Is it negative to be anti-Christian?

My wife and I try to be positive people. So when Laurel told a man we'd just met today, "You should know that we're anti-Christian," I hoped that this believer wouldn't take our negativity personally.

Fortunately, he didn't. I went on to explain that it isn't so much Christianity that turns us off as fundamentalism – which comes in many guises. Christian fundamentalists just happen to be by far the most common variety in our neck of the world's woods.

This cartoon does a good job of summing up what we find objectionable about so many Christians. They take the most ridiculous parts of the Bible literally, rejecting science in the process, but look upon the most elevated aspects of Jesus' message metaphorically.

"Love your neighbor as yourself." "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor." Whaaaaaat? Jesus couldn't have meant us to take that stuff seriously. He's all about stopping gay marriage, abortions, and stem cell research, right?

Well, I'd bet on wrong, though it's an open question whether Jesus even existed, much less how he'd feel about 21^st century social issues.

So I don't see it as negative to be anti-Christian if what you're against is Christian negativity. Negate a negation and you're left with something positive. Or neutral, at least.

Still, I'm pretty much on the same wavelength as Michael Shermer's "Rational Atheism" essay in Scientific American. He argues that while religious beliefs have to be dealt with when they conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, skeptics should be cautious about going overboard with all-out attacks on religiosity.

Shermer's five reasons are:

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail.
2. Positive assertions are necessary.
3. Rational is as rational does.
4. The golden rule is symmetrical.
5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief.

Here's his explanation of #5, which is difficult to argue with.

A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.

Yes. And I recognize that while I no longer see the need to pursue my "do-gooder" activities under a religious banner, other people feel differently.

For example, Jonn, the man with whom Laurel and I had an interesting chat this afternoon at a table outside of the charming Sisters Coffee Company in (where else?) charming Sisters, Oregon.

(As an aside, Sisters Coffee has a reference to Jesus prominently displayed behind the cash register, and an open Bible near the seating area; this means nothing to us heathens, because they serve great lattes and sweets).

Jonn came up to us with some comments about something he and I have in common: a gray beard. Ostensibly he wanted some feedback on a desirable beard length, but pretty clearly a primary motivation for sitting down with us was to share his Christian-related vision of a cause called "Profits for Peace."

Which I'm still vague about. The description on his web site doesn't cast much light on what his recently formed non-profit organization is all about.

But, hey, we're down with sustainable peace. I'm just understandably a bit skeptical about whether "Profits" or "Peace" is the main goal of this group, notwithstanding its non-profit designation.

Regardless, talking with Jonn helped Laurel and me to remember that many (if not most) Christians aren't of the fire and brimstone fundamentalist variety. Yes, they're committed to their faith. And yes, they want to act on that faith. There's nothing wrong with either "yes." Often, a whole lot right.

Someday, I hope, people won't identify themselves as Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever. Nor will they be anti- or pro-religion. Humankind will have evolved beyond such distinctions.

Until that blessed time comes, it should be the goal of each of us to tolerate differences of belief and unbelief with as much goodwill as we can muster.

Yet only, as Shermer said, when one person's thoughts, beliefs and actions don't infringe on the equal freedom of others.

If you want to take away my grandchild's right to learn the scientific truth of evolution, unmixed with creationist or intelligent design B.S., then you'll have a fight on your hands. Or if you want to stifle federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that could benefit millions out of a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture.

Remember, Christians: the Bible says Thou shalt not pray in public! Keep your beliefs private and no negativity from unbelievers shall fall unto you.

Comments

[william]

"the scientific truth of evolution, unmixed with creationist or intelligent design B.S., "

As I am not a creationist or intelligent design advocate I find it interesting that you and most scientists (but not all) have decided you know the truth.

Nothing is more dangerous to future discoveries than those that claim to know the truth whether it is veiled in science (materialism) or religion

What is it about we humans that are so determined to proclaim to know truths? What makes science so sacred? Look at the history of science and you will find paradigm paralysis alive and well with most scientists.

If you think scientists are so open minded find out how many of them will even consider doing research into such unknown mysteries as the paranormal or even consider any evidence that does not fit their materialistic beliefs.

Many if not most are as fixed in their beliefs as a religious fundamentalist. Both examples of evolution used during the scopes monkey trial to “prove” evolution as a truth were later found to be invalid.

We know so little yet we pretend to know so much. Most behavior appears to be based in intellectualism and not intelligence.

Until we begin to understand the difference between those two terms we will continue as humans to profess that we know truths when in reality most of those truths are based in beliefs not absolutes.

One example science states that much of the universe is dark matter. Is it really dark matter? It could be better described as unknown matter or even unknown consciousness but that would imply ignorance on the scientist’s part.

We despise the word ignorance because it threatens our ego centered self or maybe I should state our ego non-self.

My point Brian is that a person can fall into the same self-confirmatory trap as the religious by stating that evolution is a truth. Now I suspect from my research data that there is an evolution of consciousness happening in the universe but I am not prepared to call it a truth at his time.

As far as Christianity it appears to me that Christianity died on the cross. Look at any religious figure or enlightened master and their follower’s usually screw up their teachings pretty bad. They don’t have the level of consciousness to do anything but misapply their master’s teachings

[tao]

William wrote:

"I suspect from my research data that there is an evolution of consciousness happening in the universe" ... "but I am not prepared to call it a truth..."

What data? Where is the data?

There is nothing to indicate that "consciousness" is evolving. Even this notion of yours that consciousness is evolving is soley within consciousness itself.

The ideas or conceptualization of what actually is the nature of consciousness, may be evolving, but consciousness or awareness itself shows no such signs of "evolution".

Forms and structures and organisms evolve, but not consciousness itself.

[Tucson Bob]

William wrote: "I find it interesting that you and most scientists (but not all) have decided you know the truth."

Where does Brian say he knows the truth?Brian prefers to accept that which is, as it presents itself, rather than what could be but has no evidence other than unsubstantiated theory or belief. He doesn't absolutely reject the possibility of the unseen or unproven, only the blind belief in it. Why do people have a problem with those who think this way?

One guy says, "Pigs are animals with rudimentary intelligence that basically follow their instincts to obtain food and procreate."

Another guy says, "Pigs are angelic beings sent here to spy on humans and report their activities to Gods in another dimension. They do this by ascending a secret golden staircase only their consciousness can access in their dreams."

Brian would probably go along with the former until the latter could be demonstrably proven.

And he is criticized for this?

[Brian]

William, pardon my bluntness, but I can't figure out what you're talking about.

You left a comment on this blog. You must be using a computer, right? How does it work? What enabled you to communicate in the fashion you did?

I could go on and on in this vein. Do you use electricity? Do you drive a car? Do you fly in an airplane?

From what you said, you don't believe that the science lying behind all of these technologies is true. Yet I assume that you have no problem using them, and basing your everyday life around them.

If you think that science is considered to be sacred, by me, by scientists, by anybody, you're wrong. It isn't sacred. It's reality.

Now, to me that's as sacred as anything gets -- if it's real. Science is how humans come closest to objective reality. There also is subjective reality, what each of us experiences that is known only to ourselves.

Science doesn't claim to know that. Science isn't out to dismantle emotions, dreams, joy, laughter, faith, hope, fear -- all the subjectivity that makes life so interesting and worth living.

But when it comes to consensual truth, science rules. Like I said, your everyday life testifies to that. You rely on scientific truths in just about everything you do.

Cooking your food. Flushing the toilet. Turning on a light. You may not consider that scientists know the truth, but your actions testify otherwise.

[william]

Looks like I opened up a can of worms with those comments.

Brian called evolution a truth and he is concerned that his granddaughter will not be taught that truth. Darwinist evolution has big enough gaps in it one could drive an aircraft carrier through those gaps. Most scientists allow beliefs and theories to fill in those gaps.

Tucson bob stated: "Where does Brian say he knows the truth? Brian prefers to accept that which is, as it presents itself,"

Brian stated:” If you want to take away my grandchild's right to learn the scientific truth of evolution,"

If this is not stating a truth then what is? Brian prefers to believe the scientists and their claims that evolution is a truth.

Scientific truth of evolution? Future generations will smile in disbelief at our statements of truth.

From my point of view evolution as it is being taught, as a truth is bogus. Stating it as a theory might be a better approach. If you on this blog want to believe that evolution is a truth than go for it.

If we are not careful we will make science our god and fall into the same trap as the Christian folks that made Jesus their god.

Science is a method backed by most scientists with a materialistic paradigm and they tend to find a materialistic solution for any unexplained phenomena.

[william]

Tao
“Forms and structures and organisms evolve, but not consciousness itself.”

Your thoughts on forms and structures evolving sounds a lot like materialism to me but I may have misread or misunderstood your statements.

As far as our evolution of consciousness this appears to be the primary affect of life. If not primary then at least secondary with primary being this isness that permeates the universe expressing itself or knowing self or in a constant state of discovering self or all three or none of the above.

Consciousness has within it levels or degrees of awareness depending on the level of intelligence it has attained. A blade of grass has a very, very low level of intelligence whereas humans have attained a higher level of awareness. A simple modus operandi I like to state is pure awareness in addition to ignorance equals consciousness.

Without a not knowing aspect of our reality “oneness” cannot express itself. This oneness/isness appears to be in a constant state of becoming. Oneness becomes twoness by the effect of ignorance and the vehicle that allows this oneness to express itself is this evolution of consciousness.

Trying the grasp the ultimate meaning of life at this stage of our existence is like an ant trying to grasp the size of the planet they inhabit. But our minds will never quit trying that is the condition we find ourselves in this universe. We are destined to become as gods and I suspect to “return” to that that is; knowing of course, that we were/are always that that is. On going gradual improvement in our level of consciousness/awareness demands it.

[tao]

William,

The fact that forms and structures and organisms evolve is clearly an observable fact. But I do not advocate any such "materialism" as you say.

You said: "As far as our evolution of consciousness this appears to be the primary affect of life."

It is unclear what you are trying to say here. I do not see any "evolution of consciousness". I see structural and neurological evolution in living organisms, but not evolution of consciousness itself.

You said: "...this isness that permeates the universe expressing itself or knowing self or in a constant state of discovering self or all three or none of the above." Your statement makes no sense. So maybe you can better explain what you mean. I don't see "isness" as permeating anything. "isness" is just a way of indicating the fundamental substratum (ie: consciousness or awareness) of all phenomena. "isness" or consciousnbess does not "permeate" anything. Everything and anything that is perceived by the senses or conceived in thought, appears and occures soley within consciousness.

You said: "Consciousness has within it levels or degrees of awareness depending on the level of intelligence it has attained."

It appears that you are mixing up terms. And also I am not sure that you really understand exactly the issue. So let me try to untangle and simplify this a little bit:

First, consciousness and awareness are really just two words which mean basically the same thing. Second, there are different 'states' of consciousness, just as water exists in different states such as solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (vapor)... but it is still always H20. Similarly, consciousness also exists in different states such as deep dreamless sleep, dreaming sleep, waking state, and super-conscious state. On the other hand, "intelligence" and intellect is related to the neural system, the brain.

You said: "A blade of grass has a very, very low level of intelligence whereas humans have attained a higher level of awareness."

I definitely do not agree. On the contraryt, the consciousness or pure awareness itself is the same in all living things. The difference is all in the caspacity of the neurological system of different organisms.

You said: "...I like to state is pure awareness in addition to ignorance equals consciousness."

Pure awareness IS consciousness, and vice versa. And "ignorance" is simply the absence of knowledge, just as darkness is an absence of light.

You said: "Without a not knowing aspect of our reality “oneness” cannot express itself."

Oneness is simply Oneness. Nonduality. There is nothing to "express". Duality is merely an appearnace born out of ignorance or avidya.

You said: "This oneness/isness appears to be in a constant state of becoming."

Oneness or nonduality is never in any state, never "becoming" anything.

You said: "Oneness becomes twoness by the effect of ignorance and the vehicle that allows this oneness to express itself is this evolution of consciousness."

That statemtnt is verbal mumbo-jumbo. Oneness actually never becomes "twoness". "twoness" is simply duality, which is merely but an appearance born out of ignorance. Only duality and forms evolve, not consciousness.

You said: "Trying the grasp the ultimate meaning of life at this stage of our existence is like an ant trying to grasp the size of the planet they inhabit."

That statement is based in ignorance, not in knowledge. There is no such "ultimate meaning of life". Your search for that is unecessary. Meaning is all relative and individual.

You said: We are destined to become as gods and I suspect to “return” to that that is; knowing of course, that we were/are always that that is."

Again, that is contradictory and it makes no sense. This is simpoly an idea, a concept that you have. Who is there to "return", and return to what?

You said: "...improvement in our level of consciousness/awareness demands it."

More mumbo-jumbo. Are you serious? Just give even one instance of "improvement" of consciousness. Consciousness is one's essential nature or Atman. So please show how or where it can be "improved".

[Tucson Bob]

William,

I'm going to gang up on you with Tao. I would have responded very similarly to your comment. Right on Tao !

´´You said: "...improvement in our level of consciousness/awareness demands it."

More mumbo-jumbo. Are you serious? Just give even one instance of "improvement" of consciousness. Consciousness is one's essential nature or Atman. So please show how or where it can be "improved".´´

there, it has been improved

[Tucson Bob]

Un-named commenter:

You said: "there, it has been improved"

What has been improved?

'it' can't be improved in any way because 'it' does not exist as an object.

Nothing has been improved except for an idea, or a concept about what 'it' is. Consciousness or "Atman", as Tao puts it, has no form to change or improve. In fact, to call 'it' anything at all is misleading, but we must use some sort of terminology in order to have a discussion, but words and ideas will never get to 'it' because 'it' is not a 'thing' to be gotten to.

What we as dreamers call "consciousness" (not the Atman Tao mentions) is our dream and has no objective resemblance to the Atman which causes it to appear, because Atman has no objective quality at all. (Sometimes I use the term 'consciousness' to indicate Atman, but there is a distinction in this discussion.)

This 'cause' or Atman is totally inaccessible to any form of objective cognition or description. We can use words to point to 'it' such as Presence, Awareness,Consciousness, This, Now, Here, etc. but these are really just abstractions.

So, what we have is an emptiness that is fullness, and an absence that is presense. Here, the thinking process ends, the absence of which is the presence of the Inconceivable. Inconceivable for whoever attempts to conceive it.

Are you done with this mental masturbation of yours or shall I write a little bit more so that you can finish?

[Tucson Bob]

Un-named commenter:

First, if you wish to be easily identified for a follow-up to anything you post on this blog, put a name in the name box like "un-named" or "masturbator" or whatever.

Second, you said so pleasantly: "Are you done with this mental masturbation of yours or shall I write a little bit more so that you can finish?"

I'm always ready to "get off", so please write a little bit more. Make it a good one so that I can fire off a really juicy wad. But judging by your weak, sophomoric response above I doubt you're up to it, honey.

[Un-named commenter]

no no, i think ur done.

[Un-named commenter]

u look at a tree, u may say that it does exist, that it doesnt exist, that it neither exists nor it doesnt exist, that it is an illusion, that it changes therefore is maya, that is objective, that it is subjective, that ur mind creates it, that is the same as u, that it is u, that it is apart from u, that it is perfect, that it is not perfect, that the question itself doesnt arise. When u see a tree u call it a tree, when u see a dog u call him a dog, when u are burned from the arizona sun, u seek shadow or a/c. Simple.
"So, what we have is an emptiness that is fullness, and an absence that is presense. Here, the thinking process ends, the absence of which is the presence of the Inconceivable. Inconceivable for whoever attempts to conceive it".tuscon bob

Plenum vacumm and cats that are dogs.

I call this "mental ion" but i guess in the US the word ion is not only a highly taboo word but is highly offencive as well. In a mosque take off ur shoes, in church keep them on, in amsterdam u can smoke joints on the street. Different places diferrent cultures. In rome do as the romans do, but this is an internet blog and is world wide, or at least i thought. This is a 100% US discourse on spirituality and is distinctively US in all its patterns. Is very hard for someone to escape his/her culture but the fact that the phrase "mental ion" was reduces to "mental ion" is indicative of this. This blog is similar to that "8 mile" scene where rappers "fight it over", with the winner being the one who says the smarterst thing. Eminem won at the end because he exposed himself completely so his opponent had nothing to attack. Anyway, i still believe that we spent most of our day in "mental ions" and Brian feel free to reduce in "ions" just like the us tv does to and other perfectly normal words in the English dictionary. Maybe one day ull get the authority from someone higher up to allow "dirty" words to appear,,but oh oh ,,,ur the God in here. U are the creator in here..in here, not of the web,,,in here,,in this small buble of internet

Tuscon Bob,,obviously my comment could be perceived the way u did,,but relax bro,Its not personal.,how can u go from one post talking about atman or whatever u call consiousness to the next post being so offended? Relax. I laughed with the "honey" comment if this means anything.

[Tucson Bob]

If you laughed at 'honey', that is enough. We have succeeded.

You said: "how can u go from one post talking about atman or whatever u call consiousness to the next post being so offended?

Well, I'm just a wild and crazy guy !