Atheist Spirituality

Will 2012 Be the Year of the Atheist?

2011-12-31T13:16:00.001-08:00

Here is a great article by Brandon G. Withrow from The Huffington Post titled “Will 2012 Be the Year of the Atheist?”

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

"Coming out" now may be a clichéd term, but as the "We Are Atheism" project has shown, it hasn't entirely lost its currency. The new organization encourages others to be open about their atheism, an act that is more than a confession; it holds the real risk of losing family and friends.

By affirming "it's OK to be an atheist" and encouraging video testimony from those who have already made the journey out into the open, "We Are Atheism" hopes to help others do the same. There are, however, serious hurdles for the no-longer-closeted to overcome.

According to the recent Public Religion Research Institute's "2011 American Values Survey," 67 percent of Americans are "somewhat uncomfortable" with the idea of an atheist as president, with 48 percent being "very uncomfortable." Muslims fare better here than atheists, and in the current political climate, that's saying something.

Even more shocking, a recent study by the University of British Columbia showed that when it comes to trust and atheism, "only rapists were distrusted to a comparable degree."

Being an open atheist, then, is a path toward marginalization.

I am certain there are religious people in my own community and elsewhere who welcome these numbers, but I suggest three reasons to reconsider that reaction and to resist the urge to silence the atheist voice. Underlying each of these points is The Golden Rule: to treat others as you would have them treat you.

Firstly, open atheism not only helps the religious understand "the other," but it is also a tool for understanding oneself. Atheism may not be a religion, but the life of an atheist is often birthed within the walls of the religious. For many atheists, part of the path to disbelief is not only the conclusion that there is no evidence for God, but also the experience of being among those who have given them little reason to reconsider. In other words, if you want to understand why people leave religious communities, either for rational or experiential reasons, then dialogue with an atheist is essential.

This was evident to me the first time one of my graduate religion students interviewed an atheist for a class assignment that I've dubbed the "Listening to Others Interview Project." He expected his interviewee, a non-theist, to be morally problematic; his paper was clear on this and I suppose this placed him within the 67 percent mentioned above. What he discovered, however, was someone whose sense of right and wrong was not all that far from his -- someone who also operated out of The Golden Rule. The student not only gained a fresh perspective on why someone would choose atheism, but also a window into his own soul and presuppositions.

Next, consider the social consequences when one forces the atheist into silence. Spend some time in the forums of Think Atheist, for example, and one can get a good look into the concerns of real people who are trying to understand how, after coming out, they can salvage relationships with friends and family who have ostracized them. They often feel severed from those closest to them.

Maintaining relationships is not the problem of the atheist alone; religious family and friends can set that tone as well. We should enable positive contributions from members of our families or communities; we should not marginalize those whose crime is honesty. If the shoe was on the other foot, how would you like to be treated?

Lastly, inviting atheists into the open is an investment in the future, which currently appears to be a world of religious decline. Admittedly, this last one is the most selfish use of the Golden Rule. If there is anything the history of Christianity has taught me, it is that suppressing other voices never works. Christianity began as a small, marginalized group oppressed by other religious systems that were supported by the empire, but eventually was transformed into the religion of the empire under Constantine. The tide can, and usually does, change.

Under Henry VIII, for example, closeted Protestant reformers like Thomas Cranmer eventually established the Church of England. The next chapter in that story involved the new Protestant majority pushing -- sometimes violently -- other Protestant and Catholic communities to the margins, until eventually toleration had to be legalized to maintain a stable society.

Today, polls seem to indicate that tight controls on religious belief eventually give way to a society with God-fatigue. The "British Social Attitudes Survey" published in 2011 shows those who describe themselves as "non-religious" rose from 31 percent in 1983 to 51 percent by 2009. And a poll of England and Wales released earlier this year shows that 48 percent (less than half) of those who accepted the label "Christian" actually believed that "Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life and was the son of God."

Surveys in the United States are indicating a similar future. The Barna Group's survey released in August 2011, for example, showed an 11 percentage point decrease in church attendance in America by women---historically considered the pillar of attendance for religious services. "You can't force someone to be a Christian, only a hypocrite," the Protestant missionary William Carey once said. Perhaps many are no longer able to live as hypocrites. And why should religious people want them to?

Maybe I'm too much of a realist, but resisting the future is not as valuable as accepting and working with the present. A Gallup poll tracking survey of 2011 shows that 15 percent of Americans identify themselves in the category of "none/atheist/agnostic" on the question of religion, compared to 23.6 percent who identify themselves as Catholic, a population considered large in the United States. As Gallup puts it, their "methods of measuring religious identity have changed over the decades, but one major trend that is clear from Gallup's and other organizations' surveys is the increase in the percentage of Americans who do not have a formal religious identity. Some 60 years ago, in 1951, for example, just 1% of Americans in Gallup surveys said they didn't have a religious identity."

What could 2012 hold for atheism? Could these numbers soon surpass those of Catholic Christians?

If religious folks need a selfish reason to accept their atheist neighbors, consider this: it may not be too long before the shoe is on the other foot and the religious minority will be the ones hoping for a place at the social table. What I can say for sure is that inviting atheists to be open and engaging them as valuable neighbors is not only best for all involved, but also, simply, a better practice of The Golden Rule. Don't suppress the voice of others if you do not want them to suppress yours.

BBC: Christopher Hitchens dies after battle with cancer

2011-12-15T23:39:00.001-08:00

British author, literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens has died, aged 62, according to Vanity Fair magazine.

See original article at BBC

Vanity Fair's editor said those who read him felt they knew him

British author, literary critic and journalist Christopher Hitchens has died, aged 62, according to Vanity Fair magazine.

He died from pneumonia, a complication of the oesophageal cancer he was suffering from, at a Texas hospital.

Vanity Fair said there would "never be another like Christopher".

He is survived by his wife, Carol Blue, and their daughter, Antonia, and his children from a previous marriage, Alexander and Sophia.

Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter described the writer as someone "of ferocious intellect, who was as vibrant on the page as he was at the bar".

"Those who read him felt they knew him, and those who knew him were profoundly fortunate souls."

Mr Hitchens was born in Portsmouth in 1949 and graduated from Oxford in 1970.

He began his career as a journalist in Britain in the 1970s and later moved to New York, becoming contributing editor to Vanity Fair in November 1992.

He was diagnosed with cancer in June 2010, and had documented his declining health in his Vanity Fair column.

In an August 2010 essay for the magazine he wrote: "I love the imagery of struggle.

"I sometimes wish I were suffering in a good cause, or risking my life for the good of others, instead of just being a gravely endangered patient."

Prolific writer

He wrote for numerous publications including The Times Literary Supplement, the Daily Express, the London Evening Standard, Newsday and The Atlantic.

He was the author of 17 books, including The Trial of Henry Kissinger, God is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything, and a memoir, Hitch-22.

Arguably, a collection of his essays, was released this year.

Radicalized by the 1960s, Hitchens was often arrested at political rallies and was kicked out of the Labour Party over his opposition to the Vietnam War.

He became a correspondent for International Socialism magazine.

In later life he moved away from the left. Following the September 11 attacks he argued with Noam Chomsky and others who suggested that US foreign policy had helped cause the tragedy.

He supported the Iraq War and backed George W Bush for re-election in 2004.

See original at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16212418

Richard Dawkins on Christmas Traditions

2011-12-14T17:56:00.001-08:00

As tensions surrounding ‘Christmas’ rise (see Santa Monica’s Atheist Protests for an example), I would like to remind protesting Atheists that although the protests are valid and reasonable, we should rethink the importance of Christmas, rather than attempting to erase it.

One can maintain a strong stance against religious fundamentalism while engaging in the practice of local cultural traditions that originate from religious ritual; these two positions are supplementary rather than opposing.

Here is a classic news article on Richard Dawkins’ view of Christmas traditions. Rather then rejecting Christmas completely, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for atheists to engage in the practice of Christmas traditions. Liz Todd writes the following in “Why I celebrate Christmas, by the world's most famous atheist”:

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

Scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted he does celebrate Christmas - and enjoys singing traditional Christmas carols each festive season.

The writer and evolutionary biologist told singer Jarvis Cocker that he happily wishes everyone a Merry Christmas - and used to have a tree when his daughter was younger.

Dawkins, one of the most famous atheists in the world, was interviewed by Sheffield born Cocker when he stepped in as a Christmas guest editor on Radio Four's Today programme.

'I am perfectly happy on Christmas day to say Merry Christmas to everybody,' Dawkins said. 'I might sing Christmas carols - once I was privileged to be invited to Kings College, Cambridge, for their Christmas carols and loved it.

'I actually love most of the genuine Christmas carols. I can't bear Jingle Bells and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and you might think from that that I was religious, that I can't bear the ones that make no mention of religion. But I just think they are dreadful tunes and even more dreadful words. I like the traditional Christmas carols.'

Cocker, the former frontman for Britpop band Pulp, said he was also a fan of Christmas traditions.

'I am the same in a way,' he told Dawkins. 'I really like the kind of peripheral things about Christmas. I like the smell of tangerines and the smell of the tree and to pull crackers.'

Dawkins said his family had a typical Christmas celebration each year like so many others.

'We are not kill joys, we are not scrooges,' he said. 'We give each other presents and when my daughter was a bit younger we would have a tree. We don't now.

'We go to my sister's house for Christmas lunch which is a lovely big family occasion. Everybody thoroughly enjoys it. No church of course.

Dawkins, who pulled a cracker with Cocker on Tuesday's Today programme, said he drew the line at dressing up as Father Christmas.

And he said even as a child his questioning mind made him unpopular with other parents.

'My very first Christmas, maybe my second Christmas, there was a man called Sam who apparently dressed up as Father Christmas,' he said. 'All the children loved it, all completely fooled by Father Christmas being there.

'Eventually he said: 'Ho ho ho, it's time for me to go,' back to Greenland or wherever he comes from, so he left. Then I, the youngest of all of them, said: 'Sam's gone' and completely gave the game away to all the other children.'

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

Also see my post titled: Stop Being Offended by Holidays!
As well as: Merry Christmas Atheists
And: Christmas is for Everyone

Santa Monica’s Atheist Protest

2011-12-14T16:30:00.001-08:00

Here is an Article by Guy Adams from the The Independent:

Santa Monica's angry atheists declare a real war on Christmas

Unbelievers' billboards edge out nativity scenes after council allocates space in lottery draw

Peace and goodwill are in short supply in Santa Monica this festive season, after a small but determined group of atheists placed the local streets on the front line of their "war" against Christmas.

Church leaders in the seaside enclave of West Los Angeles have expressed a mixture of sadness and outrage after civic space in which they have traditionally built life-size nativity scenes was taken over by non-believers.

Since the 1950s, religious groups have been recreating tableaux of Mary and Joseph, along with various wise men and shepherds, at Palisades Park, a cliff-top promenade overlooking Santa Monica's famous beaches and pier.

This year, however, the council decided to introduce a lottery system for deciding which organisations decorated the 21 available sites. And by a quirk of fate, no less than 18 of them ended up being allocated to atheist groups.

As a result, parts of the supposedly festive park now resemble an Occupy Wall Street encampment. Fifteen spaces have been surrounded by security fence and left empty, while three contain banners attempting to persuade passers-by that there is no God. Two are devoted to traditional nativity scenes, while one has been decorated by a Jewish group.

News crews flocked to the scene yesterday. Drawing attention was a display containing images of Jesus, Satan, and Santa Claus with the slogan: "37 million Americans know a myth when they see one... What myths do you see?"

Another contains a quote by Thomas Jefferson: "Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies." A third consists of a hand-painted billboard proclaiming "Happy Solstice".

The council explained that 13 people had applied for display slots. Two of the successful applicants had asked for nine spaces, the maximum permitted, and under the rules of the lottery, had to be granted their full allocation. Both were campaigning atheists.

One of the duo, Damon Vix, explained: "There is a growing secular community in this country which has kept quiet too long." The other, Bobbie Kirkhart, said: "For many years, atheists were excluded from city-subsidised displays. Now, finally, atheists have an equal chance. Christians who believe their god is concerned about such things might take note of the extraordinary luck the atheist lottery winners have enjoyed."

Mr Kirkhart's organisation, Athiests United, intends to use one of its nativity spaces to display an image of a Darwin Fish wearing a Santa hat, along with the slogan: "Reason's Greetings!"

Local congregations aren't laughing. Hunter Jameson, a spokesman for their Nativity Scenes Committee, said: "By trying to push the nativity scene out of the park and silence us, these people are infringing on our freedom and First Amendment rights."

While he had no objection to atheists being allocated space in the park, he said the city council should not allow them to hijack almost all of it.

Terry Eagleton - The God Debate

2011-12-14T10:01:00.001-08:00

Terry Eagleton - The God Debate

Stop Being Offended by Holidays!

2011-12-11T01:38:00.001-08:00

To start off, I want to make my position – and the position of many other atheists – very clear. Last year, in my post titled “Merry Christmas Atheists,” I argued that “the problem of saying ‘Christmas’ vs. saying ‘holiday’ is not an atheist battle, but rather, an inter-faith battle. Just the other day, this was confirmed by a post to r/atheism, (“the web's largest atheist forum”) asking, “As an Atheist, are you offended when wished "Merry Christmas"?” The response was a resounding “No,” and several expressions of openness to the holiday. “Slacktoo,” a fellow ‘redditor’, responds:

No, in fact I wish others Merry Christmas and celebrate the holiday joyfully. While having origins in pagan and Christian mythology, it has evolved into an exciting festive holiday that can be celebrated by people who have no adherence to such superstitions.

But this openness is not just unique to atheists. It is a quality I have encountered in many religious people and minorities as well. Here is the key to this attitude: not believing the “holidays” are about ONE privileged group. Rachel Olivero, in a news article, says it best when she states:

In 2011, can we celebrate Christmas in our schools? Absolutely — say Merry Christmas!" she said. "At the same time, don't be offended if someone comes up to you at another time of year and says, 'Eid Mubarak' or 'Happy Diwali’.

Whether one celebrates the Pagan ‘solstice’, the Christian ‘Christmas’, the Capitalist ‘Christmas’ (often referred to as ‘holiday’), or any other tradition, is irrelevant! Drop your self-important holiday identity long enough to feel a sense of ‘joy’. But who are these religious Scrooges?

There are two supposed ‘types’: the group labeled “politically correct” who are “easily offended by Christmas”, and the Christians who are reacting to popular use of “holiday”. The first group is said to be composed of minorities who have “taken over” and atheists who are trying to “hijack Christmas,” whereas the latter can be seen complaining on fox news. I claim that the first group virtually does not exist – it is a strawman put into popular discourse by the latter group.

It is ironic that “happy holidays” is considered the politically correct phrase, when it is actually more likely to offend someone. So what is the main reason given by those feeling threatened by “happy holidays”? It all comes down to the argument that Christmas is no longer accepted as politically correct. But this is to deeply miss the point of the word “holidays”.

The use of “happy holidays” is not meant to replace Christmas, but rather, it is meant to include Christmas, along with any other tradition observed around late December. The “offended minorities” and “angry atheists” are but mere fictions. On a private individual level, no one is banning the use of “Christmas” – or any other tradition title for that matter. The word “holiday” is merely a viable option when talking about the holidays in general, or when governments/ public entities want to send out a festive greeting from all of its groups, rather than just one of them. Notice I use “from” rather than “to”.

Wish me the title of your tradition, and I will wish you the title of mine. Being offended by holidays – particularity, the word “holiday” itself – is to miss the point. With that being said, I’d like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a fantastic holiday season.

Hell is an Invention of the Church

2011-12-10T21:21:00.001-08:00

Priest says Hell is an invention of the church to control people with fear

Cultural Criticism by Terence McKenna

2011-06-13T15:58:00.001-07:00

Link: http://youtu.be/Jkrzha9cwHY

A New Personal-Development

2011-06-11T22:47:00.001-07:00

Maybe self-improvement isn't the answer.... Maybe self-destruction is the answer. ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

How do you partake in personal development, if self-destruction is the answer? Eckhart Tolle’s spiritual insight and Owen Cook’s ‘Real Social Dynamics’ seem to be part of a new genre of personal development where the goal is actually to destroy the ‘self’.

The old models of self-improvement seem to emphasize self-esteem through building up the ego. Eckhart Tolle, in his books “The Power of Now” and “A New Earth”, is quick to determine the ego as the target of destruction. In his books, the ego represents a ‘false self’ constructed by social conditioning upon which the identity of the individual rests. This identification is said to be the root of all human struggles; we are constantly trying to reinforce our positive sense of self by reacting against all those who threaten the boundaries of our ‘self' concept’.

What does it mean to enact self-destruction? Rather than trying to build up a sense of self by collecting more and more STUFF (material possessions, physical characteristics, belief-systems, and ideologies), the act of self-destruction says “screw it all".

The things you own end up owning you. It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything. ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

How does this relate to spiritual belief-systems? Having a belief-system is like owning a material possession. They say you are not complete without one; therefore, ‘dissatisfied lack’ is the default state of ones constructed reality. In the same way consumer culture constructs our desire to be ‘complete’ through commodities, spiritual belief-systems construct a reality where ‘lack’ characterizes the individual who is not able to identify themselves under a specific tradition.

The good news is that this reality does not apply to you if you are simply aware that it exists. This will also allow you to understand why so many religious people are quick to defend their faith; their sense of self depends on it.

Attacking someone's belief system is like attacking their sense of self in the same way that insulting their clothing may offend them. This is not to say we should avoid dialogue with religious people in fear of offending them; the opposite is the case. We should engage in conversations about spiritually more often. But remember, don’t be a dick.

The socially conditioned ‘self’ does not dissolve without a fight; attacking it will only make it stronger. The ‘self’ will sense threat, pump itself up, and come back bigger and stronger than before. Rather than setting up this reality of ‘battle’, the method of seduction is far more effective.

Be the change you want to see. Only when your own ego is dealt with will you be able to offer complete value to all you encounter. This state of being is the art of seduction (weather it be in the context of work, family-life, or dating). Arguing with religious persons for the sake of being right only builds your own sense of identity as superior. Rather than taking value in the form of argument, one must provide value in the form of careful dialogue.

If value is light, taking value leads to darkness. We can not get rid of darkness with more darkness. When your sense of ‘self’ is not the measure of your value, the value you offer provides the basis for your happiness.

Beyond Atheism

2011-06-11T00:44:00.001-07:00

You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. – Tyler Durden

You are not your belief system. You are not even your lack of a belief system. In the same way theists gain a sense of identity through their display of a belief system, atheists gain a sense of identity through their opposition to belief systems. Doesn’t this sound absurd?

I understand the word ‘atheist’ has served well in mobilizing an opposition to the harmful side of religion, but I say lets evolve.

Fuck off with your sofa units and string green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may. – Tyler Durden

Only when we can stop messing with the tasteless decor of outdated belief-systems, can we design a masterpiece. Lets focus on what we stand for, rather than what we don’t find fashionable. By fixating on the belief systems of others, we’re being drawn into their reality of identification. With identification comes boundaries, opposition, and a world full of resentment.

It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. – Tyler Durden

It is not enough to lose rigid belief systems. Oppositional identities maintain the same belief as the failing “war on drugs”, “war on terror”, “war on crime” mentality; the belief that “we” have the truth, “they” are wrong and now we must stomp them out.

The days of “militant atheism” must come to an end before atheists spark the next ‘religious war’.

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... – John Lennon

When John Lennon talks about no countries and no religion, he is talking about no boundaries. Having “no religion” can not mean a world of atheists since atheists can only maintain their identity so long as theists still exist; an ‘us vs. them’ mentality is vital to defining yourself in opposition to an ‘other’.

Evolve. When boundaries are dissolved, the identity you hold will stop holding onto you.

Arguing with Religious Fanatics

2011-06-09T01:33:00.001-07:00

We all know the popular brand of atheism which tends to poke fun at religion and assert its truth by appealing to science and rationality, right?

I've come to see this type of atheism as reactive rather than proactive, and makes people seem arrogant rather than pushing them to understand the deeper issues.

This reactionary atheism also makes religious people angry rather than logically convincing them of anything. I don't think logic and rationality are the best tools in these types of arguments and this is why:

Contemporary religion and the increasing level fundamentalism is a reaction against techno-capitalist culture where everything is ultra rationalized to the point where some people are not feeling satisfied or fulfilled in an environment they perceive as sterile. Most atheists think more rationality and logic is the cure, but this is a mistake since its like adding fuel to the fire; they will only get firmer in their beliefs since someone is trying to give them more of the "problem".

Look at it this way: If a religious person tries to convince you that they are right, they will give you mystical reasons which, in your perspective, is just more of the problem. As an atheist, one should consider arguing in ways which do more than just shake up the hornet-nest.

Appealing to the motivations of the other person is one of the most effective ways to argue. If their problem is a lack of emotional depth in the world, than maybe atheists should consider their sense of reality rather than appealing directly to science and rationality. This is not to oppose emotion to science, Carl Sagan does a wonderful job at articulating the two simultaneously.

I don't condone the religious atrocities, nor do I have anything against science and rationality. Although I think the popular brand of militant atheism is probably liberating for people who have recently 'came out', I encourage people to develop more sophisticated ways of looking at the issues rather than getting stuck in a reactionary rut.

Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse

2011-05-09T02:27:00.001-07:00

Sam Richards: A radical experiment in empathy

2011-04-27T00:46:00.001-07:00

Video and description from TEDTalks April 2011

By leading the Americans in his audience at TED step by step through the thought process, sociologist Sam Richards sets an extraordinary challenge: can they understand -- not approve of, but understand -- the motivations of an Iraqi insurgent? And by extension, can anyone truly understand and empathize with another?

The Mountain

2011-04-25T22:10:00.001-07:00

The Mountain from Terje Sorgjerd on Vimeo.

This was filmed between 4th and 11th April 2011. I had the pleasure of visiting El Teide.
Spain´s highest mountain @(3715m) is one of the best places in the world to photograph the stars and is also the location of Teide Observatories, considered to be one of the world´s best observatories.

The goal was to capture the beautiful Milky Way galaxy along with one of the most amazing mountains I know El Teide. I have to say this was one of the most exhausting trips I have done. There was a lot of hiking at high altitudes and probably less than 10 hours of sleep in total for the whole week. Having been here 10-11 times before I had a long list of must-see locations I wanted to capture for this movie, but I am still not 100% used to carrying around so much gear required for time-lapse movies.
A large sandstorm hit the Sahara Desert on the 9th April (http://bit.ly/g3tsDW) and at approx 3am in the night the sandstorm hit me, making it nearly impossible to see the sky with my own eyes.

Interestingly enough my camera was set for a 5 hour sequence of the milky way during this time and I was sure my whole scene was ruined. To my surprise, my camera had managed to capture the sandstorm which was backlit by Grand Canary Island making it look like golden clouds. The Milky Way was shining through the clouds, making the stars sparkle in an interesting way. So if you ever wondered how the Milky Way would look through a Sahara sandstorm, look at 00:32.

Available in Digital Cinema 4k.

Like my Facebook Page for updateshttp://www.facebook.com/TSOPhotography
Follow me on http://twitter.com/TSOPhotography
Press/licensing/projects contact: terjes@gmail.com
Music by my friend: Ludovico Einaudi - "Nuvole bianche" with permission.
Please support the artist here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/una-mattina/id217799399

Thank you to my sponsors:
http://www.canon.com
http://www.g-technology.com
http://www.dynamicperception.com/ (Best dolly in the world!)

Ric Elias: 3 things I learned while my plane crashed

2011-04-25T01:08:00.001-07:00

Video and description from TED Talks April 2011

Ric Elias had a front-row seat on Flight 1549, the plane that crash-landed in the Hudson River in New York in January 2009. What went through his mind as the doomed plane went down? At TED, he tells his story publicly for the first time.

Dalai Lama on Religion

2011-04-24T01:06:00.001-07:00

"Developing love and compassion and reducing anger and spite is a universal activity which requires no faith in any religion whatsoever." - Dalai Lama

In a previous post I talked about the problem with modern religion in order to consider the potential ‘religion’ may hold as an institution. This quote from the Dalai Lama adds another layer to that critique. Don’t you find it ironic when you hear stories about angry religious people who are full of spite? I don’t think religion is inherently bad, but I find many people either miss the point or move away from it since they don’t see a point. Those who miss the point – at the most extreme level – are out protesting in anger and burning the holy books of other religions groups (See Terry Jones). Those who don’t see the point have most likely been turned off by religious extremists, or have been brought up in sterile traditions which shove morality down your throat – or both. So what’s this point I’m talking about.

The point is increasing happiness – what we all look for anyway – through cultivating ‘love’ –Basically learning how to love harder. Now If you’re skeptical, let me explain. As Plato’s Socrates said, the highest purpose of love is to become a lover of wisdom – for him this is equivalent to becoming a philosopher. Wisdom, in its mystic sense, can be found at the core of each religion – hence the term ‘wisdom tradition’. If you strip religion of all its doctrine, hierarchies, and ‘unwavering’ laws, you will be left with its core ‘wisdom’.

By wisdom I don’t mean hidden rules or knowledge; I mean practices – particularly, practices which cultivate love. The benefits of specific practices can be seen in within the field of positive pychology (click to view insights into Buddhist practices). Loving-kindness meditation is actually considered a practice of Buddhism. This is not limited to Buddhism, but can also be found in Christian monasticism and several other religions. When you get down to this level of religion, it begins to lose its strong attachment to faith, authority, and other modern institutional structures.

So how does this relate to the Dalai Lama’s quote? He says love and compassion “requires no faith in any religion whatsoever." He has also said “kindness is my religion”. By equating religion with kindness, this eliminates the institutional structure altogether. If religion becomes ‘kindness’, where is the need for faith? The alternative to focusing on faith – which presupposes knowledge and laws – is the focus is on practices which are a tool for growth. Of course, this is a break from ‘religion’ as we commonly know it.

Rather than being a mere part of the flock, over-determined by the laws of a master, one must make religion into ‘kindness’; only then can freedom and individual growth begin to occur. On that note, I will end this post with another quote:

“All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness, the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.” – Dalai Lama

A Peaceful Stand Against Pastor Terry Jones

2011-04-21T21:30:00.001-07:00

Photo Credit: Ian Kushnir

Hundreds of people from different faiths came together Thursday afternoon to take part in the opposition against Florida Pastor Terry Jones. The InterFaith Leadership Council of Metropolitan Detroit organized the event, held at Dearborn's Islamic Center of America.
The ICA hosting committee greeted visitors at the door and provided head scarves for women upon entrance. Just before entering the main hall, a large white banner that covered a long table had a number of attendee signatures written on it. In the center of the hall laid a red carpet that led to center stage of the religious panelists.
As people filed in to take their seats, smiles were exchanged and hugs were shared, giving the gathering a peaceful atmosphere. The attendees, though diverse in the faiths they practice, were unified in their message.
Exerpt from The Dearborn Patch

This is a sight I like to see: unity in difference. But here is a different perspective on the recent events. ‘Spirited Atheist’ Susan Jacoby Writes:

Respect for religion—any religion—is not required under American law, despite the wrongheaded idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. You can burn copies of the Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran…

There is absolutely no moral equivalency between the symbolic act of one demented pastor—who apparently commands a congregation of only 30 warped souls—and revenge killings abetted by the voices of so-called religious leaders in Afghanistan
Exerpt from The Washington Post

This is a reaction to the claims of those who blame Pastor Terry Jones for the revenge killings which resulted from his actions.

Of course there is no moral equivalency between disrespect and killings. Although respect for religion is not required by law, I stand for earned respect – those in Dearborn have earned respect and deserved to have been shown it. But lack of respect is not the main issue here; the issue is Jones’s hateful speech and actions. His actions are a perpetuation of a cycle of hate. Hate and anger only leads to more hate and anger.

But what about the interfaith gathering? This breaks from my logic of harm begetting harm. The gathering is significant because it is an example of a hateful action causing a positive reaction: a diverse community uniting. These are the reactions we need to see more often.

In the end, Paster Terry Jones is an example of a hateful person who will merely create more hate in those he is against – this is the downward spiral we need to watch out. Rather than engaging in negative reactions, we must first consider the harm we may be perpetuating. The interfaith response is an example of a path one must consider before engaging in protest.

Perhaps one day responses like this will not only be ‘interfaith’, but inter-faith/non-faith. What a day it will be when atheists will be welcome with arms-wide-open in a country were they are currently its #1 hated minority. Until then, all I can say is this: always consider your reactions; they can be part of the problem or part of the solution.

The Arrogant Atheists vs. The Dogmatic Religious

2011-04-18T23:04:00.001-07:00

This reminds me of the popular Atheist vs. Religious debates: O'Reilly vs Dawkins, The Richard Dawkins Forum (which I had once been a regular contributor), Reddit Atheism, the Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate and several other Youtube videos.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a hardy laugh at religious ignorance; as well, I can appreciate an eloquent argument by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, or Sam Harris. Although they can be amusing, these discussions are usually futile and breed resentment.

By giving attention to what we don’t like, we actually strengthen its stance. This creates a looping effect where each side gets firmer in their stance and more resentful of the other.

Lastly, both sides tend to make the same fundamental error of judgment; they both appeal to the absolute worst/must harmful individuals of the other group. This is especially evident in the Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate where Christopher generalizes the fundamentalist stance on ‘religion’. The same goes for Christians who think all atheists are arrogant or immoral. We should be careful of the tendency to judge ourselves by our best characteristics and the other by their worst.

I find discussions on religion quite fascinating and think they have the potential to unite differences rather than merely dividing them.

Arguing Against Religion

2011-04-18T20:43:00.001-07:00

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Gustav Jung

Original Link: Rage Comic

Sigur Rós – Gobbledigook

2011-04-17T00:50:00.001-07:00

The Problem With Modern Religion

2011-04-17T00:25:00.001-07:00

“For of the fast stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: ‘Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart’” – Max Weber

Why keep talking about religion? Well, I think it has something to offer. There is something to be said about a regular collective gatherings which encourage states of intoxication. That’s right, states of group intoxication – and I’m not talking about the bar! This doesn't sound like the religion you know? Well that’s because modern religion has been sterilized, sanitized, and stripped away all the fun stuff – the bliss.

Max Weber’s quote appears in his book Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1908). It was written in response to a dramatic rise of modern ‘work ethic’. Basically, this ‘ethic’ consists of working as hard as you can to please God; but there’s a catch (there’s alllways a catch with God): you can’t enjoy any of the profit you earn from your work; it must be strictly invested and never used for pleasure. This is the modern ‘ascetic ideal’ – the same ideal Nietzsche hated. This ideal boils down to one thing: being completely rational and disciplined all the time wile avoiding any kind of pleasures.

So what’s wrong with being rational? Well, this is not you’re ordinary type of ‘rational’, this is extreme rationality where every action must be reflected upon for its instrumental utility. In pushing ones self so far in this direction one grossly neglects some of the most important things: passion, sensation, and emotion.

Now I’m not trying to get all ‘new agey’ here. I really think we need to start paying more attention to these other parts of the human experience. The protestant ethic did not disappear; it is alive and well in almost all religious and corporate institutions. The difference is that we no longer place God at the top (Nietzsche was right when he said God is dead). Money is our new object of worship.

So now what. How can we bring back passion to institutions that have been hollowed out? How can we bring meaning back to a sterilized zombie religion and a psychopathic corporate world? We don’t need a new God to save us; we need passion. We can learn a thing or two from the pre-modern world. We once thought of them an unhappy ‘primitive’ world which needed happy civilizing. I’m starting to wonder if we had it backwards.

Here are some clips to consider. Enjoy!

Human Planet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12618167

Gross National Happiness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zqdqa4YNvI

Einstein Quotes on God

2011-01-02T20:12:00.001-08:00

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

God always takes the simplest way.

God does not play dice.

God may be subtle, but he is not malicious.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.

I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.

Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

When the solution is simple, God is answering.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

Muslims Serve Christmas Eve Dinner to 300

2010-12-28T03:01:00.001-08:00

Here is a good example of non-attachment to the ego identities that separate and divide. It is nice to see positive religious news for a change.
Source: The Montreal Gazette

Sadaf Kotwal of the Islamic Community Centre of Brossard helps serve dinner at the Old Brewery Mission on Christmas Eve.

Photograph by: PIERRE OBENDRAUF, THE GAZETTE, The Gazette
_________________

It was in a spirit of giving that members of a South Shore mosque contributed $2,000 to sponsor the Christmas Eve supper at the Old Brewery Mission and spent two hours serving it to more than 300 people.

This is double the minimum $1,000 contribution the mission seeks from those who sponsor a supper.

It was believed to be the first time an Islamic community group has volunteered to sponsor and serve an evening meal at the mission, officials said.

Following afternoon prayers at the mission on Clark St., about 20 members of the Islamic Community Centre of Brossard set the tables and passed plates of chicken, rice and steamed carrots to the first shift of diners.

Ismail Mohammed of Greenfield Park, a retired CBC accountant, said he had suggested sponsoring the meal to fellow mosque members.

"We don't celebrate Christmas, but serving humanity is serving God. That is what our teaching says," he observed.

"We want to work with people from all religions," he added. "We came for peace in this country and we want to establish peace," said Mohammed, a native of India who grew up in Pakistan.

Monique Khan of Brossard said serving others is the perfect holiday activity: "I feel happy when I make other people happy. It's a time for sharing and we give what we can"

Her husband, Irfan Khan, a building technician, said feeding the needy is about immigrants contributing to their country.

"When we came here, we didn't have anything. We worked hard and we did well. This society has given us so much, and now we have to give back."

Said Suleman, who came to Canada as a refugee from Eritrea, said many fellow Muslims are successful and highly educated and "it's time to step in and do our share."

"We have to think of others, of feeding our neighbours, to really participate."

Sabiha Sheikh of Brossard, a part-time bookkeeper, said she often helps serve food to people in other mission-type settings.

"It's time for us to contribute to the city we live in. We want to show that we are caring people -we are generous and want to share."

iblock@montrealgazette.com

What is Atheist Spirituality?

2010-12-27T19:08:00.001-08:00

After a year and a half of writing on this seemingly oxymoronic subject, this question continuously arises. Although many past posts have attempted to clarify this concept, there has been constant development in my understanding.

How can there be an ‘atheist spirituality’? An answer can be developed through looking at the preconceptions we may have about the word ‘spirituality’. The word ‘spirituality’ is strongly, and unnecessarily, bound to ideas of religion, dualistic philosophies of transcendence, and dogmas demanding faith. In the modern era, spiritual practices have been largely institutionalized into formal faith categorizations. Spirituality has become the prime commodity of the religious institution. This association between religion an spirituality has become intensely entrenched in most modern cultures.

What about people claiming they are ‘spiritual but not religious’? Aside from increasing fundamentalism, there is a widespread lack of trust in religious institutions. The world is becoming more dichotomous; as fundamentalists become increasingly rebellious when faced with modern ideals. This influences modern individuals who are loosely religious to become sceptical of these institutions since they increasingly seen as being harmful. While continuing to practice spirituality on a personal level, many are disassociating themselves from religions which are developing a poor reputation. This personal belief or practice may still be entrenched in the dualisms of religion; therefore, it does not answer the question of an atheist spirituality.

What makes an atheist spirituality different? An atheist spirituality departs from the mainstream paradigm. It goes beyond ‘spiritual but not religious’ by rebelling against religious constructions. The philosophical shift from dualism to materialism can be illustrated by following historical ideas about the ‘soul’. Socrates can be noted as arriving at the necessity of the soul through questioning what is the user vs. the used. We may use a pen to write; therefore, the pen is the object (used) and the person is the subject (user). Socrates continues by asking: but isn't the hand used as well? and what about the eyes? Eventually, we may realize that everything on our body can be used – even our brains may be used to contemplate the process. This is where Socrates concludes that the user must be an immaterial soul. Fast forwarding, we can look at Cartesian dualism associating the soul with the ‘mind’. Descartes thinking-being of mind is the subject who acts on the objects of the profane bodies and earth. Fast forwarding again, we can see imminent conceptions of ‘God’ in the materialist philosophy of Spinoza. See his Ethics for extensive elaboration on this philosophical position. Deleuze, the most contemporary and my personal favourite, has written extensively on materialist philosophies of life; click ‘here’ to see a former post on Deleuze.

What does the materialist paradigm mean for ‘spiritual’ practice? This shift revolutionizes the dominate western conceptions of spirituality by changing all former definitions. The definition of ‘God’ is transformed into a pantheistic ‘God’ which Rickard Dawkins claims to be a “sexed up atheism”. Sin is no longer bound to transcendental judgment, but rather, becomes an individually autonomous ethics. Spiritual experiences of awe and wonder are no longer attributed to the presence of a divine entity, but rather, can be experienced through the glory of nature, evolution, and contemplating ones part in an infinitely unthinkable unfolding of life. Mystery of ‘God’ becomes the mystery of nature – a mystery which may infinitely extent its reach past our momentary understanding. Ritual becomes more than mere compliance for the sake of salvation, but a practice of affecting the mind-body (regarded as one) for the sake of happiness. Spirit is no longer the magic entity hovering somewhere in or around us, but rather, it is the human spirit: the spirit of love, joy, happiness, and peace. Although these virtues resemble those of Christianity, they are not seen as given by a God as a reward for good behaviour; rather, they are seen as virtues which come from within and can only be achieved in the present moment, not requiring a specific set of predetermined beliefs or rituals. Beliefs may be held, but are held loosely and not bound with one’s identity. Specific practices may be used, but their use is regarded as a way of changing one’s mental state. Mental states are also regarded as material since they rely on complex material interactions. An atheistic spiritual life is one of nomadic being, not clinging to fixed identity templates.

With all this said, openness to discovery may lead spiritual atheists in a multitude of directions. Since the joy is in the journey, future posts clarifying ‘atheist spirituality’ may differ from this one. Openness to experience is the way to ‘salvation’ in this search for spiritual complexity and life-fulfilling atheism.

Merry Christmas Atheists

2010-12-25T02:40:00.001-08:00

First of all, I’d like to say Merry Christmas to all. Atheists can’t enjoy Christmas? Is this an oxymoron? This is not at all the case. Atheists can fully savour the holiday without appealing to alternate identity-phrases, political correctness, or altogether avoidance. Although It is often thought that atheists are opposed to saying “Merry Christmas”, this could not be further from reality for the vast majority of atheists. The problem of saying “Christmas” vs. saying “holiday” is not an atheist battle, but rather, an inter-faith battle. It is one that media discourse has moulded into a problem concerning the every-increasing public ‘threat’ of atheism – most viciously seen every year by Fox’s ‘Culture Warriors’. Atheists have become the scapegoat; they have become the ‘outsiders’ whom which it is politically correct to blame for the ‘demise of Christmas’. These inter-faith disputes over political correctness do not concern the atheist – aside from being sucked into an insecure and anxious national dialogue as the scapegoat. The reasonable atheist is too busy living the day to its fullest – since, of course, our days are finite – it is a waste of valuable time to be bothered by such holiday identity politics. Of course there will be the odd asshole-atheists who are too busy building ego identities to get past the awkward avoidances, futile debates, and creative alternate constructions of the phrase ‘Merry Christmas’.

Getting past the Grinch mentality is not easy and inner-battles are plenty. Although the concern of religious harm is the main priority of the atheists, identity politics often creep in and complicate this simple concern. Saying ‘Merry Christmas’ may be taken as an expression of ones personal faith affiliation. This can be an embarrassing affiliation since atheists do not want to appear as part of the religious ‘herd mentality’ that is often associated with docility of the mind. Freethinking, in this sense, not only acts as a personal liberation, but pulls social identification toward a category of negative identity. This is an identity characterized by a sort of liberation mentality directly juxtaposed to the resented mentality of another group. For atheists, using Christian terms and traditions may act as an embarrassment since it goes directly against what they stand for. The issue here is that what an atheist may ‘stand for’ creates an identity in itself; therefore, when confronted by threatening identities the atheist may build walls, stock-pile extra ammunition, and map out the target into narrow categorical boxes. This is what leads to the Bah-Humbug-mentality of the outsider, the rational truth-holder, and ultimate alienation from the spirit of Christmas.

What do I mean by ‘Christmas spirit’? By this I do not mean a religious affiliation. Although there are some people may go overboard with the dogma aspect, most people practicing the tradition of Christmas carry loose religious affiliation or no religious affiliation at all. The holiday is about much more than the fundamental dogmas; the holiday is about a certain collective experience. This collective experience that is central to many religions’ does not need to be bound up with harmful mentalities. Being a freethinker does not mean trading in all emotional potential for a cold slab of rationality. The best dinners are those with a variety of flavours; therefore, the atheist must not only chop ham carefully, but be able to season it with a variety of spices. The sensual experience of seasoned flavour is not a rational engagement. Although it is functionally useful to cut the food properly, atheists must rise above the Fox news constructions of straw-man identities and find the spice that makes tradition worth while. Nobody wants a cold slab of bah-humbug-ham when they can have the full feast. Enjoy the food, the drinks, and the family… and again, Merry Christmas.

Atheist Spirituality

Will 2012 Be the Year of the Atheist?

BBC: Christopher Hitchens dies after battle with cancer

Richard Dawkins on Christmas Traditions

Santa Monica’s Atheist Protest

Santa Monica's angry atheists declare a real war on Christmas

Terry Eagleton - The God Debate

Stop Being Offended by Holidays!

Hell is an Invention of the Church

Cultural Criticism by Terence McKenna

A New Personal-Development

Beyond Atheism

Arguing with Religious Fanatics

Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse

Sam Richards: A radical experiment in empathy

The Mountain

Ric Elias: 3 things I learned while my plane crashed

Dalai Lama on Religion

A Peaceful Stand Against Pastor Terry Jones

The Arrogant Atheists vs. The Dogmatic Religious

Arguing Against Religion

Sigur Rós – Gobbledigook

The Problem With Modern Religion

Einstein Quotes on God

Muslims Serve Christmas Eve Dinner to 300

Sadaf Kotwal of the Islamic Community Centre of Brossard helps serve dinner at the Old Brewery Mission on Christmas Eve.

Photograph by: PIERRE OBENDRAUF, THE GAZETTE, The Gazette_________________It was in a spirit of giving that members of a South Shore mosque contributed $2,000 to sponsor the Christmas Eve supper at the Old Brewery Mission and spent two hours serving it to more than 300 people.

What is Atheist Spirituality?

Merry Christmas Atheists

Photograph by: PIERRE OBENDRAUF, THE GAZETTE, The Gazette
_________________

It was in a spirit of giving that members of a South Shore mosque contributed $2,000 to sponsor the Christmas Eve supper at the Old Brewery Mission and spent two hours serving it to more than 300 people.