists’. And, in that environment, how much easier will it be to take the small next step? An average human life lasts a fewer number of decades than the number of fingers we have to count them, and the average human adult voting life is even shorter. It thus becomes quite easy to change what is palatable to U.S. citizens little by little until those of perhaps two or three generations prior would hardly recognize the country.

The really concerning thing about efforts such as the MCA2006 or the draft Patriot Act II, is their subtle legalistic thinking and their interplay with one another. Notice how key phrases from other documents are used in clever ways, like a shell game. This is why we hear so much talk about ‘the rule of law’. Notice that we hear relatively little talk from those in office about foundational principles of the variety that the founders spoke of. The reason the ‘rule of law’ is more prevalent in their rhetoric these days is because our focus is being directed to the legalistic word game. It is important that we have clear laws that are followed and respected, but without a sound philosophic basis of principle, the ‘rule of law’ alone becomes nothing more than the ‘rule of lawyers’. This is a losing game for the people, where literally any freedom or right can be taken away, nearly any atrocity made proper, by the mere careful arrangement of words and phrases in document after document.

All of this debate over whether or not the MCA2006 can be applied to U.S. citizens is an example of being suckered into that game. Instead of being so concerned with the specifics of legal minutia, which none of us non-attorneys have much chance at doing well to begin with, we should be focusing our attention elsewhere.

The fact is, that when we attempt to revoke or suspend basic human rights for one class of people, this inevitably comes back to infringe on the rights of more people than we intended. If one person’s rights can be taken away, we are all in danger. When the founding fathers set forth the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they weren’t playing a word game designed to preserve privileges for them and theirs. The Declaration of Independence was not a legal argument – it was a philosophic argument of principle. They weren’t attempting to provide legal procedures to be followed for those who had the proper label applied to them. The rights they proclaimed were proclaimed on a universal basis, endowed throughout mankind. Surely, it took long while to fully acknowledge who was included within mankind, but the basics of liberty were certainly never envisioned as pertaining only to U.S. citizens. Their basis was a broad ethical and philosophic one, not a narrow legalistic one. These documents were surely penned by men who thought that all people, regardless of citizenship, are human beings first.

Alison Nathan pointed out something along these lines in quoting Alexander Hamilton[5]:

“To bereave a man of life …without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” -- Federalist No. 84

Davis noted of the MCA2006, “For this special process, this group of human beings is segregated from the rest of mankind. They are segregated and by that segregation they are declared a different type of human being.” [7] He goes on to show that the procedures of MCA2006 are decoupled completely from all other legal processes, isolating them in their own realm.

That is what we must ask ourselves now: what kind of people are we? Do we really wish to create a ‘special class of human being’ that is not worthy of the basic protections to a free and fair trial when accused? Do we wish to create a special label our ruler can apply to any human being which removes what is essentially their personhood? We harm ourselves when we do this, and it is my hope that more people will come to see that, soon.

***
I highly recommend reading and watching all of the following references, and any others that can be found. More importantly, I highly recommend participation in all elections by at least voting:

[1] Wikipedia article: Military Commissions Act of 2006

[2] Amnesty International on the MCA2006

[3] Wikipedia article: Domestice Security Enhancement Act of 2003

[4] VIDEO: Jonathan Turley on CNBC

[5] History Starts Today: The Perils of Habeas-Stripping

[6] This was something I heard while listening to the Michael Savage show about a year or so ago, before I quit listening to that sort of media. I have no specific reference information on it.

[7] 'All the Laws But One': Parsing the Military Commissions Bill

See also, a PDF of the full text of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 HERE.

Evangelical Teens

2006-10-13T06:53:00.000-07:00

It seems that evangelical Christians are becoming concerned about their teens leaving the church, according to an article passed along to me from Jim Knierien, "Evangelicals Fear the Loss of Their Teenagers" on the New York Times website.[1]

I found many other instances on the web discussing the trend. As one example of the evangelical concern, Summit Ministries' website features an article on the issue[2]. In it, they say:

"Each year thousands of Evangelical high school students take the Nehemiah Institute PEERS worldview test, a survey revealing their worldview perspective regarding politics, economics, education, religion, and social issues. Every year since 1988 our Christian students have been answering those questions more and more like Humanists and less and less like Biblical Christians...

According to findings published in a UCLA dissertation, Dr. Gary Railsback notes that between 30 and 51% of Christians renounce their faith before graduating from college."

The author goes on to interpret the meaning of the study:

"That means one out of two professing Christian youth are turning their backs on the 18 years of Christian instruction from their homes and churches and embracing the atheistic ideas of their professors."

This interpretation puts the blame on the 'evil atheistic college professors'. In reality, a strong majority of college professors in the U.S. consider themselves not only spiritual, but 'religious'[3] (this is not Humanism). Furthermore, most classes never even touch on such subjects and in those that do, it is standard practice for professors not to do anything that reveals their own beliefs. More likely, contributing factors are the learning of raw facts about the world (which form foundations of our opinions), interactions with a wider variety of students and student groups with more diverse beliefs than existed in their home town, and the general inquisitive soul-searching that comes with that period in life.

It seems to me a more accurate interpretation would be that the conservative Christian mindset and worldview are based on such flimsy medieval reasoning that, for anyone not predisposed to want to believe it, all it takes is a few bits of rational argument and facts to overturn 18 years of indoctrination. You don't see the same percentage of conversion to such types of beliefs coming from people who are well educated and raised with Humanism. The reason for this has less to do with politics, culture, media, or 'evil influences' by either party than with the objective qualitative differences of reasonableness inherent within the two viewpoints - and how they each resonate within any healthy human brain, given a fair chance.

I didn't find any mention of the internet in these articles, but it seems to me that the internet will likely have a profound impact on society, including religion. I believe many of these kids raised in conservative, fundamentalist, or evangelical religious homes before went many years before ever interacting with people of other beliefs. Some out in small towns even get well into their adulthood without ever seriously examining or being exposed to alternate worldviews.

I remember asking about Buddhism as a child and getting an answer something like, "Oh that's those crazy people that worship cows and think when they die they're going to come back as dogs and chickens and so on".

But now we have young teens interacting with, reading, and learning about the viewpoints of many different worldviews, from their own mouths. This tends to have an overall effect of casting doubt over everything, which is a problem for fundamentalism. Perhaps the only way to "protect" their children from that evil 'doubt' will be for evangelicals to become extreme isolationists, similar to the Amish. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some small branch of this develop over the next few decades, but I digress.

Concerning this generation of teens, we should wonder how many will return to evangelical Christianity once they have children or grow older? I would expect some recidivism. Right now, these teen beliefs are residual, based only on exposure to a variety of contradictory views and typical teen rebelliousness. As humanistic as their beliefs may tend to be, most have never heard of Humanism per se. If Humanists hope for this trend to remain intact, they'll need to reach out to these young people and make sure their beliefs are informed by Humanist principles and philosophy, and not merely based on rejection of something else.

I have recently thought of writing something I plan to call "12 Things All Conservative Christian Teens Should Know", which might be helpful to teens (I hope). It will be in a very informal conversational style, not too long, and should be an easy read. I have all 12 things in mind, but haven't written it yet, so I think I'll save the details for now.

Some Words from Epictetus

2006-10-12T08:30:00.000-07:00

Epictetus was a prominent Stoic philosopher in the Roman Empire, born a slave in 55 CE. I've recently read a collection of his writings, translated, summarized, and paraphrased into modern language (warning: very loosely) by Sharon Lebell, in a book called Epictetus: The Art of Living. I came across one passage in particular I wanted to share. It's called, "The Pursuit of Wisdom Attracts Critics":

Those who pursue the higher life of wisdom, who seek to live by spiritual principles, must be prepared to be laughed at and condemned.

Many people who have progressively lowered their personal standards in an attempt to win social acceptance and life's comforts bitterly resent those of philosophical bent who refuse to compromise their spiritual ideals and who seek to better themselves. Never live your life in reaction to these diminished souls. Be compassionate toward them, and at the same time hold to what you know is good.

When you begin your program of spiritual progress, chances are the people closest to you will deride you or accuse you of arrogance.

It is your job to comport yourself humbly and to consistently hew to your moral ideals. Cling to what you know in your heart is best. Then, if you are steadfast, the very people who ridiculed you will come to admire you.

If you allow the mean-spirited opinions of others to make you waver in your purpose, you incur a double shame.

International Philosophy

2006-10-11T16:02:00.000-07:00

A little Monty Python bonus post for the middle of the week :)

LINK HERE

Mahmoud Muhammad Taha

2006-10-06T06:41:00.000-07:00

I have recently learned about a man named Mahmoud Muhammad Taha. This was an intellectual and engineer Muslim who lived in Sudan, and was executed in 1985 for his radical interpretation of the Koran. According to Taha's interpretation:

The Koran was revealed to Muhammad in two phases. First in Mecca, where for thirteen years he and his followers were a besieged minority, and then in Medina, where the Prophet established Islamic rule in a city filled with Jews and pagans. The Meccan verses are addressed, through Muhammad, to humanity in general, and are suffused with a spirit of freedom and equality. They present Islam in its perfect form, as the Prophet lived it, through exhortation rather than threat.

The lives of the early Muslims in Mecca were the supreme expression of their religion and consisted of sincere worship, kindness, and peaceful coexistence with all other people. Thus, Islam was offered first in tolerant and egalitarian terms in Mecca, where the Prophet preached equality and individual responsibility between all men and women without distinction on grounds of race, sex, or social origin.

But as that message was rejected in practice, and the Prophet and his few followers were persecuted and forced to migrate to Medina, some aspects of the message changed.

Whereas Muhammad propagated "verses of peaceful persuasion" during his Meccan period, in Medina "the verses of compulsion by the sword" prevailed. The Medinan verses are full of rules, coercion, and threats, including the orders for jihad. In Taha's view they were a historical adaptation to the reality of life in a seventh-century Islamic city-state, in which "there was no law except the sword."

In the Meccan verses we find "You are only a reminder, you have no dominion over them" which is then appended with the Medinan edict, "Except he who shuns and disbelieves, on whom God shall inflict the greatest suffering." It was the Medinan verses which became the basis for Sharia law, developed over the next few centuries.

According to Taha, the elevation of the Medinan verses was only meant to be a historical postponement of the Meccan verses. The "ideal religion" represented in them was to be revived when humanity had reached a stage of development capable of accepting them, ushering in a renewed Islam based on freedom and equality. In support of this notion, Taha quotes a saying of the prophet, "Islam started as a stranger, and it shall return as a stranger in the same way it started."

Taha's reading of the Koran seems to maintain all of it as accurate and true, while at the same time allowing for modern Muslims to live faithfully to Islam while consistently enjoying the modern values of tolerance, peace, and equality.

Most of the above is edited, paraphrased, or pasted from an article on Mahmoud Muhammad Taha in the New Yorker called "The Moderate Martyr", made known to me by Al Robison. It can be read by clicking the link HERE. In addition to the above, when you read this article you'll learn the fascinating political details behind his execution, about his small group of followers today, and more.

I have ordered two books related to Taha. One is called "Quest for Divinity: Critical Examination of the Thought of Mahmud Muhammad Taha" by Mohamed A. Mahmoud. The other is by Taha himself and is called "The Second Message of Islam". You can also read much more about Taha at the Wikipedia article HERE.

Stephen Browne Observes Arabs

2006-10-06T05:33:00.000-07:00

Anthropology graduate and teacher Stephen Browne runs a blog called "Rants and Raves". A friend in my local Humanist group, Art Fay, recently made me aware of a post of his. Browne lived and worked in Saudi Arabia in 1998 and has come back with some impressions of 'what Arabs are like'. Of course, broad generalizations are always dangerous and should be taken with caution. But at the same time, there's no denying that a cultural gap in understanding exists between the West and Middle East, and any attempt to understand one another better would be desireable.

Therefore, I think it's well worth the risk to consider what a visitor to the region believes to be major differences in the ways we think. It makes for a fascinating read, and something I wanted to share here. I'd also be interested to see what Arabs think of Browne's observations. His post is called "Observations on Arabs" and can be read by clicking HERE.

Agnostic Mom on Parenting

2006-10-06T05:08:00.000-07:00

A friend from my local Humanist group, Jim Knierien, alerted us to an article by Humanist mom Noell Hyman at the Institute for Humanist Studies website. It's called "Coping with Parental Difficulties" and can be read by clicking HERE.

One minor point she mentioned (among many others worth reading in the article) reminded me of my own thoughts on nontheistic 'coping'. When a believer breaks a leg, they're often consumed with questions like "why did this happen to me?", "what is God trying to teach me?", and so on. Judging as an outside observer in many of these cases, it seems to me to cause them a great deal of stress. When nonbelievers break a leg, they experience pain, anger, etc. but they simply realize they were unlucky and move on. There isn't a parallel existential crisis going on along side the physical crisis. At least, this seems to be one observation that applies in a certain subset of people and incidents I've noticed.

The article by Noell Hyman also made me aware of her wonderful blog Agnostic Mom: Raising A Healthy Family Without Religion. I recommend folks check it out.

Happy Birthday Bapu

2006-10-02T08:37:00.002-07:00

Today is the birthday of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the political and religious leader of the Indian independence movement in the 1940s. He should need no introduction for most, but I'll just say he became famous for his advocacy of nonviolence, civil disobedience, and simplicity in living. He's considered the father of modern India. Much of his philosophy would go on to inspire others such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. In my recent considerations on violence in this blog, I mentioned Gandhi and it was in writing that post that I learned his birthday.

Although Gandhi is well known for his philosophy of nonviolence, what is less appreciated is the element of his philosophy that emphasizes truth (Satya). Gandhi said that "Truth is God". This often got him into disagreements with some on his own side who (as people often do) sometimes put their 'team's banner' ahead of truth.

Gandhi was reluctantly given the title of Mahatma, which means "great soul". Many who followed him referred to him with the affectionate term Bapu which means "Father". While we all have our own opinions on the specifics of the various elements within Gandhi's beliefs, it is not unreasonable or undeserved, I think, to consider Mohandas Gandhi a hero of humanity and consider his words and actions with careful thought.

Matter and Spirit

2006-09-29T17:28:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I met with fellow Humanists at our monthly Humanist Contemplatives Club. After a silent period of reflection, reading, and/or meditation, we had what I thought were one of our best conversations yet.

One point that I particularly liked was made by former Catholic Priest, Ron. We were all talking at one point about how some people like to split everything into two realms of experience. Tom said that we don't have different realms of experience, we just have our experience. I noted that, implicit in the materialist position is almost the necessity of a special kind of spirituality in which we think of Nature with a capital 'N'. By that I meant that, we know for a fact, through our first-person experience of consciousness, that something bizarre and amazing is going on - just by the fact that we have a sense of experience. If matter and energy is all we have reason to suspect exists, then that says something remarkable about matter. It says that, in certain circumstances or conditions, mere matter can become experience or experience consciousness. If that's true, then we have no way of knowing if some sort of rudimentary qualia or consciousness exists in other complex interactions of matter.

Then Ron said that, for we Humanists, perhaps the problem is that we haven't developed the vocabulary to discuss some of these things we're trying to discuss yet, and so we use outdated terms like 'spirituality' [or 'soul'?] as stand-ins. I thought that was a good point and added that, perhaps it is people such as the Humanist Contemplatives who might be among the ones to think about new vocabularies for discussing such things?

We also discussed many other interesting topics and how they related to our lives, but that's for another time.

In other news, I have recently learned that the American Humanist Association has approved my becoming a Humanist Minister. However, the full process won't go into effect until sometime around February of next year. I heard this through the grapevine, but I hear they're supposed to officially let me know soon. I'm very grateful to those who helped me along and gave their recommendations, and to Minister Ross Henry, who has offered to tutor me a bit on the various ceremonies Humanist Minister preside over (weddings, funerals, namings, celebrations, and so on).

Philosophy Roundtable

2006-09-22T18:11:00.000-07:00

I have been asked to fill in for my friend, Humanist minister Ross Henry, in a philosophy roundtable. The discussion forum will be held San Jacinto college this December 2nd, moderated by Professor Thi Lam. I attended one of these in the past as an audience member and it was quite interesting. There was a representative of Christianity, Islam, Atheism, and Buddhism at the table, each of whom answered a variety of questions posed by the moderator and the audience. It was wonderful seeing audience members learning new things about other beliefs that they hadn't heard before.

This year they're going to have a chair at the table representing Humanism and Ross has flattered me with his referral. I'll do my best to represent that position, hopefully without interjecting my individual views which might be a little more specific than what one might call general Humanism (at least, not without notice to the audience). We have been told what the moderator questions will be, tentatively. Rather than answering them now, I figured I'd simply post them, and encourage readers here to explore answers for themselves. After the event I'll likely post a report, along with several of the answers the panelists gave...

1. Do you find the Divine Command Theory to be persuasive? Is it a viable ethical theory that one can use in the real world to resolve ethical problems? Are there any difficulties in its application?

2. Can one lead a morally virtuous life without belief in God? If so, how?

3. How can parents best teach their children about morality?

4. From your position, what is the meaning of life?

New Header & Name

2006-09-21T15:44:00.000-07:00

You might notice the new header across the top. No worries - it's still the same weekly philosophy blog, but I've decided to change the name and the look a little. For one, this will help distinguish it from my philosophy site a little better. Secondly, I thought having a modern picture would emphasize that philosophy is not a matter of academia or history, but it's about how we live our lives, here, today.

Also, the reason I chose Philosophy Fridays is because I want to make it clear that new posts come out on Fridays from now on. Even before the recent lag, I had made a point to always put something up at least once a week, but it would fall on different days. But I've decided, for the sake of readers, to be regular about when the new post comes out so they know when to expect it. Of course, if you happen to like to read on Tuesdays or any other day, it'll still be here and can be read then too. In addition, that doesn't mean there might not be occasional short bonus posts on other days from time to time, especially if the timing is important.

Please let me know what you think!

Humanism on Stoicism

2006-09-20T08:18:00.000-07:00

The following was a talk titled, "Stoicism And Rational Psychology" by Frederick Edwords, Executive Director of the American Humanist Association. It was prepared for the Humanist Association of Massachusetts and delivered Sunday evening, February 14, 1993, at the Harvard Science Center. Many thanks to Mike Darley, who I know through the Houston Church of Freethought and the Humanists of Houston, for bringing it to my attention...

--------------

"To be a philosopher," said Thoreau, "is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically."

Yet that's often what we Humanists have overlooked in many of our activities. To solve some of the problems of life, or help others solve them, in very practical and down-to-earth ways, is, in the final analysis, what I think the Humanist philosophy was developed to accomplish. After all, Humanism can be defined as a commitment to the use of reason and observation in the service of human need and interest in the here and now. And, as such, it is an ethic that aims at what thinkers ancient and modern have termed "the good life." For Humanists, the good life is one where reason is the tool and happiness the goal -- happiness both for ourselves and others.

Now, if modern Humanism were to trace its roots to some particular ancient philosophical system, what system would that be? Well, given our heritage in the freethought movement, there is a tendency to choose Epicureanism. It's founder, Epicurus, challenged the religious traditions of his day, declaring clearly that the superstitious fear of hellfire was a major cause of human misery in the here-and-now. That sort of thing warms the hearts of the debunkers among us. But did the Epicureans, or their Cyrenaic forebears, have the right idea on how happiness is attained? I don't believe they did.

Contrary to the teachings of these ancient hedonists, it seems that happiness can rarely be attained directly, through a forthright pursuit of a well-balanced set of pleasures. Happiness is rather like "wellness." Its prerequisite is an absence of disease. And when it came to providing that prerequisite, to relieving the diseases of the mind, and even of society, it was the ancient Stoics who often proved to be the best philosophical doctors.

Bertrand Russell, in his book The Conquest of Happiness, set forth the Stoic dictum in modern terms. "I believe," he wrote, "unhappiness to be very largely due to mistaken views of the world, mistaken ethics, mistaken habits of life..." Following Russell's lead, 1971 Humanist of the Year Albert Ellis has taken a similar approach. In his Rational-Emotive Therapy, which he freely acknowledges as humanistic and rooted in ancient Stoicism...

And it was for this purpose that the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote his essay On the Shortness of Life. In that essay, he drew attention to the fact that people often don't get their lives in order in anything like a timely way. He wrote:

The majority of mortals complain bitterly of the spitefulness of nature, because we are born for such a brief span of life, because even this space that has been granted to us rushes by so speedily and so swiftly that all save a very few find life at an end just when they are getting ready to live. Yet the life we receive is not short, but we make it so, nor do we have any lack of it, but are wasteful of it.

And he added, "our life is amply long if ordered properly."

What Seneca meant here was that people would do well to have more concern for the values and priorities of life. He was urging his readers to reconsider their goals, to reassess themselves, to give the truly important things more time, and to act now.

We can we look around us today and see many people living life on what might be called the "deferred payment plan." Children commonly say, "Just wait until I grow up." Students can't wait until they finish school and leave home so they can begin to live as they like. When young people date, they look forward to the time when they will be married. Then they'll be happy. When married they look ahead to owning their own home. Then they'll be happy. When winter comes, they look to Spring, or to the day they can move to California. If they have children they say, "When the kids grow up and leave home, then we'll be able to do what we want." Of course there's still the job. So they look to retirement as the time to live. Seneca denounced this attitude in the strongest language:

Are you not embarrassed to reserve for yourself only the remnant of life, and to set apart only that time which cannot be devoted to any business? . . . What foolish forgetfulness of mortality to postpone wholesome plans to the fiftieth and sixtieth year, and to intend to begin life at a point which not all have even attained!"

Seneca believed that we can live now, every day, can find our meaning and joy at this time, not some other. Don't wait for happiness, he argued, create it.

Albert Ellis has written much on not worrying about what other people think. So did the [stoic] Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius who, in his Meditations said:

Constantly observe who they are whose approval you seek, and by what principles they are guided. For if you look to the sources of their opinions and appetites, you'll neither condemn those offenses they give nor desire the approval they withhold.

It is a Humanist dictum that this life is all and enough. We will pass this way but once and no one can guarantee any paradise waiting just beyond the grave. This is probably our only shot. But the possibilities of this life are sufficient to give meaning to our existence. For it is in the context of this life that we love, laugh, experience nature, pursue goals, and enjoy triumph. And to better enjoy these things we cultivate courage, bear adversity, and rise up from the ashes of failure. Yet so many do give up the good life. They join ascetic religious orders, political mass movements that put all the benefits ahead to future generations, adopt creeds of excessive self-denial. The price people pay in adherence to such ideas, devotion to charismatic leaders, and involvement in fanatical crusades is staggering. Seneca could have had such people in mind when he wrote:

They spend life in making ready to live! They form their purposes with a view to the distant future; yet postponement is the greatest waste of life; it deprives them of each day as it comes, it snatches from them the present by promising something hereafter. The greatest hindrance to living is expectancy, which depends upon tomorrow and wastes today.

Many ex-fundamentalists have found this out too late, often regretting sacrificed years. This can lead them into a frantic effort to make up for lost time. For example, when an article on Fundamentalists Anonymous, an organization for ex-fundamentalists, appeared in an issue of Penthouse magazine, the positive response from ex-fundamentalists was overwhelming, since so many were reading the magazine to catch up on some of the living they had earlier missed.

Humanism, on the other hand, is a philosophy for today, for the here and now world of our senses and aspirations. It is an ethic that puts life first, death last. It is a way of life that finds joy in a spring flower or the crash of waves on the seashore, in a momentary human encounter or the purr of a kitten. It is a focus that includes purposeful goals, meaningful pursuits, and high aspirations...

Bertrand Russell in The Conquest of Happiness, referred to "zest" as "the most universal and distinctive mark" of the happy individual. People with this quality, Russell argued, are those who come at life with a sound appetite, are glad to have what is before them, partake of things until they have enough, and know when to stop.

To some, this vision sounds a bit like Omar Khayyam:

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness--
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!

Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End!

Which comes close to the hedonistic doctrine Humanists are accused of advocating: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Or, as Mad magazine once put it –

A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread, and Thou--
Pretty soon I'll be drunk, fat, and in trouble.

But we needn't take Omar the Tentmaker literally when it comes to all that drinking and carousing. The physical pleasures are far from representing the whole. For the Humanist there are also the pleasures of an unfettered mind making new discoveries, solving problems, and creating. There is the enjoyment of art, music, dance, and drama. There is the joy of helping others and the challenge of working to make the world a better and more peaceful place. And, of course, there are the joys associated with love and family. The Humanist seeks the enjoyment of as many of these as reasonable, and cannot do so if an over-focus on just one overtakes life completely.

In this, we are clearly at one with the ancient Greek ideal of wholeness and the integration of life. For example, in the ancient Olympic games, competition included not only athletics but drama, music, poetry, and philosophy. And the whole combination was viewed as a religious event. The Greeks put it together and did it all. So can we.

Such a worldly and good-natured view of life that claims no ultimate knowledge....is radically different from conservative Christianity, which has sometimes called this world a veil of tears, has seen pleasures as vanity, and seems to find the goal of human life beyond the grave. Such believers might quote Ecclesiastes --

Better a good name than costly oil,
the day of death than the day of birth.
Better to go to the house of mourning
than to the house of feasting;
for to this end all men come,
let the living take this to heart.
Better sadness than laughter,
a severe face confers some benefit.

As an antidote, Robert Louis Stevenson offered these words in his Christmas Sermon:

Gentleness and cheerfulness, these come before all morality: they are the perfect duties. If your morals make you dreary, depend on it they are wrong. I do not say, "give them up," for they may be all you have; but conceal them like a vice, lest they should spoil the lives of better men."

Yet, now we can ask, if this good life is to be the goal, is it a goal accessible only to the affluent, the intelligent, the educated? If so, then we are advocating a way of life only for a relative few of the world's people.

Threads on Violence

2006-09-15T05:05:00.000-07:00

Last week I had a particularly ‘philosophical’ day and it's had me stumped for a while; thus the delay in posting. Several different threads of thought emerged at once, and the contradictions between them made me question my ideas about violence and pacifism. After considering these ideas for a while I finally came up with something presentable, even if tentative:

Thread 1: Pacifism as Impractical
I have long held that pure pacifism is impractical. While I greatly admire the nobility, good intentions, and self sacrifice of notable pacifists, I think these good people are simply making an error in reasoning. While I respect pacifists, I have condemned pacifism as actually being unwittingly unethical. This, because it is a prescription for eternal human enslavement by whomever is not a pacifist. It is a behavioral algorithm, if you will, that guarantees only the most vicious and brutal will lead humanity.

Thread 2: Jesus and Escalating Cycles
In a recent presentation I gave at the Houston Church of Freethought, I stressed the importance of Compassion. In one section on Compassion for enemies, I stated that “we must face up to the fact that there are times when compassion should be given when it is not deserved.” In a blog post called “Forgiveness Is A Gift To Ourselves” I noted Biblical scholar James Robinson who said that Jesus’ teaching that we love our enemies and not return violence for violence was revolutionary because he realized that forgiveness for violence was the only way to break an escalating cycle of it. I then noted Professor Axelrod’s computer simulations which proved the most successful behaviors are those which included the possibility of forgiving wrongdoing from others.

Thread 3: The Muhammad-Violence-Ethic (MVE)
I recently saw a program on the History Channel called Decoding the Past. The specific episode was called “Secrets of the Koran”. This documentary covered the origins of the Koran’s teachings in the story of Muhammad. It noted that many have called the Koran a violent book, and provided a quote saying that Muslims should fight non-Muslims. But then the program noted this behavior was only in response to being attacked and provided another quote showing that if an enemy wants to be peaceful, that Muslims should be peaceful as well. The Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed a local Muslim cleric, Imam Naser Khatib, on violence and the Koran, who said that the Koran says people should be peaceful to non-Muslims, but it says that if they try to “fight you or kick you out of your homeland” then you should fight back.

Thoughts On These Threads
There is debate over what the passages in the Koran really say, what they mean, and what they inspire. But none of that is relevant to my topic. The fact is, you have two approaches to violence in the Jesus-Violence-Ethic (JVE) and the Muhammad-Violence-Ethic (MVE), as I have termed them here (even though both ethics have been expressed by other people before them).

The completely pacifist JVE states that we should never use violence, turning the other cheek, while the MVE states that we should be violent only when others are violent toward us. I suppose another “ethic” (if you could call it that) might state that we should always use violence whenever it suits us and the most powerful should get their way. Perhaps I’ll call this the Extreme-Violence-Ethic (EVE). Seen in that light, the MVE could be viewed as a middle-ground attempt to allow for the use of violence, but only in certain ethical conditions, while the JVE discards it altogether, regardless of conditions.

One of the more remarkable things is that Muslims are not the only ones who operate by the MVE. In the vast majority of cases, and certainly in the case of major governments, nearly the entire world operates according to the MVE even if they haven’t received it from Muhammad – including nearly all devout Christians. I have heard voices critical of Islam say that Muslims make war in nearly every nation they inhabit. But, could our own adoption of the MVE in the West be a reason why the globe, in general, has known so much war?

Meanwhile, very few people have actually lived according to the JVE; Christians included. Even the pacifistic Buddhists have their history of past and present warriors. I heard one modern rationalization for this by the Christian author of The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren. He said on the Fox News television program DaySide, that there are personal ethics and government ethics. This sounds very similar to the Muslim cleric Khatib’s response when asked about the extremist Wahhabis sect. He said despite what the Wahhabis believe, “the decision to go to war or not is by the hand of the caliph, and we don't have a caliphate right now.”

I’m not sure what the biblical justification is for the distinction between the personal and government ethics that Warren claims. By all modern (and decent) models of political authority, as the U.S. founding fathers believed, authority flows from God to man, and then from man to the State. The State cannot therefore have ethical authority that hasn’t been given to it by man, and man cannot give what it doesn’t have. But it is not surprising to see a modern Christianist with a medieval view of politics (in which authority allegedly flows from God, to the State, to man).

The absence of practicing the JVE among Christians leads one to wonder just what a Christian meaningfully is, apart from whatever’s going on inside their skulls. President George W. Bush claims to be a Christian and many conservative Christians seem to talk about Bush as though he were some sort of prophet. However, Matthew 7:16 says of false prophets that you will ‘know them by their fruits’. Certainly, Bush doesn’t live by the JVE. In fact, he doesn’t even operate by the MVE like the rest of Christianity and the world. The BVE (Bush-Violence-Ethic) states that you use violence if there’s a chance another might use it against you in the future (see Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine which I haven’t read, but have read of).

But all of these issues of what the Koran really says, why Christians live by the MVE rather than the JVE, political matters, and what Bush is, are distractions in my search. That is, the search for the truth when it comes to the proper violence-ethic. To glimpse it, we must look above and beyond such transient issues.

My question now is this: Has the MVE that the entire world operates on been proven a failed experiment? Can we say that any of our previous wars were ever really won? How can we consider WWI to have been won if it set up the conditions which lead us to WWII? How can we say that WWII was won when it gave us conditions which lead to the Cold War and the conflicts in the Middle East? All of these names and titles we give conflicts distract us from the reality that we have been in one long conflict throughout our history, from neighbor to nation, with only brief and sporadic pauses. Given Earth’s history of war, we must eventually wonder when someone is finally going to win – win in a way that leads to lasting peace? It seems to me that humanity’s experiment with the MVE has been a failure, and our continued use of it may spell our demise.

Does this lead us back to the JVE - to complete pacifism? One obvious figure that comes to mind whenever pacifism is discussed is Mohandas Gandhi. When one reads of Gandhi’s life, his sacrifices, his simplicity, his strength, and his values, how is it not possible to love this man? Upon his death, Albert Einstein remarked, “Generations to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood.” More to the point then, how can one not want to become more like that which one loves?

This alone, least of all the puzzles of our time, is enough to give reason for me to seriously reevaluate the merits of pacifism; this time absent what may have been a nearly glib dismissal in my earlier years. But how can I ignore the seemingly obvious conclusion that pure pacifism will allow the vicious to overrun the world and rule it in their vicious way?

Consider examples of pacifist movements which have succeeded, such as in Gandhi’s India. Surely pacifism has not worked in all cases; but then, neither have all wars been won. Still, if that seemingly obvious conclusion of the futility of pacifism were true, the fact that it ever worked is remarkable. Why did it?

Axelrod said that the most successful programs were those with a combination of forgiveness and retaliation. When discussing this with a friend, and wondering about pacifism, he asked, “What happened to the programs that always forgave?” I told him I imagined they’d been less successful – probably along the lines I describe in Thread 1 above.

But do these computer simulations really capture all of the subtleties of the real world? It seems to me by the descriptions I’ve read that the simulations look at survival rates of the individual units and compares those with differing behaviors. Or, perhaps they look at which behaviors become more widespread as an indicator of selective success. They might even measure the overall survival of a population of those with a shared behavioral program.

In all of these cases, it seems to me that one important factor might be absent from the simulations. That factor would be the emotional effect of inspiration through example; i.e., the ‘human heart’. It could be that, logistically speaking, pacifism doesn’t work, but in practice it can work because people are inspired by the example of others, and feel empathy for others’ sacrifices. It might also be the case that sympathy for the non-violent by third parties creates pressures on the violent to stop, making him look like the bad guy even when his position is the correct one. Perhaps it might be the case that pacifism is illogical, but because people are illogical, it can work? If so, some might say, “let us all be illogical together, in peace”. Maybe there is some other explanation for the examples of success in pacifism?

Still, there seems to be something noble in a person willing to fight for a just cause or to vanquish malicious people who would otherwise harm the innocent. How can we ignore what seems to be the noblest of character in these actions? The encompassing factor in both heroic fighting and pacifism seems to be self sacrifice. Both of these tactics include a willingness to give up one’s life and safety for a higher cause. There are many ways to sacrifice.

Likewise, both noble fighting and pacifism also have an ugly side: both also involve sacrificing others. In noble fighting there is the inevitable harm that comes to innocent bystanders as conflict ensues. Similarly, it’s one thing for a pacifist to sacrifice his own life, safety, or freedom for a cause, but this nearly always makes a sacrifice of his neighbor, who often shares in his fate - lacking the pacifist’s aid in resistance or suffering retribution for the pacifist’s passive resistance.

Perhaps, then, it isn’t the use or non-use of violence that is the issue, but choosing rightly in each case and living according to our proper natures (as the Stoics would put it). Borrowing perhaps from Stoicism, the fictional Jedi of the Star Wars films (who often used violence) would say that what is important is following the will of the Force, rather than looking at violence in the abstract. Even in Buddhism, known for its peaceful nature, there is a ‘right way’ to perform violence in some schools of thought. Once when I was in a Buddhist temple, the teacher told us of a monk who was asked, “if there were a problem with pests over the crops, would it be bad Karma to spray the crops and kill the insects?” His reply was, “as long as it is done without negative feeling, there would be no bad Karma.” If you are unaware of my non-supernatural use of the Karma concept, please see A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma and Rebirth.

The aim of Buddhists are to learn to see things clearly, as they really are, without bias, desire, or fear. Terrorists and Politicians alike, intentionally or not, tend to play on our fears. Non-violent democracy activist Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, said in her speech Freedom From Fear:

“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

In the film “V for Vendetta” the character of Evey Hammond learns through a particular set of hardships to ‘see without fear’. In that same film, Inspector Finch says that he had a brief glimpse that the past, present, future, and all of the various events in and around are lives are interconnected. In our world, 9/11, the presidency, homeland security, what we do and don’t allow in terms of our personal liberties, terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, the ecology, are all connected and we view them all through the filter of our desires and our fears. What would we think if we could glimpse it all without enslavement to our desire or fear?

I don’t know. Maybe I should stop there, and I encourage the reader to take off from there. But I have a possible guess.

It seems to me that some combination of retribution and forgiveness is suitable, as in Axelrod’s computations. While the MVE seems to be an attempt at allowing for violence and forgiveness in some combination, its demonstrable failure over history and throughout all of our nations indicates its particular formulation is flawed.

I would propose the “Avoidable Violence Ethic” (AVE). The AVE is similar to the MVE, in that it allows for violence (unlike the JVE) and also demands restrictions on it (unlike the EVE). However, it is different from the MVE in important ways.

The MVE states that you should be peaceful to your neighbor unless he is aggressive toward you. In that case, Muhammad allows a variety of hostile actions in fighting aggressors, infidels, etc. Both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds have taken this ethic on fully. Concepts of Justice include retribution for wrongs done and demand equilibrium.

The AVE would say that we should use violence when it is absolutely necessary to defend the innocent (be they ourselves, if innocent, or others). However, equilibrium is irrelevant, and thus so is retribution. In cases where violence can prevent harm to innocents, or shift harm from the innocent to the aggressor, it would not only be permissible but considered a duty. But as soon as the physical threat is over or halted, non-aggression is demanded.

Many might say, “this is what we operate by now”, but not really. Let’s take World War II – the attack of Pearl Harbor for example. The AVE would say that, during that attack, we should have fought back as best we could (which we did). But the AVE would also say that, immediately after the attack was over, we should not have started to counter-attack. The same thing goes for 9/11, the invasion of Kuwait, etc. The concept is that we build up military force to protect. Then, if attacked, we fight to protect. But if we fail in that task, we don’t seek to level things back out or get back what was lost through counter attack. At that point, the tactics of pacifism should come into play. In other words, you don’t ‘turn the other cheek’ but rather attempt to stop the slap. But if you can’t, then you don’t slap back. In fact, you forgive – a thousand times if you must. In a nuclear conflict, you might return fire if you think doing so will take out missile sites or stop the volleys from your enemy. But once they stop firing, you don’t return fire out of spite, for purposes of justice, or for longer term tactical purposes.

This approach requires a degree of risk-taking and trust. If we hadn’t attacked back after Pearl Harbor, we would have been in a less advantageous position, tactically speaking, with the Japanese Empire. This will always be the case. But at the same time, the AVE doesn’t prescribe that we lay down and surrender to enemies when violence is immediate and immanent. It’s called the “Avoidable Violence Ethic” because we should seek every moment to halt violence if it is at all possible to do without immediate harm to innocents. Might the use of AVE after 9/11 allowed the U.S. to capitalize on the massive outpouring of sympathy from across the world for America, rather than squandering it? The basic concept is to remove all sense of vengeance, pridefulness, demand for equilibrium, or fear of loss from the formula - to see things without fear of either the enemy or fear of the use of violence.

-JVE (Jesus Violence Ethic) = no violence ever.

-AVE (Avoidable Violence Ethic) = violence only when absolutely necessary for immediate defense.

-MVE (Muhammad Violence Ethic) = violence when attacked, for justice, and in long term struggles.

-BVE (Bush Violence Ethic) = violence when attack seems likely or even possible.

-EVE (Extreme Violence Ethic) = violence at all times for domination.

It’s a difficult concept and I’ve yet to fully consider it’s implications. But I mention it here to log and share one step of my thinking on these things. I would like to learn more details about simulations such as Professor Axelrod’s, about applied pacifism in real world historic situations, and about theories on violence. I’ve heard that Leo Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You contains Christian arguments for pacifism I’d like to read as well.

Golden Rules from Many Cultures and Faiths

2006-08-22T04:12:00.000-07:00

I posted something similar to this a while back, but not as extensive. I found this list posted from a user on the Comparative Religion Forums called DrFree, and thought it would be nice to share...

=================
The Golden Rule takes many forms in many faiths and cultures. Here is a sampling of various forms.

1. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:12

2. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 6:31

3. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:18

4. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:31

5. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Mark 12:33

6. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Luke 10:27

7. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:10

8. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:14

9. If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
James 2:8

10. Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.
Ancient Egyptian, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.

11. One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.
African Traditional Religions, Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria)

12. Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wise to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.
Baha’I, Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings

13. And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
Baha’I, Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, 30

14. Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Buddhism, Udana-Varga 5,36

15. Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
Buddhism, Sutta Nipata 705

16. Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Confucianism, Analects 12:2

17. The essence of all religions is love, compassion, and tolerance. Kindness is my true religion. The clear proof of a person’s love of God is if that person genuinely shows love to fellow human beings.
Dalai Lama

18. Compassion is not religious business, it is human business, it is not luxury, it is essential for our own peace and mental stability, it is essential for human survival.
Dalai Lama, 1989 Nobel Peace Prize

19. If we really want happiness, we must widen the sphere of love.
Dalai Lama

20. Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."
Confucianism, Analects 15.23

21. Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.
Confucianism, Mencius VII.A.4

22. The Sage...makes the self of the people his self.
Daoism, Tao Te Ching, Ch 49

23. One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.
Hinduism, Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8

24. This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Hinduism, Mahabharata 5,1517

25. Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity.
Humanist Association of Canada

26. Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you.
British Humanist Society

27. Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.
Islam, The Prophet Muhammad, 13th of the 40 Hadiths of Nawawi

28. One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.
Jainism, Sutrakritanga

29. What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Judaism, Talmud, Shabbat 3id

30. What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.
Hillel, Judaism, Talmud, Shabbath 31a

31. We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive.
Native Spirituality, Chief Dan George

32. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
Philosophy, Immanuel Kant, Categorical Imperative

33. Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means.
Philosophy, Immanuel Kant, Categorical Imperative

34. Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.
Philosophy, Socrates

35. I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.
Sikhism, Guru Granith Sahib, p. 1289

36. What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.
Stoicism, Epictetus

37. Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Taoism, Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

38. We affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
Unitarian Universalist First Principle

39. We affirm and promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
Unitarian Universalist Second Principle

40. An' it harm none, do as ye will.
The Wiccan Rede

41. That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.
Zoroastrianism, Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

42. Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.
Zoroastrianism, Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29

43. Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes.
American Proverb

44. Live and let live.
American Proverb

45. If you love something, set it free.
If it comes back, it will always be yours.
If it doesn't come back, it was never yours to begin with.
American Proverb

46. If you love it, let it grow.
American Proverb

P Funk 1

2006-08-21T17:31:00.000-07:00

This man on the street conveys his position very well. We need more street philosophy like this...

Atheist Walking video on YouTube

U.S. and Turkey, Partners In Ignorance

2006-08-18T08:13:00.000-07:00

In a recent news article (link), it was stated that the United States ranks near the bottom of the list, only second lowest to Turkey among 34 nations, when it comes to acceptance of Evolution. As the cornerstone of all modern biological sciences, the Theory of Evolution is as well-founded and supported by overwhelming evidence as any of our most solid theories. There really is no serious 'controversy' to speak of regarding evolution.

This is why I have a personal rule about debating Evolution: I simply will not debate the validity of Evolution with anyone who has not read at least one book on Evolution, written by what they would call an 'Evolutionist'. Predictably, I have yet to encounter such a person. I made this rule for myself after countless debates which resulted in the discovery that the other person invariably had ideas about Evolution that were not, in fact, what Evolution was about. Rather, it was a 'straw man' version of Evolution as described in one of many various 'pop-sci' books by disingenuous creationist authors who knew better. Secondly, to give credence to the position against Evolution would be like wasting time seriously debating someone over whether or not the Earth was flat or whether we 'really went to the Moon'. There are people in the world who stand for seeking truth through reason, and those who covertly stand for their own comfortable positions. Any sensible debater is wise to identify the latter quickly so as to ignore them.

Were it not for a bizarre mismatch between evolution and one particular fundamentalist religious viewpoint, no rational person would have a problem with Evolution. That viewpoint is the bibliolatry of literalism. Dr. Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative mythology and religious history, has written an article for Christian Century magazine I highly recommend called, "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance"(link). In one very interesting point, he says:

"The problem is, no doubt, further amplified by the obviousness and banality of most of the television programming on which the present generation has been weaned and reared. Not only is imagination a strain; even to imagine what a symbolic world is like is difficult. Poetry is turned into prose, truth into statistics, understanding into facts, education into note-taking, art into criticism, symbols into signs, faith into beliefs. That which cannot be listed, out-lined, dated, keypunched, reduced to a formula, fed into a computer, or sold through commercials cannot be thought or experienced."

He then goes on to point out:

"One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is modernistic, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations -- in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation – are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. “I believe in God the Father Almighty” becomes a chronological issue, and “Maker of heaven and earth” a technological problem."

Evolution shows us something magnificent, intricate, and beautiful about the universe we live in. I pity those who can't appreciate that wonder because they've been mislead by ideas that were authored by the ignorant and fearful. What is really sad about this whole thing is how unnecessary it is. Many religious people, perhaps most, have no problem with Evolution, and even see it as a part of God's creation.

I would suggest that we not ridicule those who have been mislead by claims there is some sort of conflict between religion and Evolution. At the same time, we shouldn't give undue credence to debating Evolution with someone who knows of it only through the eyes of biased detractors. Instead, we should act kindly toward these folks. We shouldn't be imposing or offensive, and instead gently guide them to more informed reading, answering any honest questions they may have.

For those who may be reading this who think Evolution is 'just a theory' or don't accept it on religious grounds, I would hope you may read the article by Dr. Hyers linked to above, and then perhaps explore the website below. If anyone else knows of good resources for such folks, please post them in the comments.

Information on Evolution:
TalkOrigins.org

Notes on "Christianity Without God"

2006-08-11T09:06:00.000-07:00

I’ve recently completed reading the book Christianity Without God, by Lloyd Geering. Geering is Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. I gave a review of this book followed by discussion at for my local Humanist group a few days ago.

The very notion of non-theistic Christianity may seem ludicrous to many modern conservative Christians. It probably sounds like “democracy without voting” or “football without a ball” or perhaps “chocolate milk without milk”. This is because of an interesting fact about most conservative Christians: they don’t know much about Christianity or their own Bible.

Geering’s book is a light and easy read, and is structured like one long argument; a series of premises culminating in its conclusion. For purposes of scholarship and review, I’ll point out some of the gems from its ten chapters (partially quoted and partially paraphrased), which are as follows...

• While modern science has changed our understanding of the world, we once understood it through the eyes of the Bible. The Bible was elevated in its authority as a means for the Protestants to defend their actions against the authority of the Catholic church. In their ‘Reformed Confessions on Faith’ trust in the Bible became the first article, and God is mentioned in the second. This had the little-appreciated effect of demoting God and made the Bible into an idol (see my post on Bibliolatry).

• The act of discarding outworn beliefs may not be a ‘lack of faith’ but rather the opposite. It may open the door for genuine faith to operate again. “The assertion that one needs to believe in a particular creed or set of doctrines in order to have faith is an invitation, not to faith, but to credulity.” Doubt is the enemy of false beliefs - as such doubt is not the enemy of faith but its ally.

• From Zoroastrianism and Hellenism to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, these are all streams flowing into various branches, transforming as they go. The modern secular world, with all of its faults and problems, represents a new but legitimate stage in the Judeo-Christian cultural stream. Just as Gentile Christianity, Medieval Christendom, and Protestantism were new phases in their eras – thus, the global secular world is not the end of the Christian stream, but its next phase.

• Don Cupitt, in his 1981 book, Taking Leave of God, said that, whereas the realist traditional view of God imagines him as an objective being, the non-realist treats all God-talk as symbolic language which, though originating in ancient mythology, may still be useful in order to refer to the highest ideals, values, and aspirations to which we feel obliged to give our allegiance.

• Christians are not actually theists, but rather trinitarians. Most Christians who try to defend theism unconsciously focus on the Father Creator third and identify him alone as God.

• Tertullian, who lived from 160-200 CE, wrote the earliest reference to the trinity, although the seeds were present before then. But it wasn’t until a full two centuries after him that the trinity concept received full authorization.

• Both James and Peter viewed Jesus with Jewish eyes – as Messiah but as a full human being just as themselves. They were rejected by Jews for declaring a Messiah and given a “cold shoulder” by the Gentile Christians for not accepting Jesus as divine. We hear nothing more of them after the 5th Century.

• To fill the vacuum left by the failure of a quick second coming, early Christians engaged in a mental construction of an unseen supernatural world over the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. While the Jewish prophesy referred to a literal and physical ‘Heaven & Earth’ which had failed to arrive, it was replaced in this new supernatural scheme as a non-physical ‘Heaven & Hell’.

• One Baptist minister who Geering spoke to said, “There are three books of the Old Testament for which I have no respect at all... The book of Esther never mentions “God” at all, the Song of Songs is a collection of erotic love songs, and Ecclesiastes was written by an agnostic.”

• The humanist tradition of Hebrew Wisdom did not look to Yahweh to deliver people by miraculous interventions in either nature or human history. It taught people to pursue the way of Wisdom and it relegated God to the role of an impersonal creative force which had shaped the world to be as it was.

• Christianity’s focus shifted from its original roots – from the message to the messenger.

• Jesus stood in the Wisdom tradition more than anything else. It has led Robert Funk to say, not only that “Jesus is one of the great sages in history” but that “Jesus is also a secular sage. His parables and aphorisms all but obliterate the boundaries separating the sacred from the secular.”

• However, the Wisdom stream became completely overshadowed by the Pauline Gospel of the savior Christ, crucified, risen, and glorified.

• Protestants sought freedom from the bondage of the Catholic Church. But that freedom soon developed into another form of bondage – enslavement to the written word of the Bible. This has reached its most rigid form in modern fundamentalism.

• What is important to understand is simply this: the modern secular, humanist, post-Christian world not only flowed out of traditional Christianity but manifests the continuing development of elements intrinsic to the Judeo-Christian tradition. For this reason the modern secular and humanist world can legitimately be called ‘Christianity without God’.

• In ‘Christianity without God’ there is no place for the traditional figure of Christ as the divine Savior. Yet there is certainly a place for Jesus the teacher.

As we discussed at the gathering, Christianity (indeed many religions) has the interesting habit of changing to adapt to its time and circumstances, and often these changes would be downright heretical to previous generations of their same faith – even their same denomination. What’s most interesting is not so much the evolution of the faith, but the practice of covering their tracks. Each generation is taught “this is the way it has always been” and imagine that if they were to meet Jesus, all parties would all be on the same page. Even in cases where the evolution of their beliefs is acknowledged, the rationalization is often that previous incarnations were a distortion and the current one is in line with the true beliefs according to Jesus. But as Geering points out, nothing of the sort is true. To the contrary, the beliefs of modern mainstream conservative Christianity would be completely alien to the historical Jesus.

As a Humanist, this book left me wondering, ‘Why all the bath water?’ but this book wasn’t designed to approach pure Humanists in an attempt to convince them to become Christians. Rather, it seems to be aimed at Christians in order to show that that they need not give up their Christian cultural heritage in order to follow a more sensible, realistic, and convincing system of thought. More importantly, that system of thought is naturally derived from Christian history and recalls its roots in all the ways that matter most.

In his review of this book in The Humanist, Joseph S. Silverman, M.D. said:

“Humanistic Judaism. Humanistic Christianity. It may be quite a wait until Humanistic Islam. We should all live so long.”

America, Israel, and the Apocalypse

2006-08-11T04:12:00.000-07:00

I usually try to stay centered on philosophy, rather than veering too much into mythology or folklore, but the effect of such on modern events cannot be denied.

Jason Boyett has recently written a nice article called "Apocalypse Soon" at Salon.com which takes a look at the United States' support of Israel, and the beliefs of Christianists concerning the Jewish people and the 'last days'. The article can be read HERE (you should make sure your pop-up blockers are on). Special thanks to Jim Kinierien for bringing it to my attention.

One of my favorite parts reads:

"There are no prophecies that have to be fulfilled before the Rapture," [Terry] James [rapture author] says. "It's imminent." In fact, the Rapture has been imminent for 2,000 years.

Which brings to mind a wonderful episode of Frontline on PBS I saw shortly before 2000 called "Apocalypse!". It was a remarkable special going into detail on the history of the concept. I thought it such a good documentary that I ordered the videotape. If you'd like to order it, you can do so by clicking HERE. Also, there is a nice website that is connected with the program HERE.

About the 'chosen people' concept, one thing I always thought peculiar: In whose holy books is it written that the Jewish people were God's chosen? Big surprise, Jewish people's. Why is it that the Aztecs, Egyptians, Greeks, or Indians didn't write that the Jews were God's chosen? Interesting and convenient.

Interesting Image

2006-07-31T04:04:00.000-07:00

I saw this image of a religious soldier associated with an AP article yesterday. The juxtaposition in this picture pretty much says it all (for all religions, sides, nations). Hopefully, images like this won't turn out to be iconic for the 21st Century.

Exchange with John Horgan on Naturalistic Buddhism

2006-07-28T12:27:00.000-07:00

John Horgan is a freelance science writer, now writing for The Center for Science Writings. His blog site, is called the Scientific Curmudgeon. I came across an article of his at Slate.com called "Buddhist Retreat: Why I Gave Up On Finding My Religion". I then had some interesting email exchanges with him on the subject of naturalistic Buddhism. I shared my article on Naturalistic interpretations of Karma and Rebirth, and he shared two of his articles. In the end, he said I made some very good points and that he was trying to keep an open mind. If you'd like to read our exchange, it can be found HERE.

Stoicism on Philosophy Talk

2006-07-24T12:35:00.000-07:00

There is a Philosophy radio show called "Philosophy Talk". I often listen to podcasts of their programs after they've aired, available on their website. Not long ago, I emailed them and suggested they cover Stoicism and they said that it would be a good idea.

Just today, I checked back on their site and, by coincidence, they are doing a show on Stoicism tomorrow (July 25).

Instead of hearing a recording, I think I'm going to see if there is any possibility of hearing it on the radio live in my area (not sure). In any case, I just wanted to let everyone know. Philosophy Talk's website is at...

http://www.philosophytalk.org/upcoming.htm

Update: Philosophy Talk is aired live on KALW 91.7 Tuesdays at noon (Pacific time). If you don't get this station you can hear a live audiostream of the program here:
http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/programs/kalw/listen.html

The Puzzle of Our Time

2006-07-20T18:41:00.000-07:00

I don’t often touch on politics on this blog; at least not current hot-button political issues. The reasons are several: (1) I want this site to be about philosophy and getting overly specific about politics has a very dominating and distracting effect, (2) if dealing with politics, I prefer to stay in the abstract philosophical realm, because that’s where all the root answers tend to be anyway, and (3) my hope is to focus more on things that unite rather than divide.

However, this latest struggle between Israel and Hezbollah has got me vexed. In fact, much of the developments in the war on terror over the past few years have vexed me. Of course, I have my own opinions about various things and they can be quite strong, but I want to go beyond that – I want to go deeper. It’s too easy to merely vent my perspective and be yet one more voice yelling about what ‘should be’.

This whole business of terrorism, the third world, religious extremism, international business interests, modern warfare, and their intersection are really the great puzzle of our time. But instead of anyone trying to figure anything out, it seems that all we have are various religious fundamentalists (on all sides), various nationalists (on all sides), various haters of particular political officials, and other people with agendas simply trying to further them. If there are any people with serious deep questions and thoughts about this puzzle of our time out there, they are being ignored as eggheads or muffled by all the sensationalism to be found elsewhere. Can we please have some sincere efforts to reach pragmatic and realistic solutions without being so biased, hateful, blame-seeking, or focused on complaining about the present or past?

Everybody knows what should be done, and what the other guys should be doing. They know what should have happened in past elections, negotiations, and military actions. They know what we should be doing internationally, and they know what we should do in the future. But does anyone have any ideas about what can be done? In other words, what can be done given our current situation and the current dispositions of all parties involved?

There are obviously tough challenges facing the world, and they’re not going to be solved by simply declaring cease-fires and trying to get people not to attack one another. The underlying causes of these things are too complex and the dangers too intense. If one side is unwilling to cease, then those threats will demand that some fighting will have to happen. But the problems also aren’t going to be solved by obliterating everything without foreseeable end.

What’s even more complex is that it takes more than even a complete analysis of all the subtle underlying causes for things. Because, even if we had that, it would be another matter entirely getting all of the various power-holders, organizations, and institutions to actually pay attention, care, and change.

It's more than a little disturbing that all of our religious faiths and even our philosophic insights, including my own, seem incapable of easily piercing this dilemma, even if they may be very effective on an individual scale. This puzzle of our time is going to require something radical; something drastic. A new movement or perhaps a joint multi-cultural revolution of sorts happening in several opposing camps at once. Unfortunately, such things don’t usually arise unless extreme pain and suffering has pushed the pendulum far enough.

But one thing is sure, the puzzle is more complicated than a giant ball of tangled twine, and we have several people pulling on the same threads in different directions, trying to unravel it at the same time. If we can’t get some sort of broad and deep solutions going, then I suppose pain and suffering for a lot more people, on a lot greater scale, will be what’s in store. If that’s the case, then I’ll simply have to remember my Stoic readings and remind myself that I can’t control the choices or actions of others – only myself.

Prescriptive Songs

2006-07-13T15:37:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting thing I’ve noticed recently about certain types of songs, which I’ll call ‘prescriptive songs’. These are songs which the character singing is giving advice or instruction to another. Three examples I thought of are: “I Hope You Dance” by Lee Ann Womack, “Forever Young” as sung by Rod Stewart, and “Just the Two of Us” as rapped by Will Smith.

In all three of these songs, the singer is giving advice for living and hopes for a good life apparently to a young child, usually their own. I analyzed the lyrics of each of these songs line by line, and identified three different types of statements:

(1) Ethical Prescriptives: These are instructions on how a child should behave, and are of an ethical nature. They deal with matters of morality, virtue, ethics, honor, integrity, kindness, and so on.

(2) Non-Ethical Prescriptives: These are instructions on how the child should act, behave, or carry out life, but they are not ethical. This means they may simply be meant as good advice, or strategic manners of living.

(3) Hopes for good fortune: These are simply lines which express hopes for good fortune for the child, usually in the form of access to opportunity, health, good relationships, or material wellbeing.

There were a number of other lines which were either continuations of the same concept, repeats, or irrelevant to any of these, which I ignored. Here is how the three songs broke down...

I Hope You Dance
Ethical prescriptives: 19%
Non-ethical prescriptives: 62%
Good fortune: 19%

Forever Young
Ethical prescriptives: 67%
Non-ethical prescriptives: 0%
Good fortune: 33%

Just the Two of Us
Ethical prescriptives: 67%
Non-ethical prescriptives: 11%
Good fortune: 22%

There are a few interesting things I found as I looked over these songs and compared them. First, I can’t help but think that the various percentages reflect the time, subculture, and artists personality and beliefs from which they sprang. Surely, none of these artists analyzed the percentage of each type of statement, but it seems likely that they would tend to dwell on proportionate areas according to their inclinations.

But most importantly, I noticed something philosophically significant about what all of these songs were doing. Here we have three examples of a litany of ethical prescriptives. To name a very few, these include things like:

Give the heavens above more than just a passing glance.
Do unto others as you’d have done to you.
Always tell the truth.

Yet, the tone of all of these songs is not one of admonition, warning, condemnation, or seeking to impose control over the child. In all of these examples, the tone is one of seeking to deliver to the child that which will ensure prosperity and happiness in life. Most people don’t seem to understand that ethical prescriptives are not restrictions, but rather go hand in hand with happiness. Considering that most people don’t know this, the fact that these ethically prescriptive-laden songs are delivered in the tone of help rather than imposition of rules is really quite profound. It may be fitting to draw attention to these sorts of songs, and their loving, caring motivation, when attempting to explain to young people what ethics are all about.

Wake Up

2006-07-13T14:51:00.000-07:00

I've just come across a fascinating lecture at www.gnosis.org, given by a Dr. Stephan A. Hoeller. It's called "Gnostic Cinema: The Matrix and the Matrix Reloaded" and it explores some of the gnostic-related themes in the Matrix films. It's a great listen and lasts for about 43 minutes. LINK HERE

For my own take on Matrix Revolutions, those interested can read it HERE.

Your Family is Larger Than You Know

2006-07-03T06:51:00.000-07:00

Did you know that if you went back in time to 3000 BCE, to any village on the planet, and approached a person of any race, that this person would probably be your personal ancestor? Did you know that 'every Palestinian suicide bomber has Jews in his past, every Sunni Muslim in Iraq is descended from at least one Shiite, and every Klansman's family has African roots'?

According to recent work by statisticians and researchers, you would only have to go back 2000 to 5000 years to find someone who could count everyone alive today as a descendant. If you go back 5000 to 7000 years, then everyone living today has exactly the same set of ancestors.

Click here to read the complete article.

Americans United Helps Texas 'Church Of Freethought' Win Tax-Exempt Status

2006-06-29T06:05:00.000-07:00

Texas Officials End Crusade To Deny Exemption To Dallas-Area Group Americans United for Seperation of Church & State

Officials in the Texas Office of the Comptroller have agreed to extend tax-exempt status to a non-theistic church.

In a May 18 letter to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Comptroller’s Office confirmed that it has granted tax-exempt status to the Church of Freethought, a Dallas-area congregation.

“This is a victory for religious freedom,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Government must never play favorites when it comes to religion.”

Americans United intervened on behalf of the Church of Freethought after the Texas agency refused to grant it tax exemption.

The Church of Freethought (COF) is considered tax exempt under federal guidelines published by the Internal Revenue Service, but Texas officials had refused to follow suit. The Office of the Comptroller insisted that the church “appears to be a discussion or social group rather than a religious organization.”

Church members countered that they offer services similar to other congregations. Notes the church’s Web site, “The COF is and does everything that any other church does but without supernaturalism and without imposing doctrines and dogmas on its members.”

In December, Americans United formally requested that the Church of Freethought be recognized as a tax-exempt body under Texas law. AU attorneys cited a state appeals court ruling granting tax-exempt status to the Ethical Culture Fellowship of Austin.

In the Ethical Culture case, the Comptroller’s Office had insisted that the group does not qualify as a religion unless it recognizes a Supreme Being. In a press statement, state Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn insisted that giving tax-exempt status to non-theistic groups would prod “any wannabe cult who dresses up and parades down Sixth Street on Halloween” to apply.

But the Comptroller’s Office has now recognized that its position was not in compliance with the law.

In the recent letter to Americans United, Bryant K. Lomax, manager of the Tax Policy Division, wrote, “We have thoroughly reviewed your application in light of the Court’s opinion, and though we disagree with the Court’s interpretation in material respects, we believe that we are compelled under the Court’s opinion to grant the application.”

AU’s Lynn said he is pleased that the matter has been resolved without litigation.

“Given past rulings, we obviously would have won this case had it gone to court,” Lynn said. “I’m glad we didn’t have to take that step. Texas officials seem to understand there is no point in spending taxpayer money on a quixotic quest to make all religious groups conform to popular assumptions about what is and isn’t a religion.”

Update, August 3, 2006: Oops! I (DT Strain) just happen to be looking over my blog and realized that I've given the impression I simply wrote the above since I didn't have an intro. The above article was a news release written by someone else. Unfortunately I don't know exactly who wrote this, but I suspect it can be found at the links below. Sorry for any confusion.

---------------------
The Church of Freethought currently has two branches; one in Dallas and the other in Houston:

The North Texas Church of Freethought (NTCOF) website
The Houston Church of Freethought (HCOF) website
Americans United for Separation of Church and State website

Introducing Humāinism

2006-06-28T13:18:00.001-07:00

Update - July 20, 2006: Unfortunately, Rick has had to remove his site for the time being, so the links below will probably not function. I'll update readers if this ever changes.

Rick Bamford is a fellow Humanist I met online through the International Stoics Forum, and with whom I have been collaborating and exchanging ideas and thoughts about ways of expressing and living Humanism in a more personal, positive, and spiritual sense.

Rick has come up with a nice collection of ideas he has termed Humāinism. Rick's concept is fairly precise and he has accepted that it is a more narrow focus than some Humanists would identify with. Even I do not hold the same views on vegetarianism, for instance, but agree with Rick on the vast majority of other ideas. For example, his three components of Humāinism is very much in agreement with my Primary Virtues, and his use of concepts from Buddhism and Stoicism is excellent. Humāinism is packed full of wonderful ideas and concepts, inspired from a variety of traditions and philosophies - certainly a noble take on the same general direction we'd both like to see Humanism head.

I highly recommend a reading of the site in which he has outlined his concepts. It can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/humainism/

Happy World Humanist Day

2006-06-21T14:34:00.000-07:00

Today is World Humanist Day as well as the summer solstice. World Humanist Day is, of course, celebrated by Humanists and we folks being a minority, a lot of people aren't aware of it. The day exists mainly as a day of fellowship for Humanists and to increase awareness of Humanist values. It developed slowly over the 1980s between several groups celebrating on various significant dates. Finally the American Humanist Association and the International Humanist & Ethical Union agreed on a unified date, June 21st (to reflect reverence for the natural universe on the summer solstice). Even among Humanist groups, it's still a growing holiday, but it's starting to be celebrated more frequently by them over time. The winter solstice has already been celebrated by Humanists for a long time, around the same holiday season as others are celebrating.

In that spirit, let me provide some quotes on Humanism, thanks to www.wisdomquotes.com...

Ethical Humanism is primarily an attitude about human beings, their worth, and the significance of their lives. It is concerned with the nature and quality of living; the character and creativity of our relationships. Because of this concern, humanism spontaneously flowers into a spiritual movement in its own right.
-- Edward Ericson

In my view, humanism relies on reason and compassion. Reason guides our attempt to understand the world about us. Both reason and compassion guide our efforts to apply that knowledge ethically, to understand other people, and have ethical relationships with other people.
-- Molleen Matsumura

A Humanist Code of Ethics:
Do no harm to the earth, she is your mother.
Being is more important than having.
Never promote yourself at another's expense.
Hold life sacred; treat it with reverence.
Allow each person the dignity of his or her labor.
Open your home to the wayfarer.
Be ready to receive your deepest dreams;
sometimes they are the speech of unblighted conscience.
Always make restitutions to the ones you have harmed.
Never think less of yourself than you are.
Never think that you are more than another.
-- Arthur Dorbin

IHEU page on World Humanist Day
Secular Seasons page on World Humanist Day
Wikipedia article on World Humanist Day
Wikipedia article on the Summer Solstice

More Thoughts on Meditation

2006-06-19T08:38:00.000-07:00

I was thinking recently about the workings and purposes of meditation (at least samatha meditation) and I thought of an interesting way to explain some of what it’s about.

As most people know, during meditating one attempts to achieve a still mind; that is, a mind that is not wandering onto various topics and is simply conscious without active thought. Why do this? It’s not that there is anything intrinsically valuable about having a still mind. Frogs probably have a still mind, and I will have a very still mind when I’m dead. Thinking is a good thing. But a still mind is a symptom, or an effect that is an indicator of something else.

Imagine yourself and a small child in knee-high water. Now imagine that you are trying to discipline yourself to be still. As you can imagine, the small child will have a more difficult time of this. He lacks the ability to be still and this means he also lacks self control. The water about the two of you will have many ripples or waves in it. Once you learn to control your body and remain still, the water’s surface will be smooth.

Likewise, one seeks a still mind during meditation because it is an indicator that one has achieved greater control over one’s thoughts. The natural inclination of the mind is to wander about various topics. Because the brain has a neural network sort of architecture, activity in one cluster of neurons will easily stimulate others. In this way, one thought reminds you of another, and so on – a sort of mental rambling.

By practicing the clearing of our minds and reaching stillness for extended periods, we train our brains to be capable of directing thought and attention as we decide it is to be directed. If we can achieve this still mind at will and often in meditation, we find that we are also more capable of concentrating on the activities and thoughts we choose to focus on without being scatterbrained or constantly consumed with a worrisome influx of thoughts.

Those who have practiced meditation, even for a short time, have noticed this increase in concentration, focus of attention, and control (I am one of them). Is it placebo, or an improvement of reasoning ability, or a neural restructuring? There are a lot of unanswered questions about the physiological nature behind this experience. I look forward to hearing the results of continuing neurological studies on meditation. But, in any case, it definitely seems to be a fascinating and promising activity, as millions of other people for thousands of years have found.

I have not been consistent in my meditation practice, but hope to improve it. Right now I’m still on 'training wheels'.