Non-attachment and Letting Go

"Bless me Father, for I have sinned.  It's been many years since my last blog post!"  :)

Let's talk a little about the Buddhist idea of detachment, or "non-attachment to things of this world".  Let's first remember that the earliest Buddhist teachings are not religious at all, but for more of a manual for how to live life such that one has the greatest level of enjoyment.  At some point later, Buddhism picked up the idea of reincarnation (most likely from Hinduism, which already existed at the time), such that all sorts of teachings arose related to how to guide one's self into reincarnation as a better creature/person and eventually reach nirvana, etc.  Originally, it looks as if Buddhism was teaching how to reach a good state of living (nirvana) in this life, not the next.  Buddhism seems to have started as something closer to "Secular Humanism" along with guidelines as to how to avoid unhappiness in one's daily life.  Practices such as meditation were primarily to teach the ability to focus on what's important and avoid getting sidetracked by things which don't matter in the end.

As part of this focus on important matters and avoiding sinking into sadness and depression, the teaching of "non-attachment" arose.  Some people interpret "non-attachment" as something more like, "don't get attached to things of this world because that leds to unhappiness ultimately".  This is absolutely wrong.  Yes, not being attached to anything in their world would avoid unhappiness related to that thing/person/animal ulitmately going away/dying, however such a practice would also lead to not experiencing what happiness this world has to offer!  Sure, you can live outside of the world, but there is much happiness to be had in this world as well!

How do we solve this problem of experiencing the happiness of this world while lessening the unhappiness which will ultimately happen?  Well...  Let's use my own situation as an example.  My wife has quite a few auto-immune diseases, including adult onset diabetes and allergies to various foods.  She seems to be slowly getting worse and ultimately it could put her into the hospital and kill her.  If I wanted to avoid the ultimately unhappiness of not having her around, I could leave now, try to forget her, try to find someone else, etc., but that would leave me without all of the happiness which I currently have by having her around!  What to do?

What to do, is to enjoy the happiness of the present while living in the present, and then learn to "let go" when it's time to do so!  As a simple example, we can all enjoying a great meal while it's happening but we don't say,"I have to keep eating it!  I don't want to stop, ever!"  (Ok, some of us may, but that's a different issue!)  You enjoy the happiness which life brings while it's happening.  You enjoy it as fully as possible, by making use of the focusing skills you learned through meditation, paying attention to things which are in the moment and which matter.  Then, when the moment is gone, you celebrate the memory of the events, because remembering is also a way to enjoy and and gain a different type of happiness, from the memory.  However, once it's done, once the person is gone, and once you have celebrated and appreciated their memory, it's time to move on.

"Non-attachment" is not about avoiding attachment to things of this world.  It's about learning how to let events, people, pets, etc., pass out of your life and not continuing attachment to things/people who are not there.  Avoiding life is not the lessson of "non-attachment.  Learning to "let go" is the lesson of "non-attachment".  As the famous song says, "Let it go!", and look forward to the next thing in an ever-changing life!

Pro-life AND Pro-choice

 There is a lot of discussion and argument about "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice".  I guess I just see things a different way.  I'm pro-life, in that killing a fetus/baby should be avoided, but I'm also pro-choice, in that when it comes down only a concern of who has control over a person's life, I'll always side with that person.  If someone is trying to kill me, then they are exerting control over my life and taking control away from me.  That's unacceptable and I will do whatever I need to do in order to stop it and re-gain control over my own life, including killing them.  Yes, this means I'm exerting control over their life, but it wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't initiated the situation.  There are many situations and concerns, and all of them should be taken into consideration when making a life or death decision, but the final consideration, which always trumps all other concerns is that a person should always retain control over their life, unless they give it up voluntarily (which is what is happening when someone tries to take control of my own life away from me).  In short, when you try to remove a person's rights, you inherently give up that right yourself.

So, since a person should always have control over their own body, what options are available to those who would like people to stop having abortions?  There are many options available, actually!  The first, most obvious, option is to simply try to convince the person to not have an abortion.  There's nothing wrong with making an argument for what you believe.  What's the most effective way to make such an argument?  The most effective way is always to have a civil discussion.  Lay out your reasons, listen to the other person's reasons, try to address their concerns by giving them options which are acceptable to them.

If "anti-abortion" groups want to promote not having abortions, they need to listen to "pro-choice" arguments and address the concerns.  I'll help with some examples.  For example, if a "pro-choice" person says something such as, "My passion just took me away and in the moment I didn't use birth control.  I can't afford, financially or time-wise, to have a baby right now."  Once option open to a person who disagrees with their decision, would be to volunteer to help financially and help them give up the baby for adoption.  An even more convincing argument may be to give them financial motivation to carry through with the pregnancy, such as paying for all medical bills, work time lost, classes related to easing child birth, and then helping with handing the baby over for adoption and the psychological issues involved with having an abortion and also giving up a child.  I know that's a lot, but I have to ask, "what is saving a baby worth to you?"

If abortions are really as abhorrent as anti-choice people claim, I would expect to see them offering to adopt people's babies and using their funding agencies to support adoptions and helping with medical bills, etc.  If the baby is far enough along that it can exist outside of the mother's body, then perhaps removing it from the mother and supporting medical needs until it can be adopted, may be an option.

In short, there are many options which could be pursued, however the primary one seems to be passing a law to take away a person's choice.  This doesn't address the problem at all, it simply tries to punish the person for having made a "bad choice" previously, or having found themself in a "bad position".  If it were not about control, then other, less controlling, methods would already be in use.  (Or, maybe anti-choice people are simply incapable of thinking of these other alternatives?  I would not expect this lack of imagination, however, to be as universal as it seems, so I would expect there are other reasons for trying to control people's lives.)  If the reason for wanting to exert control is because your God tells you "it's wrong!", then maybe you should pray for the person seeking an abortion and pray that God will change their mind.  It has happened, according to the Bible, many times in history and if you believe in prayer, certainly asking God to change their mind would be the strongest way to "convince" them?

Instead of trying to force people into agreeing with you, try gently pushing them in your direction such that they go willingly.  It's what you would want, if they were trying to exert control over you.

"Go ahead with your own life and leave me alone"

I don't listen to a lot of Billy Joel.  I don't generally like his music.  However...

My Life

I have to say:

• I don't care if you're gay.
• I don't care if nature or nurture made you that way.
• I don't care if it's natural or unnatural.
• I don't care if you can or can't be cured.

In the end, all of that doesn't matter at all.  It really doesn't matter what choices people make in their life or why they made those choices.  Let me repeat that:

It doesn't matter what choices people make in their life

Why?

Because it's THEIR life!  Leave it alone!

Why do people feel the need to force others to live by their rules?  It makes no sense to me.  I just don't understand it.  If the people with whom you disagree are not limiting your own choices, then leave them alone and let them have their choices.  Maybe, just maybe, they'll leave you alone and let you live your life in return.  Maybe, just maybe, we will all ultimately just let each other live freely, the way they want to live.

The measure of a society

Mankind creates societies. It's what we do. Over many thousands of years we have built and torn down many societies, some good and some not so good. But what makes a "good" society? I claim that the measure of a society is not art, leisure, wealth, etc. Those things will always be part of any society. Sometimes they are reserved for a select few, sometimes for more. No, the real measure of a society is how it treats the poorest members.

It's a given that every society will have some great achievements, some wealthy people, some art, some music, and also some poor. We could look at how wealth is distributed. What percentage of the people are so wealthy that they have nothing but leisure time? What percentage needs to work full time just to get by? What percentage must hold down more that one job? What percentage of jobs are for unskilled labor, versus those with a higher degree? While these are all good measures of how successful a society can be, they all really come back to one thing; quality of life. We're really measuring the quality of life and looking at the distribution of that quality through out the population.

As Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you." Think about how many religions there are which stress that caring for the poor is important. Why is that? Because, if the poor still have a reasonable quality of life, then it stands to reason that everyone else will have a life even better than that. It's a distribution with the poor at the bottom end and the ultra rich at the top. The rich can take care of themselves, the poor can not. Yes, there's a certain amount of socialism here as well, but that's not the main point.

The rich lives of those who are better off in a society are always built on the backs of working people. Each person's life is made better by the work of those below them. Look at it another way, society will always have some people at the top end and will always have some great achievements. These can almost be taken for granted. The question to be asked is how that society achieved those great things. Did they have slaves? If so, we would not say that's a great society, because we do not recognize slavery as a good way to treat people and thus get things done. It's been found, for example, that the people who built the pyramids where not slaves, they were paid workers. Thus we tend to think of Egypt's great achievements as being even greater, in that they were built by paid and respected workers. If we later find that the pyramids were, indeed, built by slaves, then our view of that society would be lessened.

We will always have poor. If we shove them under the rug and pretend they do not exist, we, as a society are the worse for it. One of those lost and forgotten poor could have made a great contribution, but since we threw them away, they never had a chance. That's a great lost for society. But this is only a practical, analytical, viewpoint. There's also the viewpoint of nature. Humans are a social species. As such, we get endorphins when we help each other. For most people, empathy is normal and has a great effect on their well being. That's a selfish reason for being nice and helping people!

What I'm trying to say here is simply that since we will always have poor in any society, the question for a society is whether these people are taken advantage of, taken for granted, ignored, shoved under the rug and forgotten, or if they are treated like fellow human beings and given the opportunity to better themselves. Note, I didn't say give them handouts. I said give them opportunity to better themselves. India's caste system doesn't do this, but that is slowly changing and is generally viewed as unfair.

We, as a society must decide how to deal with the bottom of the quality of life curve. When we move that bottom up, the rest of the curve rises also. So, we can measure a society in many ways, but the one which matters the most, the one which makes us human and betters everyone's life, is to make sure the poorest members are not forgotten. It's been said that if one were to design a society, the best way to go about it would be for one person to do the design, while a different person gets to assign roles. If you are willing to be in any position in your society, it's a good one. If there are some positions which no one wants, that's an easy measure of "bad", and improvement is needed.

So, look at a society, not for its great achievements, but for how it treats the poorest members. There's your measure of humanism.

Vulnerabilities of the Human Brain

Just yesterday, I watched the movie "Regression".  The reviews were just a little above 3 stars, but really, you should watch it.  It states at the beginning that it's based on a true story.  It definitely is.  (Spoilers ahead!)  I remember living through the period when it seemed every day or so you could easily read an article about yet another person who underwent hypnosis therapy, only to find that they were sexually molested by their parents, a friend, a relative, etc.  I remember thinking at the time, "This is ridiculous!  Maybe some of these are true, but really, don't we all know that you can get a person to say or do just about anything under hypnosis?"  Sure enough, it took about a year, but finally enough professionals in the field started investigating.  We now that a lot of innocent peoples' lives were destroyed by what we now, finally, recognize as "Junk Science".

Today, I saw that Texas and California now have laws which allow for an immediate hearing for anyone who was convicted solely on "Junk Science"; i.e., science which has since been shown to not be as reliable as we once thought.  This is a good thing and badly needed.  All jurors need to know about this possibility.

But, believe it or not, that's not what prompted this blog entry.  What prompted this blog entry was reading Dr. Carrier's article, "Did the Apostles Die for a Lie?".  Yes, the two are very much connected.  Just hear me out.  In this article, he discusses the question of whether the Apostles would have knowing died for what they knew at the time was a lie.  Read the article, as there are far too many ways this could, indeed, have happened (and has happened many times) for me to go into here.  The easiest, and simplest, explanation is simply that while they may have been totally convinced that what they "knew" as true, that doesn't mean it was true.  There are far more possibilities than simply, (1) they died for the truth, or (2) they died anyway, knowing it wasn't true.  If you don't know about The Law of the Excluded Middle, then you should learn about it.

But, that's just the beginning!  The brain is an amazing thing!  Always keep in your mind that what you know, what you see, what you hear, is totally within your brain.  If you brain says, "this is true", then it's true, for you, no matter what's happening outside!  I'll mention here that I had an experience once which really drove this home for me.  It was late morning.  (I love late morning.  I have the strangest dreams during late morning, and I usually remember them.  It's fascinating looking at how your brain is making sense of the random signals and random inputs (mostly from your ears)!  I dreamed a whole story line, which finally led up to an event which culminated in a loud noise.  That noise woke me up.  At that point, I realized the noise was a car horn.  Now, think about this.  My brain had no way to know that this car was going to blow its horn at that point, so it couldn't possibly create a story which led up to that, yet it did!  This means that in the instant when it heard the horn, it created the backstory to explain it, and I "knew" that story had happened, even though it couldn't possibly have done so!  Your brain totally controls your perception of time itself.  Amazing!

The brain is capable of many more things which of which many people are not aware.  I give you, the Selective Attention Test.  If you haven't taken the test, you should.  You will then become unfit for jury duty, because you will know too much about the lack of value of an eye witness.  (I was tossed off a jury for mentioning it last year!)

Now, do we even need to go into Confirmation Bias?  A good book on this is, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why we Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts".  Read it, especially if you work in the Judicial System.

There are many ways to alter your view or understanding of the world, even without drugs.  One of the more interesting ways, not mentioned in the above article, is to simply toss your head back and forth.  Do this for quite a while, even in time with music if you like, and you will produce a euphoric state.  Supposedly this is due to the large amount of endorphins which are released.  We know this today because studies have revealed it, however obviously many religions didn't know this at the time, which is why so many religious ceremonies involve this type of action and claim that it, "brings one closer to God!"  I'll also mention here that other studies have clearly shown that a magnetic field across the brain in just the right place can produce a sense of being in the presence of God.  (I don't have to make this stuff up!  The world is plenty interesting all by itself!)

So, now that we know all of the many ways in which the brain can be tricked in seeing, or not seeing, things which are there, producing whole stories around events which other actual explanations, even producing whole backstories to explain an occurrence, and producing mental states which clearly show we're in the presence of a divine being, simply because we're wearing a helmet(!), can we really continue to allow our children to be caught off guard by these things?!  Shouldn't we be teaching, in elementary, or high school at the latest, all of these known phenomena, so that when our kids end up having some strange experience during a camping trip when they were exhausted and hadn't eaten lately, they'll realize what's happening?  Wouldn't it be good to hear, just once, from someone that, "I had a really strange, other worldly experience, and it felt as though I had died and gone to heaven", only to have the next sentence be, "but I know what caused it, I know that it's rather typical of the state I was in, none-the-less it was interesting and fun!"

We need to educate our kids about all of the ways in which their perceptions can not necessarily be trusted.  If they know about these things, then they will be better prepared when (not if) the situations occur.  It's normal physiology, just like knowing how to lift a heavy load without hurting your back, just like understanding the causes of deja-vu (which can also be artificially produced).  People need to learn about these things, so they can stop hurting, and even destroying the lives of, others (as well as their own selves) by misinterpreting these things, when they happen.  (They always happen eventually.)

Don't trust your perceptions and stay safe out there!

Why is everything close to 50-50?

I'm wondering, why are all matters of opinion these days always close to a 50-50 split?  It seems as if everything in this country is almost always 50/50; democrat vs republican, pro-life vs abortion rights, etc.  It's all 50 one way and 50 the other.  Are we always so even divided on everything?  I don't think so.  I think it's not normal for the country to always be so even divided.  I don't think we've always been this way.  I think at least some issues were previously (a few decades ago) 60/40 and some were even 70/30.  So, what's with the new 50/50 split on everything?

First, let me state that it's been shown that roughly 20% of the population will literally believe anything!  Yes, anything!  Look it up!  Look for studies where people have tried to get signatures on a proposal to ban "H20" because it causes a large number of deaths.  Look up how many people believe UFOs are real.  I can guarantee you that you'll always find at least 20% believing just about anything.  It's the other people, above the base 20% who have actually considered the claims, pros and cons, etc.  The base 20% will believe anything, so that doesn't really count.  When you hear 30% of the population believe "X", you should really think, "well 10% of the educated population believe 'X', because 20% will believe anything!"

But does that matter?  Does it matter that 20% of our population is uneducated enough to believe any claim which is made?  Well, ...  YES!  It matters because it shows we have a huge education problem to deal with and a Democracy can NOT have an education problem.  A Democracy absolutely MUST have an educated public, because it's that public which votes!  And whose interest is in having an educated public?  It's certainly not the government's interest.  It's easier to govern uneducated people than it is to govern the educated.  Ever heard the phrase, "it's like herding cats!"?  Trying to get educated people to follow you is hard, because they want to know "why" and also want to know your reasoning.  If you don't have a good argument behind your proposal, it won't be accepted. No, governing uneducated people is much easier!  So, it's not in the government's interest to educate people.  It's in the public's interest to educate people!

But, getting back to the original topic...  Why are we always split 50/50 on just about everything?  Well, think about it...  What other things that we know are always split 50/50?  A coin toss!  If there are two basic possibilities, then the probability of each is 50%.  Am I saying, then, that peoples' opinions are simply a coin toss?  Well, sorta, yes!  If a person is relatively uneducated on a matter, then what would they use to sway their opinion one way or the other?  They can't back up any reasoning with logic or understanding of the issue.  They're pretty much going to be swayed by their gut instinct.  Many people think their gut instinct is the the most reliable thing they have!  ("I just know what's right!")  Since their gut instinct isn't really grounded in anything scientific or logical, then it's pretty much a coin toss as to what their gut instinct will say!  Thus...  we end up with a bunch of people who are just going with their gut instinct instead of thinking things through.  Thus, we end up with a 50/50 split on just about everything!  50% is what you get then there's nothing to sway an opinion one way or the other.  50% is the base.  It's the starting point from which you must find reasoning or logical arguments to push one way or the other.  Lacking any real thinking, 50/50 is what you will always have!

Since we have a lack of real education in this country (evident by the large 20% who will believe anything at all!), we will always be lose to a 50/50 split on all topics until people decide they would like to be better educated and start thinking for a change.  Most people actively avoid thinking about deep topics.

Sigh.

Is Unitarian Universalism the same as Secular Humanism?

I'm wondering...  Is Unitarian Universalism ("UU") the same as Secular Humanism ("SH"), or is it the same as what Secular Humanism wants to be?  UU is all about inclusiveness.  I've heard it said of UU members, that "if you believe the same as the person next to you, then one of you isn't thinking enough!"  You can be a UU member and still be Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Atheist.  They're willing to accept anyone who is interested in being with them.  While some "believers" say you need to "believe in something bigger than yourself, but we don't care what or about the details," UU members don't even go that far!  You don't have to believe in anything at all and you can still be a member!

Secular Humanism is all about what's good for Humans, here and now.  They tend to be very inclusive, because there's just too much "us verses them" happening and building a wall of separation between groups isn't conducive to helping Humanity.  SH members are, of course, secular, so they still see at least a little separation of "us" (those who do not believe in a God) and "them" (those who do believe in a God).  Maybe this is the biggest difference between UU and SH; namely, if you believe in a "higher power" then you can't really be SH, but if you do not believe in a "higher power" you can still be UU.

So, if UU's are willing to take anyone, no matter of belief, then what defines UU?  If you're willing to accept any members, no matter of what they believe or do not believe, then do you really have a "group" at all?  Isn't your group, "the Human Race", if you're willing to accept all members of the Human Race?  Isn't the whole definition of a "group" based on something which makes "us" different from "them"?

I'm thinking that UU isn't really a "group" at all; it's simply a bunch of people who like to get together on Sundays, sing songs, and "feel good" about themselves and others.  While this is fine, it's not really a "group", since anyone is welcome.  Actually, maybe it is.  Maybe it's the group of people who like to get together on Sundays, sing songs, and "feel good" about themselves and others!  I admit that some people wouldn't be into this.

Actually, SH members can learn a lot from UU, however.  If the discussion can be kept open, if friendship can be maintained, then there's always the possibility that others may come to a realization that this "God" stuff is a bunch of bull.  When they do, they'll need a lot of friendship and support.  If Secular Humanism can be as inclusive as UU already is, then there's hope for a Humanist movement.

Religions will always have crazies - deal with it!

Religions have many problems, but one of the biggest issues which religious people have constantly to deal with is that of dealing with "The Crazies".  One is constantly hearing people of various religious beliefs making statements such as, "Well, they're extreme.  I'm not like that."  How can a religious person deal with these extremists and still have a religious identity?  It's hard.  Muslims in many countries are very non-violent, however Islam is still viewed as a very violent religion by many people.  Christian Fundamentalism is considered an extreme by many Christians, yet when a person identifies as "Baptist", it still brings with it thoughts of dancing with snakes and miracle healings.

One of the problems with religions such as Islam is that there are extremists, such as terrorists, who also claim to be devout Muslim, and yet many Muslims do not want to be associated with them.  It's hard for a Muslim to separate their religious views from those of terrorists because, well, they originate from the same holy book.  As a matter of fact, the Koran even has statements which clearly say that a devout Muslim should kill "infidels".  (Yes, it also has statements about caring for everyone, but it's not clear if the "everyone" in those statements is really talking about non-Muslims.  In general, non-Muslims are thought to be the equivalent of non-human, so killing them is no big deal.  This is stated in the Koran as well.)

Christian Fundamentalists are well known for their extreme views, such as claiming to handle wild snakes without being bitten, claims of miracle cures, claims of "speaking in tongues", even "Young Earth Creationism", and literal interpretation of the Old Testament.  While most main stream Christians do not associate with these beliefs, they are an integral part of many aspects of the religion.  It can be embarrassing to have to admit to being "Christian" because of the close association of these ideas.

I would maintain that "The Crazies" will exist in pretty much all religions and I'll explain why.  Religious ideas are based on nothing but a single person's interpretation of what they have read, heard, or learned from others.  When "God speaks to you", it can clearly be demonstrated that this amounts to little more than your conscience talking to you.  (Isn't it interesting that "God" always likes the same people you like and hates the same people you hate?)  Even though most religions have a "Holy Book" of some type, this book was always written by someone quite a long time ago who thought differently from us today, due to societal changes.  Thus, the "Holy Book" must always be interpreted by the reader.  Some make this interpretation in as literal of a fashion as possible, but we all know that if you literally followed the Old Testament rules, you would end up in jail very quickly!  (Leviticus 20:9 and many others)  So, interpretation is always there, no matter how "literal" a person feels they are taking the text.

Since interpretation is always there, then ultimately the understanding of any religion is always inside the head of the individual.  If religion were more like Science, then a person could appeal to facts and evidence to back up and to "ground" their understanding.  Since religion really does not have any such grounding, then every idea which is part of every religion is ultimately a matter of opinion!  That explains why there are so many!  There are many people in the world with many different life experiences and backgrounds.  Thus, everyone's opinion will be slightly, if not completely, different.  This can not really be avoided and religion has no grounding in anything which can be demonstrated in the real world, religion will always be "all over the map" with interpretations.

So, sorry to say, "The Crazies" will always be part of any religious belief system, since there is no grounding in the real world.  I guess religious people will just have to continue to fight for their own beliefs and as we have more people in the world, we will also have more religions!

"Nones" or "Don't Cares"?

We, in the Atheist community at least, keep hearing about the "Nones"; those people who profess no religious affiliation.  We hear that the percentage of "Nones" is rising.  This is a good thing, for us.  It sounds good to talk about our numbers increasing.  I'm sure, however, that we can really claim all of that.

Some "Nones" aren't really Atheists; but then this gets into the definition of "Atheist".  Many people think that "Atheists" are people who believe there is no God.  Since it's well-known in the scientific community, however, that we can't prove a negative, then a person who is basing their understanding of the world on science and what can be proven will never say that they "believe there is no God".  They will, instead, say, "I believe there isn't sufficient reason to believe in a God."  So, the term "Atheist" is, increasingly, becoming defined as, "Lacking a belief in God."  This is not the same as "Believing there is no God."  A "Theist" believes there is a God.  An "Atheist" simply doesn't have that belief.  An "Anti-theist" believes there is no God, but that's an extreme view which isn't, and can't be, supported by science.

So, if an "Atheist" lacks a belief in God, then anyone who doesn't have a belief in God is, by definition, an "Atheist".  The problem with this, however, is that there are a large number of people who simply don't care!  These people generally don't have a belief in God, but they also simply don't care enough about the question to even investigate it or think about it.  I know a number of such people personally.

So, can we really claim all "Nones" (people who profess no religious affiliation) as "Atheists"?  I don't think so.  We need to re-ask the question in a different way.  We need to recognize the difference between the "Nones" and the "Don't Cares".

Religion doesn't really help dealing with the real world

I just finished watching the movie, "The Tree of Life."  While the movie lasts a long time and some parts of it tend to get slow and tedious, I did gain one new observation from it; probably not the one which was intended, however.  While watching and listening to all of the pleas for God to help, to explain 'why', to give comfort, it occurred to me that religion really doesn't prepare a person to deal with the real world.  Many people say that religion gives comfort in times of need, but I'm not really sure that's the case.

The movie dealt with a mother losing her young son (about 15 years old).  It never says how the son died, probably because that doesn't really matter to the story.  The mother undergoes extreme grief, of course, and turns to her religion, and thus to God, for explanation of "why my son?", and "why now?" Of course God never answers, which leaves the mother to wonder, "do you even care about us?" and "do you even know what happens down here?"  Of course, God never answers those questions either.  Eventually, at the end of the film, the mother gives in and tries to find some solace in "giving my son to you, as you want."

When we're young, religion gives us the feeling that someone is looking over us, which can be very comforting to some while being very threatening to others.  We eventually come to find solace, and even companionship, in a God who "watches over us" and who also seems to "know what's best" for us.  I maintain, however, that this is an erroneous view of the world and thus leads to trouble later.

When we're young, and first learning about life and religion, we're told that we should care about our fellow mankind, we should always do what's right, we should not lie, we should not cheat, we should not fight, etc.  However, just a little later in life, we are told that we should learn to look out for ourself, we should do what's in our best interest, we should not tell the whole truth in all cases, we should do whatever we can to get ahead, and we should take up for ourself and fight back.  It seems as if the "real world" is diametrically opposed to what we're taught via religion!  This creates uncertainly, doubt, fear, and generally gives rise to the whole idea of "sin" in which we continuously view ourself as "not perfect."  Religions have, of course, learned to make a huge amount of money off of these problems!

I see no reason to teach children to "be good" based upon some unrealistic, religiously based, ideas, which will only lead them to struggle with the conflict between the world "as religion would have it", and the real world "as it really exists."  Why can't we teach our children to live in the real world, as it really exists, and still to be good citizens?  Why can't we teach our children that treating others in "good" and "helpful" and "kind" fashion will only serve to help create the type of world in which they, themselves, would like to live?  If you treat those around you in a kind and helpful way, then they will treat you in a kind and helpful way in return; at least most of the time.  As Buddhism would say, "you create your world, every minute of every day."

We should teach children that, yes, they should be kind to their fellow mankind when that person is not being mean to them, they should always do what's right in the larger scheme of things, they should not lie unless lying will help the situation, they should generally not cheat unless they are being cheated in return or if it's for a good cause, and they should not seek a fight however they should be willing to defend themselves.  We should teach children that there is no one out their looking out for them, so they should be careful and look out for themselves.  We should teach children that, no, their loves one will not go to a magical place in the sky and they will never see them again after death, so they should appreciate their loves ones today, let them know they are loved, and learn well the lessons they can teach, because once they're gone, those lessons will be forever lost unless someone remembers them.  (This is why I refuse to remove birthdays, anniversaries, and other information about deceased friends.  They were a part of my life and I don't want to forget them and the lessons they taught.  This is their only lasting legacy.)

By learning how to understand and deal with the real world, we will be better prepared to deal with exceptional circumstances in this world.  Doing so is much better than the empty, non-existent, and thus unresponsive, God of religion, who offers only empty promises and who only "delivers" answers via the questioner's reinterpretation of whatever random events happen.  Don't depend upon religion to give you any real answers at all.  Learn more about how the world really works, understand more about your own emotional reactions to it, and there will be all of the answers you could want.

Definition of Agnostic, Atheist, etc.

A friend of mine recently stated what I'm sure many others have also heard, "I'm not a Theist or Atheist.  I'm Agnostic."  Many people seem to equate "Agnostic" with "Undecided" and they think this is a safe place to be, because it puts them beyond the entire discussion.  Well, it's simply not true.  Let's investigate these terms.

Looking at my Dictionary program, I see:

gnostic |ˈnästik|

adjective

of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge.

• ( Gnostic )of or relating to Gnosticism.

noun( Gnostic )

an adherent of Gnosticism.

ORIGIN late 16th cent. (as a noun): via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek gnōstikos, from gnōstos ‘known’ (related to gignōskein ‘know’).

So, a "Gnostic" is someone who has knowledge, especially of the mystical type.  The word comes from the Greek word "to know".  Relating to a "God" claim, a "Gnostic" is someone who thinks they know; i.e., someone thinks such knowledge is possible.

Ok, so what's "Agnostic"?

agnostic |agˈnästik|

noun

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

adjective

of or relating to agnostics or agnosticism.

• (in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something: until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform.

ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from a-¹‘not’ + gnostic.

An "Agnostic" is the opposite of a "Gnostic".  With respect to the "God" claim, an Agnostic" is someone who thinks that "nothing is known or can be known"; i.e., they do not believe that anyone can know either way.  So, it now becomes somewhat clear why a person may equate "Agnostic" with "Undecided".  An "Agnostic" would say, "I do not think it's possible to know whether or not a God exists," thus they are remaining undecided on the matter.

But to say, "I do not think it's possible to know," is not the same thing as saying, "I'm remaining undecided."  It's actually possible to make up your own, personal, mind on the topic, to the best of your knowledge, even in the face of no evidence one way or the other, and I maintain that just about everyone has already done so many times.  For example, how many modern adults remain completely undecided with respect to the existence of Faires?  Most sane people have decided that Fairies do not exist, but they do not have any firm proof this is in the case.  It could be the case that all Fairies simply have a method of making themselves invisible to all humans such that you can't detect them.  Regardless of this possibility, most sane people have made a decision on the matter, even though they would have to admit that they are really "Agnostic" on the existence of Fairies; this is, they would have to admit that they really really believe "nothing is known or can be known" on the topic.

Scientists and people well versed in Logic would tell us that "one can never prove a negative."  There really could be an ancient Chinese teapot in order around Saturn.  You can not prove that there isn't.  You also probably can't prove that there is.  Thus, all people must be "Agnostic" about an negative proposition.  All we can ever say about, "X does not exist," is, "The statement can not be proven or disproven, thus we are Agnostic on the topic."

"Fine, but I'll never be an 'Atheist'!  Saying that God doesn't exist is simply too strong of a statement and, besides, you can't prove that anything doesn't exist."  Very true, but what, exactly, does an "Atheist" think?  Does an "Atheist" believe God does not exist?"  That is, obviously, not a very rational position, as has been shown above.

Let's investigate this term, "Atheist."  What does the dictionary say?

atheist |ˈāTHēˌist|

noun

a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist.

So, an "Atheist" is not a person who believes God does not exist.  The definition doesn't say that.  The definition simply says that an "Atheist" lacks a belief in God.  In other words, an "Atheist" somehow lacks this "belief in God" which others seem to have.  The "Athest" isn't saying that "God does not exist," they are simply saying that regardless of the question of existence or nonexistence, they lack a belief in that God.  By comparison, a "Theist" does have a belief in God.

So, we can now create a matrix of all possibilities:

	Gnostic	Agnostic
Theist	Gnostic Theist	Agnostic Theist
Atheist	Gnostic Atheist	Agnostic Atheist

I would maintain that most so-called, "Theists," are actually "Agnostic Theists."  That is, they would gladly and readily admit that they can not prove the existence of God.  After all, most Christians would maintain that if God could be proven, then there would be no need for faith.  That is an "agnostic" position.  However, while readily admitting that God can not be proven, they also have a belief in God, which is what makes them a "Theist".

I would further maintain that most so-called, "Atheists," are actually "Agnostic Atheists."  After all, recognizing that the existence or non-existence of God can not be shown is central to the definition of what most people mean when they say, "God."  For most people, God, if he/she exists, is outside of this universe (how can God create something of which he/she is already a part?), and as such can not be  demonstrated using knowledge which is part of this universe.  Being "Agnostic Atheist," is really the only possible, rational, version of "Athiest," since it recognizes that non-existence can never be proven.

For the most part, we're all "Agnostic."  Saying you're "Agnostic" doesn't really say anything more than, "I don't think anyone can really know for sure," but most rational people would admit this is true from the outset.  The question, which still remains unanswered, is whether or not you, personally, have a believe in God, even though he/she can't be proven.  You can't use the term, "Agnostic," to side-step the real question.  Either you have a belief in God ("Theist"), or you don't have such a belief ("Atheist").

If you "don't really go along with all of that God stuff," then you're "Atheist" and you'll have to admit it and become comfortable with it.  "Atheists" can be good people, especially if they're "Secular Humanists!"

More on Atheism+ and Secular Humanism

Having just read Greta's post about Atheism+, I have some responses and comments on the issue.  Yes, my previous post basically stated that I didn't see any difference between Atheism+ and Secular Humanism, but now that I've read Greta's clear statement of her view of the differences, I think I'm seeing things a little differently.

Let me first address definitions.  Right up front, she says:

Several people who are more familiar with humanism than I am have informed me that Christian Humanism is not, in fact, humanism, and that a basic principle of humanism is non-theism. I stand corrected.

Well, I think she's listening to several uninformed people.  Let me try to set things straight.  "Humanism" simply means a focus on what is best for humans, here and now.  Anyone can be "Humanist" and still have some other-worldly "religious" views as well.  Thus, there are "Christian Humanists".  There are definitely "Jewish Humanists" (but that gets into the whole issue of how Jews view God a little differently from everyone else - a fascinating topic, but not one for now).  Any religion can have a "focus on humans" aspect and thus have a "Humanism" version.  "Secular Humanism" is a focus on humans in a totally secular (i.e., non-religious) fashion, thus it's the one which Atheism+ is most like.  It's true that the term, "Humanist," has come to mean the same as "Secular Humanism," so anyone who says they are "Humanist" is usually also declaring a non-belief in God.  It's true, also, that some religious forms of "Humanism" seem rather strange.  "Christian Humanism" seems odd because Christianity is all about a focus on Christ, God, and the after-life, so how can it also be focused on humans here and now?  Just doesn't make a lot of sense without modifying the idea of Christianity, at least a little.  So, going forward I think we can assume that when we say "Humanist," we mean "Secular Humanism," and thus are declaring a world view without God.  For convenience, I think we can also agree that "Humanism" refers to the same thing, at least in this post.

Next, Greta states the primary differences between "Humanism" and "Atheism+".

"Humanism, on the other hand, is generally perceived as more diplomatic. More easy-going."

"The word “atheism” is clear. ...  The word “humanism” isn’t nearly as well-understood. Lots of people don’t even know what it means."

"And then there’s the matter of public perception, and public understanding."

And this is actually one of my major points.  "Humanism" isn't clear.  That's true and it's a very convenient truth.  Because "Humanism" isn't clear to people, and "Secular Humanism" as well, it means that people can't bring any preconceived notions to the discussion.  The time you say, "Atheism+", many (most?) people can immediately think they have a good idea what that is (Some type of super-Atheism which tries to convert people?  Atheism along with other evil ideas which I really don't want to know about?  Atheism on steroids!)  At this point, they don't feel the need to investigate or question.  They think they know, thus they do know, in their mind.

"Secular Humanism," on the other hand pushes people off center.  They're confronted with something they absolutely don't understand.  They can't possibly have preconceived notions, because they have to admit to themself that they really have no idea!  Just a few weeks ago, I responded to a friend's Facebook post saying, "You sound as though you may be a Secular Humanist."  Their response was, "Really?  I don't know what that is.  I'll have to investigate it."  I then followed up with pointers to the American Humanist Association web site, which led to my pointing her toward the Humanist Manifesto, something with which a lot people agree without even knowing it.  (I say I'm "Atheist" when I'm being visited by Jehovah's Witnesses, at which point they immediately say, "Ok, have a good day," and leave!  It has worked every time so far without fail.  I think they've been taught to just leave if they encounter "Atheists" because there's no hope for such people!)

I'll mention here that Greta's next comment re. Humanist organizations was totally "on the money":

"Many humanist groups are overwhelmingly made up of older, middle-class, college educated white men"

This is so totally true of the local Humanist organization here in Santa Barbara, that they do not seem interested in reaching out to younger people at all!  I'm forced to choose between an organization run by people who could be my parents (and who didn't even know who Mr Deity was, even though they had invited him to talk!), or an organization at my local college which is quite active, "in your face," and fun, however I could be their parent!  "Secular Humanism" seems to be the Atheism of older people and "Atheism+" is the "Secular Humanism" of the younger generation.

So, I think the biggest difference between "Atheism+" and "Secular Humanism" is really mostly a matter of focus.  In the same way that a scene can appear quite different depending upon the source of the light and the position of the camera, "Secular Humanism" and "Atheism+" are different views of the same scene, each bring into focus different aspects while glossing over, or leaving in shadows, other aspects.  Each has their advantages and disadvantages.  "Atheism+" is good for being "in your face," current news, active in the world, and generally trying to make things happen.  "Secular Humanism" is good for being a more gentle approach with which many people already agree, however they just don't know it.  Each has their place.  When talking to a more progressive, younger, person, who may feel as though they're searching for a way to "make their mark on the world," the term "Atheism+" is definitely the way to go.  When talking to a more conservative, older person, who is somewhat secure in their social situation but feels as though religion really isn't helping them, "Secular Humanism" would be more appropriate.

I'll take them both and I'll use them each in their appropriate place.  There isn't any one way toward freedom from religion.  Each person has to come to an understanding in their own way and in their own time.  The best we, as Atheists, can do is to make sure we're there to help when they're ready for some answers.  "Atheism+" is definitely a good movement and I'm totally behind it.  Just recognize that "Atheism+" and "Secular Humanism" are two different views of the same larger scene of learning to live life, in the world, with others, and realizing that ultimately all of the rules must come from us, not God.

Atheism+

So, what's with the new "Atheism+" thing?  Some like the idea and some don't think we should be messing with their word.  Me, I always thought "Atheism+" was simply a way of saying, "Atheism plus a little something else positive".  You see, "Atheist" isn't really a positive word.  It's not a positive statement.  It's actually a very negative statement.  It's saying, "I lack a belief in God."  That's talking about something you don't have.  Let's talk about something you do have instead.  Let's talk about some love and concern for your fellow humans.  Let's talk about the fact that since you don't believe any "God" will be looking out for you or anyone else, then what does it take to build a world in which we can all live together and flourish?  What kind of a world should we have?  What would it take to get there?

This is where "Humanism" steps in.  Secular Humanism (more properly) looks at what type of world we humans could have and how to attain it.  Since "God" isn't going to just pat us on the head, give us toys for our birthdays, and drive us to the park, we need to provide our own paradise.  We're willing to work hard for it because we think it's actually attainable, right here, right now.  What would it be like?  Well, we would treat others with at least a little love and understanding.  That seems like a good idea, since most conflicts stem from misunderstandings.  We would try to help other people, because everyone can use a little help now and then, including you.  In short, we would treat others in somewhat the same way as we would treat a loved member of our own family.  (Yes, I know some family members can be treated somewhat badly, which is why I included "loved" in that statement.)

So Humanism says, "We don't believe in any 'God', so we think we should work toward creating a nice, loving, supportive, world right here, right now.  Let's all act toward others as more religious people would expect their 'God' to act toward them.  In short, let's be our own 'God' to each other."

That's definitely positive, but is it "Atheism+"?  Well, I think it's basically what "Atheism+" is trying to be.  I think "Atheism+" is trying to recognize that you don't change peoples' minds by yelling at them.  You don't change peoples' minds by cutting them down and insinuating that they're stupid.  Actually, most of the time, you just don't change peoples' minds.  Period.  People change their own mind, and they way they come to such a change is by thinking about things.  The thing that gets them thinking is not by someone attacking their closely held beliefs.  People get to thinking when they hear or read something which pushes their understanding just a little, to a slightly uncomfortable zone.  Not too uncomfortable, or they will reject it outright.  Just a little uncomfortable.

How does a person get "pushed" just a little while still feeling somewhat "safe"?  Many times it's by over hearing.  This is why blogs and forums are most important that debates and confrontations.  People are reading a blog or a forum voluntarily.  They can stop whenever they begin to feel threatened.  They over hear maybe one or two little things which don't sit well with them, or maybe which explain something they misunderstood before, then they go away.  But...  they're still thinking about it...  and it starts to weigh on them...  so they return to the blog or forum and read some more...  A year later, they're making the same arguments to someone else!

This is what I think of when I think of "Atheism+", or "Humanism."  Just act as an example of you would like to see from others.  Let people come to their own understanding in their own time.  They will.  The world is gradually becoming more and more secular and more and more Humanist.  (This, incidentally, is why so many religious people are scared.  They know this is happening.)  If we, Atheists, can be friendly, supportive, and most importantly inclusive, then we are something that no religion can touch!  Religions can't be inclusive.  They're exclusive by nature.  We, Atheists, know what it's like to be persecuted.  Let's not wish that on anyone else.  Let's be different.  Let's be what religions can't.  That's "Atheism, plus more."  That's "Atheism, in a positive way."  That's "Humanism," and it's a powerful thing.

Religionists, you can't touch this!  :)

Are Atheists missing the point?

Alright, I need to just write this down and get it out there because I'm not sure how long it'll be before I'm able to write something completely clear, coherent, and complete on the topic. Here goes... 

Are Atheists missing the point? I'm a regular listener of "The Atheist Experience". I've been listening to it for years now and find it both entertaining and informative. After you've been listening for a while, it becomes more of a "Gilligan's Island" experience; since you've seen/heard it all before, you now see how long it takes for you to remember what happens! I've often thought it would be interesting to simply write up all of the arguments against "god" (I don't feel I need to capitalize the title of egomaniacle, genocidal, homophobes), give each argument a number, and then simply reply to each caller with, "number 15", "number 23", etc. We keep hearing the same arguments for and against god over and over again. As the Lotus Sutra clearly states, a person has to come to understanding in their own time, in their own way. (Read it, if you haven't.) 

I came across an interview many months ago... heck, it was probably more than a year ago now, and I wish I knew who it was. Anyway, the person's primary point was that if you think religion is all about having a good reason for believing in god, having a "proof" for god, etc., then you're missing the point. The point of religion is not to show that there's this "God" person out there somewhere who answers prayers, etc. The point of religion is simply to draw a person's awareness and understanding out of the mundane world, out of their own petty little "issues", and instead focus on something greater, something beyond yourself. If you can focus on something outside of your world, outside of your understanding even, then you can escape whatever bad things may be happening, you can escape from a limited view, and instead embrace something greater than yourself, your community, even your planet. Religion gives you a sense of awe and wonder; we've all heard that before. But it also gives you something greater than yourself to believe in. He went so far as to say that even if we knew that "God" didn't exist, there would be still be a place for religion. 

So, when believers try to come up with some "good" reason for believing in a "God" who is loving, kind, and looks after them, they're really doing it because they feel they need to in order to fight back against this "Atheist" thing, which is trying to "destroy all that's sacred". We atheists would ask, "why do you need anything to be sacred?" Well, they need it not because they need the religion, not because they need their "God" so much, more simply because they need to feel a connection to something bigger than their own life. They feel as though "Atheism" is trying to take away that connection to something bigger and it makes them defensive. 

Of course, most Atheists have probably already dealt with this. We're human also and being such, we're primarily social creatures. We also have this need to feel connected to something bigger than just us. (Some more than others, obviously.) Some of us have moved to Humanism as a way to feel a connection to the rest of Humanity. That's certainly a cause outside of ourselves. Others have latched onto Science, and in particular Astronomy, as a way to feel connected to the rest of the universe. (We're all "star stuff" after all, as Carl Sagan was famous for saying.) These are all ways to feel the "sense of awe", yes, but also to give one's life "meaning and purpose." 

So, once we have broken all of the arguments for God, once we have made believers think enough to realize that they really have no basis for the foundation of their life thus far, with what shall we leave them? Now that they have no connection to a creator of the universe, they have no vision of something greater than their own miserable little existence, where shall they get the connection to something bigger? We, as humans, need this. We must get it from somewhere, or else we start asking questions such as, "what is there to live for?", "is this all there is?" 

I'm not saying that we should stop pulling the rug out from under believers. If a person never takes that first step, then the journey will never be started. Coming back to the Lotus Sutra, we all need an Upaguru sometimes. However, we Atheists should be careful, while we're pushing that believer off the cliff, to prove the parachute which we know they'll need. We need to find out where that person gets their sense of inspiration. In what way to they feel that connection to something greater, something outside of their own life. Then provide them with a more reasonable, solid, rational, way to receive that same feeling of "this is where I belong", "this is why I'm here." 

Remember that Theism and Atheism isn't just about logical arguments for or against "God". The real reason for Religion, is to provide that link to something outside of normal life, that link to the infinite. We all need that.