Dalai "Quote Machine" Lama

I don't post quotes very often, because I generally find people tend to use them in place of actual, good, intelligent arguments.  As if having posted Quote X effectively wins the argument.  Fact is, you can find a smart-sounding quote to support just about anything.  They are the original sound bite.  A good quote can add finality to an argument, but it doesn't comprise an argument.  Most conflicts are much too complicted to be resolved in a quote.  Sadly, many people seem not to know this and merrily go about with it anyway.  Confirmation bias and all.

Having said that, here you go:

"I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether." - Dalai Lama

Tats And Dingbats

Tats

I'm not a big tattoo fan.  Quite the opposite, actually.  I wouldn't say its a sin, but its certainly not something I'm interested in.  To me, most tattoos are expressions of feeling or belief that would be better expressed in real life rather than in ink-on-skin format.  Take, for instance, the criminal with his daughter's name tatooed across his leg. Maybe just being a better dad and not ending up in jail may have been a better way to express your love for your child.  Part of it is that tattoos are just such and easy way to express something that is, often times, hard.  People get their partners' name tattooed on them rather than, you know, actually work at the relationship.

Plus, I believe that if you live your life by your own coda two things will happen:  One, you'll get scars, and scars are real-life tattoos with actual stories and meaning; and two, you'll be known for your beliefs rather than having to express them in ink on your skin.

The one possible exception I would make would be for the original tattoo group; you know, the people who got tattoos when it actually meant you were a dangerous outsider.  Now, a tattoo just means you have a tattoo, and some free money lying around.

So I nodded my head when I read the first part of this article.   But then it went in a weird and unexplainable place.  The author jumps from an explaination of tattoos and various downsides - the cost, pain, semi-irreversibility, time - to somehow deciding that people get tattoos because they spend too much time on Facebook.  Without a lick of evidence.  The way the article ends suggests the entire piece was a bit of a joke.  But if that was the intent, the first part of the article didn't imply such.  Maybe I just missed it.

Dingbats

I use this term lovingly and to be funny, not in the prejorative sense.  I'm not entirely through the article yet, but this piece on a new book, Bad Religion, is interesting.  From one of the first graphs:

I think I speak for a lot of secular liberals when I confess my lifelong skepticism that anyone could make a rational case for such old-fashioned ideas. And yet, you’ve done so. One thing I hope we can accomplish in this conversation is to explain to Slate’s readers how you’ve done that, and how your approach differs from what’s often understood to be the mentality of the “religious right.”

The title, Bad Religion, captures your argument quite well. Secularists look at many of today’s preachers and theocratic politicians, such as Newt Gingrich, and conclude that religion is the problem. Conservative Christians listen to those politicians and conclude that secularism is the problem. You’re articulating a middle ground: The problem isn’t that all religion is bad, or that religion is under threat of extermination—it’s that some kinds of religion are bad, and these corrupt versions are replacing the sort of religion that’s healthy and authentic.

Not much in this life should be considered actually, legitimately evil, in my view.  Mostly its just stuff that infringes on another's rights.  Murder; Theft, evil.  I see nothing inherently evil in religion.  In fact, most religions have at least some good take-away points.  Mostly, religion is a way for an individual to make their way through this world, and who am I to say their way is any better or worse than mine; until theirs starts interfereing with mine, that is.

Religious Religion v. Religious Athiesm

On facebook I have a couple very religious people, and one or two pretty open athiests, or at least religion hating people.

I have obvious problems with the former, but you would think I wouldn't have as many with the later. You'd be wrong. I actually have more problems with them, becuase to some degree they speak for me. Not that I'm athiest. I waver between Diest and Agnostic, most days.*

Anyway, here is a great article on why athiesm has become what it hates: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12030/

I would add that we on this side of the spectrum don't want angry athiests, or even anti-religion athiests. I like my athiest happy, having reached that point by choice and reason, and not to avenge to some wrong. Being athiest, or even agnostic doesn't mean you have to hate religion or the religious. We are all just trying to find our way on this big rock. Why should I care how you do it any more than you care how I do?

Sometimes I sound like a hippie to myself.

*If you want the whole "where I stand currently" post, here it is: Currently, I don't believe that to the extent God could exist, he would interfere in human activity at all. But I also can't believe he would create a world where dementia and Alzhiemer's disease exists. You can do a pretty good job of bringing the pain down on the human race for original sin without those two dingers. No God would create a world where they exist - at least not a thinking, all-knowing, all-caring one like I was brought up to believe.

Now, on to the "all-knowing." Sure, sure, I can't comprehend his plan. Maybe Alzhiemer's patients are actually off in some soul-heaven where they glide down lollipop slides and cuddle with cloud bears filled with pure love. And maybe its his plan that if I jump out my window a piebald unicorn will glide softly under me and save me - but I'm not going to believe it will.

Having said all that, I'm watched a lot of Nature shows on the universe, and I think I have a fairly good understanding of the science of creation, the big bang and the origin of the universe. I believe in the big bang. What came before that, or how that bang got its start... it seems to me if there are 5 different scientific theories, and no one is sure which one is correct, there is at least a chance that "God did it" is the answer.

Let's say sciences comes to the conclusion that there are 1,000s of universes lined up in vibrating strings, and when those strings touch a new big bang occurs. That is one theory out there. It still begs the question: who or what pulls the strings. To me, science has gotten us to point X, and I'm willing to accept everything it has to tell us. But once you get really, really macro level, really big picture, science falls apart a bit. I'm not saying science can't or won't figure it out, but I'm also not saying that God isn't the thing in between all the particles. I just don't know. Diest Agnostic.

Religion Thursday

This week I'm addressing the Buddhist concept of dependent origination.

I gotta say, I'm really liking what I'm getting from Buddhism right now. The law of dependent origination "analyses life and the working sof human beings and society as they actually are," according to the book. The author likely takes to task deity, deterministic and accidental teachings as violating this law.

Originally, Asian philosophies would sometime advance such practices such as acting like animals or purifying in river waters. But the Buddha apparently considered these doctrines as defying reason, since the actions could not be shown to actually lead to enlightenment.

The author really emphasis that all actions lead to certain results and all results arise from certain actions. In other words, WWII was caused by human choices and actions, and could have been avoided. Poverty is caused at least somewhat by human choices (perhaps not entirely individual, but society wide).

Interesting.

Religion Thursday*

I'm starting what I hope will be an every week kind of posting thing. If not a series, at least a miniseries while I'm reading Basic Buddhist Concepts.

The first here is the First Seal of Law: Impermanence.

It's an interesting concept and one with which I'm willing to get on board, even though I struggle to obtain it. Nothing in permanent. Not wealth, not health, not status, not stones.

It kind of goes to the "either you are growing or you are dying" quote. And to this blog post about not wasting the time deposit that is your life.

It is a combination of these - the blog post especially - that prompted me to set up a schedule for editing my book and reading. It's only half an hour a day, but its something. 30 minutes per day four days a week. 1,800 seconds per day. 2 hours per week. 8 hours per month. It adds up. It's time when I won't be appreciating the false promise of permanance in my life and will instead be doing something about the impermanance.

And I'm also loving the first parts of these books about how Buddhism should never be in conflict with science. Not sure how that meshes with the "wrongful sex" Law, but we'll see.

My one criticism so far is that at one point the author objects to Buddhism being considered a philosophy rather than a religion due to the lack of deity. He points to faith in the Laws as evidence of its religious nature. But I think this feels a bit forced. And a bit too determined to make it a religion. My firm faith that rocks are rocks doesn't make that belief a religion.

The book is a bit vague on how, if nothing is permanent, the Laws are. Especially since it explains how impermanance requires that no god exist. For somone who swings between agnostic & Diest like myself, that really isn't a problem. But the problem with impermanance is nihilism, in my mind. If impermanance reigns, is it permanant?

* I wanted it to be matchy, like Two-for Tuesdays, or Wacky Wednesdays. I went with Thursday because in college Thursday was represented by an R, to distinguish it from Tuesday.

Preamble

Tomorrow I'll be posting something religion/Buddhism related. For now, I wanted to share the following quote from an Inquirer columnist talking about religion and God's role in sports and how he probably isn't interested in whether the Bills win or lose or cover and all the sky pointing and other nonesense:

"Only the flimsiest of faiths attributes success to the Lord but chalks failure up to . . . something else."

So true. And so often overlooked, I feel.

The column is written by a religious conservative, but one for which I have profound respect. For those who don't gobble down religious doctrines in heavy, heaping spoonfuls, the column is well worth a read.

Would you admit to believing that little green men are stealing all your socks?

"More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ."

Here. That's half of all Catholics. And the teaching is mentioned every bloody week. Or at least alluded too. Or at the very least, was while I was a regular church goer some 15 or 20 years ago. But since probably 45% of self-identified Catholics are "lapsed," I guess it makes sense.

The gist of the story is that the pious have a piss-poor knowledge of their religion, at least as far as the the 32 questions on the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life survey.

Who is knowledgeable? (Drum roll, please).... turns out athiests and agnostics (A/A) answered 20.9 of the questions correctly. They were followed by Jews and Mormons. It gets really ugly when you look at the 12 questions on Christianity: A/A answered 6.7 correctly. Christrians, who might expect to be somewhat of an expert on the topic, answered 6 correctly. Mormons (7.9) and white evangelicals (7.3) blew the field away.

Two-thirds of respondents actually indicated that teachers weren't permitted to teach the Bible in school, even for its literary and historic aspects. This is dead wrong.

It seems that for a great many, religion truly is a leap of faith.

Broadcasting stupidity

Two things of note that fall under this headline:

First, the National Association of Broadcasters is seeking legislation that would require all portable electronic devices to include FM radio. I assume this extends to cell phones, music players and the like. But as posters point out, will it extend to electric razors? And what about AM radio? This is such an obvious ploy for Congressional action to ensure the dominance and relevance of an existing medium - its scary in its overtness. Not that all that many people listen to FM radio any more, what with Pandora, digital music, HD radio and satellite radio. If this passes, I might have to stop listening to FM radio.

The second I have to kinda shoe-horn in. I fully support the right of Muslims to build a mosque/community center at the old Burlington Coat Factory two blocks from Ground Zero. I also support those who oppose the plans to criticize the plan and oppose it, as long as the opposition includes newspaper columns and protests and not government action, which should/would be barred. I even have mixed feelings about whether the plan is appropriate. But I think that you are generally broadcasting your stupidity if you rely on the constitution or religious freedoms to support your argument.

See, I told you they both fit the headline.

I'm kicking Hell and taking names

I've been playing a second go-round of the pretty damned good game Dante's Inferno.

At various points in the game, the punishment of the damned are shown or explained. Playing the game got me interested in the source matter (the poem of similar name), which got me doing research on the topic.

And that led me to two types of sinners and their punishments that got me thinking. The first is those who worshipped the Devil or a demon. Their punishment (in game) is supposedly reduced from other nonbelievers and deniers, but they are still locked in burning caskets.

The second is simonists, who sold church offices for personal gain. They are help upside down (per wikipedia's take on the poem) and dipped into fonts carved into the rock of the eighth circle of hell.

I've always envisioned Hell as the Devil's domain. A land he lords over as his own personal fiefdom. But this punishment of those who you would otherwise take as the Devil's ground troops made me wonder. Plus (spoiler alert) the game ends with you freeing the Devil from his bonds.

So... is Hell the Devil's playground, and thus he's punishing those souls that reside there; or is Hell God's creation, and he's the one who is doing the punishing, and the Devil, while there, is mostly imprisioned there? I'd have to say right now I'm leaning toward the later.

But that would raise some additional questions about God, his ability to forgive and forget, and his kindness.

So, this is your god

You hear all the time about how Church goers tend to live longer, healthier lives. What you never hear is this tid bit from a Slate.com story (emphasis mine):

Christians, of course, don't limit their prayers to the deceased—they also pray for the sick, and several recent studies have tested whether this practice contributes to recovery. The answer appears to be no.

As part of a study published in the American Heart Journal in 2006, researchers asked Christian congregations to pray for two groups of cardiac patients—the first group knew the Christians were praying on their behalf, and the second thought they might be. As a control, researchers told a third group that Christians might pray for them, but the Christians did not do so.

Mortality rates were comparable across the three groups, but the unprayed-for group experienced the fewest complications.

I'm not convinced it mattered one way or the other. The fewer complications were probably an anomoly or some other issue with the study. But if you are going on faith alone that a omnipotent, benevolent god exists, intervenes, and listens in any way to prayer, this can't be good.

Of course, maybe God knew it was a study, had fun with it, and is sitting up their laughing at us as some kind of practical joke. Since we can't know the plan the man in the sky and his super-marketer have for us, he pretty much has carte blanche to do whatever, doesn't he?

Two great posts

A hilarious one about meditation at a Buddhist resort; and one on agnosticism that seems to me to be spot on.

Everybody Draw Mohammad Day

By way of a little back story, Islamic extremists threatened South Park-creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker for using a representation of Mohammed in their cartoon.

So, someone with just my sense of humor, passive-aggressiveness and ideals has named May 20 as "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" in support of Stone and Parker. Genuis.

I plan on posting a drawing. I'll do this despite the fact that - my former incarnation as a graphic designer for a newspaper not withstanding (Photoshop/FreeHand/Adobe can do wonders) - I'm not a very good artist I'm no Darby Conley.

As a journalist, I kinda feel its my professional duty to the First Amendment. As a human being I kinda feel its my obligation to my fellow man. As a rationale egoist, I kinda feel its my obligation to myself.

I'm all for believing that such an image is against the will of your Man in the Sky. I'm all for forgoing such conduct yourself. I'm all for barring such conduct from fellow followers. Where I draw the line is dictating adherence to such a policy to nonbelievers.

If you don't want to curse the Man in the Sky, fine; but you can't ask someone else to forgo the same.

If I end up in hell, I won't send you a postcard.

I only ask that if you end up in hell, you return the favor.