The following is an excerpt from a dialogue I had over the internet with my friend Obi. We were debating the nature of consciousness. In this excerpt, it was my contention that consciousness must necessarily precede the universe. Obi argued that the universe came first and consciousness sometime afterward. I made some minor changes to the text for the sake of clarity.
Although it did not come up during the dialogue, my argument is indebted to the “Schrodinger’s cat” theory which says that before something is observed, it exists as a field of potentiality; it is only the act of observation that makes it “real”. This idea is a crucial theory of quantum mechanics. Those interested should refer to the infamous “double slit” experiment.
Obi: My claim was that consciousness was a part of the natural world, and is subjected to the same constraints as every other thing in the natural world. Do you disagree?
Brady: Yes. I contend that the natural world is part of consciousness. I should think that obvious!
Obi: Why should it be obvious? The Christian will disagree and say that the soul transcends the natural world. It is immaterial, free of physical constraints, and so on. It will defy any attempt to locate it in the natural world.
Brady: Why should it be obvious? Show me anything from the natural world without consciousness. You can't because there is no "you" and there is no "me" without consciousness. The world needs something to perceive it for it to exist.
Obi: I don't think so. For example: the Earth is 5 billion years old. The universe is perhaps four times that. That was true before people were around to observe it.
Brady: How do you know?
Obi: The evidence suggests it.
Brady: But what if there was no Obi to look at the evidence.
Obi: This isn't controversial, Brady. Denying that the Earth and stars existed before brains existed is a pretty radical claim.
Brady: It's not radical to suggest that the perceived requires a perceiver.
Obi: It is radical to claim that a physical object's existence is dependent on an observer. I am not looking at my toilet right now, but it still exists.
Brady: How do you know?
Obi: Because the evidence suggests it.
Brady: Who perceives that evidence?
Obi: Myself and other observers.
Brady: But how do you know those other observers even exist? I mean how do you know they have consciousness like you do? You surmise that they do, but you can never really know.
Obi: I find it intuitively obvious. It is the hypothesis that best fits the evidence.
Brady: Yes, YOU find it intuitively obvious; It's the YOU perceives their existence.
Obi: I do not claim certainty. I claim abduction to the best explanation. I suspect 99% of the whole world also agree that this is the best way to interpret the evidence, and any alternative is radical.
Brady: It doesn't matter. From your perspective, if you ceased to exist, so would the rest of the universe.
Obi: From my perspective, right now, the world would continue to exist when I cease to exist. There will be no perspective after that.
Brady: Right. Therefore consciousness precedes the natural world.
Obi was not satisfied with this last reply, and the debate continued afterward. I end the transcript here, because we veered off topic and ultimately didn’t finish the conversation, but at this point I think the essence of my argument was communicated.
Thanks Obi!
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The Ten Suggestions
It has become popular for atheist websites to crate modern, secular versions of the Old Testament's ten commandments. The following is my attempt at a comprehensive set of ideas that for living a good life. My choice of words, (“ideas”, “good”) I recognizes as nondescript. Sorry to be vague, but it’s necessary to draw parallels between what follows and the ten commandments. Firstly, because mine are not commandments, but suggestions. The work I envision for religion crosses the boundaries from theology over to mysticism and philosophy, and that requires mutability. Thus “suggestions”. The aim of which are to work toward wisdom, self-awareness, and happiness, instead of (for example) to placate some angry personal god toward the ultimate aim of personal deliverance from torture. Thus my choice in using the word “good”. Here are my suggestions in no particular order:
The Ten Suggestions
I. Treat Others as Reflections of Yourself
II. Follow Your Intuition, Move Toward Pleasant Feelings and Move Away from the Unpleasant
III. Observe the Mind Objectively and Disidentify “Self” from the Mental Monologue
IV. Avoid the Conceit “Is”
V. Overcome Fear by Non-Resistance
VI. Cultivate Concentration
VII. Educate Yourself
VIII. Avoid Making Critical Decisions While in a Negative Emotional State
IX. Observe the Rules of Logic and Reason
X. When in Doubt Bring Attention into the Body
The rationale:
I. Treat Others as Reflections of Yourself
All of the great religions share in common some version of the golden rule. Here is mine. I feel that this suggestion is somewhat more poignant than “do to others as you would have them do to you”. “Treat others as a reflection of yourself” does the same work as the older didactum, but it also points toward a rationale. There is no part of what the perceiver perceives that is not a part of the perceiver—the perceiver represents the culmination of his perceptions. Therefore one should treat others as one treats one’s self because the only way others can perceived is through one’s own self. The feelings that one projects onto other people (or things) are experienced by the person who projects them. Include a factor of delay, and you have the law of karma. But whether there is a time-lag or not, what manifests on the inside (thoughts, feelings) can manifest in the material world. For example, projecting goodwill into the world adds to the pool of total goodwill out there, and thereby increases the likelihood that more good will come into the life of the person who projects it.
II. Follow Your Intuition, Move Toward Pleasant Feelings and Move Away From the Unpleasant
Forgive the bulkiness of this one. I may try to think of a way to make in more concise. The current form, however may serve well for an analogy. Although the latter part of this suggestion (move toward pleasant feelings/away from unpleasant) may seem like a no-brainer, the former seems more disputable. But the latter is an elaboration of the former, so how can this be? The mind sometimes comes up with some very good reasons to do things that the intuition warns against. Intuition is that “gut” reaction that feels good or bad. No one questions the validity of good or bad feelings, but people will question the validity of good or bad feelings when the mind has come up with a clever argument that contradicts them. That’s when we give feeling the conspicuous moniker “intuition”. When your feelings strongly warn you against some clever idea, (which may promise greater rewards in the future) listen to your feelings. Since happiness is one of the primary goals of religious pursuits, then we should embrace positive feelings when they occur and allow them to guide us.
III. Observe the Mind Objectively and Disidentify “Self” from the Mental Monologue
For this suggestion, I must recognize Eckhart Tolle, whose books are based on this idea. Samatha meditation, which Siddhartha Gautama used to achieve enlightenment exploits this principal as well. The mind creates a seamless mental monologue. Part of this mental monologue is a collection of descriptions which culminate in a superficial personality. This false perception of self is created by impermanent thoughts and has no substance in itself. The mental monologue is a reaction to our environment and our life situations. This suggestion has the aim of helping the individual achieve self-awareness by revealing what is not self. The question of the actual “substance” of self is too big a question to be addressed here.
IV. Avoid the Conceit “Is”
All that we experience represents a fraction of ultimate truth. Our perceptions cannot give an objective truth of what “is” because the sense data that we collect represents the universe as perceived by our uniquely human organs. Even if the our perceptions did somehow reflect objective realities of the universe, all that surrounds us changes constantly, ergo, sense data perceived at any given point would still represent only a fraction of what “is”. Even in the sciences, there are no “facts” per se—there are only theories that have yet to be disproven, and as of yet, no one has discovered a grand unifying theory of everything. So, when someone invokes the verb “to be” it often represents a half-truth or full-out falsehood, and can potentially limit the scope of our understanding.
V. Overcome Fear by Non-Resistance
Many people live their lives in fear—fear of escaping some unhealthy relationship or other life situation, or conversely, the fear of pursuing what they actually want. A skydiver before jumping out of a plane might feel fear but the worst of it is felt before actually jumping. It’s the apprehension—the getting caught up in the “what ifs” instead of embracing the situation and jumping out of the plane. Apprehension is caused by uncertainty. “What if I die?”, you might ask. And what is more terrifying than death, which represents the ultimate uncertainty? But there is no real certainty of anything in life—and living through another day is no excetion. The Earth’s magnetic poles are a few thousand years overdue for a flip, a meteorite could strike the Earth at any moment, or a gigantic solar flare could blast away the atmosphere. Any of these events would cause a cataclysm that would wipe out humankind entirely. This could happen at any moment! We are ultimately at the mercy of our surroundings. But we do have dominion over our own reactions. Fear follows an inability to accept what is happening. So we can remedy fear by embracing the situation which we fear—to accept it fully. Within absolute acceptance, there is no place for fear to exist. And since acceptance, like all reactions is a choice—it is ultimately under our control. If we can convince ourselves to really accept loss, disability and death, then fear will cease to have dominion over us.
VI. Cultivate Concentration
Nothing can be done without concentration, and great achievements are only possible with great amounts of concentration. Great discoveries, great athletic feats, higher learning and some would say spiritual enlightenment are not possible without the ability to concentrate. Not everyone is born with the gift of strong concentration, and habitual thinking and modern dangers, such as television and can perpetually erode concentration. So, we must cultivate it if we want to be successful. Without cultivating concentration, we are at the mercy of errant thoughts, which are potentially destructive. Therefore through devotion to some discipline, or through meditation, we should cultivate concentration. If we possess the ability to concentrate, not only do we manifest a heightened ability to achieve goals, but we also bring about an elevation of consciousness and a deepening awareness of self. As we cultivate concentration, and our ability to achieve goals becomes stronger, so increases an awareness of what goals are worth achieving, and what it is that drives us towards achievement in the first place.
VII. Educate Yourself
To understand ourselves and the world around us we must educate ourselves. Education fights off ignorance and superstition. It allows us to understand the mechanics of our world, appreciate its beauty, and provide us with the information we need to create new technologies which we can use to improve our lives. Education is responsible for elevating our species from living short and painful lives to long, comfortable and truly wonderful ones. Education raises our consciousness, and provides us with the insight to achieve our dreams. Anything is possible with education and every effort should be made to make education a life-long practice.
VIII. Avoid Making Critical Decisions While in a Negative Emotional State
The romantic poets created their art by recalling intense emotional experiences, after regaining tranquility at a later time. To me, the principle suggest that objectivity cannot be reached while under the sway of emotions, and good poetry requires objectivity (even if that objectivity reflects an intensely personal experience). In classical rhetoric the pathetic appeal gets classified as fallacious. I think the classification wise. The principle seems even more important when in regards to emotional states of a negative character. When angry, depressed, frightened, or in an otherwise negative emotional state, objective rational may become skewed by a desire to alleviate that emotional state, or punish others for a perceived responsibility for it. So, making decision in a state of skewed judgment may result in unfavorable circumstances in the future. There is, I believe, a deeper fallacy at work here, however. Ultimately we decide which of our emotions to accept and which to reject, but under the throws of intense emotion we tend to forget that such a choice exists. So, by avoiding making critical decisions while in a negative emotional state, we also raise our consciousness by drawing attention to the power of emotions to take over our rationale.
IX. Observe the Rules of Logic and Reason
Arrive at conclusions by assessing available evidence. Avoid making conclusions based on arbitrary whim—or to the end of furthering some unrelated goal. Millions of people in the USA believe that the Earth was created ten thousand years ago because an ancient text, written by Babylonian slaves, implies that it is that young despite scientific evidence that the age of the Earth is about 4.6 million years. American Christians perceive the scientific evidence as a threat to their entire belief system, and so disregard the evidence. There is a lesson here—avoid becoming too attached to any belief system and allow it to adapt as more evidence comes in.
X. When in Doubt Bring Attention into the Body
This one is pure (Eckhart) Tolle. Whenever you find your reality unpleasant, bring attention into the body. Feel the body from within. This should help you relax and bring about a more pleasant state. Use this technique when stressed, ill, or overcome with negative emotion.
The Ten Suggestions
I. Treat Others as Reflections of Yourself
II. Follow Your Intuition, Move Toward Pleasant Feelings and Move Away from the Unpleasant
III. Observe the Mind Objectively and Disidentify “Self” from the Mental Monologue
IV. Avoid the Conceit “Is”
V. Overcome Fear by Non-Resistance
VI. Cultivate Concentration
VII. Educate Yourself
VIII. Avoid Making Critical Decisions While in a Negative Emotional State
IX. Observe the Rules of Logic and Reason
X. When in Doubt Bring Attention into the Body
The rationale:
I. Treat Others as Reflections of Yourself
All of the great religions share in common some version of the golden rule. Here is mine. I feel that this suggestion is somewhat more poignant than “do to others as you would have them do to you”. “Treat others as a reflection of yourself” does the same work as the older didactum, but it also points toward a rationale. There is no part of what the perceiver perceives that is not a part of the perceiver—the perceiver represents the culmination of his perceptions. Therefore one should treat others as one treats one’s self because the only way others can perceived is through one’s own self. The feelings that one projects onto other people (or things) are experienced by the person who projects them. Include a factor of delay, and you have the law of karma. But whether there is a time-lag or not, what manifests on the inside (thoughts, feelings) can manifest in the material world. For example, projecting goodwill into the world adds to the pool of total goodwill out there, and thereby increases the likelihood that more good will come into the life of the person who projects it.
II. Follow Your Intuition, Move Toward Pleasant Feelings and Move Away From the Unpleasant
Forgive the bulkiness of this one. I may try to think of a way to make in more concise. The current form, however may serve well for an analogy. Although the latter part of this suggestion (move toward pleasant feelings/away from unpleasant) may seem like a no-brainer, the former seems more disputable. But the latter is an elaboration of the former, so how can this be? The mind sometimes comes up with some very good reasons to do things that the intuition warns against. Intuition is that “gut” reaction that feels good or bad. No one questions the validity of good or bad feelings, but people will question the validity of good or bad feelings when the mind has come up with a clever argument that contradicts them. That’s when we give feeling the conspicuous moniker “intuition”. When your feelings strongly warn you against some clever idea, (which may promise greater rewards in the future) listen to your feelings. Since happiness is one of the primary goals of religious pursuits, then we should embrace positive feelings when they occur and allow them to guide us.
III. Observe the Mind Objectively and Disidentify “Self” from the Mental Monologue
For this suggestion, I must recognize Eckhart Tolle, whose books are based on this idea. Samatha meditation, which Siddhartha Gautama used to achieve enlightenment exploits this principal as well. The mind creates a seamless mental monologue. Part of this mental monologue is a collection of descriptions which culminate in a superficial personality. This false perception of self is created by impermanent thoughts and has no substance in itself. The mental monologue is a reaction to our environment and our life situations. This suggestion has the aim of helping the individual achieve self-awareness by revealing what is not self. The question of the actual “substance” of self is too big a question to be addressed here.
IV. Avoid the Conceit “Is”
All that we experience represents a fraction of ultimate truth. Our perceptions cannot give an objective truth of what “is” because the sense data that we collect represents the universe as perceived by our uniquely human organs. Even if the our perceptions did somehow reflect objective realities of the universe, all that surrounds us changes constantly, ergo, sense data perceived at any given point would still represent only a fraction of what “is”. Even in the sciences, there are no “facts” per se—there are only theories that have yet to be disproven, and as of yet, no one has discovered a grand unifying theory of everything. So, when someone invokes the verb “to be” it often represents a half-truth or full-out falsehood, and can potentially limit the scope of our understanding.
V. Overcome Fear by Non-Resistance
Many people live their lives in fear—fear of escaping some unhealthy relationship or other life situation, or conversely, the fear of pursuing what they actually want. A skydiver before jumping out of a plane might feel fear but the worst of it is felt before actually jumping. It’s the apprehension—the getting caught up in the “what ifs” instead of embracing the situation and jumping out of the plane. Apprehension is caused by uncertainty. “What if I die?”, you might ask. And what is more terrifying than death, which represents the ultimate uncertainty? But there is no real certainty of anything in life—and living through another day is no excetion. The Earth’s magnetic poles are a few thousand years overdue for a flip, a meteorite could strike the Earth at any moment, or a gigantic solar flare could blast away the atmosphere. Any of these events would cause a cataclysm that would wipe out humankind entirely. This could happen at any moment! We are ultimately at the mercy of our surroundings. But we do have dominion over our own reactions. Fear follows an inability to accept what is happening. So we can remedy fear by embracing the situation which we fear—to accept it fully. Within absolute acceptance, there is no place for fear to exist. And since acceptance, like all reactions is a choice—it is ultimately under our control. If we can convince ourselves to really accept loss, disability and death, then fear will cease to have dominion over us.
VI. Cultivate Concentration
Nothing can be done without concentration, and great achievements are only possible with great amounts of concentration. Great discoveries, great athletic feats, higher learning and some would say spiritual enlightenment are not possible without the ability to concentrate. Not everyone is born with the gift of strong concentration, and habitual thinking and modern dangers, such as television and can perpetually erode concentration. So, we must cultivate it if we want to be successful. Without cultivating concentration, we are at the mercy of errant thoughts, which are potentially destructive. Therefore through devotion to some discipline, or through meditation, we should cultivate concentration. If we possess the ability to concentrate, not only do we manifest a heightened ability to achieve goals, but we also bring about an elevation of consciousness and a deepening awareness of self. As we cultivate concentration, and our ability to achieve goals becomes stronger, so increases an awareness of what goals are worth achieving, and what it is that drives us towards achievement in the first place.
VII. Educate Yourself
To understand ourselves and the world around us we must educate ourselves. Education fights off ignorance and superstition. It allows us to understand the mechanics of our world, appreciate its beauty, and provide us with the information we need to create new technologies which we can use to improve our lives. Education is responsible for elevating our species from living short and painful lives to long, comfortable and truly wonderful ones. Education raises our consciousness, and provides us with the insight to achieve our dreams. Anything is possible with education and every effort should be made to make education a life-long practice.
VIII. Avoid Making Critical Decisions While in a Negative Emotional State
The romantic poets created their art by recalling intense emotional experiences, after regaining tranquility at a later time. To me, the principle suggest that objectivity cannot be reached while under the sway of emotions, and good poetry requires objectivity (even if that objectivity reflects an intensely personal experience). In classical rhetoric the pathetic appeal gets classified as fallacious. I think the classification wise. The principle seems even more important when in regards to emotional states of a negative character. When angry, depressed, frightened, or in an otherwise negative emotional state, objective rational may become skewed by a desire to alleviate that emotional state, or punish others for a perceived responsibility for it. So, making decision in a state of skewed judgment may result in unfavorable circumstances in the future. There is, I believe, a deeper fallacy at work here, however. Ultimately we decide which of our emotions to accept and which to reject, but under the throws of intense emotion we tend to forget that such a choice exists. So, by avoiding making critical decisions while in a negative emotional state, we also raise our consciousness by drawing attention to the power of emotions to take over our rationale.
IX. Observe the Rules of Logic and Reason
Arrive at conclusions by assessing available evidence. Avoid making conclusions based on arbitrary whim—or to the end of furthering some unrelated goal. Millions of people in the USA believe that the Earth was created ten thousand years ago because an ancient text, written by Babylonian slaves, implies that it is that young despite scientific evidence that the age of the Earth is about 4.6 million years. American Christians perceive the scientific evidence as a threat to their entire belief system, and so disregard the evidence. There is a lesson here—avoid becoming too attached to any belief system and allow it to adapt as more evidence comes in.
X. When in Doubt Bring Attention into the Body
This one is pure (Eckhart) Tolle. Whenever you find your reality unpleasant, bring attention into the body. Feel the body from within. This should help you relax and bring about a more pleasant state. Use this technique when stressed, ill, or overcome with negative emotion.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
A Religion That Can Change
Perhaps the greatest failure of religion up until now has been its inability to change. Religion is almost by definition dogmatic and so resists change. So, while culture and society change, religion is unable to adapt with it, or if it does, it is slow and stubborn. Alternatively, different denominations splinter off (as with the Anglican church) or, new religions are created as a progression from the existing tradition (Bahaism, Shikism, Buddhism, Christianiy, Islam, Rastafarianism, Mormonism). A third possibility is that entirely new religions are created (Scientology).
This historical inability for religion to adapt has given rise to a common perception that this is "just the way religion works". But I don't think that has to be the case--and I would like to challenge the idea. After all, why is it that other disciplines like science are inclusive, but religion is not? Why is it that physicists are not factionalized, and unwilling to work together, but rabbis, priests and mullahs are?
The hard core athiest might jump to the conclusion: "because there is no substance to religion". I disagree. I think there is a pretty clear purpose for religion as there is a clear purpose for physics. The purpose of physics is to study the movement of matter and energy through spacetime. The purpose of religion is to answer those pressing existential questions that we all have at one time or another in our lives: What is the nature of self? What is my purpose? How can I be happy? What happens when I die? and What does it all mean, anyway? Since we can pretty clearly identify the questions that religion addresses, then we can give it creedence as a legitimate discipline, like science.
If there are answers to these questions, an I expect that there are, then there is no reason why religion cannot be run a little bit more like physics--with it students and practicioners working together, to further the discipline, and their personal understanding of it, instead of arguing over conflicting dogma. In physics, scientists don't argue about things for a while, but usually after a century or so, in the worst case, they come to some sort of accord. If there are universal truths, then those truths necessarily lie outside of the domain of this or that particular religion--they do not "belong" to any relgion--they are the things that religion strives toward. Can you imagine a dozen different national groups of scientists, all having arrived at some half-truth about the nature of black holes refusing to co-operate towards findig some greater understanding of the annomalies, because they are too afraid of being disproven? No! Scientists work inclusively, and so should spiratualists.
The biggest stumbling block that prevents this sort of co-operation is the "insubstantiality" of spiritual pursuits. Just the realm of pshysics is that which is solid, that which has weight, color and shape--that which can be measured, the realm of spirituality is the realm of the insubstantial: the ostensibly weightless, colorless, unmeasurable. It is the realm of the experiencial. It is at once contains the realm of science, and lies outside of it. There is no hard evidence in the same way there is hard evidence for science. Science requires judgement, but spirtual enlightenment requires an absence of judgement. To understand the nature of self, one must strip away as much as possible and see what is left. Science requires stuff to play with, measure and analyze, and as a result, it's much easier to provide evidence of this or that scientific theory. Since spirituality is experiencial, you can't just show someone a diagram in a textbook, and expect them to know what the hell you are talking about (although good art can sometimes fill this function).
So, spirtuality is slippery, but I think we can still package it in some useful way, and so call it a religion. But for that religion to be credible, and for it to continue to be useful (and culturally relevant) as the decades and centuries turn, it must be able to change and adapt like science, art, mathematics, or any other "credible" discipline.
This historical inability for religion to adapt has given rise to a common perception that this is "just the way religion works". But I don't think that has to be the case--and I would like to challenge the idea. After all, why is it that other disciplines like science are inclusive, but religion is not? Why is it that physicists are not factionalized, and unwilling to work together, but rabbis, priests and mullahs are?
The hard core athiest might jump to the conclusion: "because there is no substance to religion". I disagree. I think there is a pretty clear purpose for religion as there is a clear purpose for physics. The purpose of physics is to study the movement of matter and energy through spacetime. The purpose of religion is to answer those pressing existential questions that we all have at one time or another in our lives: What is the nature of self? What is my purpose? How can I be happy? What happens when I die? and What does it all mean, anyway? Since we can pretty clearly identify the questions that religion addresses, then we can give it creedence as a legitimate discipline, like science.
If there are answers to these questions, an I expect that there are, then there is no reason why religion cannot be run a little bit more like physics--with it students and practicioners working together, to further the discipline, and their personal understanding of it, instead of arguing over conflicting dogma. In physics, scientists don't argue about things for a while, but usually after a century or so, in the worst case, they come to some sort of accord. If there are universal truths, then those truths necessarily lie outside of the domain of this or that particular religion--they do not "belong" to any relgion--they are the things that religion strives toward. Can you imagine a dozen different national groups of scientists, all having arrived at some half-truth about the nature of black holes refusing to co-operate towards findig some greater understanding of the annomalies, because they are too afraid of being disproven? No! Scientists work inclusively, and so should spiratualists.
The biggest stumbling block that prevents this sort of co-operation is the "insubstantiality" of spiritual pursuits. Just the realm of pshysics is that which is solid, that which has weight, color and shape--that which can be measured, the realm of spirituality is the realm of the insubstantial: the ostensibly weightless, colorless, unmeasurable. It is the realm of the experiencial. It is at once contains the realm of science, and lies outside of it. There is no hard evidence in the same way there is hard evidence for science. Science requires judgement, but spirtual enlightenment requires an absence of judgement. To understand the nature of self, one must strip away as much as possible and see what is left. Science requires stuff to play with, measure and analyze, and as a result, it's much easier to provide evidence of this or that scientific theory. Since spirituality is experiencial, you can't just show someone a diagram in a textbook, and expect them to know what the hell you are talking about (although good art can sometimes fill this function).
So, spirtuality is slippery, but I think we can still package it in some useful way, and so call it a religion. But for that religion to be credible, and for it to continue to be useful (and culturally relevant) as the decades and centuries turn, it must be able to change and adapt like science, art, mathematics, or any other "credible" discipline.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Failure of Ethics in Classical Religious Traditions
Ultimately, the aim of religion should be to cultivate and maximize happiness. To understand what God is is fine, but that also requires a precise definition of what God is. To understand the self and our reason for being here is more useful for cultivating happiness, but there is an easier way still that is still within the scope of religion: ethics.
While ethics has its limitations, when forced to choose understanding God, understanding self, and studying ethics, ethics is the easiest, most straight-forward way to cultivate happiness...if the ethical system has no other purpose than to teach ethics, anyway. Unfortunately, established religion has the tendency to draw people in with sound ethical principles, and then prescribe other less sounds ones, that the religion's followers will adhere to none-the-less.
The heart of ethics is the golden rule. It has many incarnations in the texts of the world's great religions.
In Hinduism:
Do not unto others what ye do not wish done to yourself...this is the whole of the Dharma. (The Mahabharata)
In Judaism:
What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor; that is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary; go learn it. (The Talmud)
In Buddhism:
Hurt not others in ways you would yourself find hurtful. (The Dhammapada)
In Islam: No one of you is a believer until you desire for another that which you desire for yourself. (The Sunnah)
In Christianity:
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. (The New Testament)
If the ethical prescriptions stopped at the golden rule, the religion would be less dangerous. However, there are many questionable ethical prescriptions scattered throughout the world's preeminent religious texts, notably in The Old Testament, The New Testament and the Koran.
One danger of ethical prescriptions in religious texts is that they might be just in the context of the culture in some past century, but no longer relevant today.
For example, the Koran, demands that believers "Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah." (5:38)
While clearly cruel and unethical by today's standards, In seventh century Arabia, where food and water were not abundant, such a harsh measure might have been necessary to prevent starvation. However, it is no longer the seventh century, and most Muslims don't live in Arabia. No one living in a first world country, Muslim or otherwise, should be able to prescribe this kind of punishment for simple theft and call it moral.
And yet some people have convinced themselves that such a thing is just because they believe that the text that prescribes it comes from some infallible divinity. If the goal of religion is to maximize happiness, it has a lot of work to do in the area of ethics.
Perhaps the biggest danger of ethical prescriptions in religious texts is that they can be used to scare their followers into remaining faithful to their religion. In the Koran it says:
"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers." 2:191-2
Historically, the Muslim world was far more religiously tolerant than homogeneous Christian Europe. Not surprising given some of the stuff in the Bible. The New Testament says:
Executing non-believers brings peace. (Chronicles 15:15)
And in the New Testament:
"God will kill those who believe and preach the wrong doctrines." (Jeremiah 5:12-13)
"Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned." (John 15:6)
"God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death."
(Peter 3:7)
In this way (as well as others) religion has become self-serving. Traditions that begin with the goal of spreading human joy and happiness turn into institutions that are concerned with other goals. There is an important lesson to extract from this reflex: that we cannot take everything a religion prescribes as read. In the best case scenario, religion can point to a spiritual path. Since the path itself is esoteric and necessarily experiential, there can be no definitive description of what the path looks like, nor can there be a definitive prescription of how the to walk it. This would be true even if we had a single world language that never changed.
If a practitioner finds that religion's ethical prescriptions prove false to their experience, then they should not hesitate to discard them. The proof must be in the pudding!
There is no good reason for science and religion to be at odds with each other. One deals with the empirical: the measurable aspects of the universe, while the other deals with the experiential. The disciplines are not mutually exclusive. Religion, up until this point, has had the tendency of dictating that the holy texts are the unalterable and perfect as they are. As a result, religion lacks a coping mechanism for change. As result, religions have limited mechanisms for growth and adaptation and whenever too large a change takes place, there becomes a splintering off of new denominations, or even entire new religions.
This unwillingness to change is dogmatism, and it the reason why religion is becoming increasingly ignored. Modern society gives us a useful alternative to religion in philosophy, a discipline which does not suffer from religion's tendency to resist change. Unfortunately, philosophy tends to fall short when it comes to exploring the mystical. Philosophy, however, does work quite well when brought to task on ethics.
Since religions have traditionally not been able to change, without creating new denominations, they have been forced to deal with their flaws in bizarre and irrational ways. I'm going to pick on Christianity again, but only because I know more about it than the other major religions.
An all too common justification that Christians are apt to site as a justification for farcical beliefs (Eve was made from Adams rib, Dinosaurs existed only 4000 years ago, evolution is a lie, et cetera) is that it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God. Of course they only "know" that the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible. This is an obvious case of circular reasoning. The problem is that when people will have a powerful spiritual experience, as sometimes happens, they will take it as a proof that religion X is valid, and thereby get caught in the snare of circular reasoning.
For me, the most absurd argument of the uncompromising Christian is that the Bible is the infallible word of God. But this is absurd. For one, there are many different versions and translations of the Bible, which sometimes carry different semantic meanings. Which one is the infallible word of God and which is not? No one would hazard to make the fallacious argument that the Bible was written by Jesus, so how much more absurd to suggest that it is the infallible word of God? How doubly absurd when followers begin to conveniently forget the prescriptions that have absolutely no chance at being seen as ethical by anyone in their right mind:
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9)
"If you don't honor the Sabbath, God will burn you to death unquenchable fire." (Jeremiah 17:27)
The point is, when this kind of absurd reasoning starts to take place, reason is lost. Once people lose their faculty of reason, then they are able to be convinced of anything. This needs to change. Religion must become malleable and it must be made to incorporate reason if it is to survive into the 22nd Century and beyond.
After-all there are plenty of sources for ethics in the world of today. Art and literature can serve this function quite well. But why not draw upon larger traditions? Why not draw upon a systems of thought that provide theories about ethics and morality in the greater picture, one of a larger scope that considers what a pre human life state, and a post-human life state?
There is no good reason! We must learn to take the good from all religious traditions, work with them and build upon them. This line of thinking is staring to take root in the form of Universalism, and it has always been present in in Sikhism. We all recognize joy, we all recognize suffering. Religion can only comment upon joy and suffering, it cannot dictate what they are. We should use the commentary we find useful but never hesitate throw out the garbage that proves itself false. Ultimately, we must be our own arbiters of truth. The responsibility may be intimidating, but ultimately, it's the only way.
While ethics has its limitations, when forced to choose understanding God, understanding self, and studying ethics, ethics is the easiest, most straight-forward way to cultivate happiness...if the ethical system has no other purpose than to teach ethics, anyway. Unfortunately, established religion has the tendency to draw people in with sound ethical principles, and then prescribe other less sounds ones, that the religion's followers will adhere to none-the-less.
The heart of ethics is the golden rule. It has many incarnations in the texts of the world's great religions.
In Hinduism:
Do not unto others what ye do not wish done to yourself...this is the whole of the Dharma. (The Mahabharata)
In Judaism:
What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor; that is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary; go learn it. (The Talmud)
In Buddhism:
Hurt not others in ways you would yourself find hurtful. (The Dhammapada)
In Islam: No one of you is a believer until you desire for another that which you desire for yourself. (The Sunnah)
In Christianity:
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. (The New Testament)
If the ethical prescriptions stopped at the golden rule, the religion would be less dangerous. However, there are many questionable ethical prescriptions scattered throughout the world's preeminent religious texts, notably in The Old Testament, The New Testament and the Koran.
One danger of ethical prescriptions in religious texts is that they might be just in the context of the culture in some past century, but no longer relevant today.
For example, the Koran, demands that believers "Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah." (5:38)
While clearly cruel and unethical by today's standards, In seventh century Arabia, where food and water were not abundant, such a harsh measure might have been necessary to prevent starvation. However, it is no longer the seventh century, and most Muslims don't live in Arabia. No one living in a first world country, Muslim or otherwise, should be able to prescribe this kind of punishment for simple theft and call it moral.
And yet some people have convinced themselves that such a thing is just because they believe that the text that prescribes it comes from some infallible divinity. If the goal of religion is to maximize happiness, it has a lot of work to do in the area of ethics.
Perhaps the biggest danger of ethical prescriptions in religious texts is that they can be used to scare their followers into remaining faithful to their religion. In the Koran it says:
"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers." 2:191-2
Historically, the Muslim world was far more religiously tolerant than homogeneous Christian Europe. Not surprising given some of the stuff in the Bible. The New Testament says:
Executing non-believers brings peace. (Chronicles 15:15)
And in the New Testament:
"God will kill those who believe and preach the wrong doctrines." (Jeremiah 5:12-13)
"Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned." (John 15:6)
"God will set the entire earth on fire so that he can burn non-believers to death."
(Peter 3:7)
In this way (as well as others) religion has become self-serving. Traditions that begin with the goal of spreading human joy and happiness turn into institutions that are concerned with other goals. There is an important lesson to extract from this reflex: that we cannot take everything a religion prescribes as read. In the best case scenario, religion can point to a spiritual path. Since the path itself is esoteric and necessarily experiential, there can be no definitive description of what the path looks like, nor can there be a definitive prescription of how the to walk it. This would be true even if we had a single world language that never changed.
If a practitioner finds that religion's ethical prescriptions prove false to their experience, then they should not hesitate to discard them. The proof must be in the pudding!
There is no good reason for science and religion to be at odds with each other. One deals with the empirical: the measurable aspects of the universe, while the other deals with the experiential. The disciplines are not mutually exclusive. Religion, up until this point, has had the tendency of dictating that the holy texts are the unalterable and perfect as they are. As a result, religion lacks a coping mechanism for change. As result, religions have limited mechanisms for growth and adaptation and whenever too large a change takes place, there becomes a splintering off of new denominations, or even entire new religions.
This unwillingness to change is dogmatism, and it the reason why religion is becoming increasingly ignored. Modern society gives us a useful alternative to religion in philosophy, a discipline which does not suffer from religion's tendency to resist change. Unfortunately, philosophy tends to fall short when it comes to exploring the mystical. Philosophy, however, does work quite well when brought to task on ethics.
Since religions have traditionally not been able to change, without creating new denominations, they have been forced to deal with their flaws in bizarre and irrational ways. I'm going to pick on Christianity again, but only because I know more about it than the other major religions.
An all too common justification that Christians are apt to site as a justification for farcical beliefs (Eve was made from Adams rib, Dinosaurs existed only 4000 years ago, evolution is a lie, et cetera) is that it says so in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God. Of course they only "know" that the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible. This is an obvious case of circular reasoning. The problem is that when people will have a powerful spiritual experience, as sometimes happens, they will take it as a proof that religion X is valid, and thereby get caught in the snare of circular reasoning.
For me, the most absurd argument of the uncompromising Christian is that the Bible is the infallible word of God. But this is absurd. For one, there are many different versions and translations of the Bible, which sometimes carry different semantic meanings. Which one is the infallible word of God and which is not? No one would hazard to make the fallacious argument that the Bible was written by Jesus, so how much more absurd to suggest that it is the infallible word of God? How doubly absurd when followers begin to conveniently forget the prescriptions that have absolutely no chance at being seen as ethical by anyone in their right mind:
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9)
"If you don't honor the Sabbath, God will burn you to death unquenchable fire." (Jeremiah 17:27)
The point is, when this kind of absurd reasoning starts to take place, reason is lost. Once people lose their faculty of reason, then they are able to be convinced of anything. This needs to change. Religion must become malleable and it must be made to incorporate reason if it is to survive into the 22nd Century and beyond.
After-all there are plenty of sources for ethics in the world of today. Art and literature can serve this function quite well. But why not draw upon larger traditions? Why not draw upon a systems of thought that provide theories about ethics and morality in the greater picture, one of a larger scope that considers what a pre human life state, and a post-human life state?
There is no good reason! We must learn to take the good from all religious traditions, work with them and build upon them. This line of thinking is staring to take root in the form of Universalism, and it has always been present in in Sikhism. We all recognize joy, we all recognize suffering. Religion can only comment upon joy and suffering, it cannot dictate what they are. We should use the commentary we find useful but never hesitate throw out the garbage that proves itself false. Ultimately, we must be our own arbiters of truth. The responsibility may be intimidating, but ultimately, it's the only way.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Crazy Little Thing Called God
God is a strange concept in that people often take it to mean many things. So, what exactly do we mean when we say God, anyway? Can we come to some sort of accord regarding what exactly God is?
One major fallacy often made by the world's religious practitioners is the stubborn claiming that theirs is the only "true" God. But basic logic tells us this is absurd. It's kind of like having a basset hound and then claiming your is the only dog. No--there are clearly other dogs, and they all came from one ultimate source--some dog of dogs.
What God is, depends on how you define God. Otherwise it is just a word. The Judeo-Christian religions, as well as Hinduism imagine God as a divine personality; he is a character of his own, he is his distinct "person" like us, only...bigger, smarter, better at shuffleboard, ect. Significantly though, he is also imagined by the world's three biggest religions (Christianity, Hinduism and Islam) as the creator of the world who is omnipresent and omnipotent. So, if God created everything and if he is everywhere at once, and is also all powerful, then it follows that he made all religion, he tolerates all religions, and is ultimately above all religions.
Even Einstein used the term "God" on occasion. He said, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." For practical purposes, let us take Einstein's (or Spinoza's) line of thought concerning the nature of God. It still allows us to think of God as the creator, it still allows us to think of God as omnipresent and omnipotent; it is only his shuffleboard skills that are sacrificed.
Clearly there is some order to the universe. The proof should be immediately obvious: We are not just floating is aetherial chaos. We live in a very complex and fascinating world. It has a long history and is constantly evolving and unfolding. And there is more than just one world--that much is also obvious, for the universe is perceived separately by all conscious beings, thereby existing both independent of the other universes, and symbiotically with them. There is clearly an intelligence governing the universe (or multi-verse). We can think of that intelligence as the divine, and we can for our purpose call that divine intelligence God.
As to the question of whether or not to ascribe some sort of personality to God, I see no obvious reason to do such a thing. And in seeing no such obvious reason in doing so, I will not work with such an assumption, because it is dangerous. The threat is that if no such personality exists, people will create such a personality in their imagination. If a person does so, but does not believe this personality is real, then that person is being deceptive. If that person creates a personality of God in his imagination and and convinces himself that such a personality is real, then that person has become schizophrenic.
Let us not discount the possibility, but also keep our minds open to others. Perhaps God has no personality after all. Perhaps we are all pieces of God ourselves. Perhaps it the truth is the a mix of the above, or something entirely different, which we cannot even comprehend. For now, let's not concern ourselves with such things. It may be beyond our scope, for the time being, and after all, perhaps we are asking the wrong questions.
So, then, if not to work-out the nature of God, much less God's will, what is the point of this whole exercise, anyway? Well, ultimately the aim of this exercise IS to work out the nature of God, but since we do not yet know exactly what our relationship with God is, we it is difficult to learn anything about God. Unfortunately, most of us do not even know ourselves. How can we even begin to work out the nature of God, before we have worked out our own nature? Who can build a tower without knowing what a brick does? For the time being, at least, out aim here should be to work out the nature of self. If we have done that, perhaps then we can begin to work out the nature of God.
One major fallacy often made by the world's religious practitioners is the stubborn claiming that theirs is the only "true" God. But basic logic tells us this is absurd. It's kind of like having a basset hound and then claiming your is the only dog. No--there are clearly other dogs, and they all came from one ultimate source--some dog of dogs.
What God is, depends on how you define God. Otherwise it is just a word. The Judeo-Christian religions, as well as Hinduism imagine God as a divine personality; he is a character of his own, he is his distinct "person" like us, only...bigger, smarter, better at shuffleboard, ect. Significantly though, he is also imagined by the world's three biggest religions (Christianity, Hinduism and Islam) as the creator of the world who is omnipresent and omnipotent. So, if God created everything and if he is everywhere at once, and is also all powerful, then it follows that he made all religion, he tolerates all religions, and is ultimately above all religions.
Even Einstein used the term "God" on occasion. He said, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." For practical purposes, let us take Einstein's (or Spinoza's) line of thought concerning the nature of God. It still allows us to think of God as the creator, it still allows us to think of God as omnipresent and omnipotent; it is only his shuffleboard skills that are sacrificed.
Clearly there is some order to the universe. The proof should be immediately obvious: We are not just floating is aetherial chaos. We live in a very complex and fascinating world. It has a long history and is constantly evolving and unfolding. And there is more than just one world--that much is also obvious, for the universe is perceived separately by all conscious beings, thereby existing both independent of the other universes, and symbiotically with them. There is clearly an intelligence governing the universe (or multi-verse). We can think of that intelligence as the divine, and we can for our purpose call that divine intelligence God.
As to the question of whether or not to ascribe some sort of personality to God, I see no obvious reason to do such a thing. And in seeing no such obvious reason in doing so, I will not work with such an assumption, because it is dangerous. The threat is that if no such personality exists, people will create such a personality in their imagination. If a person does so, but does not believe this personality is real, then that person is being deceptive. If that person creates a personality of God in his imagination and and convinces himself that such a personality is real, then that person has become schizophrenic.
Let us not discount the possibility, but also keep our minds open to others. Perhaps God has no personality after all. Perhaps we are all pieces of God ourselves. Perhaps it the truth is the a mix of the above, or something entirely different, which we cannot even comprehend. For now, let's not concern ourselves with such things. It may be beyond our scope, for the time being, and after all, perhaps we are asking the wrong questions.
So, then, if not to work-out the nature of God, much less God's will, what is the point of this whole exercise, anyway? Well, ultimately the aim of this exercise IS to work out the nature of God, but since we do not yet know exactly what our relationship with God is, we it is difficult to learn anything about God. Unfortunately, most of us do not even know ourselves. How can we even begin to work out the nature of God, before we have worked out our own nature? Who can build a tower without knowing what a brick does? For the time being, at least, out aim here should be to work out the nature of self. If we have done that, perhaps then we can begin to work out the nature of God.
Friday, March 5, 2010
A New Religion For The West
The world needs a new religion, especially here in North America. With the rise of the scientific process and rationalism in the 18th century for a time it seemed like the west would outgrow its need for religion entirely. Perhaps unfortunately the west, especially in North America has not outgrown its need for religion.
For some people, that need for deeply resonating meaning has been replaced with more superficial methods of satisfaction, like consumerism, obsessively watching television, or obsessively playing video games, chronic drug use, etc. Other people have decided to remain attached to ever-more partisan and subdivided factions of Christianity. Others still are joining bizarre contemporary religions, including one particularity popular one, whose creator, a mediocre science fiction writer, created on a bet with another writer.
Some people seem content to devote themselves to higher callings, like the arts and sciences. Some people seem content to be decent and rational, and not be bothered with such big questions as "Why are we here" "What is God?" "What happens when we die?" and "What the heck am I anyway?" However, it is my experience that this kind of person is a rare one indeed. This kind of person require at once the (very rare) propensity for free thinking and,(perhaps even rarer) the ability to sidestep the big questions with grace.
Personally, I have never been able to sidestep the big question. But then, I never wanted to-- I have most often taken great joy in wrestling with these questions, and even when I haven't taken joy from them, I have been fascinated by them. And despite my great respect and admiration for science, I do not think it can replace religion. Maybe the arts can, but that is a discussion for another day. In any case, the big questions are worth discussing, and there is a clear need to offer a new religion to the western world, which is grounded in rationality, instead of ancient superstitions, modern superstitions, and stupid, blind faith.
For some people, that need for deeply resonating meaning has been replaced with more superficial methods of satisfaction, like consumerism, obsessively watching television, or obsessively playing video games, chronic drug use, etc. Other people have decided to remain attached to ever-more partisan and subdivided factions of Christianity. Others still are joining bizarre contemporary religions, including one particularity popular one, whose creator, a mediocre science fiction writer, created on a bet with another writer.
Some people seem content to devote themselves to higher callings, like the arts and sciences. Some people seem content to be decent and rational, and not be bothered with such big questions as "Why are we here" "What is God?" "What happens when we die?" and "What the heck am I anyway?" However, it is my experience that this kind of person is a rare one indeed. This kind of person require at once the (very rare) propensity for free thinking and,(perhaps even rarer) the ability to sidestep the big questions with grace.
Personally, I have never been able to sidestep the big question. But then, I never wanted to-- I have most often taken great joy in wrestling with these questions, and even when I haven't taken joy from them, I have been fascinated by them. And despite my great respect and admiration for science, I do not think it can replace religion. Maybe the arts can, but that is a discussion for another day. In any case, the big questions are worth discussing, and there is a clear need to offer a new religion to the western world, which is grounded in rationality, instead of ancient superstitions, modern superstitions, and stupid, blind faith.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)