Yes, there are agnostics in dentist’s chairs

Most everyone has heard the expression, “There are no atheists in foxholes.” This assertion has been challenged by the Atheists in Foxholes organization, which points out that many in the armed forces identify themselves as “no religion.”

This morning I proved a related assertion: there are agnostics in dentist’s chairs. Now, I’ll admit that having some crown/bridge work redone isn’t quite as dramatic as being in a Vietnam firefight, as this atheist in a foxhole was.

Nonetheless, when the drilling starts and you don’t know how much pain there will be, you’re looking for support from somewhere.

During my devotional days I’d try to adopt the attitude that a dental visit was God’s will, part of my bad teeth karma. I’d repeat the mantra given to me by my guru and do my best to enter into a relaxed “thy will be done” attitude.

Today I felt just as calm, cool, and collected. Yet the Brian whose mouth was open for well over an hour was an agnostic, not a believer. I felt no need to lean on a higher power. Reality was my mainstay.

“What has to happen is happening,” I told myself. “Accept it.” And I did. I found that it helped to focus on my one-syllable mantra, if only to keep myself from worrying about how much decay would be found once the malfunctioning crowns/bridge were removed.

I couldn’t remember Marcus Aurelius’ Stoic words precisely, but awareness of his general philosophical perspective brought me some peace of mind as I reclined in the dental chair.

Be like the headland against which the waves break and break: it stands firm, until presently the watery tumult around it subsides once more to rest. “How unlucky I am, that this should have happened to me!” By no means; say rather, “How lucky I am, that it has left me with no bitterness; unshaken by the present, and undismayed by the future.” The thing could have happened to anyone, but not everyone would have emerged unembittered.

…So here is a rule to remember in future, when anything tempts you to feel bitter: not, “This is a misfortune,” but “To bear this worthily is good fortune.”

The Stoics didn’t believe in a personal God. Yet Marcus Aurelius derived great strength and meaning from a philosophy that most people today would call ungodly (and even more, unchristian).

Belief in a higher power isn’t necessary to live life honestly, decently, and courageously. Stoics consider that God is immanent in all created things, but has no separate existence outside them. Thus the strength to endure difficult situations will be found within, not without.

A similar attitude is found among the Atheists in Foxholes advocates. A Newsweek article quotes Master Sgt. Kathleen Johnson, who was about to be sent to Iraq: "A lot of people manage to serve without having to call on a higher power."

I’ve got to go back to the dentist on Thursday for what was billed to me as a simple and likely painless root canal, after which the replacement crown/bridge work can be done. I might be doing some calling between now and then. But it won’t be to God.

It’ll be to VISA to make sure that my credit limit is high enough to pay for the absurdly large amount all this is costing me.

Comments

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,
There are many (false) "gods" that I don't believe to exist (except as thoughts/conceptions in the minds of many "believers"). The "God" of the Bible is among those false gods. Yet as I have pursued my thinking, generally along lines I refer to as being "(naturalistically) pantheistic," I have come to entertain the notion that something like Plotinus' "One" truly does exist. (Such notions are what keep me coming back to peruse your site.) It does not seem to me that that from which I have come to be is a "theos," but I yet query: Does our proposition that the "One" (which I sometimes call "GOD")is the source of all other "being" remove us from the category of being "a-theists"? While "personhood" certainly is something brought about (in us humans) by the One (="GOD"), it seems to me that the originitive source of all transcends personhood. But "personhood" still arises from It. Are we such believers in the One just a variant type of "theists" - despite our "a-theism"? Robert Paul Howard

[Brian]

Good question, Robert. I've been reading a book that stimulated similar thoughts in me today. Might address the issue in a post soon.

Preview: the book's author, Daniel Dennett, suggests that if "God" simply means ultimate reality, or the final frontier of materiality, then it really doesn't mean much.

He says that a lot of believers--or are they unbelievers?--strip God of many unduly anthropomorphic qualities. Obviously God can't be a man, or even a person, or maybe even a conscious individualized being.

OK. But then you're left with the question: What's left of God? Does "God" just become an empty concept when all you can say is "it's a mystery."

Maybe. So I don't know if believers in The One really are theists, since it may be that even believers in God aren't really theists. That is, if there isn't a God with qualities you can point a finger toward, what sort of deity are you believing in?

[R Blog]

Brian,

Probably worth rereading my chapter on root canals. http://aubreypub.typepad.com/writing/2004/12/download_diagno.html

There's a new root canal material that some dentists are using that is biocompatiple. This website has some detail. http://www.icnr.com/biologicaldentistry/biologicalrootcanal.html

[Manjit]

Brian, that's an excellent question. One rarely asked. (all sorts of puns in that last sentence :-)

"That is, if there isn't a God with qualities you can point a finger toward, what sort of deity are you believing in?"

All I can think in response to this is, excellent question!

I know there's an 'answer' to this question, but I can't quite put my finger on it....or point my finger at it...

Perhaps, to take a leaf,.....MU?

Still, excellent question...

[Manjit]

Right, I've got to have a go at answering this one, just to be able to get to sleep! (Sorry about the multiple posts).

This will no doubt sound like complete nonsense, as it no doubt is, but it means something to me;

God IS Mystery.

The mystery that lies hidden and balanced precariously between existence and non-existence, between objectivity and subjectivity, between life and death, between sense and nonsense, between form and nothingness, between love and hate, between order and chaos, between science and faith, between knowledge and ignorance, between nothing and everything, between creation and emptiness etc etc.

Everyone believes that one or the other of these dualisms 'exists', yet they are all contradicitory.

Is there a subtle point that unifies these apparent dualities?

Is God is that Mystery which is balanced subtly between such extremes, and is 'felt' as the universe devouring bliss which is complete unknowingness....which also does not exist?

Suchness.

That's my story anyhow, and I'm sticking with it!

[Nick]

Manjit
Cool posting! Makes absolutely perfect sense and complete nonsense at the same time, much like life the universe and everything!
Nick

[Roger]

Brian;
I'm not that familiar with your former RSSB group. I'm just curious about some comments that your have made in this discussion and the Top 10 discussion. Does one's karmatic totals prevent them from getting dental checkups, or helping others that are in need of some kind of help. Did the leader of your RSSB group, (Charan?), advise you to avoid such things, because of the karma situation? This is no big deal, just curious to know more details.

[Brian]

Roger, no, we weren't told to avoid dental checkups, or anything else apart from intoxicants, meat-eating, and sex outside of marriage--"commandments" that weren't universally followed by disciples, as is the case with most proscriptions.

In part what I was alluding to was a commonly held attitude, one encouraged by the guru, that everything happening to the disciple was the will of God. Who was considered to be essentially identical with the guru.

It was a rather confused karmic theology, looking back on what I used to believe. Supposedly karma was irrevocable, a spiritual law of nature. Yet the guru could intervene in your karma, much like Christ: "You are forgiven of these sins/karma."

How this happened was never stated. It seems fantastical to me now. And even back then I tilted more toward the belief that karma is just what has to happen, the result of cause and effect.

You get decay in a nerve. You need a tooth canal. Tracing back how I got the decay, the roots (so to speak) of that karma become evident.

The controversial aspect of karma is whether it extends over various lifetimes. Since I'm an agnostic on reincarnation, I'm also an agnostic on that. I'd rather live another life than not live another life. But I don't want my "rathers" to skew my view of reality.

Charan Singh used to say that it isn't possible to know what our karma is. That made sense to me. If you could get outside of karma, of cause and effect, and see it objectively, you'd be in some other realm, not this one.

However, many disciples still would obsess over whether this or that was their karma. I like Meister Eckhart's way of looking at this. He says, if something is happening, that's God's will. Same with karma, in my opinion. It's just cause and effect.

[Roger]

Brian;
Thanks for your reply. I found it informative and enjoyable. May I ask two more questions? These relate to your former RSSB group days.
1. Was your spiritual meditations an example of a ritual? Likewise, was the use of the mantra, an example of a spiritual ritual? I have nothing against meditation, or a mantra. However, when meditations are used in a spiritual setting, is it in the final analysis a ritual?
2. The concept of The Third Eye. Is the concept of "The 3rd Eye", an example of a spiritual Symbol? The location of the 3rd eye, in the middle of the forehead, between the 2 physical eyes. Is this an example of a "location" symbol?

Again, I have nothing against "Rituals" or "Symbols". I personally find them both Entertaining as well as Unfortunate.

[Matthew Cromer]

Belief in "God" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is one thing that is probably given more import than it really merits. And it is a belief that is very commonly questioned and often rejected. Belief in the separate sense of self is almost universal and virtually unquestioned. But when it is examined deeply, a mystery arises. One we might choose to call this mystery "God" if one were so inclined. . .

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Mr. Cromer,
Please elucidate the "mystery" you are referring to.
Robert Paul Howard

[Matthew Cromer]

Robert,

I can give you words about it if you like. But that won't help. That's just food for the conditioned mind to keep it busy in its unconscious identification with the contents of thought. And the conditioned mind is what we will be observing with this exercise. Allowing the assumed subjective sense of self to be seen for what it is, nothing more than a conceptual idea perceived within awareness.

Go deep into the question "Who am I, really?" and stay there until you have the answer that does not change. Allow the thoughts "this is ridiculous and a complete waste of time" or "I already know this" or "what navel-gazing nonsense" or "I'm an evolved biological machine" or whatever other thought concepts arise to float there and just "watch" the thoughts. Sooner or later the process of awareness "watching" itself generates a shift in how everything is seen.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Mr. Cromer,
Thank you for your instructions. Are they not "conditioned"?
Robert Paul Howard

[Matthew Cromer]

RPH> "Thank you for your instructions. Are they not 'conditioned'?"

"Who" is asking that question?

[Edward]

Matthew
Awareness entertaining itself asks the question, and for creations sake. Badminton is fun, as is the wu/wei of intellectual dismissal. Sculpture is fun and creative, a wu/wei of the material.

The RHP that you are asks. The special effects are astounding, no?

[Roger]

Edward;
Any girlfriends from the ninties? I'm still single. HaHa.....just kidding. It's getting kinda thick in here. A good chuckle is in order.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Mr. Cromer,
I am identified as "Robert Paul Howard" - the name I was (to all seeming appearances) given at my "birth in this world." I know that I exist - and that I both ask and (when I can) answer questions. On occasion I may even give instructions.
"Answering" a question with a question in return is not always truly giving an answer - particularly from someone/(thing) that I'm not sure to actually exist. But such does try to avoid the giving of an answer - and thus pretend to simply be the spiritual superior of the one who has to ask (like myself). Even if I am ignorant and lacking in such spiritual prowess, I know I'm really here. I can only infer the reality of all you others.
Robert Paul Howard

[Matthew Cromer]

Robert,

When the awareness within you tires of the game of looking for evidence of egotism and a sense of superiority in supposed "others", try following the instructions I posted previously.

You may find this helpful as well:

http://felipeoliveira.com/onlybeing/prose/thoughts.html

Take care

[Matthew Cromer]

Robert et. al.,

This might also be very helpful for seeing the self in a different light:

http://felipeoliveira.com/onlybeing/prose/qa_2.html

[Edward]

Well, Matthew, here's the rub: Felipe writes that language has a non-correlate relationship with truth, and then stipulates that ""I am", period. No need to think, say or seek it."

Though meaning in language represents agreed-upon and not absolute truth, communication requires discrete nodes for meaning differentiation. We are all more or less capable of holding two concepts simultaneously: (1)there is no real separation in unitary existence; and (2)I would like to talk to you about (1).

No real separation also means that theory must match practice: the awareness is the awareness, and my blindspots are your very own.

Ralph's new (future?) girlfriend dictates this to me telepathically.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Mr. Cromer,
Thank you for the two reference sites you indicated. They helped elucidate your proclaimed advaita "mystery" much better than did your question in response to my question.
Robert Paul Howard

[Matthew Cromer]

"No real separation also means that theory must match practice: the awareness is the awareness, and my blindspots are your very own."

Yep.