Church of the Churchless

Doubt is the stepping stone to truth

I was so sure that I was right. It turned out that I was wrong. But after finding this out, I was able to get on the road to rightness.

What got me facing in the right direction was doubt. Thank you, doubt! If it weren't for you, I'd have headed in the wrong direction for quite a bit longer.

I'm not talking about a religious belief, though I could be.

The lesson I learned last week is universal: don't be completely, absolutely, 100% sure about anything. Even when we're super confident that we're correct, it's important to leave open the door of doubt. Truth of which we're unaware might be on the other side.

My wife, Laurel, was trying to add TrafficLive to the Navigon GPS app on her iPhone.

She was heading from Salem to Gig Harbor, Washington to pick up a rescue dog that we were going to adopt. This would take her through Tacoma. Laurel wanted a way to tell if there were major traffic problems on the unfamiliar big city freeways she'd be traveling on. 

Every time we tried to purchase this add-on from inside the app, we got a message saying that Navigon needed to be purchased before TrafficLive could be bought.

But Laurel obviously had already purchased Navigon for her iPhone, or we wouldn't be trying to buy TrafficLive via a Navigon "extras" option. So I entered into my righteous indignation mood after Laurel left for Gig Harbor, TrafficLive'less.

I emailed Navigon customer support about our problem. Soon a reply arrived from Germany, where Navigon is headquartered.

Dear Valued NAVIGON Customer

Thank you for your inquiry. This error often shows up if you use a different iTunes ID to buy in-app content instead using the one which you bought the NAVIGON app. Please make sure that you use the same ID.

That message only fueled my righteous indignation. Those fools, those idiots at Navigon! This crappy response was all they could come up with??!! I knew, for sure, that my wife had always used the same iTunes username. 

I began composing an irritated reply. However, thankfully I had enough critical thinking neurons still working in my brain to say "almost completely sure" and "virtually 100% certain" rather than simply "sure" and "certain."

The same iTunes ID was used. I'm almost completely sure of this, because my wife's Navigon app was purchased via her iPhone, and she hasn't changed her iTunes ID since she started using Apple products. Do you have another suggestion for buying the TrafficLive option? I've thought about uninstalling the Navigon app and then reinstalling it, but am concerned this wouldn't work.

Again, I'm virtually 100% certain that my wife used the same iTunes ID to buy the core Navigon app, as to attempt her buy of the in-app TrafficLive.

Perhaps my adding those qualifying words helped prime my brain for what happened next. Almost immediately after I pressed the send button which flashed my reply to Navigon, a seed of doubt began sprouting in my psyche.

Suddenly I wasn't so sure. No longer was I "almost completely" sure, or "virtually 100%" certain. I didn't know why I felt that way. But some mental urging was pushing me to dig deeper into my wife's iTunes account.

Doubt was doing its thing.

No longer was I supremely confident that a Navigon glitch was at fault here. Indeed, it turned out that customer support was completely correct. I found that my wife had two iTunes usernames, each with the same password. 

When I logged out of one iTunes account on her iPhone, and logged into the other account, I had no problem purchasing TrafficLive. Time for another message to Navigon.

Oops. i'm glad I said "almost completely sure" and "virtually 100% certain." 

I did some more thinking, and checked my wife's iTunes account. After upgrading the operating system, I saw that she now had a me.com email address. When I changed it back to her gmail.com address, and logged into the old gmail iTunes account, I was able to purchase TrafficLive. 

I was wrong. You were right. Thanks for the advice.

I've told this story partly because I want to make sure that the lesson of it is burned as deeply as possible into the operating system of my own brain: 

Always leave room for doubt. Never be absolutely certain. Even when every fiber of your being is screaming, "I'm right," keep "I could be wrong" alive in a corner of your mind.

This is how science operates. Every theory, no matter how well founded, is viewed as falsifiable. The probability of such happening might be very small. But it isn't zero.

By contrast, religions encourage followers to have unwavering faith in the teachings, even when evidence is lacking; to suppress doubts about dogma, even when skepticism is justified; to persevere on a delineated spiritual path, even when roadblocks, pitfalls, and dead ends are evident.

Doubt is good. Certainty is bad. I'm almost 100% sure of this.

Republicans want to establish a U.S. theocracy

I used to joke about the "American Taliban" -- fundamentalist Christians who say they want to make this country into a Bible-based theocracy.

But now that every Republican presidential candidate has endorsed this crazy notion in one form or another, it isn't nearly as funny to me. Losing our constitutionally-guaranteed right of freedom from religion is a serious matter.

And one worth fighting hard to prevent. 

I've voted for Republicans in the past, and would consider doing so again if moderates of the sort we Oregonians used to elect came back into G.O.P. fashion. But nowadays Governor Tom McCall, Senator Bob Packwood, and Senator Mark Hatfield wouldn't have a chance in a Republican primary.

It's disturbing that Rick Santorum, who either has a national lead in the Republican presidential race or is close to Romney's polling percentage, has said that the United States should follow God's law, not secular laws. 

Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law.

Santorum also has criticized President Obama for not aligning his policies with Christian theology. Hey, Rick, wake up! The President of the United States isn't supposed to do this, according to our constitution. 

You and your fellow Republican theocrats are the ones who should be roundly chastized for ignoring our nation's history. 

Columnist Joe Nocera notes that early on, Roger Williams and other like-minded believers fleeing from religious persecution wanted to insure that immigrants to America would be free to either believe in God, or not believe. 

However, John Winthrop was the Rick Santorum of his day. He wanted America to be a theocentric state founded on strict Puritanism. Fortunately, the Williams ideal prevailed. Unfortunately, the 2012 Republican presidential candidates show strong signs of wanting to resurrect Winthrop's dream of an authoritarian Christian nation.

Nocera concludes with:

I don’t doubt that if Winthrop could see America today, he would be horrified — just as, in many ways, Santorum is. Americans are free to do things that Santorum — and Winthrop — would view as deeply sinful. Individuals can believe what they want and act as they wish, without caring about what Rick Santorum — or John Winthrop — thinks.

By the time Roger Williams was an old man, Quakers had largely taken over the political structure of Rhode Island. “Roger Williams despised the Quaker religion,” Barry writes. But he did nothing to prevent their ascent, because he believed so strongly that one’s religious beliefs should not matter in the affairs of state.

Unlike Winthrop, if Williams could see the America his central idea gave us, he would likely be pleased. We should all be.

Keep the good religious feeling. Discard the religion

Recently I had one of my marvelous enlightened insights. These occur regularly now that I've forsaken the confines of "thou shalt" religiosity.

I'm not sure how much more enlightened and insightful I can become. Maybe infinitely. Can't be sure, since one of my core insights is that uncertainty and unknowing are part of the human condition.

Mystery is us. Also, the cosmos.

Anyway, My Big Insight (haven't copyrighted it, so feel free to share, steal, embrace) is this:

If you've given up unfounded religious beliefs that you used to embrace, yet miss the pleasurable feelings those beliefs produced, keep the feelings and discard the religion.

For example, I used to believe that whatever happened to me had some purpose, a deeper meaning. That made me feel protected, safe, secure -- even if what was going on was unwanted, painful, disturbing.

As I was recollecting this, suddenly I realized those good feelings were still close at hand. I remembered how I felt in my true believing days. Then that feeling stopped being a memory. I was experiencing it, now. 

Without the religion. Without the unfounded beliefs. I'd simply embraced the positivity of the good feelings directly, changing my outlook on life without the crutch of unproven religious dogma.

Give it a try. Recollect your most wonderful religious feeling. Then subtract the religion from it. What's left is yours, always available to you. Now.

 

I'm loving "Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism"

Taoism is a way of life for fools. So when I bought The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism, I expected a good match between the usually informatively entertaining Idiot's Guide series, and my favorite philosophical approach.

(I'm such a fool, I read the entire book through once, and now am re-reading it with a different colored highlighter in hand.)

I was right.

Brandon Toporov, writer, and Chad Hansen, Chinese scholar, teamed up to produce an overview of Taoism that is easy to read, inspiring, and practical, while also possessing intellectual rigor.

I'm confident of that last assertion, since I searched out what else Hansen has written and came across his A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical Interpretation. It's the graduate school version of the Taoism Idiot's Guide. 

Same conclusions. Same philosophical foundation. Way more explanations and reasoning. Yet fascinating in its own right. (I bought a used copy of the book; have just started to read it.)

One of Hansen's central themes is that Greek and Indian thought are similar in that they posit two realms, natural and supernatural. Taoism, though (and Chinese thought in general), doesn't look upon reality that way. 

Nature is it. Which makes Taoism highly compatible with modern science.

Here's an excerpt from Chapter 1 of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism that I resonated with.

Do Taoists Believe in God?

To the extent that the word God refers to a creator of nature, or a supernatural person with a "plan" for humans in particular, or a supernatural ruler or judge, the best answer is probably "no."

To the extent that the word God refers to some unknown meaning or purpose of nature, or the guide that operates in natural and human action, then the best answer is probably "yes."

If one's conception of God does not preclude God from being everywhere, all at once, then religious Taoism is likely to complement that conception. In a sense, Taoist religiosity expresses itself in awe of nature itself, rather than in awe of an imagined creator or author of nature.

Is There a Single, Big Idea to Taoism?

We'll examine a number of big ideas in later chapters of this book, but as a starting point, awe of nature will do. The natural beauty and complexity that inspires Western religion to postulate God also inspires Taoists.

Nature has an awesome richness and complexity of process that seems to guide everything in a splendid balance. Grass doesn't need lectures to grow properly; rivers don't have to be bullied into finding the sea. Humans, a Taoist would hold, are an integral part of this nature, not a separate agent to exploit or act on it.

The Taoist ideal of human behavior, then, is one in which forceful striving, grasping, artificiality, social posturing, and short-sighted manipulation of one's environment have passed away. In the place of these things, there is a relaxed acceptance of our nature and our unity with it. This inspires a view of human action as an elegant expression of natural spontaneity.

Ah, the wrath that awaits us at death--Satsangi Revenge 101!

Here's David Lane's great response to some highly judgmental (and theologically questionable) rants by a Sant Mat follower on a recent blog post.

I say "theologically questionable" because Sant Mat teachings, Radha Soami Satsang Beas variety, at least, say that every disciple/initiate, wayward or not, will return to God within four lifetimes under the guidance of the perfect living guru, a.k.a. "God in human form."

So I'm saved! Doubly saved, since I was baptized Catholic. Doesn't that get me entry to purgatory, at minimum? (I'm vague about the details of Catholic dogma; never got confirmed, thank God.)

David writes on the Yahoo Radha Soami Studies discussion group that he administers:

Recently over on Brian Hines' blog (the church of the churchless):

A poster, who I assume is a satsangi (given the content), is miffed at Brian (and me) for his various critiques of Radhasoami, etc.

What I found both intriguing and amusing was this particular rejoinder by the poster who goes by the name of Cam,

"As far as this blog owner and David lane, at least they will live out the rest of their lives somewhat satisfied because their egos got stroked. But come the day of their deaths they are going to be very unhappy campers (and that is an understatement) as the Masters have also clearly described what awaits those who take vows before God and then not only dishonor them, but mock Him besides (and that is exactly what they both have done - extensively)."

So, in an inverse of Bill Murray's classic take on what the Dalai Lama was going to give him [full consciousness at death] for being his caddy (see Caddyshack), apparently Brian and I will being given the wrath of god treatment since the infinite being just doesn't like bloggers who mock......

And as Bill would say, "I got that going for me.... which is nice."

Of course, Cam's rhetoric reminds me of what one priest once told me when I had doubts about Catholicism.

Different religions, same curses.

With kudos to Hines for publishing Cam's invective.

"Nothing" replaces "God" in modern cosmology

Nothing is a big deal in physics nowadays. As noted in a previous post, scientists have found that even seemingly empty space actually is seething with energetic activity. 

So much so, as cosmologist Lawrence Krauss describes in his new book, "A Universe from Nothing," nothing can reasonably be viewed as the creative principle which brought the universe into being -- a job most religions give to God.

We have discovered that we live in a universe in which empty space -- what formerly could have passed for nothing -- has a new dynamic that dominates the current evolution of the cosmos.

We have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing -- involving the absence of space itself -- and which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction.

In this sense, science, as physicist Steven Weinberg has emphasized, does not make it impossible to believe in God, but rather makes it possible to not believe in God. Without science, everything is a miracle. With science, there remains the possibility that nothing is. Religious belief in this case becomes less and less necessary, and also less and less relevant.

Absolutely true.

I've finished reading Krauss' book. Now I better understand why this statement by Richard Dawkins in his afterword to "A Universe from Nothing" isn't as overblown as it will seem to many.

Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If On the Origin of Species was biology's deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe from Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.

Devastating to religiosity. Devastating to a belief in a creator God. But for me, the message is wonderfully inspiring. 

The Beatles sang, "All you need is love." I'll agree, so long as what is loved is real. Love minus reality is fantasy. Like John Lennon, I'm also a lyricist, albeit a crappy one. As shared before, here's an original song that I like to sing in the shower.

I love my dog.
I love my cat.
Only problem is, 
I don't have a cat.
It's hard to love
What you don't have.

(If the song seems stupid when you just read the lyrics, believe me, it sounds way stupider when I sing it off key.)

I used to love God. Now I realize that I never did. I loved my idea of God, my fantasy of God. The real universe, nature, is so much more lovable that any imagined divinity. As Krauss says, "We need to live our experience as it is and with our eyes open. The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not."

Speaking of "is"...

The mystery of is-ness remains even after science has discovered how a quantum vacuum of nothingness could produce not only all the stuff that exists within the vastness of space, but even space itself. So when Dawkins speaks of science coming to grips with the Big Question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?", this doesn't mean that science knows why existence itself exists.

Nor does religion. The existence of is-ness, of anything at all, is a primal mystery which almost certainly will remain an enigma to the human mind.

Why? My theory is that the question itself is meaningless from a cosmic perspective. We humans are used to everything having a cause, so we extrapolate from everyday experience to the cosmos as a whole.

Thus religions are created, to explain a creation that doesn't need explaining. The cosmos is. End of story. God doesn't add anything to the tale, because unless God also is viewed as a simple "is" (always has been, always will be), there's a need to ask what created God.

Science and religion both end up staring at the unfathomable blank wall of the mystery, is. However, most religions unnecessarily multiply the mystery with an imagined unseen God who is believed to have existed prior to the creation of the cosmos.

As Krauss describes in his book, modern science has learned enough about how "nothing" behaves to know that it's entirely possible for entire universes to emerge from nothing. 

Sure, this isn't the "nothing" of religion. But nothing is that "nothing." Meaning, no religion starts with absolute nothing with lacks the capacity for "something." The Christian God supposedly created the universe out of nothing, but this isn't true. Isn't God considered to be something?

So cosmology indeed is rendering God increasingly irrelevant. Once there is the bare something of "nothing" (basically, the laws of quantum mechanics, to my understanding), universes bubble up into being without any other creative force.

As to the mystery of is-ness, let it be (another wise bit of advice from the Beatles). Krauss says:

The response to why there is something rather than nothing becomes almost trite: there is something simply because if there were nothing, we wouldn't find ourselves living there!

Does religious familiarity breed contempt?

I'm amused when other people try to understand why I did something -- like diassociate myself from the religious organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), that I was an active member of for over thirty years.

Heck, I don't even know why I do stuff much of the time. None of us does. Neuroscience tells us that most of the brain/mind's activity occurs outside of conscious awareness. A desire, thought, inclination, motivation, or whatever pops up and we act on it.

But where it came from or what made it rise into awareness is a mystery. To ourselves. To other people.

Regardless, we humans erroneously believe that the workings of the amazingly complex Homo sapiens consciousness can be reduced to platitudes. 

Today I got an email from someone who described a conversation he had with a senior RSSB "sevadar" (volunteer, basically) after he wondered how a disciple like me, after decades of devotional practice, would leave the guru-centered organization.

The response: "familiarity breeds contempt." Also, that I wanted to publish books outside of RSSB control, and this wasn't permitted. Both assertions lack validity. I may not know everything about myself, but I certainly know more than someone who isn't me.

Regarding the book, Return to the One, about the teachings of a Greek philosopher (Plotinus) that I began writing under the auspices of RSSB, I've previously described how I wasn't willing to compromise truthfulness for the organization's "party line." See here and here.

Other authors who tried to cram Christianity and Buddhism into the Radha Soami Satsang Beas belief box have done this, but I wasn't willing to. After studying Plotinus for several years, I came to have a deep respect for his philosophy. When RSSB wanted me to edit my book in ways I didn't feel were honest, I said "goodbye" and published the book myself.

Successfully (it's gotten good reviews).

What about "familiarity breeds contempt"? I'm not sure what this means. Why would I be contemptuous of something or somebody I know a lot about? Wouldn't I be as likely to feel better about that thing or person after my familiarity is strengthened, as to feel worse?

This is the perspective of a Psychology Today article on the subject.

In relationships, the problem is not with familiarity, but more about that to which we're acclimating. For example, disrespectful, dishonoring, and negative energy all too often become familiar territory in relationships. These are the elements that cause contempt. Perhaps we'd be better off saying mediocrity or unhappiness breed contempt.

I've been married for twenty-two years. All of that familiarity with my wife hasn't brought contempt. It's brought a deeper love. We know each other much better now than when we first met. Our relationship has become stronger, not weaker. My wife and I have grown together, changed together, adapted together.

With a religious organization like Radha Soami Satsang Beas, though, it's natural for someone like me to become disenchanted.

Many people have a superficial relationship with their faith. They go to church, or the equivalent, on the weekend. They pay lip service to vows, commandments, rituals, and the like. So they never really become intimately familiar with their religion. Hence, the relationship remains shallow, a passing acquaintance rather than an intimate getting-to-know-you.

By contrast, I threw myself into meditation, volunteer service, and other devotional aspects of RSSB. Yes, I became deeply familiar with the organization and its teachings. I got to know high-ranking disciples quite well, along with the guru, Gurinder Singh.

It wasn't familiarity, though, that led me to leave RSSB. As noted in the quotation above, if someone has a pleasing and satisfying relationship, familiarity breeds even more pleasure and satisfaction. In my case, the more I learned about Radha Soami Satsang Beas, the more I realized that what I desired -- truth, honesty, friendship, intimacy, caring, growth -- wasn't what RSSB was desirous, or capable, of.

The problem with rigid religions is that they aren't able to change along with their members. By contrast, Taoism, and to some extent, Buddhism, have a "there's no single right way" attitude. A good marriage, ditto.

Give and take; flexibility; compromise; humility; willingness to change -- this is how two people are able to happily get along for decades, or a lifetime. With religions, though, often the hierarchy and dogmas are set in stone.

"It's my way or the highway" says the religion to devotees who find themselves changing in a direction that isn't acceptable to the powers-that-be. Which is weird, when you think about it.

What I mean is, all religions, and particularly those of the Eastern variety like Radha Soami Satsang Beas, are about personal transformation. Yet rigid religions demand that their members change only in certain ways. For example, I spent thirty years meditating several hours a day, investigating subtleties of consciousness.

The result: insights, understandings, realizations.

However, since those weren't what the so-called RSSB "science of the soul" deemed to be valid, I was asked to not express them. So I was faced with a choice between what I had come to know as experientially true for myself, and the dogmas RSSB wanted me to believe in.

I chose truth.

Not just because I'd become intimately familiar with the RSSB organization and teachings; but because that familiarity led me to realize that what RSSB offered wasn't what I wanted. Life is short. None of us should spend our earthly time span living untruthfully, failing to follow what beckons us from the depths of our being.

Cats and organized religion

A lot of truth in this Far Left Side cartoon.

Republicans want laws to be optional. Drink & drive!

Until I read Rich Lowry's column in the Oregonian today, I didn't realize how wacko the religiousy libertarian wing of the Republican Party had become. 

Way wacko. 

Following Lowry's logic about why Catholics with a moral distaste for contraception shouldn't have to comply with health insurance laws that apply to everybody else, apparently anybody with a moral objection to any law should be able to ignore it.

About a month ago, people who thought religious institutions shouldn’t be forced to pay for things they morally oppose were unremarkable, boring even. Now, they are waging a heinous War on Women.

Through the twisted logic of statism run amok, opposition to a new Health and Human Services mandate forcing employers to buy insurance covering contraceptives becomes opposition to access to contraceptives altogether.

...The Catholic bishops are merely fighting to keep institutions affiliated with their church from getting coerced into participating in what they consider a moral wrong.

Morality comes in many forms. Religious believers have a moral code. So do secular nonbelievers. Thus I assume Lowry wants government to stop coercing anyone "into participating in what they consider to be a moral wrong."

OK. Let's see how that'll work out. 

Surely there are lots of alcoholics who love to both drink and drive. They don't feel like they're doing anything wrong. Their moral code says "Have a good time at a bar. Then get in your car. No problem." Why should drunk drivers not be able to do whatever they want, free of government interference, just like he wants to allow Catholics?

Here's a less extreme example: people who have a moral objection to financing unnecessary wars. Or even wars in general. Lowry seemingly wants every citizen who objects to the Department of Defense to subtract from their tax bill the percentage of the federal budget that goes to the military.

After all, nobody should have to participate in what they feel is a moral wrong. And no reasons need be given for a moral stand. Religions don't have demonstrable, factual, reasonable reasons for their "thou shalt's." 

Blind faith and I believe suffice for religions. So why not for everybody else? 

If you think it'd be ridiculously unworkable if people could decide what laws they wanted to comply with (I sure do), then the absurdity of allowing religious organizations to be exempt from the Affordable Care Act's health insurance coverage rules should be apparent.

But if Lowry and the Republicans get their way, I'll be founding my Church of Unlimited Speeding, Alcohol Consumption, and Pacificism.  

Our sacred sacrament will be racing around superfast on the highways, drunk on whatever type of alcoholic beverage members of the congregation prefer, which has been paid for by all the money saved by deducting from our taxes the 20% or so of the federal budget that goes to defense and security.

Universe is sending me a "Fuck. That. Shit." message

I've got no idea who "the Universe" could be. Or if it is a "who." Or if it is, at all. Regardless...

The Universe seems to be trying to communicate an important message to me. 

Fuck. That. Shit. 

It also comes in a different cadence and punctuation.

Fuck that shit!

Today I came across the Mother Ship source of the first link, a cool xkcd comic. Read it. Maybe the Universe is out to give you the same message. 

Here's an excerpt from the comic that I liked a lot:

I don't know how to jolt myself into seeing what each moment could become. But I do know one thing: the solution doesn't involve watering down my every little idea and creative impulse for the sake of someday easing my fit into a mold. 

It doesn't involve tempering my life to fit into someone's expectations. It doesn't involve constantly holding back for fear of shaking things up. This is very important, so I want to say it as clearly as I can:

Fuck. That. Shit.

Got to share some poetic hate-mail insults

I've got to give credit where credit is due: one of my most avid non-fans does come up with some marvelously creative (and alliterative) insulting comments. 

Often these go into a Typepad spam filter, where I just discovered some heretofore unnoticed gems.

Usually I ignore hate mail, but these communications struck me as possessing an admirable "Howl" style (Allen Ginsberg's classic poem) and deserved to be shared with a wider audience.

why you such a two bit second grade hypocritical coward you miserable little runt eyed prat, what you so goddamn chicken about you pitiful little two faced rat? You a typical two faced insincere coward who is too cowardly to face any facts.. Lemme tell you how its gonna cut you cowardly little pitiful prat... reality gonna dawn on you so hard you gonna bust apart and cry big tears like the little chicken arsed two faced unscrupulous insincere back biting coward you are.

about time this pseudo psycho asshole derelict dimwit dumb ass Hines got down from his self made defunct cocoon of ignorant denial driven disillusionment and opened up his defunct derailed brain and let a little bit of open minded light into his dark cavernous debauched brainwashed bullshit baffled bewilderment.

you churchless chump morons think you clever, the entire gamut bang shoot of you churchless anti RSSB champing clowns are decidedly and absolutely stupid... and it shows...

The author of these messages, of course, considers that he/she is not decidedly and absolutely stupid. I'll leave it to the reader to determine where the balance of stupidity falls most heavily.

Science's "nothing" different from religion's "nothing"

You'd think that if secular scientists and religious true believers could agree on anything, it'd be the nature of nothing. After all, isn't nothing, well, nothing?

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Absence. Void. 

But, no, here too science and religion are butting heads. Scientific nothing is quite different from religious nothing.

And while I used to be more on religion's side when I thought about what nothing meant in the Big Question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", now I strongly lean toward the headbutt (or to the faithful, butthead) of science.

Physicist/cosmologist Lawrence Krauss does a great job laying out the debate in his new book, "A Universe from Nothing." Subtitle is the aforementioned Big Question. If you don't want to read his engrossing 191 pages, Krauss talks on You Tube for about an hour on this subject.

(The video has gotten over 1,140,000 views. Good to know that a talking dog and Kate Upton aren't the only ones getting lots of hits on You Tube.)

Here's how Krauss lays out the controversy in the preface to his book.

Before going further, I want to devote a few words to the notion of "nothing" -- a topic that I will return to at some length later. For I have learned that, when discussing this question in public forums, nothing upsets the philosophers and theologians who disagree with me more than the notion that I, as a scientist, do not truly understand "nothing." (I am tempted to retort here that theologians are experts at nothing.)

"Nothing," they insist, is not any of the things I discuss. Nothing is "nonbeing," in some vague and ill-defined sense. This reminds me of my own efforts to define "intelligent design" when I first began debating with creationists, of which, it became clear, there is no clear definition, except to say what it isn't. 

"Intelligent design" is simply a unifying umbrella for opposing evolution. Similarly, some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine "nothing" as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe.

But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely "nothing" is every bit as physical as "something." It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities. And without science, any definition is just words.

A century ago, had one described "nothing" as referring to purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might have received little argument. But the results of the past century have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about how nature works.

Now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as "nothing," but rather as a "quantum vacuum," to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's idealized "nothing." ... And we're told that the escape from the "real" nothing requires divinity, with "nothing" thus defined by fiat to be "that from which only God can create something."

Brilliant and cogent analysis.

Krauss has nailed the Big Question about the Big Question: When we ask, why is there something rather than nothing?, it's important to make clear what the "nothing" is we're contrasting "something" with.

For many years prior to my churchless conversion, a.k.a. enlightenment, I thought of "nothing" in the idealized way Krauss criticizes above. Meaning, my "nothing" was an abstract quasi-philosophical, quasi-theological conception that didn't relate to anything observable or experienceable.

After all, how could it? My "nothing" was the absence of "something." So much so, there wasn't even the potential for any existence in my notion of non-existence. Yet strangely (looking back), my "nothing" had some sort of presence to it. Otherwise, how could I conceive of it?

It was like I was some sort of Godlike being looking upon existence from a transcendent realm, contemplating two cosmic possibilities: one where "nothing" prevailed eternally; another where the "something" we are aware of is existent.

I'd wonder why there's something rather than nothing. It just seemed so mysterious, so awesome, so marvelous, that instead of nothing, there was something, and I'm a part of it! 

My mistake, as Lawrence Krauss points out, was in assuming that nothing and something are both realistic possibilities. Actually, there's no such thing as nothing, in the sense of nonbeing. Material existence is what there is. The opposite of reality isn't nothing, nonbeing, or nonexistence. Such is a theological or philosophical idea, an abstraction, present only in the human brain/imagination.

Religions, particularly of the Western monotheisitic variety, adore the idea of creatio ex nihilo, "creation out of nothing."

But that's all it is: an idea. There's no evidence of the absolute "nothing" so loved by the religionists who take issue with Krauss's scientific view of a quantum nothing that creates universes instead of God. The quantum nothingness of empty space is filled with energy, potential, possibility.

So the everlasting God of religion, which is nowhere to be observed, is replaced by the everlasting quantum nothing which has been proven to exist even in seemingly absolutely empty spacetime.

As Krauss says, religious true believers argue with this scientific godless understanding of the cosmos. "But the quantum vacuum isn't really nothing," they say. "It is governed by the laws of nature." Well, who says that reality has to conform with how God-crazy humans want things to be?

Reality is what it is. Nothing isn't really nothing. Deal with it, religionists.

I'm doing the "work of Our Lord." Surprise to me.

Who knew? Certainly not me. Just got this email from Rev. Shawn Malloy, my "brother in Jesus."

Dear Brother Brian

My brother in Christ I want to say I love the sight [site?] and I pray that your Facebook launch will be success.  You are doing the work of Our Lord so my prayers are with you.

Sincerely,

Your Brother in Christ Jesus

________________________________

Reverend Dr. Shawn M. Malloy DD
Founder and Senior Pastor
Malloy Ministries
http://www.malloyministries.org

Excellent news. If I learn after I die that I'm wrong, and Jesus truly is the Son of God who died for our sins, I can whip out this email at the Pearly Gates and demand admission.

Except...I just looked at Rev. Malloy's Facebook comment and Twitter tweet about this blog. I suspect that my "work of Our Lord" is providing Malloy Ministries with a way to get links to its web site spread around the Internet. 

Is this virtuous enough Lordly work to save my soul (assuming I have one)? Don't know. Am pretty sure the Bible doesn't say anything about cyberspace holiness.

Is Radha Soami Satsang Beas racist?

With permission, I'm sharing an email that I got from an American of Indian heritage who is outraged at how "brown" people are treated when they go to the headquarters of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) in Beas, India.

I've been to Beas twice, also called the Dera.

RSSB is a spiritual organization which talks a lot about oneness, humility, love, and such, but I have to agree with this person: there's a lot of hierarchical inequality in RSSB which can look like racism (and maybe it is). Westerners are treated much differently from Indians, getting special treatment and access to the guru.

Anyway, here's thoughts on this subject from my email correspondent. I've added some explanatory definitions [in brackets] after words that will be unfamiliar to many readers.

Hello Brian, just wanted to say how much I appreciate your blog being up there for people who finally snap out of their haze and realize that RS Satsang is a cult. Took me 30 years to realize that.

I just found out from someone that "White people" in Dera [RSSB headquarters in Punjab, India] are told they are not supposed to talk to Indians in the Dera.

This along with the fact that Indians have to give in all their electronics whereas white people can keep them, and white people have a special Christmas party with Mr. Gurinder Singh [guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas] and Indians are not allowed unless married to a white person. 

Have you heard of any of this?  I'd love to see it addressed on your blog. 

I think people need to know about the ridiculous inconsistencies that happen in Dera.  My favorite part, when you point out an inconsistency, is when someone responds back, "Well it's the sevadars [volunteers], not the Master.  He is unaware of what's going on." What a joke!  He is the HEAD of what's happening!

I myself stopped going to satsang [devotional meetings] about 3 years ago, but my entire family still goes so I still hear a lot about what's going on. 

I was born and raised in America, and I remember visiting Beas for the first time at the age of 13, and finding out upon arrival that our family had to stay in the "Indian Hostel". My first reaction was WHAT THE ##$%??   I was outraged.  

Born, raised and brought up in America...  I was a full blown American and I was going to have to stay in a hostel that had amenities for an Indian lifestyle when I myself was American, but my skin was brown?! And because of the color of my skin I was unable to stay in a place with American lifestyle amenities?  

Wow. That was truly racism at it's finest. I'll never forget that as my first impression of Beas.  

But what did I know, right?  I was just a little kid and I didn't understand the true meaning of the teachings, and Babaji [Gurinder Singh, the guru] was just trying to "accommodate" the foreigners. Hhhrmph!  Well why wasn't he accommodating me?  Didn't I need the same pandering as other people from America?    

30 years later, now of course I see a whole different picture. My question today would be, why on earth are you treating some people one way, and other people another way? Aren't we all supposedly supposed to be equal in the eyes of Sant Mat? What a joke.  

I feel ill when I see old people, blind, hobbling and unable to walk getting yelled at and being told to sit on the ground, when perfectly capable, healthy young people are given cushions and chairs and a seat up front.  Oh but wait!  Babaji is all knowing, so they must just be fulfilling their karmas right? Being punished for a past life? 

And yes, I had heard that a very special private Christmas party gets put on every year for all the Westerners. They laugh, dance, sing and joke with Babaji. It's a "great time" to get up close and personal and see the "master" acting normal.

I also heard that if a brown person is married to a white person then and only then can a brown person gain entry into this party.  Scoff Scoff Scoff Scoff!  I am now married to a white person and can easily gain access to this party, but pigs would have to fly before I ever even consider participating in something as hypocritically ridiculous as this.  

I feel so crass using the words white and brown to describe people, but what can I do? If I have to talk about Sant Mat those are the descriptors I have to use because that is how they set the bar for treating people.  

I see people as people. Humans. Sant Mat classifies them into categories from "VIP's" to "They Don't Matter". White, Brown, Black, money, property, usefulness.  It appears that who you are and how you're classified will decide the fate of how you are treated in the Dera and in the cult.  

I heard that Westerners (translated as "White people", because how could someone of color born and raised in another country be considered a Westerner?) were told not to talk to Indians while at the Dera.

So let me get this straight. Jim Jones and Punjabi Singh both attend satsang every Sunday in America or England or Australia and have fun, laugh and even meet up for lunch... but when they arrive in Dera, Jim Jones is told not to talk to Punjabi Singh because he is Indian and it is "Master's orders"?   Does that make sense in any way shape or form?  

Mr. Gurinder Singh has all the latest toys, wears the best brand names, flies in his own private jet, owns stocks in Religare and made his own sons Billionaires through that. I am not saying it's wrong to want or have those things but don't you think it's just the tiniest bit hypocritical for a supposed Master and messenger of God who PREACHES simplicity and asceticism to not follow those rules himself?

I'm not saying... but Just saying.

Kierkegaard and crazy leaps of faith

Recently I listened to a Philosophy Talk podcast about Soren Kierkegaard, a dour 19th century Danish philosopher. I read some Kierkegaard back in college, many years ago. At that time I was into crazy existentialists, loving how they embraced the meaninglessness of life.

Now, I see Kierkegaard as simply crazy -- without many, if any, redeeming philosophical qualities that balance his insane defense of religious leaps of faith.

The podcast focused on Kierkegaard's take on the Old Testament tale of Abraham and Isaac, as discussed in his book "Fear and Trembling." According to Wikipedia:

Kierkegaard wanted to understand the anxiety that must have been present in Abraham when "God tested [him] and said to him, take Isaac, your only son, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him as a burnt offering on the mountain that I shall show you."

Abraham had a choice to complete the task or to forget it. He resigned himself to the three and a half day journey and to the loss of his son. "He said nothing to Sarah, nothing to Eliezer-who, after all, could understand him, for did not the nature of temptation extract from him a pledge of silence? He split the firewood, he bound Isaac, he lit the fire, he drew the knife.” Because he kept everything to himself in hiddenness he "isolated himself as higher than the universal."

Kierkegaard says, "Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does an individual become conscious of his eternal validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith."

There's some fancy intellectual talk going on there. Here's a more down to earth way of looking at the situation.

Abraham hears a voice in his head that tells him to kill his son as a burnt offering. He doesn't tell anybody about this. He ties up his son, lights a fire, pulls out a knife, and prepares to kill his child. What the hell is virtuous, moral, or praiseworthy about these actions? 

If any normal person came along and saw a father about to kill his son in this fashion (or any fashion), they'd do whatever they could to stop him.

However, because God supposedly put the idea in Abraham's head, countless Christians -- including Kierkegaard -- believe that Abraham's leap of faith, accepting that killing his son is the right thing to do in spite of all the reasons that it isn't, somehow is the essence of religious life.

That, plainly put, is fucking crazy.

A leap of faith is what allowed Charles Manson to convince his followers to commit multiple murders. A leap of faith is what allowed over 900 People's Temple followers of Jim Jones to kill themselves by ingesting cyanide.

Leaps of faith are dangerous. They can kill you. Or others.

That's an extreme consequence of blind faith, religious or otherwise. Lesser, yet still serious, consequences include being taken advantage of, surrendering autonomy, and enabling manipulative authority figures to screw you over.

I used to belong to an Indian religious organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, which loved the story of a guru who ordered his disciples to do something stupid without giving any reason for his dictate: build mud platforms; then tear them down and make some more.

That is why Christ said, If ye love me, keep my commandments.

This is the first step. Ultimately, we give body, mind, soul and everything. Such a man has got no will of his own, but the Will of the Master is his will. Just see where you actually stand. If you give everything, what remains is God. W-o-r-l-d spells world. If you take out this I-hood from within you, you are God. If you take out 'l' from the word World, only Word remains. 

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.

This little I-hood, this ego, stands in our way to God. When you completely surrender yourself to the God-in-man (to the God-in-man, not the body, although we have respect for the body of course), then your 'L' or I-hood is eliminated.

There is a story of Guru Ram Das, who was the fourth Guru of the Sikhs. The Masters always test their disciples to see how far they are fit. So his Master (Guru Amar Das), gave an order to raise certain platforms made from mud. All of the disciples started building the platforms as ordered. 

When they were ready, the Master inspected them and said, 

"These are no good, this is not right, you will have to make new platforms."

Again the disciples constructed the platforms. Two, three, four, five times they did this. Then the Master said, 

"This place is no good. There is a better place over there to build them."

Well, bye and bye, all of the disciples left off building the platforms except Guru Ram Das. The other disciples began to say that the Master has grown old and is losing His faculties. 

Guru Ram Das with tears in his eyes said, 

"The Master is all wisdom, All-Consciousness. If I am ordered to build these platforms and break them all through life, my lookout is only to obey His orders."

He had complete self-surrender.

You follow me? This means complete self surrender. Now, step by step, judge for yourself where you stand. If you want to meet God, then you must have self surrender. 

No, if you want to be a slave of a crazy man/woman, then you must do everything you're commanded to do. Charles Manson and Jim Jones would have loved to have a hundred, or a thousand, Guru Ram Dass's. 

This is how charismatic crackpots attract their devotees. This is how religious authorities manage to maintain control over millions, even billions, of sheeplike true believers. People are manipulated to believe that unquestioning obedience, even when told to do something obviously wrong, is the path to salvation, God, eternal life.

Killing your son is wrong, even if a voice in your head says "This is God. Do it!" Try convincing a judge and jury you're innocent of murder by using that defense. Good luck, unless you've demonstrably insane.

Which, you likely are, if you think that whatever God, the Pope, a Guru, or some other religious authority tells you to do must be done, no matter what.

Birth control is sinful? That's religious craziness.

A week after I wrote "Contraception should be covered by religious organizations," I'm still amazed that providing birth control benefits to women via a health insurance plan is controversial in the second decade of the twenty-first century.

This isn't the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church doesn't run the western world. Few people, and certainly not the United States Constitution, believe the Pope is infallible when he makes moral pronouncements. 

So why should the Obama administration, or anyone else, take seriously the freak-out of religious fundamentalists over its decision to require faith-based organizations which employ members of the general public to cover a standard set of preventive services, including contraception, in their health insurance plans?

This already is required by 28 states. Lots of Catholic institutions already pay for birth control. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women have used birth control, while only 2% use the ineffective rhythm method. 

Contraceptive use by Catholics and Evangelicals—including those who attend religious services most frequently—is the norm, according to a new Guttmacher report. This finding confirms that policies making contraceptives more affordable and easier to use reflect the needs and desires of the vast majority of U.S. women and their partners, regardless of their religious beliefs.

“In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible,” says Rachel K. Jones, the report’s lead author. “Most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant practice contraception, and most use highly effective methods like sterilization, the pill, or the IUD. This is true for Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants, and it is true for Catholics, despite the Catholic hierarchy’s strenuous opposition to contraception.”

It's an absurd controversy. The only reason it's being taken at all seriously is because a bunch of crazies have grouped together under a religious banner, which supposedly makes their craziness more credible.

Actually, it doesn't.

Being out of touch with reality is crazy whether one person or a million are doing it. There's nothing wrong with using birth control. In fact, there's a lot right with contraception. The Institute of Medicine has recommended that it be included among the preventive services available to women in the Affordable Care Act without deductibles or co-payments. 

I don't know anyone who thinks using birth control is wrong. I bet even most religious people don't know anyone who thinks contraception is sinful. But the Pope does. As do the (male) leaders of the Catholic church.

Who cares? I sure don't.

People believe all kinds of weird things. Some religious crazies don't believe in blood transfusions. Others don't believe in using any sort of medical care. If I'm employed by an organization that serves the general public and gets government support, why should I be controlled by religious craziness that I don't believe in?

Gail Collins gets it right in her New York Times opinion piece.

This new rule on contraceptive coverage is part of the health care reform law, which was designed to finally turn the United States into a country where everyone has basic health coverage. In a sane world, the government would be running the whole health care plan, the employers would be off the hook entirely and we would not be having this fight at all. But members of Congress — including many of the very same people who are howling and rending their garments over the bishops’ plight — deemed the current patchwork system untouchable.

The churches themselves don’t have to provide contraceptive coverage. Neither do organizations that are closely tied to a religion’s doctrinal mission. We are talking about places like hospitals and universities that rely heavily on government money and hire people from outside the faith.

We are arguing about whether women who do not agree with the church position, or who are often not even Catholic, should be denied health care coverage that everyone else gets because their employer has a religious objection to it. If so, what happens if an employer belongs to a religion that forbids certain types of blood transfusions? Or disapproves of any medical intervention to interfere with the working of God on the human body?

Organized religion thrives in this country, so the system we’ve worked out seems to be serving it pretty well. Religions don’t get to force their particular dogma on the larger public. The government, in return, protects the right of every religion to make its case heard.

Bill Maher says "atheism is not a religion." Yes!

On last Friday's Real Time With Bill Maher, the "New Rules" segment got it exactly right. Atheism is not a religion. It's the absence of religion. 

As noted in this post, if atheism is a religion, albino is a suntan. For another thoughtful perspective, check out Skeptico's "Atheism is not a religion."

You can watch the whole New Rules segment (six minutes long) here. Atheism bit is at the end. Thanks to HBO, I'll share a transcript of Maher's take on religion and atheism below. 

And finally, New Rule: Until someone claims to see Christopher Hitchens' face in a tree stump, idiots must stop claiming that atheism is a religion.

There's one little difference. Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a super-human, controlling power. And atheism is…precisely not that.

Got it? Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.

Now…believe it or not, I don't really enjoy talking about religion all the time. In fact, not only is atheism not a religion, it's not even my hobby. And that's the best thing about being an atheist. It requires so little of your time.

But, there is a growing trend in this country that needs to be called out. And that is to label any evidence-based belief a religion. Many conservatives now say that belief in manmade climate change is a religion, and Darwinism is a religion. And of course, atheism, the total lack of religion, is somehow a religion, too, according to the always reliable "Encyclopedia Moronica."

Now, it's a dodge, of course, straight out of the grand intellectual tradition of "I know you are, but what am I?" It's a way of saying, "Hey, we all believe in some sort of faith-based malarkey, so let's call it a push."

No. No, no, no, no. no. It's not fair that people who can't defend their own nonsense get to create a fake, fair-and-balanced argument, the way they do in asserting that evolution and creationism are equally valid.

I'm not saying that atheists are perfect thinkers. Everyone has blind spots. I'm sure there are atheists who think ponytails look good on a man. And pineapple belongs on a pizza. And Ayn Rand was an important thinker. But, when it comes to religion, we're not two sides of the same coin. And you don't get to put your un-reason up on the same shelf with my reason.

Your stuff has to go over there on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken. With the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens. That's not atheism.

I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think two things. First, how dare he interrupt Madonna; she is going to be pissed!

And two, oh, look at that, I was wrong; there he is. My bad. Praise the Lord.

But, that's not going to happen. And, short of that, if you still insist atheism is a religion, then it's only fair that we get to do all the loony stuff that you get to do.

And I'm going to start tonight by un-baptizing Mitt Romney's dead father-in-law. [slide shown of Edward Davies] Yes, in case you didn't hear, it was discovered last week that Edward Davies, Ann Romney's father, an enthusiastically anti-religious scientist who called organized faith "hogwash," was posthumously baptized in the Mormon tradition, 14 months after he died. They tried to do it sooner, but he wouldn't stop spinning in his grave.

So, here then, is history's first un-baptism ceremony right now. [he produces framed photo of Edward Davies] [he puts on wizard’s hat and produces a wand and candle] For the late Edward Davies.

[Lights go out, church music heard] Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today in the presence of math, gravity, evolution and electricity…to honor Brother Edward, and to send the powers of SEAL Team 666 to rescue him from Planet Kolob so that he may spend eternity with the kind of free-thinkers he chose to hang out with on earth.

So, by the power granted to me by the Blair Witch. Schlemiel, Schlimazel, e pluribus mumbo-jumbo! Expecto-Petronum, Sussudio, Yo Mama…I call upon the Mormon spirits to leave your body the f**k alone!

Brother Edward, in this world, you had to put up with Mitt Romney. You've suffered enough! 

No need for a creating God in Buddhism

In my previous post I talked about how a book called Buddhism published by a Sikh'ish, Hindu'ish Indian organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas, distorts Buddhist reality. 

So far I've only read one chapter in the book, "A Perspective on Buddhist Views on Soul and God." Here's a PDF file of the scanned chapter pages, complete with my often skeptical highlighting (yellow question marks in the margins).
Download Buddhist Views on Soul and God chapter 

I hope other people more knowledgeable about Buddhism than I will read the chapter and leave comments about this question: Does the author, K.N. Upadhyaya, correctly describe mainstream Buddhist teachings about "soul" and "God"?

I see no sign in his book that he submitted his manuscript to Buddhist scholars, or even practicing Buddhists, for review and comment, so this strengthens my suspicion that Upadhyaya allowed his personal religious views to sway his analysis of Buddhism.

So does my reading of the "In Search of the Great Watchmaker" chapter in an interesting book, The Quantum and the Lotus, by Matthieu Ricard and Trinh Xuan Thuan. Ricard is a Buddhist monk and the French translator for the Dalai Lama. He's also scientifically trained, as is Thuan. 

The subtitle of their book is "A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet." In the above-mentioned chapter, Ricard and Thuan discuss whether there's any need to posit a religious creating God, a secular organizing principle, or a philosophical first cause in order to explain the universe.

Rather surprisingly, Ricard, a practicing Buddhist, turns out to be more ungodly than Thuan, an astronomy professor. Ricard says that Buddhism sees no need for the sort of Hindu "Brahman" that Upadhyaya feels is part of the Buddha's teachings.

As far as Buddhism is concerned, the idea that there is some principle of organization that is supposed to have tuned the universe perfectly so that the conscious mind could evolve is fundamentally misguided.

...The universe has not been adjusted by a great watchmaker so that consciousness can exist.

...Why shouldn't a chain of causes be infinite in time and complexity? What law of nature does that contradict? How many causes must we have before saying, "That's enough. I can't keep going back in time ad infinitum, so let's adopt a causeless creator"?

...To sum up the Buddhist alternative way of thinking, which requires no principle of organization, in the Buddhist world of appearances, each instant is a perpetual end and beginning because of the basic impermanence of the phenomena produced by the laws of cause and effect. 

In terms of absolute truth, all past, present, and future events are identical in that they have no intrinsic existence. Thus they have no real end or beginning. 

If nothing is really "produced," there is no need to look for an end. And so it isn't necessary to search for a principle of organization that is supposed to have made everything and have been made only by itself.

So Matthieu Ricard, a monk who has studied and practiced Buddhism for over forty years and is close to the Dalai Lama, disagrees with the contention of Radha Soami Satsang Beas and K.N. Upadhyaya that the Brahman/God worshipped by Hindus also is part of Buddhist teachings. Even more, Ricard says that Buddhism sees no need for any ultimate organizing principle, even secular/scientific.

Such is in line with the "What Buddhists Believe" web site, which contains descriptions of core Buddhist tenets, including The Origin of the World and The God-Idea.

The third school of thought says that the beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. Buddhism is in accordance with this third school of thought. Bertrand Russell supports this school of thought by saying, 'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'

...If man is created by an external source, then he must belong to that source and not to himself. According to Buddhism, man is responsible for everything he does. Thus Buddhists have no reason to believe that man came into existence in the human form through any external sources. They believe that man is here today because of his own action. He is neither punished nor rewarded by anyone but himself according to his own good and bad action. In the process of evolution, the human being came into existence. However, there are no Buddha-words to support the belief that the world was created by anybody. The scientific discovery of gradual development of the world-system conforms with the Buddha's Teachings.

In another post I'll show that the RSSB "Buddhism" book also is wrong about how soul is regarded in Buddhist teachings. 

RSSB "Buddhism" book distorts Buddhist reality

This morning I got angry while reading a chapter in "Buddhism," a book published by Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) which purports to show "the essential unity of the teachings of the Buddha and other spiritual teachings of the time."

Anger isn't very Buddhist, I suppose. But it felt justified. 

I'm a big fan of Buddhism, the non-religious variety, at least. Ever since my college days I've devoured writings about Buddhism, particularly Zen.

So since I was an active member of RSSB for about thirty-five years prior to my churchless un-conversion, I was curious to learn how an author (K.N. Upadhyaya) would attempt to relate Buddhist teachings to RSSB's belief in an eternal immutable soul whose highest destiny is to merge with God.

After all, my impresssion has been that (1) Buddhists don't believe in an unchanging soul, nor (2) do Buddhist's believe in a transcendent personal divinity called "God."

The book arrived a few days ago after someone told me about it in a blog post comment. Today I decided to start reading it by jumping into what seemed to be a crucial chapter: "A Perspective on Buddhist Views on Soul and God."

In another post I'll write more about Upadhyaya's surprising take on Buddhism. (At least, it surprised, and angered, me.) Here I'll just share a few short excerpts concerning how Buddhism supposedly is right in line with traditional Hindu notions about soul and God.

This principle of microcosmic representation of the macroscopic consciousness and the concept of the presence of the Tathagata as held in Buddhism are essentially not different from what is called soul -- or atma -- in standard non-Buddhist Indian tradition.

...In the Pali Canon itself, an accomplished disciple of the Buddha named Kassapa affirms the existence of the jiva or soul, which can be understood as the immortal essence of a sentient being.

...Buddhist texts speak of the supreme state as Brahman...The Buddha himself is described as one who has obtained Brahman.

...Even though Buddhism is rigorous in not personalizing ultimate reality, it is equally pragmatic in its presentation of the Buddha, personalized and infinitely compassionate, as one with ultimate reality. 

...We might also suggest here that in their earnest quest for truth, the need for seekers to find a wise and compassionate Buddha to guide them on the right path is emphasized again and again.

As I suspected when I ordered "Buddhism," Radha Soami Satsang Beas has published another deceptive pseudo-scholarly fake comparative religion book, in line with the equally deceptive "The Gospel of Jesus." 

I'm fine with books which accurately describe a religion or philosophy, and then attempt to show how its tenets relate to some other belief system. But it deeply irks me when an author distorts a religion or philosophy in order to cram it into the confines of his/her favored world view, like RSSB's Sant Mat.

After reading only one chapter, I can tell that this is what K.N. Upadhyaya is up to with his "Buddhism" book. It was difficult for me to recognize the Buddhism that I've come to know (and sort of love) in his discussion of how Buddhists look upon soul and God.

Over and over, Upadhyaya cited the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, Hindu holy books, in his effort to show that the Buddha's teachings basically are the same as Hinduism's central tenets of atman (soul) and Brahman (God).

Well, if the Buddha was so up with Hinduism, why did he head off in a different spiritual direction? I'm no expert on Buddhist lore, but I've always thought that the Buddha was critical of Hindu dogmatism and urged his followers to leave all of that supernatural theorizing behind.

That's the impression I get from a Wikipedia article on Buddhism and Hinduism.

The focus of the Noble Eightfold Path is not so much about worshipping god, achieving heaven in the next life (perhaps for a number of lay devotees but not for bhikkhu / bhikkhuni), nor is it about experiencing Brahma consciousness in this life or the next.

The reason is that in all these realms, beings are subject to rebirth after some period of time. It is like going around in circles in the round of rebirth despite all the effort and striving. Therefore, the purpose of the holy life in the Buddha’s path is about liberation from the cycle of rebirth and experience awakening in this very life (some might take longer, depending on the person).

At any rate, in my next post about this book I'll try to include a PDF file of the chapter I read today. Hopefully some other people who know a lot more about Buddhism than I do can take a look at it and comment on how accurately they consider RSSB's take on Buddhism to be.

My main point, for now, is that RSSB shouldn't distort the reality of other religions and philosophical systems.

One of the most duplicitous aspects of Radha Soami Satsang Beas is how it isn't content with simply promulgating it's own teachings, but tries to demonstrate that the RSSB version of Sant Mat is the universal common ground of every religion, form of spirituality, and mystical practice.

In other words, RSSB isn't content with being one religon among many, but does its best to proclaim itself as #1 over all.

So even after reading just a single chapter in "Buddhism," I can confidently predict that K.N. Upadhyaya will argue that the current RSSB guru should be looked upon as a modern day Buddha, just as John Davidson argued in "The Gospel of Jesus" that the guru also is a modern day Jesus.

Jesus Christ! Buddha! (hard to make the latter into a swear word, but I'm trying)

Let it go, RSSB. Isn't it enough to claim that Gurinder Singh and his predecessor gurus are "God in Human Form"? Why can't you let Christianity have Jesus, and Buddhism have Buddha, as their own?

But no, you've got to try to show that Jesus and Buddha actually were gurus/masters just like the RSSB line of "saints," and that Christianity and Buddhism are the same as Sant Mat once minor details -- namely, facts -- are set aside.

Absurd. Irritating. And anger-producing. 

Contraception should be covered by religious organizations

Bizarre. Mystifying. Irrational. That's what religion is.

And that's also how I look upon the freak-out that erupted after the Obama administration required religious organizations (colleges, hospitals, etc.) which serve the general public to cover contraception, just like others who offer health insurance are required to do.

Note: contraception. Not abortion. Birth control pills, condoms, IUD's. The Institute of Medicine recommended that birth control be fully covered under health plans. 

But, you know, the Institute of Medicine used facts, evidence, research, and common sense in reaching that conclusion, which weirds out faith-based folks. Preventing unwanted pregnancies saves lives, reduces abortions, and enables women to space out births, among other benefits (some medical conditions also are treated with birth control pills).

Yet a Catholic archbishop looks upon birth control this way: 

During his lecture, Archbishop Dolan criticized people who postponed conception with “chemicals and latex,” calling them part of the “culture of death.”

Archbishop Dolan, you need to get out of the Dark Ages. Step into the light. And bring your 100% male Catholic leadership along with you. I have zero sympathy for religious crazies who fuss about being required to comply with laws that everyone else has to follow.

Well, make that almost zero.

Conscientious objectors to war, like Quakers, being able to perform some other service than fighting -- that makes sense to me. I'm also OK with doctors who are morally opposed to abortion not being required to perform that procedure.

But a religious institution offering birth control to employees and students of many different faiths who are covered by a health insurance plan is completely different. Nobody is being forced to use contraceptives who doesn't want to. Birth control simply is available at little or no cost to those who want to avail themselves of it.

A "religious conscience exemption" argument usually is a load of crap. Religious believers shouldn't be able to avoid laws just because they have a strongly held personal belief. Hey! We all have strongly held personal beliefs.

I haven't had a single bite of meat or fish since I became a vegetarian in 1970, forty-one years ago. I strongly believe in both the morality of not killing animals for food, and in the health benefits of vegetarianism.

But if a bunch of other vegetarians and me started a college which espoused our dietary beliefs, yet enrolled meat-eaters also, would it be fair if we required that anyone who got a student loan from the federal government couldn't buy a hamburger -- or any other animal flesh -- while they were associated with our college?

Most people would think that'd be ridiculous. But it's no more ridiculous than a Catholic hospital saying "We shouldn't have to provide our employees with birth control coverage under their health insurance plan."

Kevin Drum gets it right: "If You Take Taxpayer Money, You Have to Follow Taxpayer Rules."

I guess I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools), hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars — and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy. Contra Dionne, it's precisely religious pluralism that makes this impractical.

There are simply too many religions with too many religious beliefs to make this a reasonable approach. If we'd been talking about, say, an Islamic hospital insisting that its employees bind themselves to sharia law, I imagine the "religious community" in the United States would be a wee bit more understanding if the Obama administration refused to condone the practice.

Dying people talk about their family, not God

I liked this post, "My Faith: What people talk about before they die," even though it's on CNN's belief blog. It shows that what's important to people isn't dogma, but life as it's lived with loved ones.

We don't live our lives in our heads, in theology and theories.  We live our lives in our families:  the families we are born into, the families we create, the families we make through the people we choose as friends.

This is where we create our lives, this is where we find meaning, this is where our purpose becomes clear.

Family is where we first experience love and where we first give it.  It's probably the first place we've been hurt by someone we love, and hopefully the place we learn that love can overcome even the most painful rejection.

This crucible of love is where we start to ask those big spiritual questions, and ultimately where they end.

Have a read.

If a magic pill makes me happy, is my happiness real?

Does happiness need to be deserved to be genuine? Here's one person, virtuous, moral, ethical. She's kind and generous. Volunteers at her kid's school. Helps out at the homeless shelter. Prays, meditates, goes to church.

All this do-gooding and God-praising makes her happy.

We know, because she scores high on reputable psychological tests that measure happiness. And when she's put in a brain scanner and asked to think about her good works, her left prefrontal cortex "lights up," which is an indicator of a positive mental state.

Here's another person, a gangster. He's sociopathic, vicious, mean, law-breaking. After stealing some high-tech stuff from a warehouse, he learns that another shady-dealer is willing to pay him $4 million for the stolen goods.

All this criminality makes him happy. Not just after a successful heist, almost all of the time. He's a happy guy. Breaking the law is what he loves to do. Also, breaking bones when he feels like it. We know, for the same reasons noted above: psychological tests and brain scanning.

So are both manifestations of happiness equally real, equally genuine? Is there any reason to say that the virtuous woman is happier than the malevolent man?

Tough questions.

Which are ably addressed by philosopher Owen Flanagan in his book, "The Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism Naturalized," which I've blogged about here, here, and here. His focus, obviously, is on Buddhism when he investigates the supposed relationship between virtue and happiness. But the issue is universal.

And complicated. There are lots of subtleties to consider. I enjoyed the thoughtful care with which Flanagan arrives at what turns out to be a non-conclusion. Here's an excerpt from his final chapter.

I still do not see, despite trying to see for many years, why understanding the impermanence of everything including myself [a core Buddhist tenet] makes a life of maximal compassion more rational than a life of hedonism. And isn't that the problem that we keep coming back to, the problem or question that doesn't go away?

...My own way of dealing with this problem is to be and live as a platonic hedonist, to try to maximize pleasures at the places where what is true and beautiful and good intersect. The comfort associated with living in this space, insofar as there is any, comes from thinking that no answer is the right answer to the question of how one ought to live. Thinking this is compatible with thinking that there is much worthwhile in the wisdom of the ages, including Buddhism.

Perhaps all we can expect of philosophical reflection, especially among those of us who live in multicultural, cosmopolitian communities, is that different ways of being and living, different experiments in conceiving of good lives and of trying to embody the wisdom contained in these different ways, keep many options alive, and allow maximal freedom in finding ways to be well and to live well, and perhaps, if we are lucky, to be happy.

...For that purpose, for going forward, Buddhism has something to offer. Is it the answer? Of course not. Nothing is the answer. This is something Buddhism teaches.

Flanagan talks about "the normative exclusion clause" when discussing the relationship between virtue (however it's conceived) and happiness. I hadn't come across that term before, but I've lived it, as has virtually everybody who has embraced an organized religion, spirituality, or mystical practice at one time or another.

Do X, Y, and Z, and you'll be happy. That's the promise. But the problem is that other people do A, B, and C, or D, E, and F, and they also are happy. So what's going on?

If I believe in a guru and embrace every virtue that he advises, while someone else believes in Jesus and embraces every virtue that he advises, and we both end up happy, what's can be concluded? That happiness, a good life, human flourishing (eudaimonia), can be found in many different ways, or that some forms of happiness are The Real Deal and others are worthless fakes?

I lean toward "whatever works." The normative exclusion clause seems judgmental, rigid, moralistic, Protestant ethic'y and holier-than-thou to me. Here's how Flanagan describes it.

...that only happiness caused by virtue counts as wholesome, virtuous -- the kind we are interested in. Defending the normative exclusion clause requires argument. Here are some bases on which one might mount a plausible defense.

First, we might think that there are reasons to say that happiness is only deserved if the happy person participates in producing that state, which she does not do if it is simply produced by a magic pill. Or, in the false-belief case, we might say that an epistemic norm, our commitment to truth, excludes cases where happiness is won by delusion.

Well, I'm fine with getting happiness from a magic pill. Like I said, whatever works. If you've got a happiness-producing magic pill, share it with me. With this caveat, which applies to my worry about religion: 

Side effects should be minimal. I'm not interested in a magic pill which makes me happy, but other people miserable. Nor do I want to take a magic pill which makes me happy at first, but sad later -- when the negative side effects kick in.

Hey, if people feel good by believing in weird notions, go for it, dudes and dudettes. More power to you. LIfe is tough. Whatever gets you through the days and nights, embrace it. Even religion. Marx called it the "opium of the people." 

Problem is, opium can have some serious side effects. A little is OK. A lot can kill you. 

Likewise, there's nothing wrong with getting happiness however, wherever, and whenever you can enjoy some. Forget that "normative exclusion clause." Happiness is just as real with and without someone's notion of virtue.

Just watch out for those side effects. In the case of religion, these include sanctimoniousness, controlling behavior, judgmentalism, excessive self-absorption, violence, and a host of others.