Church of the Churchless

Religion is anti-life when an afterlife is fantasized

I want to get some facts straight.

(1) Every living entity dies.
(2) This includes humans.
(3) So you, I, and everybody else will die.
(4) There is no solid evidence of life after death.
(5) Yet religions claim there's an afterlife.

It's difficult to see how anybody could disagree with 1-3 and 5. Plus, 4 is almost indisputable, since any evidence of life after death is extremely tenuous, unscientific, and open to dispute.

Given these facts, I can't understand why so many Americans look upon our current COVID-19 death count, of 266,000, Washington Post screenshot shown above, and shrug off the astounding number.

This shrugging is obvious by the actions of those who refuse to wear a mask even though this saves lives, and by politicians who refuse to promote public health measures needed to slow the spread of the pandemic.

The United States has 4% of the world's population and 19% of the COVID-19 deaths. Something is different in this country. Something is wrong with this country. 

One possibility is our individualism. Americans don't like to be told that they need to do something for the common good. Another possibility is that we have deeply polarized politics, with soon-to-be ex-president Trump a notorious liar about everything, including how to combat the coronavirus.

But there's something else to think about. The United States is one of the most religious wealthy countries. 

In fact, Americans pray more often, are more likely to attend weekly religious services and ascribe higher importance to faith in their lives than adults in other wealthy, Western democracies, such as Canada, Australia and most European states, according to a recent Pew Research Center study.

For instance, more than half of American adults (55%) say they pray daily, compared with 25% in Canada, 18% in Australia and 6% in Great Britain. (The average European country stands at 22%.) Actually, when it comes to their prayer habits, Americans are more like people in many poorer, developing nations – including South Africa (52%), Bangladesh (57%) and Bolivia (56%) – than people in richer countries.

I suspect that religiosity is a reason lots of Americans are so uncaring of 266,000 fellow citizens dying from COVID-19. A belief in an afterlife cheapens the value of this current life. 

Often religious believers say of someone who has died, "Now they're in a better place." Of course, they don't know that. They have no reason for saying that other than blind faith. Yet the fantasy of an afterlife is exceedingly common.

It's debatable, though, how many religious people truly believe they will live again after they die. If they genuinely felt death would leave them in a better place, why wouldn't religious believers kill themselves, along with their loved ones?

In a science fiction book I read a long time ago about a planet, Riverworld, one of the characters learned that after he was killed, he'd pop up again at a different place on the massive river that dominated the planet. So he sought death, since that was how he was going to be able to get closer to the headwaters of the river.

This fictional man had direct evidence of life after death. Religious believers don't, which explains why they're reluctant to die prematurely.

Yet because they want to believe in an afterlife, religious believers act in contradictory ways. They cling to their own life, yet often are uncaring when it comes to the death of others -- like the 266,000 who have died from COVID-19. 

They apparently consider that because eternity in heaven (or hell) is so, well, long, it hardly matters whether someone's life is cut short by a disease.

So millions of supposedly "pro-life" Americans refuse to wear a mask, physically distance, or give up a Thanksgiving dinner with a bunch of people sitting around a table, potentially spreading the coronavirus at the same time they're saying "pass the mashed potatoes."

Meanwhile, scientifically-minded atheists like me are doing everything possible to keep ourselves safe, along with keeping other people safe by following public health orders.

Looks like atheism is pro-life, while religious belief is anti-life.

What God might say, according to Spinoza

The following post turned up in my Facebook feed yesterday. Based on my understanding of Spinoza, I have some doubts that this really reflects his perspective on God, but it might. 

Regardless, I liked what Jillenne Moore shared in her post. (I'm assuming that Moore wrote it.)

When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the question students asked him most was: Do you believe in God? And he always answered: I believe in the God of Spinoza.

Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.

According to Spinoza, God would say: “Stop praying. I want you to go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I've made for you.

“Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That's where I live and there I express my love for you.

“Stop blaming me for your miserable life; I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything that others made you believe.

“Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes—you will find me in no book!

“Stop asking me, ‘Will you tell me how to do my job?’ Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry or bothered. I am pure love.

“Stop asking for forgiveness, there's nothing to forgive. If I made you, I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies, and best of all, free will. Why would I blame you if you respond to something I put in you? How could I punish you for being the way you are, if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?

“Respect your peers, and don't give what you don't want for yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life—alertness is your guide.

“My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, not a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now—and it is all you need.

“I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record. You are absolutely free to create in your life. It’s you who creates heaven or hell.

“Live as if there is nothing beyond this life, as if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist. Then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is an afterlife, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong, I'll ask, ‘Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?’

“Stop believing in me; believing is assuming, guessing, imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.

“Stop praising me. What kind of egomaniac God do you think I am? I'm bored with being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.

“Stop complicating things and repeating as a parrot what you've been taught about me. Why do you need more miracles? So many explanations?

“The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.”

Humans are animals. Religions should accept this fact.

Frans de Waal has written a fascinating book about animal intelligence, "Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"

I'm only a little ways into the book, but what I've read so far has gotten me to thinking about how religions view humans -- as animals, or as a non-animal species?

Here's a passage from the prologue that makes clear how de Waal looks upon this question.

In all this, we love to compare and contrast animal and human intelligence, taking ourselves as the touchstone. It is good to realize, though, that this is an outdated way of putting it.

The comparison is not between humans and animals but between one animal species -- ours -- and a vast array of others. Even though most of the time I will adopt the "animal" shorthand for the latter it is undeniable that humans are animals. 

We're not comparing two separate categories of intelligence, therefore, but rather are considering variation within a single one. I look at human cognition as a variety of animal cognition. 

Naturally this is true. Humans are indeed animals of the primate variety. We're close relatives to chimpanzees, with whom we shared a common ancestor about six million years ago. 

Genetically, we share more than 98 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees and bonobos. From this perspective, chimpanzees are mostly human and vice versa. But, in genetics, some changes matter more than others. That 1-plus percent of DNA that differs between our species has obviously led to some fairly significant changes.

Yet religions usually look upon humans as separate and distinct from other animals. Supposedly we are made in God's image, while chimps aren't, even though scientifically-minded religious believers have to grapple with the notion that God created chimps with 98% of our DNA.

As de Waal says in the passage above, there isn't human intelligence and animal intelligence. There is just intelligence, which comes in lots of different forms depending on what a species needs to know in order to survive and prosper. Here's another passage from the book. 

But why stop at the primates when we are considering cognition? Every species deals flexibly with the environment and develops solutions to the problems it poses. Each one does it differently.

We had better use the plural to refer to their capacities, therefore, and speak of intelligences and cognitions. 

This will help us avoid comparing cognition on a single scale modeled after Aristotle's scala naturae, which runs from God, then angels, and humans at the top, downward to other mammals, birds, fish, insects, and mollusks at the bottom. 

Comparisons up and down this vast ladder have been a popular pastime of cognitive science, but I cannot think of a single profound insight it has yielded. All it has done is make us measure animals by human standards, thus ignoring the immense variation in organisms' Umwelten [worldview].

It seems highly unfair to ask if a squirrel can count to ten if counting is not really what a squirrel's life is about. The squirrel is very good at retrieving hidden nuts, though, and some birds are absolute experts.

The Clark's nutcracker, in the fall, stores more than twenty thousand pine nuts, in hundreds of different locations distributed over many square miles; then in winter and spring it manages to recover the majority of them.

That we can't compete with squirrels and nutcrackers on this task -- I even forget where I parked my car -- is irrelevant, since our species does not need this kind of memory for survival the way forest animals braving a freezing winter do.

So we need to stop looking at animals as being inferior to humans. They are different from us, not inferior. This is one reason we shouldn't eat them.

I've been a vegetarian for over fifty years, with my last bite of another animal species coming when I looked at a prawn on my plate while I was in college and  realized, "That used to be swimming around in the ocean, enjoying its prawn life, until it was killed so I could eat it." 

At that moment I felt a kinship with my fellow animals that caused me to vow never to eat fish or meat again. Which, I haven't. 

Your soul can't be found because it doesn't exist

I'm enjoying my re-reading, or re-re-reading, given the highlighting I've done to this book, of Guy Newland's "Introduction to Emptiness: Tsong-Kha-Pa's Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path." It's a brilliant discussion of a core Buddhist notion, defined as the sheer nonexistence of intrinsic nature.

In other words, nothing is intrinsically itself. Everything depends on other things for its existence, us naturally included. Nothing stands on its own, an island unto itself. Interconnectedness and interdependency is how the cosmos works.

So Buddhism is unique among the world's major religions in not positing an eternal soul. (Because it isn't really a religion, though many Buddhists wrongly ascribe religious qualities to their faith.)

Here's two passages from Introduction to Emptiness regarding the imaginary nature of "an eternal and essential self."

Sorry to break it to you, but you don't have one. You, me, everybody -- we all have come into being through causes and conditions that don't last forever, as is obvious from the human aging process.

The language will be a bit unfamiliar, though it is certainly clear. Newland says that no one has ever perceived an intrinsic self, or soul, that is different from the mind and body. That non-existent entity is an imaginary religious concept. Give it up and you'll be closer to grasping the nature of reality.

As noted in the second passage, don't be afraid to give up a belief in an imaginary thing. Grasping after illusion is what keeps us trapped. Let go of fantasy and you'll breathe a big sigh of relief, because the pressure will be off to view yourself as anything other than what you truly are.

A transitory blip of existence, just like everything else in the cosmos. We aren't separate from what surrounds us, but an intimate aspect of it.

Tsong-kha-pa notes that non-Buddhist philosophies about an eternal and essential self arise when their proponents realize that the essential self really cannot be identical to the flux of mental and physical aggregates.

Reaching the wrong inference, they then teach about the existence of a metaphysical self that is essentially different from the mind and body.

However, their own ordinary and conventionally valid consciousnesses never perceive any essence or intrinsic self that is different from the mind and body. This is simply an imaginary construct. 

Instead of assuming that there must be a permanent self and then locating it as an essence distinct from the mind and body, they should realize that since an intrinsically existing self can be found neither as one with nor as different from the mind and body, it simply does not exist.

...The Buddha points out the painful and sad futility of our clinging to objects, people, ideas, experiences, and identities that simply cannot be held, no matter how tightly they are grasped. 

Because they have no ability to set themselves up and exist on their own, we and the things around us are in flux, changing as conditions change. With no essential nature, neither our own selves nor the things around us have any inner handle by which we can grab and hold them. 

We are afraid to face this lack, this emptiness. 

Our fear arises from and feeds our grasping, and in this way we build a prison for ourselves, moment by moment. Yet by bravely facing the reality of emptiness, we can let go of our fear, anger, and greed.

We can be free.

New development in Singh brothers/RSSB guru scandal may not mean much

Today someone sent me a link to a November 12, 2o20 story in the Economic Times, "Sebi disposes of proceedings against 16 entities in Religare Finvest fund diversion case."

That person wondered if this meant that Gurinder Singh Dhillon, the guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, had been cleared of wrongdoing in the complex financial scandal involving the Dhillon family and their relatives, Malvinder and Shivinder Singh, along with associates of the guru such as Sunil Godhwani.

I've copied in the Economic Times story below. It's difficult to know what to make of it. As far as I can tell, no other publication in India has written about this development. So my suspicion is that this doesn't clear Dhillon.

Here's my reasoning.

Based on previous reporting in the Indian financial press, the 16 entities named in the story appear to be mostly, and maybe completely, shell companies. Meaning, they weren't actually doing business, but rather served as pass-throughs for other purposes, legal or illegal. 

This Business Today graphic, which I've shared before, shows the reputed scheme in broad-brush strokes. Money siphoned from companies once controlled by the Singh brothers flowed into the shell companies, then into the pockets of the RSSB guru and his family.

So it makes sense that currently the shell companies would have few, if any, assets. After all, the SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) allegation was that the shell companies were used to move money around, not that the fraud consisted of transferring money into the shell companies and leaving it there.

Further, my understanding is that the management (directors) of the shell companies has changed since the purported fraudulent transactions took place. This also could explain why the 16 entities no longer are part of the SEBI proceedings. 

Currently there is nothing to investigate at the shell companies. Rather, the questions are: (1) Who ended up with the money that flowed through the shell companies? and (2) Who orchestrated these transfers of money?

Again, I'm just expressing my opinion here, since the story below is vague about what the SEBI action means in the context of the accusations against Malvinder Singh and Dhillon, who has been accused by Malvinder of masterminding the diversion of money. 

Note that the story doesn't say that SEBI has given up on recovering the diverted money from every entity (which I assume includes individuals) involved in this case -- just from the 16 entities, largely or entirely shell companies, mentioned in the story. 

So I doubt that this is the end of the scandal. Perhaps we'll learn more on November 26 when a bail hearing for Malvinder in regard to the money laundering case has been rescheduled. Malvinder and his attorney keep saying that Gurinder Singh Dhillon is the real culprit, not Malvinder.

Here's the Economic Times story.

Sebi disposes of proceedings against 16 entities in Religare Finvest fund diversion case

Among the 16 entities, the names of two entities have already been removed from the list by the regulator.

Markets regulator Sebi on Thursday disposed of adjudication proceedings against 16 entities for their alleged involvement in Religare Finvest's fund diversion matter.
The entities were alleged to have been involved in diversion of funds amounting to Rs 2,315.09 crore from the books of Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL), a subsidiary of Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL), for the utilisation of promoters and promoter group entities of REL.

Shivinder and Malvinder Singh were promoters of REL.

Further, 14 names have been removed from the list of entities from whom REL and RFL were directed to recover the loan amount, Sebi said in an order.

Among the 16 entities, the names of two entities have already been removed from the list by the regulator.

Sebi, through an interim order in March 2019, had directed REL and RFL to initiate steps to recall all the loans, amounting to Rs 2,315.09 crore, extended directly or indirectly to certain entities -- including the 16 entities -- along with due interest, within three months.

The entities were also directed not to dispose of any of their assets or divert any funds, except for meeting expenses of day-to-day business operations, without the prior permission of Sebi, pending completion of the investigation and till further orders.

Subsequently, Sebi had confirmed the directions through an order passed in September 2019. However, the directions issued against two entities -- OSPL Infradeal Pvt Ltd and Bharat Road Network Ltd NSE 0.33 % -- were revoked.

Further, the names of OSPL Infradeal and Bharat Road Network were removed from the list of entities from whom REL and RFL were directed to recover the loan amount.

Pursuant to completion of investigation in the matter, Sebi, in an order on Thursday, revoked the directions issued through the interim as well as confirmatory orders against the 14 entities. The watchdog also disposed of the ongoing proceedings against all the 16 entities.

The other 14 entities are Platinum Infrastructure, Ad Advertising, Artifice Properties, Best Health Management, Devera Developers, Vitoba Realtors, Fern Healthcare, Modland Wears, Rosestar Marketing, Star Artworks, Tripoli Investment, Volga Management and Consultancy, Zolton Properties and Ranchem Private Ltd.

Through a separate order, the regulator has disposed of ongoing proceedings against three entities -- Best Healthcare, Fern Healthcare and Modland Wears -- in the Fortis Healthcare case.

It was alleged that the entities were involved in diversion of funds amounting to Rs 403 crore from the books of Fortis Hospitals Ltd, a subsidiary of Fortis Healthcare Ltd NSE -1.59 % (FHL) for the utilisation of promoters and promoter group entities of FHL.

The issue pertains to the affairs of FHL, which were being managed by the erstwhile promoters -- the Singh brothers. It was alleged that the Singh brothers had siphoned off the funds of FHL to promoter-related entities through layers of companies which were controlled by them.

Sebi, in October 2018, had directed FHL to recover Rs 403 crore, along with interest, from nine entities. The regulator had also directed the entities to jointly and severally repay the amount to Fortis Hospitals and FHL.

Besides, the entities were restrained from disposing of the assets pending investigation. The nine entities included Best Healthcare, Fern Healthcare and Modland Wears.

In its latest order, Sebi said it "revokes the directions issued vide the interim order read with confirmatory order against the... 3 noticees (viz. Best Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Fern Healthcare Pvt Ltd and Modland Wears Pvt Ltd ) and also dispose of the ongoing proceedings... against them".

Behold my use of "Wittgenstein" in this blog post title

I've been hanging onto my copy of the October 19 issue of The New Yorker because it contains a book review ("Losing Propositions") about the state of philosophy in Europe after the First World War.

The review has numerous mentions of Ludwig Wittgenstein, "perhaps the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century." So this gives me the opportunity to use Wittgenstein in the title of this post -- which in my utterly subjective opinion, elevates the profundity of this blog to an even higher level.

What I liked most  about the book review were the parts dealing with language that seems to say something about reality, but which actually says nothing. 

This is the problem I have with religious, spiritual, mystical, and metaphysical writings that I used to enjoy, yet now strike me as saying a lot about not much at all. 

"God" "Soul" "Spirit" "Heaven" These sorts of words have meaning only in the sense that people use them in sentences that sound meaningful, but actually lack any substance grounded in reality.

"God is in heaven" is a proper English sentence, yet there is no way to tell whether what it says is true. On the other hand, "Joe Biden soon will live in the White House" is a statement that can be tested as of January 20, 2021. 

Read on for some excerpts from The New Yorker piece that, if nothing else, will enable you to throw some mentions of Wittgenstein into your own conversations and communications.

For Wittgenstein, the renovation of philosophy had to begin with language. Since the Greeks, Western thinkers had tried to understand the world using terms such as "being" and "becoming," "substance" and "essence," "real" and "ideal." 

But these abstractions gave rise to complicated arguments that went around and around, never reaching any definite conclusion. Now, in the early twentieth century, relativity and quantum theory were redrawing the map of reality in ways that could be verified by experiment and given precise mathematical expression.

In an age of triumphant physics, did philosophy still need to bother with metaphysics?

By declaring the answer to be no, Wittgenstein set modern thought on a new course. For the analytic philosophy he helped inspire, many of the discipline's traditional problems are actually just misunderstandings, based on an erroneous use of language. 

What philosophers need isn't profundity but clarity: as Wittgenstein says in the "Tractatus," "Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly."

...In most cases, determining whether a statement is empirically true or false is fairly straightforward. If someone says that the moon is made of green cheese, there are various ways to check: you could look at the moon through a telescope, or examine a moon rock, or calculate how a moon-size ball of green cheese would behave in outer space.

Even if false, "The moon is made of green cheese" is still a meaningful proposition, because it makes an assertion about the world that can be tested. 

Some statements, however, can't be proved true or false, because they are constructed in a way that violates the rules of language. Carnap labelled these "pseudo-statements" -- "a sequence of words [that] looks like a statement at first glance," but whose syntax or vocabulary renders it meaningless. 

He gave as an example "Caesar is and": if someone said this to you, you wouldn't say that she was right or wrong, just that she didn't know English syntax. 

For the Vienna Circle, the best hunting ground for pseudo-statements was metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that deals with fundamental concepts like being and essence, time and space.

...The problem with metaphysical statements is that they are generally unverifiable, which to the logical empiricists meant they are meaningless. 

In Carnap's 1932 essay "The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language," he asks us to imagine a man who invents a new adjective, "teavy," and who, when we ask him how to tell whether or not something is teavy, replies that "there are no empirical signs of teaviness." In that csse, Carnap says, "we would deny the legitimacy of using this word."

The same principle, he argues, should apply to metaphysical terms, from Plato's "Idea" to Kant's "thing-in-itself." Such impressive words may provoke "associated images and feelings," Carnap writes, but they have no actual meaning, so any explanation that relies on them is saying nothing at all.

Clear thinking is a big part of Buddhist spirituality

I've never understood why some people are so down on thinking as an avenue to spiritual growth -- using "spiritual" in a non-supernatural sense, basically an exploration of what it means to be a caring, compassionate person who is grounded in reality.

Naturally those thinking skeptics express their view in, no big surprise, thoughts. So they cast doubt on the value of thought while thinking thoughts. 

One reason I enjoy reading Buddhist books (non-religious variety) is that Buddhism is fine with thinking. Also, with not thinking. That's an example of the middle way favored by Buddhists.

Thinking and not thinking both have their place. Which we do depends on the situation, on what makes sense at the time. 

A favorite Buddhist book of mine is Guy Newland's "Introduction to Emptiness: Tsong-kha-pa's Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path." I've read it several times. The highlighted passages in different colors produced at different times in my life remind me of the book's core idea.

Nothing is permanent. Everything changes. Nothing has inherent existence, being able to exist purely as itself. Everything is dependent on causes and conditions in never-ending processes of this giving way to that. 

That's what emptiness is all about. The emptiness of inherent existence. Which includes emptiness itself. 

All Madhyamaka philosophers agree that there is nothing that can withstand ultimate analysis. By this they mean that there is nothing anywhere that ultimately exists -- including, of course, the Buddha and the teachings of Buddhism. 

Even emptiness is itself empty; that is, when one searches for the ultimate essence of emptiness, it too is unfindable. One finds only the emptiness of emptiness.

This distinguishes Buddhism from Indian philosophy (along with the philosophy of other religions, including Christianity), which rest on a belief that there is something unchangeable and eternal -- such as the soul/atman and God/Brahman. 

Buddhists don't believe in either, the soul or God. As to realizing your true self, Buddhism replies, "Give up that notion. You neither have nor are an enduring self."

In his book Newland describes why clear thinking is so important to Buddhist practice of the Tibetan variety espoused by Tsong-kha-pa. 

You can't sit down and thoughtlessly meditate your way into an understanding of emptiness. That will leave you in the same state of delusion you were in before.

Sure, meditation feels good. It's relaxing. It calms the mind. It fosters concentration. That's why I've meditated every day for fifty years.

But by itself meditation doesn't lead to a firm grasp of the most important characteristic of the cosmos: that the cosmos has no enduring characteristic. And since humans are a part of the cosmos, neither do we.

As the suffering world has no independent, objective reality but is only an empty convention, we might suppose that stopping conventional thought in a meditative state would be the most liberating move.

The Chinese Buddhist master Ha-shang Mahayana, Tsong-kha-pa reports, regarded any sort of conceptualization whatsoever to be a distorting reification. Throughout the Great Treatise, Ha-shang functions as a stock character representing the perspective that we should dispense with all thought and meditate on reality by not bringing anything to mind.

Tsong-kha-pa argues repeatedly and passionately that meditative thoughtlessness is never going to get us any closer to freedom. Understanding born of careful analysis is at the very heart of what is distinctive about the Buddhist path. This is the third training, the training in wisdom.

Other religions share with Buddhism profound ethics as well as techniques for accessing amazing non-conceptual states. But Buddhism claims as its distinction a penetrating, thoughtful analysis of exactly how the world exists.

Only by engaging in this analysis, thinking it through and taking it to heart, do we begin to create the basis for real liberation from unnecessary misery.

Here's a rough analogy to what Newland just said. Imagine that you are thoughtlessly watching the sun set, your entire attention being focused on the beauty of the colors in the sky as the sun disappears below the horizon. 

That could be a wonderful experience. But it doesn't bring you closer to understanding that actually the sun is standing still, while the Earth rotates on its axis, creating an appearance that the sun is what is moving.

Or, imagine that you are meditating thoughtlessly with eyes closed, your entire attention being focused on a single internal subject of awareness. You could have a feeling of pure consciousness, that the real you is beyond time and space, an eternal I-ness. 

But that experience doesn't bring you closer to understanding that actually there is nothing permanent or independent about you. Your meditative concentration may be pleasant, yet fails to reveal your genuine nature -- emptiness.

"Dependent arising" is how Buddhism treads the middle way between nihilism and eternalism. Things actually exist, but they don't exist as themselves only. They have no inherent existence, but only come into being as a result of causes and conditions, a never-ending complex chain of causes and effects.

This present moment, whatever it might be like for you or me, has been produced by past causes and conditions extending back to the big bang (and perhaps beyond, if big bangs happen over and over). So the ephemeral instant of now is a snapshot of what actually is a very long-running movie of cosmic proportions.

In the next instant, things have changed both within and without us. This may not be obvious, but it is undeniably true.

So wisdom, or spiritual growth, doesn't reside in finding something unchangeable in us or the world, but in grasping that everything, us naturally included, is interconnected with everything else in a seamless web of ever-changing causes and conditions without end.

Speak out! About politics, religion, everything.

Over on my Salem Political Snark blog, yesterday I wrote "Speak out about Trump's attempt to steal the election." 

Almost certainly Trump won't succeed in this. His defeat was so large, extending over five states that he won in 2016 and lost in 2020 (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia), there's no way lawsuits and recounts are going to overturn Biden's win.

Still, it's important for everyone who cares about democracy to speak out against this attempt to thwart the will of voters, even if it has little chance of coming to pass. I shared some excerpts from a September 2020 piece by Marc Elias, "What Did You Do When Democracy Was at Stake?" 

This is what Elias had to say about speaking out.

To combat this threat to our democracy, it is not enough for us to file lawsuits. It is not enough for the media to report the news. And it is not enough for citizens to shake their heads at the damage he is doing.

We must display civic courage and speak out.

Justice Scalia wrote that “requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”

We must all commit to civic courage where it is the least comfortable—in the town square, in front of our neighbors and families, in our workplaces and in our daily lives.  We must each, as individuals, stand up and speak out about the importance of our democratic institutions and fundamental rights.

Absolutely. 

If someone says, "The only reason Biden won was Democratic voter fraud," it's important to say to them, "You're wrong. No voter fraud has been found in any state. Biden won a free and fair election."

Probably you won't change their mind. But you might. 

What's certain is that you have stood up for the truth by speaking out about a falsehood. And this is as important to do in areas other than politics. If someone says, "Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions aren't causing global warming," the proper response is, "You're wrong. Global warming is happening because of carbon pollution by humanity."

There are many values worth honoring. Truth is one of the most important, because without truth, it is difficult to truly love, help others, be courageous, or do the other things that make life worth living. 

I started this blog in 2004 in large part because I wanted to speak out against religious untruths. I'd call them "lies," but since some people sincerely believe the falsehoods promulgated by religions, often it makes sense to say That isn't true rather than You're lying.

If someone says, "I know that God exists," ask "How can you be sure?" Press for details. See if they can point to demonstrable evidence that God is real. Don't be content with bland statements like "I feel Him with me." 

I'm not saying that you should go out of your way to puncture someone's religious belief bubble. People have all kinds of reasons for believing in God or some other supernatural entity. If they keep their faith private, no problem. Each to their own.

But when claims about the nature of reality are made, truth claims, then lovers of truth have to speak out in defense of their beloved. Untruths need to be called out. If a religious believer simply says, "I believe in God because this makes me feel good," great. There's nothing wrong and a lot that is right about feeling good. 

That's akin to a Trump supporter saying, "I don't want to accept that Biden won because this hurts." OK. That's honest. We all turn a blind eye to some things that are unwelcome or uncomfortable to us. And many aspects of life lie outside of the bounds of objective truth. 

Art, music, philosophy, friendship, charity, the list goes on and on.

The way I see it, this makes defending truth, where it exists, even more important -- since the comparative rarity of objective truth points to its preciousness. Biden has defeated Trump. That's the truth. Trump doesn't want to admit this. 

Yet almost all leading Republicans are afraid to speak the truth to Trump. They fear his tweetful wrath. They fear for their own re-election if they go against Trump's fantasies. So they stay silent, or tell reporters, "I acknowledge that Biden won, but I can't say this openly on the record."

That's cowardice. Truth is more important than any person. Sure, we have to use common sense. To cite a common example, if you were hiding Jews in your house in Nazi Germany, speaking the truth if the Gestapo knock on your door isn't the thing to do.

But usually, speaking out about the truth is the thing to do. The sooner Trump comes to grips with the fact that he has lost, the better our country will be. Every Republican who stays silent about the election outcome is hurting our democracy.

Fact-denying Republicans are like fact-denying religious people

Like lots of other Americans, I'm really happy about Joe Biden defeating Donald Trump in our presidential election. To learn how happy, check out three posts I've written on my other blogs -- here, here, and here.

It's virtually 100% certain that Biden won a free and fair election and will be sworn in as president next January.

He's on track to win 306 electoral votes, the same number Trump won in 2016, which Trump has never stopped bragging about. The popular vote is hugely in Biden's favor, with additional tallies in New York and California adding to that impressive total. 

Three mid-West battleground states were won by Biden that Clinton narrowly lost in 2016. I came across this information in a tweet today.

Late-innings scorecard: President Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than 80,000 votes in 2016. Today, Joe Biden is ahead in those states by more than 210,000 votes.

So the presidential election isn't close. In 2000 George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by virtue of a highly controversial Supreme Court decision that awarded Bush Florida by a razor-thin margin of less than 600 votes. 

Now Biden is ahead by many tens of thousands of votes in a variety of states. There's no evidence of any substantial voter fraud, just unproven allegations of a few problems that have no bearing on the election outcome in states where they supposedly occurred.

Yet only a few Republican leaders have acknowledged that Biden won the election. Trump himself is refusing to concede. The Trump administration is putting up roadblocks to Biden beginning the important process of transitioning the federal government to a new president. 

In short, Republicans are denying reality. The election facts are clear, yet they refuse to embrace them. They have a fantasy that somehow Trump will be able to steal the election from Biden.

Thus they're acting very much like religious people.

Republicans have blind faith in Trump. Religious people have blind faith in God. Republicans ignore the lack of demonstrable evidence that fraud took place in the election. Religious people ignore the lack of demonstrable evidence that a supernatural being exists. Republicans believe that evil Democrats somehow manipulated election results in favor of Biden. Religious people believe that an evil Devil or some other negative power somehow leads humans away from God.

The common denominator between Republicans and religious people is their rigid dogmatism.

Rather than learning what reality has to teach them, they deny reality. They elevate their subjective personal beliefs over objective truth. If facts don't fit with their world view, they ignore the facts instead of changing their viewpoint.

In the post I wrote yesterday, I included a tweet from election law expert Marc Elias.

What Elias is getting at is that Republican lawyers are starting with what they want to have happen -- the results of the election being overturned so Trump ends up the winner. They they try to conjure up some reasons why this should occur. This is akin to religious people starting with a belief in God, then making up reasons why God exists.

Which is backwards. Election law requires that evidence of fraud come first, with a lawsuit following based on that evidence. Likewise, a belief in God should come after evidence for God, not before.

It doesn't bother me that so many Americans believe strongly in Trump. That's their right. But it's deeply concerning that these Trump fans are willing to ignore the results of the election and trash our democracy in an effort to keep Trump in office. This also is my problem with religion. A private belief in God is fine. It's when religious people try to force their personal beliefs onto others that my atheist anger fires up.

As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. (The original had "his," which I've changed to "their.")

Am I happy about Trump's defeat? Hell, yes!

Tonight I wrote another post on my Salem Political Snark blog about Donald Trump's ever-so-pleasing defeat to Joe Biden, the next President of the United States. 

I called it, "Trump may never concede, but Biden has whipped his ass." Here's what I said, along with the tweets that I included in the post.

Last Tuesday was tough for progressives like me.

Sure, I knew that mail-in ballots, largely from Democrats, were going to take a while to count, and in-person voting on election day would be dominated by Republicans. But knowing is one thing. Emotions are a whole other thing. 

I worried that somehow Trump would pull out another close victory like he did in 2016. Wednesday I felt better as Trump's lead in battleground states began to shrink. Thursday, even better. 

And today, Friday, I'm feeling damn fine! 

Now starts the fun part -- basking in the warm glow of Biden's almost certain victory, while shivering with delight at Trump becoming increasingly frantic to deny the truth of his loss.

It looks like Biden will get 306 electoral votes, the same number Trump got in 2016 that he's been bragging about as a massive victory ever since. Probably Biden won't rub that fact in Trump's face, but I sure will.

You're a big fat loser, Donald. You've gotten your sorry ass kicked. You'll go down in history as a one-term president who was impeached, had very low approval ratings, and will be known as the worst president in modern times. Maybe in all times.

It's going to be ever so satisfying to watch Trump flail around in the coming days and weeks, desperately trying to con his way into a victory that was denied him by rough, tough, kick-ass Joe Biden. Trump is acting like the cowardly wimp that he is.

His insults, lying, and bravado thinly disguise his deep insecurity and lack of confidence. Trump has surrounded himself with fawning admirers who don't question his incompetence, lack of morality, and inability to act like a normal human being.

Trump always has been able to cheat, lie, or buy his way out of problems. It's hugely delicious to now see him confronted by the undeniable reality of a massive election defeat. Votes can't be bull-shitted away.

They are what they are, the expression of how badly Americans wanted to see Trump drummed out of the White House.

Trump is going to lose two red states, Arizona and Georgia, that helped propel him to victory in 2016. And the Blue Wall of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania is back up again, much stronger and more impressive than Trump's mythical "Mexico is going to pay for it" wall.

It's fitting that Trump began his failed presidency with a bizarre conspiracy theory -- that Barack Obama was born in Kenya -- and he's ending his failed presidency with an equally bizarre conspiracy theory -- that the election was stolen from him. 

I'm so looking forward to watching Trump's fragile ego disintegrate as day by day, week by week, the reality that he has lost the election big-time sinks into his feeble brain.

Fortunately, there's plenty of space in his mostly empty cranium for other facts to sink in: he faces serious legal problems without the protection of the presidency; his hotels and resorts are going to suffer under the weight of his unpopularity; nobody but his most rabid supporters is going to care about what he says or tweets about once Biden is inaugurated.

Here's some tweets I came across today that appealed to me.