Oracle of Reason

Faith's empire is the world; its monarch, God; its ministers the priests; its slaves the people

Tag: atheism

February 13, 2013

The Selfishness of Love

The holiday of Valentine’s Day is believed to commemorate the death of Christian martyr Valentinus whose obscure, unverified identity and role in history has lead to new conclusions that the holiday was the result of a decree by Pope Gelasius I to replace, rather than ban, the Roman pagan festival of Lupercalia with a day to honor Mary, the mother of Jesus. Lupercalia festivities, usually held between February 13th to the 15th, involved cleansing ceremonies of the city of Rome to avert evil spirits while at the same time release spirits to encourage fertility and health. Joyous festivities were also held to commemorate the holiday.

Thanks to the publishing of Geoffrey Chaucer’s 1382 book Parlement of Foules, the idea of romantic love associated with Valentine’s Day came about along with the assumption that the Lupercalia pagan rituals were used to commemorate the holiday at that time as well. During the Medieval period, (most notably in France) Valentine’s Day would be associated with social gatherings of love and courtship rituals usually involving the reading of poetry. Interest in Valentine’s Day took hold again in the 19th Century but his time as a holy day. It later became secularized with enhanced commercialism in the form of the exchange of greeting cards that had hearts or with messages of love and affection.

Gifts of chocolates, roses and (in later years) even jewelry became available as Valentine’s Day gifts enhanced the holiday’s commercial appeal then like these facets do so today.Fortunately, the main reason why we celebrate Valentine’s Day today is no longer pietistic. We use the occasion to commemorate mankind’s most selfish emotion: love.

Yet we are repeatedly reminded by many people (such as those in academia, media, clergy and celebrities) of how selfless or altruistic love is. Nothing could be further from the truth. Love itself is our most selfish emotion. When you love someone it is purely to satisfy your ego and not out of superfluous sacrifice. You value a particular person since they make your life better and, by your standards, the special someone in your life gives you such joy. The person you love is such a pleasure to be around that you invest time and money on them in order to enhance your relationship.

The time and effort I put into my relationships because my friend’s happiness is important to my own. This past weekend I had the opportunity to have lunch with a female friend whom I gave gifts of chocolates and flowers in which I got enormous pleasure doing so. I value her friendship selfishly and giving her gifts as an expression of my affection for her elates my ego and self-esteem. If my actions were sacrificial they would be for someone whom I did not value or know. Even someone I resented, hated or was in a relationship with that was demanded or expected of me by family, friends or some sort of collective expectation. Every expression towards those you love is also a mutual trade between two people for reciprocal advantage and to regard love as sacrificial or altruistic makes it (and the relationships that result) pointless if not outright contemptible.

Love does place certain expectations on those who engage in it and for someone to expect love because one demands it or out of a sense of duty is parasitic and nonsensical. Like respect, love is earned and not given. With the commercialism, sweets and sex-appeal that is associated with Valentine’s Day this a time for you to to celebrate the selfish pleasure of being in a relationship and exchanging gifts of love and affection with that special someone who has fallen in love with you.

Relish in the selfish pleasures of love and freedom Valentine’s Day brings and symbolizes since it represents the selfishness of love.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Leave a comment
January 17, 2013

It is Called the Dark Ages For a Reason

In his book The Closing of the Western Mind, Charles Freeman gives a meticulously detailed look into what happened after a significant event occurred when Emperor Constantine declared a policy of toleration for Christianity in the Roman Empire. It was prior to this event, and a short time afterward, that a culture of reason and free inquiry existed in the Ancient world which was influenced by the Greeks.

With the fall of Alexander the Great, the Romans acquired Greece. Upon doing so, Greek ideas and culture were adopted by the Romans in which the Roman Republic and Empire not only absorbed but also expanded upon Greece’s intellectual tradition in terms of science, art and philosophy. The result was one of the most advanced civilizations for it’s time.

As Mr. Freeman points out, Emperor Constantine and his successors thought that by institutionalizing Christianity with the Roman state the religion would act as a unifying force in conjunction with other favored polytheistic faiths at times when the empire was threatened by hostile forces, both internal and external, as well as be an effective means of social control. He also says because the Christian bishops at the time acquired political power as a result of church-state union, once the Roman Empire began to collapse and the pagan religions started falling out of favor, Rome’s culture of free inquiry was crushed and replaced with 2 centuries of dogmatism and repression. More commonly known as The Dark Ages.

However, Charles Freeman states in the latter part of his book that the reason why the church acted in this manner was to maintain order in the region due to the turmoil within the Roman Empire. Since the church was the strongest political authority then its leadership felt that suppressing Rome’s intellectual culture was the best way to prevent chaos as it saw it. I disagree with this conclusion as Freeman’s example of bishops such as Ambrose of Milan clearly demonstrate that the bishops of the Christian church wanted to hold on to their power at all costs. Once attained they moved to minimize competition via the force of law exploiting its ties with the Roman monarchy.

However, the author makes a vivid link between philosophical, political and cultural shifts while providing many historical details. He also makes a compelling connection between the writings of many notable religious figures and how their influences resulted in Christianity subverting reason and free inquiry then like it is doing now. Three theologians that stick out in my mind are Paul of Tarsus who had an avowed hatred of reason, knowledge and philosophy; Athanasius of Alexandria who laid the foundation of Christianity’s hatred of human life with his guilt-ridden writings condemning human existence; John Chrysostom who spoke out against material wealth and was anti-Jewish; and Augustine of Hippo who provided a rationale for the persecution of heresy.

Fortunately, the church’s rule came to an end with the backlash resulting from it’s iron-fisted rule in which the result was the Renaissances of the 12th and 14th centuries. At the same time, Thomas Aquinas was able to justify utilizing reason with faith for the Catholic Church thanks to his teacher, Albertus Magnus (i.e. Albert the Great), giving him a copy of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics which Aquinas adopted for his book Summa Theologica. By doing so, Aquinas also exposed the conflict between reason and faith that many theologians and philosophers were not consciously aware of until he wrote about it.

I have a background in religion and love philosophy. And what I found fascinating about this book are the details that took place then and how they are repeating themselves today. Especially with how religious sects (like Christianity) are trying to hinder scientific inquiry about the existence of God and evolution while religions of all beliefs are in conflict with each other today just like they have been many times in the past. We are seeing the remnants of religion’s actions then even more so today. Because of acquiring power and control (of any kind), religions in all parts of the world, act in a manner detrimental to man’s ability to think.

The question that people should ask is “why” when any country or culture dumps reason and inquiry (i.e. Aristotelianism) for faith and force (i.e. Platonism). Charles Freeman provides answers to this and many other philosophical questions in this well researched, lucid, and excellent book that delves into a period of human history that many theologians and historians would rather forget.

1 comment
December 25, 2012

Christmas is About Prosperity, not Piety

Many of the things done during this time of year (such as festivities, gift giving and yule logs) have their roots in pagan traditions used by ancient peoples in order to celebrate the winter solstice. Gift and charitable giving was an early Roman practice during the festival of Sol Invictus held from mid to late December. Various foods and the usage of trees for decorations were used by Germanic peoples during their celebrations which started with feasts that began on December 25th. The Nordic peoples of Sweden and Denmark commemorated the winter solstice with their Yule holiday that involved the usage of yule logs, feasting on cooked goats and boars, and even singing in which Nordic holiday festivities started in late December and lasted until early January.

During Christianity’s origins, Christians originally did not commemorate their messiah’s birthday since they believed his Second Coming would come soon. Had it not been the Renaissance spanning the 14th to 17th centuries that ushered in new eras of scientific and economic progress, the era known as The Dark Ages would have kept mankind enslaved to faith and irrationality for much longer.

As a result of the influence of the Renaissance and Christians realizing their savior might not return as soon as they had originally believed, the result was implementing a holiday on December 25th modeled after the Sol Invictus and Yule pagan festivals in order to commemorate their messiah’s birth. Celebrations of Christmas were not originally embraced as being proper to Christians. In 1647 England’s military ruler at the time Oliver Cromwell made it a crime to celebrate the holiday until he was removed from power in 1660. In 17th century Massachsetts commemorations of Jesus’s origin were originally denounced by Puritans and Protestant radicals as being worldy and were subsequently outlawed. Despite the ban’s demise in 1681, celebrating Christmas didn’t become socially acceptable in the state until the mid-1800′s.

Ultimately, Christmas is not about celebrating an altruistic or mystic belief, nor is it about participating in charitable events, such as serving food to the homeless and poor or plopping coins into a charity bucket. What Christmas is and should be used to celebrate the two things responsible for our happiness and prosperity: profit and commercialism.

It is the modern-day religionist Ebeneezer Scrooges who say Bah Humbug to commericalism of any kind which condemns the economic progress that makes holidays, like Christmas, and the overall abundance we enjoy possible. Religionists condemn profit and capitalism, yet, in one way or another, they and their followers are the beneficiaries of the very economic system that enabled them to be where they are now. Progress itself is not inevitable and what occurs during the Holiday season is usually the result of ideas espoused today. Because religion (especially Christianity) holds sacrifice and suffering as it’s highest values, imagine what would happen if we followed these ethics to their irrational and illogical conclusions.

People would no longer receive Christmas bonuses or gifts of Turkeys or hams, no more trees and decorations, no more Christmas and after-holiday sales. No more exchange of gifts, yule-tide cheer, holiday parties with egg nog and good food, extended shopping hours, nor any special television shows and movies and advertising. Taking suffering and sacrifice even further, as demonstrated by Christianity’s hero Jesus, we would also be denied alot of the meal dishes, clothes, medical breakthroughs, electronic communications, books and newspapers as well as many of the means of transportation we enjoy. Even the poor would wallow in even more misery equal to that seen in many third world countries due to the lack of conveniences they could have.

If we all did what we were told by mystical intellectual elites the stagnation that results from their altrustic mantra would make life intollerable and under the above scenario I have no doubt anti-capitalist Grinches would end up condemning businesses for not producing or doing enough. This is why religion and capitalism are incompatible. Capitalism empowers man to be able to use his reason and abilities to produce and prosper while religion emphasizes sacrifice and faith while condemning prosperity of which the latter ethics are deterimental to anyone’s ability to live.

Despite the economic hardships seen this past year, movie theaters, shopping centers and restaurants are still attracting crowds and, better still, those of us who are still employed are able to celebrate this time of year. Our doing so helps create wealth so everytone, including the unemployed or poor, can benefit. To villify or demonize commercialism is to spit in our faces and condemn mankind to a life of misery and despair. Since commerce is a natural outgrowth of reason and science and not the result of the invisible hand of a god or mystical creation, it is clear that we have earned the abundance we enjoy this and even other times of the year.

The special meaning of this holiday is not religious, pietistic, or self-sacrificial. It is recognizing the reality that (underneath it all) our lives require us to use our minds and rational self-interest (i.e. ego) in order to live and prosper. The goods and services that support you and your loved ones are created ultimately by selfish capitalists using science and they, as well as you, profit from their production. A process magnified for Christmas.

Merry Christmas!

Leave a comment
October 31, 2012

Who’s Afraid of Halloween?

Halloween is an outgrowth of the Celtic pagan holiday Samhain in which the ancient Celts commemorated the end of the summer harvest by holding huge feasts to celebrate the summer’s end. Roman Catholic Popes Gregory III & IV would later adopt this tradition by replacing Samhain with All Saints Day in which holiday would also come to be known as All Hallows Eve. Even though Christians adopted many holidays of ancient pagan faiths, one thing that did not change were festive events held celebrating the abundance people in each culture accumulated thanks to their hard work.

Yet there are some Christians, and even members of Jewish sects, highlight their anti-life sentiments by demeaning the nature of holidays like Halloween. The fact that people go out and buy food (usually candy) and give it out voluntarily to children who come to people’s doorstep asking for it, one would think is something Halloween critics would ultimately endorse since it is another form of charitable giving.

After the exchange, Trick-or-Treaters express their thanks for your generosity and go their merry way knowing they will enjoy yet another sweet treat when they get home. I regularly buy bags of candy and give it to people at my job. I get satisfaction knowing that I spread good will by doing this. Admittedly there is vandalism and pranks performed during Halloween but this is the exception and not the rule.

Halloween is one more reminder of the wealth and abundance we accumulate throughout the year. We enjoy and the gifts we give to people for the satisfaction of doing so while decorating our homes, work cubicles, and sometimes dressing up in costumes all done in good fun and in a non-sacrificial way. But since Halloween involves giving treats, participating in other forms of entertainment (such as visiting haunted houses or even viewing horror movies) and not sacrifice religionists hypocritically degrade it.

While I am no fan of horror movies, religionists who condemn them have no problem attempting to scare the faithful into not celebrating Halloween. They allege the holiday itself is a covenant with death and hell but yet many Christian denominations symbolically eat the body and drink the blood of their savior during Sunday mass. Most even laud the sacrifice of Jesus by reading aloud accounts of his horrific torture and death during church services. Christians also commemorate Jesus’s life and work with many paintings and art forms of his bloodied, pain-stricken body nailed to a cross in their temples of worship.

Lets not forget the tales of the many clergy, saints, and missionaries who were tortured, persecuted and even killed for their beliefs including the act of publicly begging people (i.e. proselytizing) to repent and convert to their religion. Religious martyr’s sacrificial lives (who often end violently) are held as a high moral standard for people to follow. But when it comes to having fun during holidays (like Halloween) many religionists frown upon it.

Don’t get me wrong, if people choose not to celebrate holidays, like Halloween, for religious or personal reasons that is certainly their right. But I think to condemn Halloween as being evil or satanic because of it’s, admittedly, pagan origins or for kids dressing up as things like ghosts, gouls, warlocks, witches or even for the act of watching horror films is silly. And to deny children the ability to go out Trick-or-Treating or ostracize people for celebrating Halloween based on the notion that it goes against their religious faith or deity’s dictates is irrational and wrong.

Halloween is a great way to kick off the holiday season. I could not think of a better way for people to enjoy the holiday than with candy, costumes, friends, family and fun.

Happy Halloween!

Leave a comment
July 11, 2012

E.C.U.S.A. Embraces “Episcopaganism”

The Episcopal Church recently approved a ritual that would bless same-sex relationships at the denomination’s General Convention while simultaneously approving transgendered people to become clergy. I am not surprised by the backlash against the E.C.U.S.A.’s direction pushed by the church’s liberal establishment. As of 2009 the church hierarchy was opened to gays and lesbians and gay marriage was given a tacit thumbs up, respectfully, all in the name of inclusivity.

At face value this may sound nice, but in reality it really is not. Contrary to what some claim the internal strife is not a theological debate as much as it is about control of the church itself. I was an Episcopalian for over thirty years, my father was an Episcopal priest and a church conservative in which I was born and raised in religion if not the Episcopal Church itself. It is a fact that liberal Episcopalians have a hostility to church conservatives. They won’t openly say it, but their actions speak louder than their words.

The Episcopal Church”s enactment of these new policies is not out of any love for their fellow human beings but, rather, to rewrite the Bible and church doctrines to suit their own purposes while, at the same time, purge conservatives from the Anglican Communion. The one thing about church conservatives that angered liberals was their willingness to openly take liberals to task for their trying to have their cake and eat it too regarding the authority of the scripture which is the cornerstone of church doctrine.

Over time church liberals gradually took over the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion power structures. Once in charge, they made efforts to kick conservatives out. If church liberals, like Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Scori, were interested in being as inclusive as they claim they would not have taken the church on this new course. Inclusivity is only for church liberals and their causes. Church conservatives be damned. This is not to say conservative Episcopalians are entirely innocent and I am sure they have had their share of hostilities directed toward liberals too.

Philosophically speaking, religious liberals (and I counted myself as one of them) believe that if the Bible states something hateful (like condemning homosexuality), they down play it, ignore it or possibly even lie about scripture’s true intent. When the Bible says something that sounds good, they acknowledge it or refer to it as proof of God’s word.

While its a fact that religion is evil and the Bible false, it is the contradictory nature of their outlook religious liberals (no matter what religion they belong to) get into while theological conservatives do not. To religious conservatives (such as evangelicals and fundamentalists), scripture is scripture. The Bible means what it says and that is it.

Like author Sam Harris outlined in his book The End of Faith, religious liberals live in denial of the god they worship and the diety-inspired book they draw their wisdom from. Secular religionists cherry pick scripture and cite passages they like and ignore the ones they don’t not only to reinforce their bias but also so they don’t offend or scare anyone in hopes of attracting people to join their church. Harris further points out that both liberal and conservative denominations indirectly work hand-in-hand to bring people to embrace the violent, hateful nature of their god as outlined in their faith’s holy texts.

Once a liberal Christian or Muslim brings someone into the fold, the new inductee is a potential candidate to join a denomination that takes theology seriously. The religious literalist points out to the newcomer the true nature of their god citing or reciting parts of scripture from their religion’s holy book and then the new member will either become a convert or leave. Usually it is the former.

Both religious factions still cherry pick parts of the Bible they believe in. The only difference is that literalists are the true believers, are usually well-versed in scripture and can effectively articulate points to convince newcomers to their side since they are the most consistent in the debate over scripture. That’s why even in Islam fundamentalist Muslim groups (like the Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood) are the most influential. Not only do Islamic fundamentalists get financial support from countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran but, more importantly, they have scripture, doctrine, tradition, and history on their side.

In terms of the Episcopal Church, upon reading up on the changes made to church doctrines over the years, the church has taken a more pagan direction which I attribute, in large part, to the influence of (now retired) New Jersey Bishop Shelby Spong.

I am glad I became an atheist and left the church before all of this happened. Embracing reason was the most liberating moment of my life. However, had I remained a believer with all of this happening I probably would have become a Roman Catholic. I had pondered switching to the Catholic Church with the controversy resulting from the election of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson in 2003. I think it was the infighting that went on at the time and God not intervening to stem the tide of controversy (despite my prayers asking him to do so) was the starting point at which I subconsciously began questioning the existence of God.

Ten years from now the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion will be a fraction of the size they are today similar to what happened with the Unitarian Universalist Church and what is happening with other liberal Protestant denominations. The reason for this isn’t just due to the church’s new, secular direction but (unlike their conservative competitors) they no longer take themselves seriously. None the less, I suppose the most reassuring thing about liberal Christianity’s demise is that it also signals the continued decline of the acceptance of religion especially since more people are becoming atheists than ever before and, fortunately, the public has become accepting of non-believers.

Goodbye and good riddance.

Leave a comment
June 18, 2012

The Nonsense of New Age

I was hanging out at a bookstore the other day and one thing that struck me was the size of the section that they had set aside for New Age-related products.

From tarot cards to books on enhancing your psychic abilities to attracting wealth and good fortune to ways to communicate with animals, an extensive selection of these products is available.

Before it closed, Borders used the Metaphysics label for its New Age section. However, what metaphysics really is is a branch of philosophy that is the study of the nature of reality.

It does not involve mysticism.

With Christianity’s dwinding influence, it looks like people are personally replacing or compliment their god of Christianity, Judaism or Islam with psychics, faith healers, and astrologers.

I can understand the appeal New Age has since its emphasis is on people to find their own spiritual path and enlightenment as opposed to major religions, like Christianity, where people must follow their dogma in order to attain salvation or forgiveness.

However, this brand of mysticism is just as much a fraud as the Abrahamic and other religions of days gone by too.

Look at the documentary What the Bleep Do We Know!? which posits a theory of some spiritual connection between science and faith.

The central theme espoused during the film is that you make your own reality while claiming that humans are interconnected with other beings, your senses are playing tricks on you, people create their own reality as they go along and that humans are all part of the collective universe or consciousness.

One so-called expert interviewed in the film states that we must go beyond our senses in order to better understand ourselves. That we cannot know reality and the life we are in or reality we see is an illusion.

All of these points are grounded in the philosophy of Plato that shuns physical reality in favor of the immaterial and supernatural and, of course, is utter nonsense.

It is unfortunate that many fail to understand that the fundamental errors in all schools of thought that involve mysticism and that their premise is essentially the same.

The only benefit individuals can gain from such approaches is a sense that they don’t have to cope with reality. At least temporarily.

A Christian, Jew or Muslim hands his or her free will over to a clergymember, while a New Age follower hands his or her consciousness over to a psychic medium, faith healer or pagan wicca.

Yet followers of mysticism all seek (in varying degrees) the same benefit in escaping from the responsibility of thinking or facing reality itself. No different than a drug user looking for a quick fix.

By people using their minds rationally, consistently and recognizing reality as an objective absolute many who would normally utilize New Age-oriented philosophies or religions, would no longer have the need to.

Though the comparison maybe controversial, mysticism itself – in this case New Age – is nothing more an escape hatch from reality. New Age and the Abrahamic religions are cousins in that their premise attacks a person’s ability to think and reason for themselves and, by and large, are an awful way for people to deal with life.

Environmentalism also falls into this category too. Its core belief is that its followers have some sort of religious conviction to preserve wildlife and beautiful scenery.

Yet, like Christian doomsayers and New Age mystics, environmentalism is another mystic sect that emphasizes and has reverence for spirituality in nature while propagating faith and self sacrifice.

I have nothing against vacations, recreational activities or just plain relaxation time since, unlike mystical philosophies, these activities do not force people to suspend thought.

However, I think the world would be a much better place if people would face reality for a change rather than trying to run away from it and, in turn, using mysticism as a means to do so.

2 comments
May 23, 2012

The Idiocy of Conspiracy Theories

It amazes me that, even the most highly educated people subscribe to the idea of various conspiracy theories.

Among the more popular ones are: 911 was an inside job, Israel funds Hamas, the supposed coming of the North American Union and the implementation of the Amero will be coming soon thanks, in large part, to The Fed’s orchestrated depreciation of the dollar.

There are also conspiracy theories related to Watergate, Travelgate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the activities of the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group, black helicopters that symbolized the military takeover of part or all the United States and so on and so on.

Worst of all, proponents of such ideas have the audacity to state that, by not buying into their speculation, I, and others who do not buy into their stories, were willing to buy into state lies and be slaves.

So, as a way to express my disgust with such claims and to disprove conspiracy theories in general, I dedicate this essay to all of the idiotic and irrational conclusions many people subscribe to in hopes of pointing out the error of their ways and so they reclaim their rationality once and for all.

A conspiracy theory is nothing more than that: a theory. Usually based on speculation and a culmination of many historical and actual events tied together that share common characteristics in hopes of proving a particular point against the official story but with little or no evidence, overall, to back up the proponent’s claims.

To accept a conspiracy theory without overwhelming evidence requires the acceptance of other unprovable claims. For example, one would have to conclude that almost everyone in government are able, at will, to secretly plan large or small scale attacks or plots and maintain operational security without leaks or any kind of transparency.

But for someone to accept the conspiratorial view of reality, people in government are viewed implicitly as demonaic, able to keep unrelenting control of secret, diabolical plots which are very complex, require multitudes of people, and sometimes involve the killing of perfectly innocent Americans.

The overall theme of conspiracy theories themselves are, in many ways, similar to religious belief.

Many people believe that instead of or in addition to an all powerful supernatural diety creating, manipulating, or planning people’s lives instead there are groups secretly working in tandem within the backrooms of governments to create, manipulate or plan people’s lives and the events of life on earth with the help of like-minded politicians.

This is not to say that all people who work in government are entirely innocent either and I am still dismayed at much of the erosion of things, like our civil liberties, that have occured at the hands of judges in our nation’s courts who are in place to protect the very rights and freedoms were are supposed to enjoy without encroachment.

But the results of things, like judicial decisions that erode our rights, are the result cultural factors that have lead many to believe that people can have their cake and eat it too and not the result of backroom planners manipulating and controlling certain events at will.

The simple truth is that none of the allegations made by pundits of conspiracy theories ever come true and never will. Many of the theories make good plots for fiction novels or movies, but to accept these ideas, one has to ignore clear evidence that other plots and schemes by government officials have not succeeded and have been uncovered.

Conspiracy theories should not be taken seriously since they deal in speculation and not facts.

Leave a comment
April 20, 2012

Thoughts on “Buddhjectivism” and Meditation

A little less than a year ago I had made a conscious decision to try meditation. I had come across thoughts by a libertarian named Joshua Zader and who regularly meditates utilizing vipassana (a.k.a. mindful) and Zen meditation. Respectfully speaking, he has a website where he gives his thoughts on mindful meditation along with a variety of other topics such as libertarianism, Objectivism, politics and even Buddhism. He lauds the practice stating that as a result of meditating Zader notices the ability to think and reason clearer than he did before doing so.

Simultaneously I decided to look into Buddhism itself. I listened and watched some lectures online which were from groups associated with the Theravada Buddhist sect. I figured that if I was to study Buddhist philosophy that it made sense to learn from the group that pitched itself as teaching Buddhism as close to how Gautama Buddha taught. The Mahayana sect tends to encompass beliefs that are related to the culture that practices it. In addition to subscribing to the idea of reincarnation Buddhism as practiced in countries like China, Tibet, Japan, and Korea might include deities that are usually related to nature. When a Mahayana Buddhist seeks enlightenment, the community will assist him or her in their efforts. On the other hand, Theravada Buddhism (which is predominate in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Laos and Cambodia) is atheistic in its outlook due to Theravadins believing that enlightenment is an individualized effort.

Theravada monks will assist a member if asked but enlightenment comes over time gradually and is done mainly introspectively via vipassana meditation. Zen Buddhism (a branch of the Mahayana sect) tends to be similar in many respects to Theravada except in Zen enlightenment can be achieved by someone immediately or gradually depending on the individual while (like Theravada) it eschews or downplays deity worship or mysticism. Both Zen and Theravada seek to practice Buddhism as originally articulated by Gautama Buddha as revealed in the Pali Canon but (to the best of my knowledge) do not think any less of other schools of thought in Mahayana. In Vietnam, for example, while the country’s population is predominately Mahayana Buddhist, there is a significant segment of the population that subscribes to Theravada in which monks of both factions study along side one another at Ho Chi Minh City’s Van Hanh Buddhist University.

I am in the midst of reading Stephen Batchelor’s book Confession of a Buddhist Atheist in which Batchelor points out that even Buddhism can be as dogmatic as other religions as well. Himself a former Tibetan and Korean Zen Buddhist monk in one part of his book Batchelor points out that the body of teachings that makes up the body of his former Buddhist sects is neither flexible nor negotiable. If one does not accept their primary tenets, Batchelor states, a monk can be rejected from the sect and I am sure this same logic applies to practitioners too. The same is true in Theravada. He also goes on to point out how Buddhism overall is as much a life-negating philosophy as many Hindu sects. Batchelor states that with all of the talk of love and compassionate from people like the Dalai Lama and other Buddhist teachers the ultimate goal of the philosophy is ending rebirth and life as we know it.

The essence of Buddhism is that the best way to resolve or even avoid suffering is through introspection done by meditation coupled with ridding oneself with all desires. Furthermore, the Third Noble Truth of Buddhism states that suffering ceases with the cessation of craving and material things (including one’s ego) are viewed as allurements. The only thing I give Buddhism credit for is that, like Objectivism, it is a philosophy and not a religion. Buddhists are not required to follow what they are told by monks and Buddhism does not demand blind and complete obedience of its followers nor does the philosophy rely on a higher power in order for people to achieve enlightenment. However, like any philosophical movement, there are those who use it as a religion rather than a roadmap, hence the reason for vipassana practicioner and Buddhist-friendly author Sam Harris publishing the essay Killing the Buddha.

In the early part of the century there was an attempt by some Objectivists to open a dialogue with Buddhists in which some had concluded that the two philosophies were similar in many ways. One author has gone so far as to claim that he can integrate Objectivism with Buddhism. However, any similarities between Objectivism or Buddhism are only superficial since the former emphasizes egoism, living a life of achievement and individual rights while the latter stresses sacrifice, the negation of life itself, and the wiping out of the ego (i.e. individuality).

While both philosophies stress to practitioners to live conscious lives the devil is in the details as to what Objectivism and Buddhism outline as to how to achieve it. Ayn Rand stressed that people should live rationally, follow their own minds and outlined the methods in which to do so. Buddha told his followers something very similar to what Rand said but (short of recommending meditation) lacked any specifics on how Buddhists could acquire knowledge.

Any attempt to synthesize Buddhism and Objectivism cannot work and doing so makes about as much sense as some trying to synthesize Chrstianity with Objectivism. Buddhism, Objectivism, and Christianity come from completely opposite vantage points in order for followers to live a good life. Having a dialogue between Objectivists and Buddhists is one thing but if it were to happen I doubt anything meaningful would come out of it. As I outline above, Buddhism is about the complete negation of human life and near total self sacrifice (i.e. altruism) while Objectivism affirms people’s lives by stressing hard work, people following their rational self interest, and praising achievement.

In terms of meditation, I am aware of the numerous studies done that show enhanced cognitive and psychological abilities on the part of people who meditate regularly. However, I am wondering if this is the result of continuous insightful examination if not constant thinking. I meditated only once by attending a meeting of a local group that practices vipassana but when I did the effect was similar to taking a nap. I might take meditation up again since I am curious to see if it would have any noticeable effect on my thinking abilities. Fortunately, one does not need to be a Buddhist in order to meditate. Medtitation itself is non-mystical and that as well as the benefits of utilizing as outlined by recent scientific studies it might make it worth while to delve into it again.

2 comments
April 17, 2012

Do People Have Free Will?

While browsing on Amazon the other day I came across a new book by atheist author Sam Harris entitled Free Will. The book’s description states that the facts tell us that free will is an illusion. I went to Harris’s website to get a better grasp of what he is talking about in which there are two essays posted there that give some indication as to what Sam Harris’ new book is all about.

In one essay Harris says:

In Free Will, I argue that people are mistaken in believing that they are free in the usual sense. I claim that this realization has consequences—good ones, for the most part—and for that reason we should not gloss over it by revising our definition of “free will” too quickly.

Without having the luxury of reading Free Will I decided to do some reading on the subject. I came across an article in a scientific magazine that also asserted free will was a myth. The study cites a study by U.C. San Francisco psychologist Benjamin Libet in which during the course of his research, Dr. Libet concluded that our subconscious minds were what called the shots in terms of our activities. Everything from what we will eat for breakfast to what we wear to work is already decided for us by our subconscious minds.

There was room for doubt, however. Despite a sixty percent accuracy with fMRI tests of people who participated in the tests, brain activity was detected ten seconds before patients decided on which course of action to take when instructed on what to do.

I don’t think this experiment disproves free will at all since the choices made by patients during the experiment has nothing to do with the fact that a choice has been made. Our brains help us to survive which includes the capacity to learn and make decisions. A Discovery Channel special I saw a few years back helps illuminate this point in that the program points out our brains help us to live and survive and that includes the capacity for us to learn and make decisions.

Since the subconscious mind is what is the central issue for this study I look at the subconscious mind as being a kind of file folder that stores important memories for us so if we ever want to recall how to do something or react to a situation based on information relayed by our senses. In turn, it feeds the information to our conscious mind so human beings can act. Like our minds, our will and our brains are inseperable and to treat them as two different things (which seems to be the conclusion of the scientists who participated in the U.C. San Francisco study) can degenerate into requiring us or leading us to believe in the mystical concept of an eternal soul.

If people have indeterminancy as part of their decision making process we have free will. The ability to choose or not does not mean people are helpless or have no choice if given a limited amount of options to choose from be it at the grocery store or during a brain experiment. To make it out to be otherwise is to assert that human beings are helpless in terms of the decisions we make and that simply is not the case.

None the less, despite this flaw in Sam Harris’ logic I still have a great amount of respect for him. I look forward to reading his new full length book Lying which looks like a treatise on asserting the morality of telling the truth.

Update 04/17: Hat tip to Dr. Leonard Peikoff for a great explanation on the issue of intuition (which is the result of a well honed subconscious mind) for one of his podcasts given in 2010.

1 comment
April 8, 2012

The True Meaning of Easter

The holiday of Easter is taken from the early Anglo-Saxon pagan goddess Eostre. She was the mother goddess of Saxon pagans whose symbol was the rabbit which represented spring and fertility.

Additionally, the month of April was set aside by many ancient peoples in order to celebrate spring which is a time of renewal and rebirth. Another symbol used by ancient pagans to celebrate Eostre’s holiday was done with bright colored painted eggs. They symbolized new life in the form of fertility and the blooming flowers of spring in which people gladly exchanged painted eggs and even flowers with each other.

A Greek tale of the goddess Persephone, discusses her return from the underworld to the light of day after being abducted by the god Hades from her mother, Demeter. Persephone’s return was symbolic to the ancient Greeks that the resurrection of life in spring took place after the desolation of winter.

The myth of Persephone is obviously one tale Biblical authors borrowed from for the resurrection story when the ministry of Jesus was written in the New Testament.

What is unique about the tale of Jesus’s rise from the dead is that it takes place on a different date each year. This is due to it taking place, not only during the spring equinox, but also on the first Sunday after the first full moon of Spring.

Yet it is during Easter and the Friday that precedes it (know to Christians as Good Friday) when Christians are reminded of the glory of sacrifice and suffering of their savior, Jesus.

According to the myth attributed to him, Jesus was crucified, died and then rose from the dead in order to to cleanse mankind of sin. Christian clergy continue to remind their flock of this and that they should emulate their messiah’s example. Religionists continuously reverberate the same mantra year in and year out that it is only when one sacrifices in this life to another that one will, upon death, reach their spiritual paradise (heaven). Only in death, rather than life, will believers in God know their deity’s glory and attain full salvation.

You should reject any philosophy that places sacrifice and human suffering as its highest standard of value since by doing so can condemn you to a life of self-destruction and misery. The emphasis on suffering and death is especially indicative of environmentalism, Christianity, and Communism. April is not only the month that Earth Day takes place but also Good Friday. Oddly enough, it just so happens that Soviet Union founder Vladimir Lenin’s birthday falls on the same day as Earth Day too. Like an axis of evil, all three philosophies that damn mankind’s existence are commemorated during this month.

Despite being an atheist, I still continue to celebrate Easter. Not to commemorate the resurrection of any god or conduct any sacrifice, but to extol my rational mind that I use to further my life and happiness. I am proud of the work I do, wealth I accumulate, and life I live.

You should be too.

I gladly buy chocolate bunnies, candied eggs and cards as a non-sacrificial, egotistical expression of my gratitude toward those I love and am friends with while celebrating the selfish-driven life I lead.

It is the entrepreneurs, creators and men and women of initiative whom I celebrate. Especially during holidays, since they are the ones who make the commercialism and abundance during holidays, like Easter, possible.

Let Easter and spring come to symbolize a time of rebirth for you by rejecting religious, altruistic notions of considering people like you as a means to an end and, instead, embrace a life of reason, happiness and freedom.

Happy Easter!

Leave a comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers