DT Strain Philosophy

Welcome to DT Strain Philosophy (2004-2008)

2010-12-31T14:35:00.000-08:00

This site is no longer updated, but remains as an archive of my essays. My current site is called, The Humanist Contemplative and you are welcome to visit it!

To the right you will see this site's contents. While this site features my general philosophy, there is a sister-site to this one, on which I kept a blog from 2004-2008.

The "Noble Conspectus" is a name I've given for a series of essays in which I've tried to capsulize a lot of my ideas about living wisely into an easy-read and shorter format.

"Natural-Objective Ethics" is a little more in-depth and covers why I believe ethics is secular, man-made, and yet objective at the same time. It was written earlier.

"General Essays" include a wide variety of writings on various topics. Most of them are my most recent work. Often if something I have to say on an issue is too long for a blog post, it ends up becoming an essay. As time goes by, I may begin to categorize them.

"Principles of Socio-Personal Humanism" is a body of work in which I attempted to lay out my complete views on the topics presented. While this is a collection of essays, their order and interdependence on one another was carefully planned. This body of work can sometimes be the most tedious of my writings, but should be interesting for those interested in these ideas. Mainly, my goal with the PoS-PH was to get my precise views written out, with less concern for how easy of a read it would be or for presentation.

Additionally, PoS-PH was penned some time ago when I was just out of college and some of it seems juvenile to me now, so I have had to resist the urge to make changes. Not to say that I disagree with it now, but my approach was more direct and crude, as is often the case with young adults. My focus was also more on "debunking" than it is today. Nevertheless, I've decided to keep it as a mark of where I've been.

I have tried to find ways of writing my ideas that make for easier reading and are aimed more at what things bring us together as human beings than what divide us. The Noble Conspectus is a reflection of this effort but, although there is much there I value, it still did not quite get completely at what I am trying to do with my ideas.

In further works, my hope was to to bring together elements of eastern and western philosophy, as well as modern scientific concepts into a cohesive work that is secularly rational and emotionally spiritual; presented in an interesting and easy format. Ironically, presenting things in an elegant and simple format is far more difficult than thinking of the philosophic concepts themselves.

Now I solely focus on my new site, The Humanist Contemplative.

Thanks for reading :)

Sincerely,
DT Strain

Are We All Faithful?

2008-09-09T07:02:00.001-07:00

I'd like to use this post to respond to a comment I received from a theist regarding something I wrote. This comment refers to a general line of argument I have heard several times before, and it deserves addressing. It has to do with faith and we might call it the "everyone does it" argument (maybe there is a more technical name for this already). In any case, here is the form it recently took:

"I have yet to find anyone, religious or atheist, who doesn't operate on faith. Both are highly dogmatic, as evidenced by the strength of your value judgments, which can only come from a priori, non-empirical stance. We ALL operate on the basis that some things are true, yet without adequate proofs."

Before I can address this it is important to draw out and make plain all of the implications of the above statement. By saying that we "ALL" operate on the basis of some things without adequate proofs, the author is implying that empiricists are in the very same boat with all others. The author also implies there is no difference in the reasonableness and no distinction among varieties of belief or the sources from which they spring because ultimately, we all rely on faith. These are important implications and need to be put into words.

The author is correct in the last sentence of what he says. However, if we think closely about this, we can see that this is not a statement belonging to the faith-based side of the argument. This is a statement of empiricism. It is the empirical approach, which makes the profound realization that we "ALL operate on the basis of some things without adequate proofs". This is why the empirical approach is to say that we never know anything for certain, and must continually question and test our assumptions through a continuous pursuit of new evidence.

The faith-based position, on the other hand, says the opposite. When a believer says, "I believe in God", they are not claiming to "operate on the basis" of God existing "without adequate proof". To claim this is for the theist to put on empiricist clothes and seek to look like one of them for the sake of persuasion. In reality, the faithful mean something very different when they state their belief in God.

Rather, what the theist is saying is that "God is real" - he does in fact exist; not merely that they will "act as though God exists" for some pragmatic purpose. But it goes further than this. The theist claims to have knowledge of God's existence. This use of the word 'knowledge' is also very different than the empiricist's use of the word, for it is absolute. There is no such non-provision "knowledge" in the empiricist's lexicon. This faith-based 'knowledge' might come through some revelation or communion, through biblical teachings or experiences of events. All of these are very different than empirical methodology and miss the mark.

1) Revelation or communion:
This is a claim that knowledge (justified & true belief) can come to us through something other than our five senses. No such phenomenon has ever been shown to be true. Certainly empiricism is contrary to this belief.

2) Biblical teachings or events:
This is where someone claims to have 'figured out' that God exists by reading 'His word', or by observing something in nature, or by experiencing some unlikely event. Yet, if we are to examine the logic behind all of these claims, we find they violate core principles of empiricism.

So, it is the theist who believes that, contrary to "operating on the basis" of some things being true, he or she can "know" things with certainty, and without any (proved) causal connection between the object and the alleged knowledge in his or her head. This is why the faithful are not keen on their claims being tested and why they refer to changes in scientific theories over time as though it were a weakness rather than a strength. Arguments for faith and theism will commonly try to "wear empiricist clothes" but these are very different approaches to knowledge and one should be careful not to confuse them.

Yet, what if we look at empiricism itself, on its own merits? Doesn't empiricism rely on unproved axioms at some level?

At the base level of all knowledge, we ultimately can't know anything for certain, other than the fact that we, ourselves only, exist in some form or another. I might be a brain in a jar, or I might be some cosmic goo that's living a life of fantastic delusion. But at least I know there is something that is thinking about it because I'm the one doing the thinking. This was the essence of René Descartes' famous argument, "...I think, therefore I am".

No faith yet.

From there, we have to start making some assumptions. For one, we have to assume that what we can sense about ourselves and our surroundings are in some way connected to a reality of some type. It is true this is an assumption. However, how could we do anything unless we at least assume this?

Still, even this most fundamental of assumptions, for the empiricist, is but a pragmatic conceit. It is "operating on the basis of". And still, the true believer's claim that God exists exceeds even this foundational assumption in its certainty. Anything less would mean doubt, and men have been killed for less.

After this unavoidable 'foundational pragmatic assumption', we then get into matters of induction vs. deduction. Deduction is where we begin with known premises and end with a conclusion that follows from them. This form of logic is the most sound and, provided there is no faith within the premises, very few would argue faith is involved in these conclusions. That is, unless one wants to say that a computer or a robot can have 'faith'.

Induction is where things get trickier. With Inductive reasoning, we often move from the specific to the general, or from past experience to future prediction. For example, because the sun came up yesterday and all days previous, we will assume it will come up tomorrow. Because we have not been poisoned by carrots before, we will assume we can eat carrots in the future. Because all dogs we've seen have naturally had four legs, we will say that dogs, in general, have four legs. This is shakier than deduction because it is easy to go wrong. For example, if we had never seen a tree over 12 foot tall, we might induce that no trees are taller than 12 feet.

Yet, unfortunately, one will find that almost all thinking requires some form of induction. Even the strictest of deductive logic relies on some premises which result from induction, and even the belief that deductive logic is sound and will remain sound for all phenomena and all time is an act of induction.

In some of the very foundations of science, we inductively reason that physical laws apply universally, that they are internally consistent, that we can decipher them with logic and reason, and that knowing them gives us predictive power in computing future events. The very practice of science would not be possible without these inductions. This, no doubt, is to what the author of the comment above was referring.

The question we should examine is this: is induction equal to faith?

In other writings I have noted that 'faith' is used in many ways in our language, and it is important to delineate between them. I draw a distinction between 'faith' and 'confidence'. Often when we say, "I have faith in my friends" what we really mean is, "I have confidence in my friends". To test that out, imagine saying, "I have faith in that random stranger". We might let our friend hold our wallet but not the stranger. The difference here is that we have past experiences which give us a pattern by which we can make future predictions. Certainly the predictions are not infallible, since people and things can sometimes behave much differently than a past pattern suggests, and we cannot directly observe the future - but they would seem to be more reliable than taking random actions.

So, confidence is "belief because of the evidence." Meanwhile, the faith that people like myself criticize is "belief lacking evidence or possibly even despite the evidence" - a very big difference.

What induction is not is the reaching of a conclusion because of no evidence. Induction is also not the reaching of a conclusion based on things for which we have no reason to suspect are connected to our conclusion. This would completely rule out #1 above (revelation or communion). What's left would be #2, Biblical teachings or events.

Here we might be in the realm of induction. However, there is a range of quality and good sense between instances of induction. Not all induction is of the same quality (remember the good and bad examples mentioned above). Not only are faith and induction distinct, but the comment also implies that one induction is as good as the next. This is plainly not true.

It is at this point that we get into the basics of good skepticism. Carl Sagan said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and that seems to be sensible advice. If I notice that after many times I leave my trash can in the street, a neighbor moves it onto my lawn, then I can reasonably suspect that it would happen again. Here we have a rather ordinary claim, and it requires only ordinary evidence. However, if I notice that many times I bet on the horse races and wore green socks, that I won, it would not be reasonable to induce that green socks were causally linked to my winning. That is because such a claim would be extraordinary, and the simple correlation between the green socks and winning at a bet would not be of an extraordinary level to justify such a claim.

The claim that an invisible all-powerful personified entity created the universe and plays a role in it is so extraordinary, that a reasonable person would need some sort of absolutely extraordinary evidence before deducing or inducing such a thing. And, even if such a thing were done, the layer upon layer of further extraordinary claims leading to the specifics of Christianity or any particular religion would each be even more extraordinary than the last because of their increasing specificity. Even if this could count as some form of induction, it is clear that it is of far less reasonable nature than the inductions normally employed by scientific empiricists.

In the end, however, it is doubtful faith-based notions even qualify as any form of sound logic or reasoning. At their heart, they are superstition and ideology from a previous irrational era in human history, and ultimately incompatible with even the basic foundations of modern human rationality. But that won't stop the faithful from trying (earnestly and honestly in most cases) to find some way of equating that irrationality with modern thought. By imagining there is some comparison, it makes it easier not to look squarely at the fact that they have been trapped by a medieval (at best) perversion of reason that preys on our weaknesses and imperfections as thinking beings. In this way, people convince themselves there is some compatibility between what they want to believe, and what they know makes rational sense - it is a coping mechanism.

The employment of this coping mechanism stems from a more fundamental belief that life is somehow meaningless without god/s or the supernatural, or that not believing in such is somehow immoral. Both of these misconceptions are deeply ingrained in our culture and history. Until someone understands the true (and secular) basis of ethics, and until they really understand that a meaningful and happy life is possible without supernatural beliefs, they will continue to harbor that strong desire to believe such things, and a deep fear of disbelieving them. Those desires and fears will continue to trump their good sense - the same good sense they are perfectly capable of applying in all of the other mundane situations in their life. Thus, they will concoct all manner of rationalizations and self deceptions to maintain unfounded beliefs. One of those rationalizations, which I have discussed here, is the attempt to equate empirical reasoning with superstitious faith.

Natural-Objective Ethics

2008-02-07T19:18:00.000-08:00

Natural-Objective Ethics
DT Strain, April 2005

INTRODUCTION

This essay will outline a model of ethics that is both objective and naturalistic. This model, as far as I am aware, is my own although inspiration and influence from other authors and philosophers is a certainty.

Before proceeding, it is necessary to give an overview of several definitions. It is not important for the reader to agree with me on these definitions, but merely that he or she understand what they are so that my meaning is plain when using them. Even I may not agree with these definitions in all cases, but they suit my purposes for communicating these concepts.

First, by “ethics” I am referring to the rules of behavior that can be said to be moral or “right” as opposed to “wrong”. They include standards of what is evil and what is good. Whether or not I am referring to a cultural norm or a universal standard will beg the question of this essay. But it is my intention to show that ethics can be viewed as a universal, at least insofar as Homo Sapiens is concerned.

“Naturalistic” refers to the fact that this model is based solely on matters of our material world, as opposed to making use of supernatural or paranormal entities or phenomena. However, it is important to point out that this does not specifically deny the existence of such. Instead, it is more like a set of instructions for building an airplane - something that would apply regardless of the existence or nonexistence of the immaterial. Therefore, what follows should be useful and applicable to the religious and non-religious alike, simply because we all share the same material world.

By “objective” ethics, I mean ethics independent of human culture, human norms, or even human understanding. They are as they are, regardless of opinion, conditions, or preference. At the same time, they are central to human beings and of paramount importance to them. The subjective cultural norms regarding ethics, that change over time, I will generally refer to as “morals” to distinguish them from ethics, which I will argue are objective. From the objective perspective then, all morals of societies are either correct or incorrect - correct if they match objective ethics and incorrect if they do not.

CURRENT MODELS

Absolutism

This model claims that ethics must ultimately be rooted in an authority, usually supernatural and all-knowing. However, there are other variants of this model, where the authority may be a state, a philosophic/religious institution or official, a mystical impersonal force, or some other authority. The central attribute of these models I mean to single out here is the alleged necessity of an absolute authority on matters of ethics.

Proponents to authoritarianism say that, without an absolute authority on ethical matters, society would fall apart, or at least that unethical behavior would run rampant. With each individual able to decide for him/herself what is “right” there would be chaos.

Furthermore, proponents argue that human limitations do not allow us to know for certain what is and what is not ethical on our own. This limitation is the reason why the authority in such models is usually a supernatural entity, with the alleged ability to either know these principles or actually define them by choice.

The strengths of this model are that it can provide a very stable basis for an orderly society. It also gives great comfort to individuals who may be questioning what is truly ethical in a dilemma. Being able to simply refer to the proper documentation saves the individual the hassle or the emotional stress of deliberating over the various arguments for or against various ethics. More importantly for proponents, it prevents a slippery slope whereby individuals, pretending to engage in honest moral deliberation, slowly “rationalize away” any and all behaviors out of subconscious (or conscious) desire.

Unfortunately, the model also has some serious drawbacks. First, there is no way to ever verify that unseen authorities actually exist. Even for those that do, there is no reliable way to tell the difference between authorities that really know what is ethical and those that are simply adamant about their opinion. For those that do not share proponent’s particular beliefs about the existence or nature of the authority, it is impossible for them to genuinely accept the ethical dictates. In today’s multicultural world, it is highly unlikely that consensus would ever be reached on improvable assertions. When ethical norms are tied to them it becomes even more destructive to society when those beliefs begin to diversify. Even if a society remained small and/or monolithic, authoritarianism would still have additional failings. These include a tendency to encourage dogmatism, intolerance, vilification, and cruel treatment toward dissenters. In addition, authoritarianism often hinders social, scientific, and even ethical progress because it refuses to re-examine itself in the light of new information and changing conditions. All of these shortcomings can, in many cases, actually destroy what authoritarianism is designed to provide: an ethical society with happy individuals.

Relativism

This model lies at the opposite end of the spectrum. It maintains that, since an absolute ethical authority may not exist, or at least their dictates may not be agreed upon, then all ethics is actually subjective. This means that ethics are simply social norms that have developed differently in different places and times, due to the circumstances a culture finds itself in. So, any one culture’s ethics are no better or worse in an absolute sense. Each society has the ethics that seem right to it; there is no “superior” or universal ethic – no objective “right” or “wrong”.

This model has gone a long way in increasing tolerance between cultures. It has also allowed social scientists to analyze diverse cultures objectively, with a lower incidence of their own cultural attitudes getting in the way of true understanding. Cultural relativism avoids most of the pitfalls of authoritarianism, in that adherents are not likely to engage in religious wars or stand in the way of many scientific advancements that would otherwise morally offend.

But relativism too has its downside. It tends to lead individuals to think that nearly any ethic can be violated if a rationalization can be imagined. That, since there is no “real” right or wrong, that all ethics are merely a matter of compromise (or domination). This leaves the relativist completely impotent to argue for or against any ethic on a rational basis.

Ironically, one will find subjectivists debating just as vehemently in favor of many ethics and in opposition to other practices of cultures (their own and others). This would seem to be hypocrisy. In fact, even the relativist position itself displays an inherent paradox. How can one say it is wrong to judge the norms of other cultures, or that it is wrong to consider one superior to the other, if the very concept of “wrong” is subjective? While subjectivists steer clear of the use of such words as “wrong”, “right”, “good”, and “evil”, their messages of advocacy for and against various actions of society maintain the same content and are expressed with the same demeanor and conviction as someone who believes in good and evil. There is no shortage of alleged ethical subjectivists in protest marches, op-ed articles, and voting booths. So, what are they basing their arguments on, “because I said so”?

Lastly, relativism isn’t practical or useful in furthering ethical progress or understanding. If all is mere opinion, then nothing rational or meaningful can be claimed about ethics and we are left with only the options of emotional appeal or brute violence when conflicts arise – ironically the very thing relativism is designed to alleviate.

Commonality

The overwhelming method of dealing with these issues which appears to be emerging, is a sort of hodgepodge merger of authoritarianism and relativism. What I call, “commonality” is the approach which looks at the shared ethics existing throughout several prominent cultures across the globe. These commonly shared ethics provide a sort of multicultural consensus on which many base a sense of the universal in ethics (and religion for that matter).

Commonality takes on at least two forms. One of these leans more toward authoritarianism and the other towards relativism. In authoritarian-commonality, the shared ethics which exist across many cultures are seen as an indication of their objectivity or universal nature. Global religious union movements and new age philosophies have often taken this slant. With relativistic-commonality however, the shared ethics are seen merely as an indication that there is broad agreement, and such can be used to attempt harmony and understanding. By doing so, relativists can make moral arguments on the grounds that “everyone agrees that...”

But in authoritarian-commonality, how many cultures must hold an ethic before it can be considered universal? To what level of importance must they hold it? Does the reason they support an ethical principle matter?

In relativistic-commonality, what happens when most or all of the world agrees on something, but it happens to be misguided? How could one ever determine if the majority of cultures were ever misguided if one’s definition of ethics itself is hinged on the majority?

In the case of specifics particular to the conditions of a region commonality is less helpful. Commonality will give us very general ethics, such as not killing or stealing, but aren’t more specific ethical principles and guidelines important? Shouldn’t these specific ethics be dependant on the specific conditions facing all of these different cultures?

There are many difficult issues that arise with commonality but they are not insurmountable in specific situations. Still, one is left with a situation where argument for or against an ethical principle is based either on bandwagon logic or on other matters not yet well defined. Many of these other matters pertain directly to Natural-Objective Ethics.

THE NATURAL-OBJECTIVE MODEL

Ethics as a Science

In one sense, ethics are already studied as a science. The social sciences include not only ethics, but all human social behaviors across many cultures. Sociologists may study differences in cultural norms and how they evolve over time under varying conditions. More recent studies involve complex systems theory and the evolution of how and why our moral ideals came into being. However, this is not what I refer to when I use the phrase “ethics as a science”.

Instead, what I mean is that the field of ethical inquiry, development, and even advocacy itself can be a science. Rather than “the study of ethics” I am referring to “the pursuit of ethics”. This is the process whereby ethics are evaluated and arguments are formed for or against different morals, behaviors, and choices in a scientific manner. The difference would be akin to the difference between the anthropologist who studies and records the dental hygiene habits of different peoples, and the biologist who, after studying the effects of brushing teeth, recommends that we ought to do so.

I do not mean to suggest that other fields of science can tell us what is ethical. For example, some biologists point out the anatomical or evolutionary reasons behind our various behaviors, including unethical ones. This explanation is not an excuse to label such instincts as “right” or “wrong”. Biology and other sciences tell us only what is, and why it is, not what it ought to be. So, in a manner of speaking, it is true that current branches of science cannot tell us what is right and wrong.

But that is simply because the branches of science that currently exist are not designed to study what is right and what is wrong; they are meant to study biology, physics, astronomy, and so on. Nevertheless, there is nothing about the scientific method that would keep it from addressing the matter, and everything to make it very adept at it.

By saying that ethical inquiry can be conducted in a “scientific manner” what I mean is that we can do so via the same process by which all other science is conducted. This involves forming hypotheses, gathering empirical data, making predictions, and testing those predictions and hypotheses against further data which strengthens or weakens current theories. The issues to be addressed include what objective standards should be used in evaluating the morality of behaviors and what empirical data is relevant to that evaluation.

The Function of Ethics

The process of ethical deliberation is one whereby the merits of various ethical principles and options are measured up. The first step in measuring anything is to strictly define what is being measured and how it is to be measured. In looking at ethics, we must begin by considering the function of ethics. To do so we must look existentially at the Homo Sapiens.

From the “outside looking in” we see that, regardless of their circumstances, human societies tend to form moral norms and principles over time. These principles may be vastly diverse and often at odds with one another. But what is consistent is that the species appears to have the innate tendency to form commonly accepted standards of behavior within its population group. It then enforces these behaviors through social pressures and, in more severe violations, through direct punishment.

So then we must ask, why? Why is it that Homo Sapiens will tend to do this?

• The survival power of cooperative behavior between humans cannot be denied. Many morals of a society tend to focus on the reciprocal process of behaviors that govern how the individuals are to interact with one another for their mutual benefit.

• Of the various morals, some are more strongly enforced than others. Often, the most strongly enforced morals are those which center around matters of mating, reproduction, birth, death, and other parts of the life cycle. These norms are often shrouded in religious ritual – a sign of their primal importance.

• Although many moral customs involve only the individual, those with a primarily secular basis will tend to be largely social in nature. Therefore, strictly non-social morals can often be seen as an anomaly due to misunderstood or improvable beliefs that a population has about its environmental circumstances.

In this essay, I refer to “morals” as a society’s model of what it thinks is “ethical”. Ethics, then, I use to refer to what really is ethical, not just for that society, but the universal ethical system for all Homo Sapiens.

When looking at these tendencies, it appears that the primary function of forming social behavioral standards (i.e. morals) is primarily one of enhancing survival and prosperity for the species. This would likely be the conclusion of any objective being looking at humanity from the outside.

The Measure of an Ethic

It is important to point out that although naturalistic objective ethics are not reliant on cultural understanding, they do not exist without human beings, or independent of them. Here is where the apparent oxymoron must be explained thoroughly.

When humans develop moral standards, they are not simply making choices of preference, but they are endeavoring to do something (whether always conscious of it or not). They are endeavoring to determine a set of behaviors for interacting with one another, which will most affect their survival and prosperity in their current environment.

The environments that human population groups find themselves in are objective. They face definite conditions of food, climate, terrain, reproduction, hostilities, and so on. Homo Sapiens as a species is an objective entity with definite physical and mental needs, abilities, and inclinations. This being the case, various moral models will and do have an objective affect on the survivability and prosperity of a population and a species.

With environmental, physical, and mental abilities objective and finite, it stands to reason that there would be one set of behaviors that would most efficiently achieve the maximum survivability and prosperity for a species. This would be “ethical” by definition, and “morals” would be those social norms which attempt to match and encourage what is believed to be ethical.

Take the following hypothetical if you will. If we were a minor god or sorts with only two powers, we might be able to see the effect of various moral norms first hand. Suppose that we had the ability to arbitrarily and immediately set the moral norms in a society. This would not mean that everyone would always obey them, but simply that our rules would be considered by everyone to be the socially accepted behavior, and it would not change over time, unless we ourselves magically changed it. For our second godly power, imagine that we are able to travel forwards and backwards through time at will. Now we set the ethical norms in a particular manner, according to what we think best, then we travel 1000 years in the future to see how things have come along.

Since omniscience and omnipotence are not within our power, we would probably discover that there are some things that had occurred historically over the past 1000 years which we didn’t care for or anticipate. Perhaps they have a wonderful respect for the ecology now but a terrible problem with poverty. So then we decide to go back 1000 years and make some adjustments to the ethical norms.

No matter how many times we do this, we would probably never get everything perfect, since we cannot know what effects even the smallest of changes would have 1000 years down the line. Nevertheless, each time we made a change in the ethical rules, this would have an objective effect on the society, for better or worse. While we would not have our utopia, we would have one set of ethics that we had tried, and gotten the best results. Maybe if we tried a hundred more times we might even find a better set than that.

What this fantasy points out is that our ethics have objective effects on the ability of human beings to thrive and survive and this, as we have established, is the functional purpose of ethics for Homo sapiens, whether we are aware that this is its purpose or not. It therefore stands to reason that, at least in principle, there are one set of behaviors that yields the greatest likelihood of prosperity for this particular species, with all other factors being equal - hence objective ethics.

Another good analogy might be the design of an airplane wing for one particular plane. There may be all manner of shapes and angles used, and they may be tested in wind tunnels and computer simulations. But, even if we do not ever discover it exactly, there should be one particular shape that will yield the greatest efficiency. More importantly, there are objective qualities that make one wing design superior or inferior to another. Although airplanes are a human invention, and nowhere may such a wing actually exist physically, there is an “answer to the equation” that is objectively true, regardless of our understanding of it. We may build wings that achieve 98-99% of that potential without ever realizing that we need to make one small adjustment to perfect it, but those facts would remain nonetheless. Like all sciences, the entire endeavor of aerodynamics is predicated on the assumption of objective qualitative measure. Can you imagine development of wing design in an environment where all shapes are considered equal and merely different, and where preference for one over the other were considered merely human subjective bias? One can see here how ethics is objective and independent of cultural understanding, while at the same time a product of the human condition and meaningless apart from Homo Sapiens.

With understanding of the purpose of ethics, measurement and evaluation of various ethical models can take place in a scientific manner by looking at the efficacy of those models on that purpose. In this manner, ethical models are theories, which are supported or undermined by the continuous collection and analysis of evidence. They attempt to make predictions (such as, “this will lower crime” or “this will increase happiness”) and they are evaluated on the social evidence generated. Based on these standards, one can have an objective basis for arguing something as ethical or unethical. This is no less subjective or precarious an endeavor than the field of meteorology, cosmology, sociology, or the cognitive sciences (or for that matter - even experimental physics).

Environmental Variability

Of course, if a moral system were especially specific to deal with local or transient issues, it’s utility would be limited to those conditions it was born out of. Often, subjectivists point to the variability of moral systems with respect to environment and culture as evidence that universal ethics are unlikely and an impractical concept. They use local variability to support claims of subjectivism.

But this variability shows nothing of the sort. The very same people, when explaining local variability in moral norms will explain that x might be ethical in one culture, but unethical in another. When asked why they will point out the biological, historic, and environmental reasons behind the development of those morals.

But even in the act of explaining why x is believed good in one place/time and believed bad in another, we speak from an overall point of view - an umbrella set of principles that tells us why x is moral here and not moral there. When these arguments are analyzed, they invariably come down to matters of survival and prosperity for that group. This means that, it is through universal principles of ethics that we assess the need and purpose for variation between cultures, individuals, places, and times.

Yet another analogy may explain the concept. When we look at the tread of a tire, we see that all manner of designs, shapes, depths, and angles is possible. Yet, we can measure the effectiveness of different treads by their performance according to their purpose (in this case traction).

In some cases racing slicks may be the more efficient, whereas in other cases a deep tread may be the proper design, depending on the surface. Nevertheless, one would not say that the design of tire treads is subjective - simply a matter of taste. Even though there are different treads appropriate to different conditions, there is one overall set of principles on which we measure treads, and by which we measure when variation is proper. In this analogy, that set of principles would be such things as distance over time, revolutions, wear & tear, and so on.

In the very same manner, local variability of moral norms does not suggest subjectivity. Like the tire tread, different models may be appropriate to different conditions, times, and places. Nevertheless, we can plainly see what the purpose of moral norms are among Homo Sapiens (i.e. behavioral norms moderating social interaction for the purpose of enhancing survival & prosperity, enforced through social pressures). Given that, ethics can be evaluated by how well they accomplish that purpose - by their effects or best estimations of future effects. Therefore, this provides one overall set of standards by which moral norms can be measured. These standards amount to universal, naturalistic, objective ethics.

The Nature of Objective Principles

What I am saying here is that where ethics are concerned, there is an “answer to the equation” that is finite, objective, and true. There is one set of overall behavioral principles, malleable to local variation, that would yield the greatest benefit to Homo Sapiens.

Some immediately imagine some sort of “ethicocracy” or oppressive cultural regime imposing strict robotic behavioral controls to the “one true” ethical system. But in order to truly accomplish long term survival and prosperity for humanity, the needs and desires of humanity would have to be taken into account. These principles could not treat humans as robots or subjects. Nothing that truly benefits humanity could ever be dehumanizing. Instead, such principles would have to embody concepts of rights, compassion, individualism, and other human values & inclinations.

Another aspect of universal ethical principles would be that they be complex enough to address variability with different environmental and cultural conditions. In other words, they would not be a simplistic set of commandments, but rather, a set of priorities providing a framework and basis for moral deliberation.

Ethical Knowledge

The central thesis of Natural-Objective Ethics is that there is a true and objective ethical model for Homo Sapiens that is independent of culture or the level of human understanding on the matter. However, it is critical to point out that the thesis only claims that such a model exists, and on what basis it exists. My thesis is not to make claims as to what the exact content of that ethical model is.

The objectivity of ethics means that it is a legitimate pursuit of science – that matters of “right” and “wrong” can be investigated on a scientific basis. However, this also implies that, while ideal ethical principles are objective, our knowledge of them is subjective and tentative, as is the case with any field of science. Therefore, any theory concerning whether one ethic is superior or inferior to another, or whether something is unethical, must be exposed to the same scrutiny and evaluation based on the evidence as any other scientific postulate.

The Propagation & Progress of Moral Norms

How then are we to proceed if knowledge of ideal objective ethics is subjective? Does this bring us back to relying on authority or subjectivity? Not at all. It is precisely because the field of ethics is objective, that we can pursue knowledge of it scientifically.

As stated, we know what the purpose and function of ethical norms are for Homo Sapiens. We can therefore measure the functionality of ethical principles by their impact on that purpose. This means we must look at psychology, human needs, and social/historic evidence.

Through sociological and historic analysis, we can build theories about the effects of different ethical concepts in a society. We can then test the predictive power of these theories as events unfold and new data is collected. Since the purpose of ethical norms is to allow greater ability of Homo Sapiens to cooperate for mutual survival and prosperity, those social value systems that have the most beneficial effect in this regard are, by definition, “more ethical”. Those morals and behaviors having a negative affect on survival and prosperity can be considered “less ethical” or “unethical”.

Who then is to be considered the “moral authority”? In essence, everyone and no one. As is the case in the scientific community, consensus tends to build over time, with the clearer data resulting in more unity of opinion than the more ambiguous data. In the marketplace of ideas, society works out its moral norms as individuals and groups argue their side and present their evidence and rationale. The most immediately important ethics tend to emerge with greater consensus than the more complex issues.

In this sense, moral norms develop much like a language. Although we have books telling us how it’s done, and we have teachers who present the way it should be done, it is a constantly evolving system. Critics of secular ethics tend to paint them as though they supported individuals simply doing as they please, or “if it feels good, do it”. But in language no one can simply “make up” how to speak completely on their own, lest they be unable to communicate. Instead, the norms change with the collective trends in the population. At the same time, there are solid arguments to make about how a language should be structured or how something should be communicated for best effect. These arguments are based on their effectiveness in communication. More often, the norms simply change because human beings will gravitate to what works best, and ethics works much the same. It is dependent on human preference and needs, but it does not allow unbridled individual action apart from the norm. Those babbling in their own homebrewed tongue would see their language not fulfilling its function (communication). By the same token, those making up their own rights and wrongs will see their morals not fulfilling their function (mutually beneficial relations with others). In both cases, social pressures react to enforce blatant disregard for norms.

Significance of the Distinction

So, if moral norms evolve through consensus over time, and our knowledge of ethics is subjective, one might ask what difference it makes that ethics are actually objective. The purpose of the distinction is extremely important in my view. When we make arguments for or against different behaviors and values in an ethical context, we must have some sort of basis on which to make those arguments. If not, then ethical deliberation simply becomes, at best, a matter of who can persuade whom through emotional manipulation and subterfuge. At worst, it breaks down to a matter of physical violence and domination.

However, if we acknowledge that there truly is a better and a worse way to conduct ourselves (regardless of our knowledge of that way), then we have a framework within which we can present hard evidence supporting various ethical claims. We can take up moral positions in support of or in opposition to certain behaviors and policies, but be open to changing those positions based on new evidence.

Some may attempt to argue against this course of action, but I am not suggesting a new course, so much as I am merely describing what is already the usual manner in which ethical arguments are made by absolutists and relativists alike.

CONCLUSION

Fears & Objections

Some objections to what I call the Natural-Objective Ethical model has been that it rings of imperialism, eugenics, and even Nazism of all things. In other words, complaints concern what is thought to be a sort of “survival of the fittest” among humans in the model.

But there are important aspects of Natural-Objective Ethics than need to be emphasized again in response to this. When we say that the purpose of ethics is “survival and prosperity” we cannot ignore or leave out the part that says that ethics’ purpose is to provide a means of cooperation, through which human beings can enhance their survival and prosperity. This is not meant as a judgment of what ethics should be, but merely a detached observation as to why the concept of ethics seems to exist in humans.

Because ethics deals specifically with our treatment of one another, ethics is inherently social in nature. This means that all human beings, because of their capacity to reason, make agreements, and modify their behavior, are capable in participating in that web of interactions. Because this tendency exists throughout our species, it is Homo Sapiens as a whole to which ethics must apply. So, if one population of humans has an ethos that makes it aggressive to other humans, this might enhance survivability for local islands of humanity, but when looking at what is ethical, it is only applicable to look at how the species as a whole is affected by this population’s aggressiveness. When one sees a species expending exorbitant resources and time on killing others of its kind, or on protecting itself from others of its kind, it is difficult to argue such things are beneficial to that species’ survival and prosperity. The same applies whether we are talking about nation-to-nation hostility or hostility among individuals within a society.

While one may argue that infighting improves the overall caliber of the species because the “weakest are killed off” this seems to be misapplied Darwinism. In the case of human populations and their political activities, destruction comes at such a quick pace that evolutionary genetic improvements do not have time to manifest (even without nuclear technology). More importantly, in a modern society, the distinction of those who perish and those who live is rarely connected to genetic “fitness”. If any genetic evolution happens to allow humans to thrive better in a politically hostile world, it would be adaptation to environmental hardships of our own making, which need not occur in the first place.

Another fear of Natural-Objective Ethics is that it rings similar in sound to religious demagoguery and intolerant authoritarianism. However, this is only so when the reader glosses over the specifics and only pays attention to some of the vague concepts being discussed. There are very important distinctions, primary among them the concept that has already been mentioned: that claiming that ethics are objective, and claiming to know what those ethics are, are two entirely different things.

I have already explained the importance of recognizing that ethics are objective. But it is equally important that we recognize that we are all limited in our ability to know for certain what the best ethical model is, especially when it comes to highly complex issues. The best we can do is make social measure of the effects of current behaviors and policies, use that data to make estimates of the future effects of various behaviors, and then reason out the most likely ethical position based on that. Then we can present our ideas to those around us, perhaps even going further to take more broad cultural or political action to support those things we think best. All the while, we must be tolerant of the varying opinions of other well-meaning people, and be open to the possibility of being wrong. But it is precisely the realization of ethics’ objectivity that will give us the framework within which to form arguments during such deliberations.

Reactions

I find it strange that many react to these concepts as though I were proposing something new, different, or radical. In fact, all of the above is not a plea for us to handle ethics differently. Rather, it is a description of how ethics is and always has been handled by human beings. We have always formed moral norms since we had the mental capacity to do so. With or without knowing it, we have always tended to support those norms we perceived best aided in our survival. Lastly, regardless of religious or political accoutrement, those norms have always changed over time due to general consensus and pressures from environmental factors. Over time, given the empirical evidence of historic experience, societies have improved in many areas of morality while declining in others, with an overall upward climb globally, which is obvious to any impartial assessment not burdened with ignorance of history, apocalyptic superstition, or pessimistic fantasy. But in the end, all of these ethical models either uplifted or damaged their creators to an objective degree.

When pressed for reasons why on positions and policies they dislike, even ethical subjectivists will tend toward arguments coming down one way or another to matters of survival and prosperity for the whole. Pragmatic clergy and pastors will begin sermons with religious notes about why x is wrong, and then go on to use real-world examples illustrating how x harms our survival or prosperity, and then wrap up with more extraneous religious references and a song. One will find that it is impossible to seriously argue for or against anything of ethical relevance without referring back in some way to the core purpose for which all ethics ultimately exists.

Even amidst claims of authoritarianism, imperialism, and intolerance concerning Natural-Objective Ethics, when asked why those things are bad or undesirable, the accuser will invariably end up pointing out how authoritarianism, imperialism, and intolerance are ultimately harmful to the survival and prosperity of humanity (while trying their best to avoid using these words per se). Thus their circular logical loop is completed.

END

If you would like to read further discussion on Natural-Objective Ethics, please see my blog entry titled "More on Natural-Objective Ethics" which you can read by clicking HERE.

The 20 Synthophic Precepts

2008-01-20T12:24:00.000-08:00

by DT Strain, 2006

Over the past few years, I have been studying Stoicism, Buddhism, and areas where they overlap or contradict. I have been amazed at some of the similarities between them, and intrigued at innovative ways to think about how, if, and where they conflict. Like many others, I have also come across amazing overlap with modern concepts of complexity and chaos, and with my own Humanist philosophy.

This document is an attempt to reconcile some of the more profound realizations contained in these streams of thought, as well as some others (such as Taoism, Emerson, and even Christianity). This practice of a global reconciled view I call Synthophy - particularly when reconciled in this manner, as opposed to the infinite ways one might seek to reconcile different streams of thought. The word Synthophy is meant to represent a 'synthesis' of philosophic ideas, practiced as a 'philosophy' in its own right. Therefore 'Synthophy' is an amalgamation of 'synthesis' as in "to blend together" and 'sophy' as in "wisdom" - or, the wisdom of bringing together good ideas. 'Synthophic' would be that which pertains to Synthophy (as philosophic is to philosophy).

In this synthophic process, I have attempted to maintain a naturalistic view and an empirical approach. At the same time, I have attempted to integrate notions of compassion, virtue or character ethics, and a more subtle and enlightened overall understanding of nature and life. I have used poetic language reminiscent of folk wisdom in places, but it has been very carefully worded so as to be unexpectedly precise.

Structurally, I have attempted to formulate a series of premises, starting from the ground up, with each building on the previous and leading to the next. Hopefully, each precept will not merely serve as a premise emphasizing the final precept, but rather be a centrally significant lesson in its own right - with a vast array of material from several philosophies, waiting to be explored to understand more deeply. In this way, the 20 Synthophic Precepts can also serve as a program outline.

As always, the following is provisional and open to further tuning in the future. For best effect, it is useful to review the notes at the end of this document.

The 20 Synthophic Precepts

1) The goal of all beings is True Happiness.
All beings, like ourselves, wish to survive, thrive, flourish, and enjoy contentment.

2) True Happiness cannot come from transitory material pleasures.
It is a mistake to confuse pleasure with True Happiness. Changes in our material conditions such as wealth, power, fame, or hedonistic pleasure fluctuate over time. Therefore ordinary lesser happiness which depends on those circumstances is also transitory. While escape from all forms of suffering may be impossible, ‘True Happiness’ means a deep, long-lasting happiness and contentment in life which is not highly susceptible to changes in our material conditions.

3) To determine the path to True Happiness we must first understand Nature.
If we are seeking to understand what things will lead to True Happiness in this world, we must understand some basic truths about how this world (Nature) operates. This requires a broader understanding of the natural universe, including knowledge of ourselves.

4) Reason, science, and a discriminating healthy skepticism are the best tools we have for understanding Nature.
As with any human endeavor, science and its practice are imperfect and limited. Science is also lacking in moral direction; its fruits useful for both positive and negative purposes. But given human limitation, science affords us the best method of reaching understanding about the physical nature of our universe.

5) Nature consists of intricate complex systems of interdependent causal relationships, balanced between order and chaos. These patterns operate by rational means which permeate and unite the entire universe.
The many diverse branches of science have in common certain observations about order and organization, as expressed in Chaos and Complex-Systems Theory. The revealing dynamic described in these theories outline an understanding of Nature which informs subjects as diverse as biology, psychology, economics, politics, computer science, artificial intelligence, and even ethics.

6) Nature produces all of what we call order, chaos, life, death, and the system of activity we call our mind.
This structure, order, dynamic, and operation (or “Way”) of Nature is found throughout all aspects of life and the world around us. Even our own minds are part of this rational order.

7) Better understanding the greater truths concerning the ebb and flow of these patterns in Nature is the key to True Happiness.
While understanding of Nature is not equivalent to True Happiness or sufficient for it, such an understanding is a necessary foundation to any sensible exploration of the path to True Happiness. This includes subtle understanding of human beings interacting with one another and the universe.

8) Knowing ourselves is not merely understanding our personality, inclinations, desires, talents, and weaknesses. It is knowing how we fit into Nature and how it fits into us.
This includes mindfulness of our thoughts, feelings, and inner nature. But in addition to this, we must learn to see ourselves as an integrated part of Nature, not apart from it. By understanding this relationship, we are better suited to determine the path to True Happiness in life.

9) We as persons are aggregates and our sense of a solid, unified, unchanging, self is an illusion. The distinction between ourselves and the rest of Nature is not absolute.
In this natural universe, we know at least that our bodies, brains, and the activity of those brains are result from a temporary congregation of particles in a certain pattern. Nature makes no distinction between which particles make up ‘us’ and which make up our surroundings. These frequently interchange and our conception, more than Nature, superimposes notions of an isolated self. There is no sharp line between ‘us’ and other beings, no line between society and individual, and no sharp line between ourselves and Nature.

10) As integrated beings within Nature, we act as though in a dance. As such, to achieve True Happiness, we must appreciate what we control and what we do not control so that we ‘dance well’.
With no sharp distinction between ourselves and Nature, it is helpful to understand that we do not control as much as we might think or hope. Conversely, there may also be many things about ourselves that we do indeed control, which we are not currently appreciating. Understanding and being mindful of which things we control and which we do not is essential to wisdom.

11) We can never have full control of other beings, events that happen to and around us, or even the consequences of our choices and efforts. What we can control is our mind and our choices.
The only thing over which we really have control are our judgments, opinions, responses, and desires. Control over external things such as our friends, family, possessions, money, reputation, and even our health, is an illusion.

12) There is a purpose to assigning things as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ such that we work to promote the former and eradicate the latter. Therefore things outside our control should not be thought of as good or evil, but simply considered neutral. Only one’s own decisions and efforts should be considered good or evil; all else is not ultimately within our control and therefore something over which not to be obsessed.
A wise person’s contentment comes from within his own thoughts and actions. True Happiness should be attached to these things which we control. We should detach our happiness from externals of which we do not have control. This doesn’t mean that we can’t consider things outside our control as generally positive or negative. It also doesn’t mean that we don’t work in the world to promote positive behavior in others and discourage negative behavior in others – these things involve elements that are often within our control. But if we do not detach our True Happiness from those things which are not, we will live a life of continual hunger and disappointment. In this way, our focus determines our reality.

13) ‘Good’ choices are those which increase True Happiness. ‘Evil’ choices are those which increase True Suffering.
Within the scope of those things over which we have complete control, there are those choices which make us experience True Happiness - a long term, deep, meaningful contentment. These are ‘Good choices’. There are also choices which cause not only suffering, but True Suffering, which is a deep, meaningless form of suffering. These are ‘Evil choices’.

14) Each choice we make works to alter our character. When we do evil we harm ourselves and Nature. When we do good we help ourselves and Nature.
Our actions do not exist in a vacuum from one another. Each time we commit negative actions, it shapes our character and builds our habits and inclinations. Because such actions make us less likely to enjoy a good life, this alteration of our character will make our life less contented in the long run. The reverse is also true. Each time we perform actions from a positive motivation, we shape our character in that direction, making our lives easier and more likely prosperous in the long run.

15) Virtue is both necessary and sufficient for True Happiness.
Because True Happiness depends on our good choices within our control, and True Happiness cannot come from transitory material circumstances, one cannot have True Happiness without virtue. Furthermore, if one has virtue, then one has everything that is needed for True Happiness, regardless of other circumstances, assuming one has understanding of the neutrality of externals.

16) The way of Nature informs us of what is virtuous.
The ‘way’ of Nature entails its workings, lessons of history, lessons of life, sociological facts, basic matters of psychology and interpersonal relations, and the general logic and rationality which is pervasive in, and foundational to, our natural universe. By observing these subtle lessons we come to an understanding of what is harmful and what is helpful. This is the foundation of virtue. Ethics are to be judged by their consequences on True Happiness.

17) Ethics is objective and independent of our understanding or agreement, but it is simultaneously a product of human beings.
While we determine through social convention and consensus what behaviors are moral and what are not, there is a truth or falsehood to this, in that we are trying as a people to achieve a goal by erecting these standards. That goal is our mutual benefit and prosperity as a people and as individuals. As such, there is an objective truth as to whether any given moral will achieve that goal and to what degree. Truly ethical norms are those which actually do achieve such goals, regardless of our knowledge or agreement on their effects. However, our knowledge of these solutions is subjective and imperfect. Discovering them and reaching consensus is part of our historic and progressive struggle.

18) Outlines of the virtues serve as general guidelines, including: Compassion, Reason, Discipline, and the many shades and combinations of these virtues. But, because there is a rational structure to Nature, rationality must guide our moral deliberation rather than simplistic codes.
It is helpful and useful to have and promote moral principles, which we might turn into virtues of character through practice. But it is equally important to recognize that each simplistic principle is based on a larger truth and a more generalized aim. We mustn’t take to learning these virtues as being universal and absolute rules which we follow mechanically without thought as to the situation at hand. This will often lead to evil and harmful choices. Instead we must look sensibly at virtues and apply them with informed deliberation in good will.

19) Through practice, choices become spontaneous and codes give way to character. In this way, moral excellence is nourished.
If we come to understand the reasonable foundations behind moral principles, these become virtues of character as we practice them and build habits. Over time, it becomes easier to recognize the right thing to do, and to do it. Nourishing healthy feelings and faculties such as empathy can also encourage character. While intellectual moral deliberation is always important, this “good nature” is essential to develop.

20) The virtuous of character are those who walk in accordance with Nature. They are more prone to enjoy prosperity and, even when not, will have the foundations of True Happiness, independent of circumstances. Moral excellence and excellence in living are thus the same; wisdom and virtue the same.
Walking with Nature includes at least: learning and accepting the truths of our natural universe as best as we can determine them without bias, understanding what we can and cannot control, understanding and living in harmony with ourselves as social beings living in a network of other social beings, and 'dancing well' with the ebb and flow of 'the way' things work in the universe. Virtuous living, inspired by a good-natured character and informed by a rational objective mind, is the key to long term, deep sustaining happiness in life.

Notes:
1. This is a truth both observed and exemplified by many religions, philosophies, and traditions throughout history and around the world.

2. As the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism states: attachment or craving these things is the cause of suffering.

3. It is important to note the use of the word Nature here refers to all of what is in our natural universe. It is meant to distinguish from that which may be alleged to be supernatural. As such, it includes space, time, particles, physics, rocks, planets, life forms, people, brains, minds, technology, pollution, and more. To mistake the use of the word Nature throughout these precepts for the narrow concept of what one sees when going camping - trees and animals 'out in the countryside' would render most of these precepts meaningless or false.

4. Implicit in the method of science is a doctrine that values integrity, objectivity, and honesty in the handling of ideas and statements. As the Taoist philosopher Chuang-Tzu says, “We must have true men before we can have true understanding” (The Great Supreme).

5. This concept of Nature is comparable to the Stoic concept of the Logos, the Buddhist concept of Indra’s net, or the Taoist concept of the organic pattern Li. Components of this view include notions similar to the Stoic Divine Fire (Heraclitus), the Yin/Yang, and even Hegel’s “absolute”.

6. In Nature, Ralph Waldo Emerson writes that it is “not only the material, but also the process and the result... Who looks upon a river in a meditative hour and is not reminded of the flux of all things?” He says, “...the whole of nature is a metaphore of the human mind.” This precept is also a rejection of dualism and an affirmation of a holistic, monistic view of mind and body.

7. In his Taoist writings, Chuang-Tzu outlines many ways in which understanding of Nature should form our approach to living. Such understanding is incremental and not something we either have or do not have.

8. The ancient Greek Oracle advised, “know thyself”. Buddhists advise mindfulness of our inner states, our actions, our impressions, and our environment. See also my ‘existential deliberation’ and Stoic ‘oikeiosis’.

9. This is similar to the Buddhist concept that the ‘self’ is an illusion. I plan to write further on the ‘metaphysical body’ and ‘regressive qualia contemplation’. See Chalmers on qualia as a fundamental property of the universe (Scientific American, "The Puzzle of Conscious Experience", p.96). Lastly, see 'autopoiesis' regarding the lack of distinction between particles making up 'us' and those not.

10. See Stoicism: Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca. As for 'dancing well', see "Wu Wei" and the philosophy behind Gung Fu, Tai Chi, and Judo.

11. See Stoicism. Possibly Buddhist effort to improve focus and direct attention.

12. One part of what Stoicism calls ‘living in accordance with Nature’ is this acceptance of what is not in our control. Also, non-attachment as in Jainism & Buddhism. See also Heidegger’s ‘Enframing’ concept.

13. Stoics call our inner choices the only true ‘good’ and ‘evil’, all else is called an ‘indifferent’.

14. This is similar to the Buddhist concepts of karma and merit.

15. See Socrates who is written to have said this, as well as Epictetus.

16. See Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III and "A Secular Humanist Declaration" on the evaluation of ethics, and Chuang-Tzu for specific interpretations of lifestyle following knowledge of the workings of Tao.

17. See Chuang-Tzu, who said that virtue is a hill that we work together to climb. See also my own “Natural-Objective Ethics”.

18. See Chuang-Tzu, human rights, golden rule (Confuscious/Jesus/etc), 8 fold path, treatment of enemies (Jesus / Dalai Lama), Bushido, democracy/freedom, The Primary Virtues.

19. See Paul speaking about the fruit of ‘Holy Spirit’ entering a person (Galatians 5:22 and more). Not sharing his supernatural interpretation, I view this as an observation by Paul of character transformation. See also Stoics practice to form character; see Jesus talking about the law being in our hearts (Mark 7:14-23).

20. This is the Synthophic conclusion, supported by argument throughout precepts 1-19.

Photo Storage

2007-10-22T15:52:00.000-07:00

Buddhism & Stoicism

2007-09-06T10:51:00.000-07:00

A Conversation Among Stoics

The following is a discussion that was held on the International Stoic Forum from late August to early September of 2007. It has been edited for formatting, spelling, relevancy, and organization. Obviously, this being a conversation, not everything here would necessarily be in agreement with my views. Participants were asked permission for their inclusion here, and some names have been omitted upon request. Please contact me if you are included below and have since decided not to be included here, or to have your name omitted. Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion and to the creators and moderators of the International Stoic Forum.

ORIGINAL POST

Charles:

Hello Stoics and students of Stoicism:

Perhaps this has been discussed here before, and so please forgive me if it has and I'm not remembering. (I'm not always privileged with the proper time to pay enough attention to everything on this discussion group:))

That being said, I'm wondering if people here might have any initial (or already well thought-out) notions about where to look/turn for investigating connections/dialogue between Buddhism and Stoicism. A colleague of mine is interested, and this has renewed the spark of interest I once had in this (but did not pursue at the time).

So any thought on this are welcomed (both historical and thematic), including reading suggestions.

JAN'S RESPONSE

Jan (to Charles):

I am sure it has been discussed before, but probably a (relatively) long time ago. Last I looked, however, the complete archives were still available at the "stoics" site at yahoogroups.com (groups.yahoo.com, maybe). These archives are searchable.

But it would not hurt to discuss the topic again--the Forum has had many new members (and lost older members).

What I know about Buddhism is limited to brief conversations with my Religious Studies colleagues, interacting with Unitarian Universalists who consider themselves Buddhists, reading popular treatments (years ago) by Alan Watts and recently by writer Karen Armstrong, whose book on the Axial Age, The Great Transformation I just finished reading, and some discussions of Buddhist ideas in introductory philosophy textbooks.

Among the differences between Buddhism and Stoicism, I think we can note:

* The original teaching of Buddha (so far as we are able to discover it) was essentially ethical; it had a psychological component that served the ethical (like Stoicism) but it was uninterested in theorizing about nature as a whole.

* The original teaching of Buddha was nontheistic. One can easily be a Buddhist and an atheist. Although some of us in this list may be agnostics or humanists or even atheists, there is plenty of evidence that theology (an account of Zeus and his relationship to us, to nature as a whole, etc.) was an important part of classical Stoicism; the classical Stoics were theists.

* Compassion was very important for the Buddha--I guess it is still very important for Buddhists. With its doctrine that we should eradicate the passions, which are equated with violent feelings and judgments contrary to reason (both physical and cognitive aspects, then), Stoicism either cannot get to compassion or has to get to it in a rather roundabout way, which I'd be happy to discuss later. (The Roman Stoic Seneca does have some positive things to say about humanitas, which seems to be a virtue bordering on compassion, but that may be a reflection of a current in ancient Rome that was independent of the Stoic mainstream.)

* Buddhists seem to try to deconstruct the notion of the self, as part of the problem (almost like Hume in the Treatise on Human Nature); the Stoics, especially as exemplified by Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, try to turn the self into an invulnerable fortress, by reducing it to the capacity for assent or non-assent to impressions, the prohairesis.

* If Buddhism incorporates meditative techniques characteristic of the Indian tradition, Stoicism may not have had access to these.

Buddhists and Stoics may be in agreement that desire may be a big part of the problem. But if the Buddhists think that desire is the whole problem, the Stoics say, no; desire (lust, epithumia) is one of four categories of passions that, collectively, are the key to the problem. (The other three are fear, distress, and delight.) But the four genera of passions are conceptually related to each other, so maybe there is little difference here: Fear is the judgment that things out of our control about to happen are bad, while desire is the judgment that things out of our control about to happen are good.)

Paul (to Jan):

I was reading a book by the Dalai Lama recently which briefly discussed the Buddhist concept of compassion, and it struck me as very similar to oikeiosis. If I recall properly, he wrote that compassion for him consisted in recognising that other people are human beings like him and treating them accordingly. I thought at the time that this would not be a passion, but rather a feeling of endearment for others as fellow world citizens and sparks of the divine.

Robin Turner (to Paul):

That's the impression I got too. The problem is that without entering deeply into Buddhist training, I couldn't really know what kind of attitude/feeling they mean, since all a novice Buddhist could hope to achieve would be a kind of proto-compassion (analogous to what someone here described as "pro-eupatheia"). I think that Buddhists regard the pathetic variety of compassion as a precursor to the genuine quality: the aim is not to burst into tears when you see a puppy being kicked, but if you are the kind of person who from the start would feel nothing in such a situation, you're not going to make any progress at all.

LONDONSTOIC'S RESPONSE

Londonstoic (to Charles):

I guess the obvious point of similarity is the idea that our opinions and judgments of external events are the source of emotional and spiritual problems and solutions. Mind is the key.

So the Dhammapada says, in the first sutra on mindfulness, 'he insulted me, he wronged me, he offended me...the person who thinks this way will never have a mind free of anger'. which parallels with the stoic exercises on overcoming resentment towards others.

So mindfulness is key to both philosophies. they have different techniques for cultivating it - meditation is more important in Buddhism, while stoicism uses techniques like recalling your actions at the end of the day.

Both believe that we can cultivate detachment to our thought process, and learn to change them. both believe overcoming attachment and aversion to external things is crucial to one's spiritual health.

Both are ways of accepting impermanence. the idea that everything external changes, and that spiritual maturity involves coming to accept this, is at the heart of both philosophies.

So too is the idea that philosophy is not a question just of beliefs, but of active cognitive practices. both use the metaphor of the sage as doctor.

And I think there is a similarity in the stoic notion of logos and the Buddhist notion of Buddha nature. this is the idea that our deepest personality in stoicism is, in fact, the Logos - we go through the personal, to the cosmic or universal. we realize our identity with the world soul, we realize how our mind connects to all minds, to the one Mind.

That's similar to the idea in Buddhism that our deepest nature is Buddha nature, universal, connected to all, and illuminated with awareness. so, I don't know, maybe we could say that both actually involve going beyond the self, beyond the ego or 'I', towards accepting the cosmos as our true nature, so recognizing that we have nothing external to defend ourselves against, only to defend ourselves against our own unwise thoughts.

Thus this is what the Buddha says on mind in the third sutra of the Dhammapada:

Knowing the corporeal body to be fragile, as an earthen jar, and fortifying the mind like a citadel, let the wise man fight Mara with the sword of wisdom. He should now protect what he has won, without attachment.

which we can compare to Aurelius' famous comment: The mind which is free from passions is a citadel, for man. has nothing more secure to which he can fly.

One of the biggest differences between the two is the Buddhists' acceptance of reincarnation. as far as I know, stoics didn't believe in it. or did they? not sure. Aurelius was an initiate in the mysteries of Eleusis, which did believe in an afterlife. anyway, its not a major part of stoicism, unlike Buddhism (or Platonism).

Connected to that, Buddhists believe that what happens to us is not the will of God, but the karma from our own past thoughts and actions (including actions in past lives). so you accept 'bad' things which happen to you not [because] god wills it, but because you are responsible for it.

Finally, Buddhists have a much stronger emphasis on the Sangha, or holy community, while stoicism seems to have been more of an individual pursuit, it seems to me, though I may be wrong.

An interesting place to look in your investigations is in the fusion of stoic and Buddhist techniques in modern cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Albert Ellis, who recently died, was working on a book about CBT and Buddhism when he died, and Aaron Beck, the other founder of CBT, has written widely on CBT's similarity to Buddhism.

AMOS' RESPONSE

Amos (to Charles):

One thing that Buddhism and Stoicism have in common on a very general level is that they are both "it's up to you" disciplines. In neither is there a savior or a sacrament or a therapist or anything outside your own right effort that can help you. Both of them expect you to work on changing your way of living in order to achieve greater freedom. Be well, Amos

Jan (to Amos):

Yet "making progress" in both Buddhism and Stoicism has a social component, where some (e.g., Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus) put themselves in a position where they are reasoning with, and exhorting or urging on, individuals who they think may be open to the philosophical message; Buddhism has something similar, does it not?

In fact, all of the major Hellenistic philosophies of which I am aware, had this element; Christianity, as a movement that has to "reason with" its own members to keep their allegiance or "deepen their faith" (see the letters of Paul), seems to borrow this aspect from its gentile environment. There are structural similarities between Paul's letters and Epictetus' Discourses (both use the form of diatribe, pronounced "di-a-tree-bay") that reflect this fact.

Conversant #1 (to Jan):

Yes, Buddhism does have a similar practice.

It is customary at meditation and ceremonial gatherings for the teacher, senior student, or elder to give a "dharma talk," a sermon of sort on one topic or another, depending on the particular sect. This is for Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan. Certainly it's the customary practice here in the USA, judging by my reading and experience.

The content would vary - neither Shin nor Nichiren address the same concerns as Zen or Vipassana. For general audiences one would expect an exhortation to follow the Buddha's path, stick with the fundamentals, practice the tenets of the sect, and exert oneself to the best of one's ability. For monks or those on a meditation retreat, the talk may be a discussion of certain points of practice.

Amos (to Jan):

Yes, Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism (which includes Tibetan Buddhism and Zen), has a strong social component. The student must strive for the enlightenment of all sentient beings. My point is that in both Stoicism and Buddhism, there is no Mary full of grace, no therapist who will solve all your problems for you, no magic pill that will make your depression disappear. Both disciplines outline a path (a metaphor), which includes duties towards others, especially compassion in the case of Buddhism and it is up to you, your responsibility to follow that path. The student does the work of inner transformation, not the grace of God or your transference relation to a therapist. Be well, Amos

Conversant #1 (to Amos):

That's not exactly true. There is a savior of sorts in some expressions of Buddhism.

The Pure Land sect of Mahayana emphasizes faith in Amida Buddha. Such faith, along with certain chants (e.g., Namu Amida Butsu) ensure one will be reborn in a place (the Pure Land, or Western Paradise) where conditions are favorable for an end to rebirth.

The core idea is that no matter how long and hard one meditates, one cannot free oneself of many lifetimes of accumulated karma. So one hitches a ride, so to speak, with a Buddha. Still, strong faith is a vital component; it's not a free ride.

(This is a rather poor summary of Pure Land, and I refer you to the Wikipedia entry for more information and links [LINK HERE]. I can supply other references upon request.)

(Speaking of references, for a discussion of the social component of Ch'an, the Chinese precursor of Zen, I highly recommend Peter Hershock's _Liberating Intimacy: Enlightenment and Social Virtuosity in Ch'an Buddhism_ and _Chan Buddhism_.)

Compassion isn't necessarily a part of Buddhist practice. It's not emphasized in Zen, as far as I'm aware (see Brad Warner's _Hardcore Zen_) but is incorporated in so-called American Vipassana (a.k.a. "Insight Meditation). Have a look at Sharon Salzberg's books on Metta, along with most anything by Jack Kornfield.

One really can't speak broadly of Buddhism except in reference to the Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, and perhaps the Dhammapada. Over great distances and many centuries Buddhism developed in ways that I'm sure would be quite startling to Gautama.

Other than those points, I'm in agreement with Amos.

Amos (to Conversant #1):

You're certainly right that Buddhism is perhaps more varied than Christianity, and that there are sects where Buddha becomes a savior. I was generalizing from my limited knowledge of Soto Zen. In the varieties of Soto Zen which I know there is great emphasis placed on compassion and on social concerns, especially non-violence, but as you say, Buddhism, at least in Western countries, offers a flavor for every taste.

Conversant #1 (to Amos):

I'm not sure if Buddhism is more varied than Christianity. There's quite a range between Quakers and Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christians.

To its credit, the Japanese Soto Zen organization apologized for its conduct during WW II.

For a rather chilling peek at one dark side of Buddhism, see Brian Victoria's "Zen at War". Zen monks marching in formation with rifles slung over robed shoulders makes an unforgettable image.

Amos (to Conversant #1):

I'm not sure whether Buddhist is more varied than Christianity either. Could we agree that they're both varied?

Yes, it's to the credit of the Japanese Soto Zen organization that they apologized for their conduct during World War 2...

DT Strain (to Conversant #1):

This reminds me of an aspect I've been meaning to bring up: Compassion. On this matter, I have two distinct questions...

1) Stoicism vs Buddhism where Compassion is concerned:

This might be an area of big difference. Compassion is central to Buddhism - loving kindness to all living beings. I'm curious as to how this compares to Stoicism. We have to be very careful about matching up words that may have very different substantive meanings here, and focus on the concepts behind the words so as to avoid confusion. I'm not certain how the two approach the concepts surrounding compassion. In one respect, that sort of talk seems too emotional for Stoicism. However, when we look at the notions about detachment in Buddhism this seems quite compatible with Stoicism. So, clearly, Buddhist compassion doesn't seem to be leading to pathos. What's going on here with regards to the concept of compassion between these two philosophies?

2) Compassion and Buddhism where violence is concerned:

Compassion is so central to Buddhism that nonviolence is a common theme, some Buddhists are vegetarians, and many schools and monks avoid even the killing of insects. Most people today view Buddhism as one of the most peaceful of the major religions. But how does this relate to the Samurai and WWII soldiers who were Buddhists? What were the details of their philosophical arguments that somehow allowed violence and Buddhism to not only co-exist, but be so integrated in the lives of these warriors?

Sophia (to DT Strain):

DT Strain wrote:
1) Stoicism vs Buddhism where Compassion is concerned: This might be an area of big difference. Compassion is central to Buddhism - loving kindness to all living beings. I'm curious as to how this compares to Stoicism.

[Sophia provides a Wikipedia link to Stoic 'brotherhood': LINK HERE]

DT Strain wrote:
We have to be very careful about matching up words that may have very different substantive meanings here, and focus on the concepts behind the words so as to avoid confusion.

I too at times wonder if "compassion" might not be the correct English translation for the Buddhist concept that is commonly translated as such.

DT Strain wrote:
I'm not certain how the two approach the concepts surrounding compassion. In one respect, that sort of talk seems too emotional for Stoicism.

I think you're misunderstanding the Buddhist concept of compassion, then. It doesn't involve an emotional reaction. Just a commitment to do what is in your power to help relieve the suffering of others.

Londonstoic (to DT Strain):

Sure, Buddhist monks can be violent, sexually abusive, even nationalistic; particularly when they are a politically powerful group as in Sri Lanka. We definitely have an over-rosy view of Buddhism in the west. It's a majestic philosophy, but that doesn't mean each lama is what they claim they are.

Conversant #1 (to Londonstoic):

Sure they can.

Lama Chogyam Trungpa ("Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism," et. al.) was a notorious drinker and womanizer. I've already mentioned scandals in the Zen Buddhist communities.

I've known wonderful gentle Catholic priests that wouldn't hurt a fly, and known abusive alcoholic priests.

Do keep in mind that one doesn't necessarily join a monastery for religious reasons. Sometimes it's an economic necessity, or a family obligation. Monks are not necessarily motivated by a quest for holiness, in whatever form.

That's true for Western monks - and clergy in general - as well. Not all religious are truly religious.

Obvious, of course, but seems worthwhile re-stating.

Steve (to Conversant #1):

Of course. Character, not what one labels one’s beliefs, is what counts. We could do some kind of statistical social study and quantify which Tradition produces the highest quantity of good character I suppose but that misses the point.

One must have the genuine desire for self improvement and then almost any therapy will work. But, the better one knows oneself (and the more options one has in one’s culture) the better choice one could make about which Tradition to follow. The more progress we make I think the closer we have to match our chosen path to our personality type. This is why I reject the notion of the _one_ correct path altogether. I still stand by my assumption that claiming mutual exclusivity to the truth for one’s belief system is detrimental overall, a discussion I wasn’t able to finish with Grant some time ago. What is the best one in the moment for you is the one that motivates you the most to make positive progress right now. And that is most likely to change in the course of a lifetime. Don’t get stuck in a rut :). If this seems more pragmatic than noble you bet it is.

(By progress I mean a better person, not going to heaven or getting off of the wheel of life).

SOPHIA'S RESPONSE

Sophia (to Charles):

A friend of mine suggested that the main difference between the two philosophies is the emphasis that Buddhism places on reincarnation.

Conrad (to Sophia):

I would say that the primary difference is that Buddhism claims that the material world does not exist, while Stoicism claims that it is the only thing that does. It seems--to me, at least--that all other differences stem from that basic divergence.

Sophia (to Conrad):

This is the first I have ever heard of a Buddhist claim that the material world does not exist.

And, for that matter, the Stoic idea that the material world is the *only* thing that exists definitely isn't the idea I got from the Enchiridion of Epictetus.

Conrad (to Sophia):

Sophia wrote:
This is the first I have ever heard of a Buddhist claim that the material world does not exist.

Note that I come from a decidedly Theravadin bias when I approach Buddhism, as I very nearly became a Theravada monk a long time ago. That school is generally considered the closest modern equivalent to the original Buddhism founded by the Buddha. (Of course, my bias may be--scratch that, almost certainly is--showing in that assessment.)

Also note that Buddhism arises from Hinduism, inasmuch as the Buddha grew up in a Hindu society. One of the basic Hindu tenets is that the world is Maya, or illusion (Samkhya aside, anyway). From this comes the Buddhist notion of impermanence, and the notion that nothing impermanent can truly be said to be real. Also, the notion that enlightenment is the realization that the self does not exist.

As one moves further temporally, and generally further East, from the birth of Buddhism, one encounters more popular and Mahayanist forms of Buddhism. Being popular, these tend to focus, outside of the monastery at least, on karma and good works leading to good things in life. Lay Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism is possibly the most extreme example of this.

There are exceptions, of course. Zen is focused rather heavily on monasticism and renunciation of worldly things, and yet generally affirms the material world's existence. However, Zen still holds that the true reality is sunyata, or emptiness.

Sophia wrote:
And, for that matter, the Stoic idea that the material world is the *only* thing that exists definitely isn't the idea I got from the Enchiridion of Epictetus.

Interesting. It's decidedly the impression I got. See also M Aurelius' mentions of death being the end of existence and Cicero's representation of Stoic notions of deity in "De Natura Deorum". I can't think of anything even hinting of such things as Plato's immaterial forms in Stoicism. Note, though, that Jan's point about the material world not equating passivity is important. I'd add that energy, e.g. fire, is material as I am using the term.

It just occurred to me that I might also have said that the difference is that Buddhism considers our senses to always be lying to us, whereas Stoicism considers them to be generally reliable. That would be an equally valid (and equally semi-correct) "sound byte" pointer to my opinion on a very complex subject.

Jan (to Sophia):

The Encheiridion distinguishes between things not in our control and things in our control, the latter pertaining to our moral character or power of assent to impressions. It does not say that the latter is an immaterial thing. (The Stoic tradition was quite capable of conceptualizing reason as a material force.)

The Encheiridion also distinguishes between Zeus and the rest of us--at least implicitly--but what was just said about reason applies to Zeus, too.

There is a tendency to think of matter as passive and mind as active, but this does not seem to have been the Stoic view. If Epictetus was out of the Stoic mainstream on this issue, there is no direct evidence of this in the texts (of which I am aware).

Stephen (to Sophia):

As I recall, Buddhists do hold that the empirical world is in constant flux. This includes the empirical self. Hence the central doctrine of 'no self' (anatta).

In this respect, I think Buddhists and Stoics may have faced a similar problem. If one delimits the empirical self to the awareness or moral intention of the present moment, where is the 'thickness' that allows one to speak of a moral self at all?

Robin (to Stephen):

I am no expert on this subject, but my limited reading of Indian philosophy left me with the strong impression that to the ancient Indian mind (to the extent that we can speak of such a thing) only that which is unchanging is real. This is rather like the Greek idea of ousia ("essence") taken a step further. Plato gets round the problem by positing a multitude of unchanging Forms; most Hindu philosophy grants reality to Atman (soul) though not always to the material world (since the latter is in flux, while the former only seems to change); Buddhists do away with even that. So when Buddhists say that the world is an illusion (maya), I think what they are saying is simply that it is has no immutable essence.

Jan (to Stephen):

I believe D. N. Sedley published an article some time ago on the Stoic conception of the individual. (I don't have time to look it up now, sorry.) But the classical Stoics did not think that the self only existed in the moment.

I admit you might get that impression from Epictetus' emphasis on what is in our control as truly ours, and what is not in our control as not-ours. But our current moral dispositions result, deterministically, from, among other things, our prior actions, which are no longer in our control. The current moral dispositions determine whether we judge well or badly NOW. Our choices now are ours--or up to us--because they flow from our current moral character, which reflects our current moral dispositions.

(At least that's my best judgment about the Stoic view on this matter.)

Amos (to Stephen):

While Buddhists believe that the self is a constant flux (anatta), the flux is not a random process, but one of cause and effect. That is, the self at moment 1 causes the self at moment 2. Hence, the idea of karma, that one's past actions cause one's present state, even in another life. So there is a moral continuity in the flux. One is a moral agent although the self has no thickness, because each instant of self produces the next. Be well, Amos

Stephen (to Amos and Jan):

Putting Jan's and Amos' answers together, it seems that the Stoics and Buddhists offer roughly the same solution to the problem I posed. The self or character of the moment is determined (although perhaps not completely) by one's kamma or prior actions.

My reference to the Stoic delimitation of the self to the present moment stems from my reading of Pierre Hadot's 'Inner Citadel'. Perhaps Hadot overstated the case. It does seem to me, however, that both Stoicism and Buddhism emphasized the 'thin-ness' of the self to promote detachment, but had to 'thicken' it to defend moral responsibility.

DT STRAIN'S RESPONSE

DT Strain (to Charles):

Theravada Buddhism is where I would think most similarities with Stoicism would lie. But it's the Theravada Buddhism that is *most* concerned with this world, whereas the latter schools moved into something that sounds a little more like dualism (my biased description would say, "more superstitious").

Even with Theravada however, there is a huge difference between saying that we suffer from illusion and saying that the material world doesn't exist. In fact, the Buddha specifically focused his teachings on this world (see parable of the broken arrow) and not on other worldly things. The entire Buddhist view of how existence operates is discussing the ebb and flow of matter in a causal nexus. It seems to me that it is almost entirely about the material world. However the ancients didn't delineate these concepts into material and immaterial exactly in the manner we do today, which is where I think much of the confusion comes.

I have been told by a Buddhist monk that Buddhists do not believe that the material world is not real. Rather, they speak of illusions we have about it. For example, the 'self' is an illusion precisely because it is an aggregate of many parts interacting through cause and effect. Without using modern physics or cognitive science terms, you couldn't describe the self more accurately that this - and it's just as a functionalist would (and an empiricist functionalist at that, given the Kalama Sutra's teaching on the importance of evidence-based beliefs).

Other illusions would be things like "chair". These are abstractions of patterns of aggregates. If we understood and intuitively saw the world as it was, we wouldn't get so caught up in all these abstract labels, and rather see the cause and effect relationships between materials and events as they are without bias. When you read explanations of illusion, they always reference to real things in our world - that is a far cry from saying that the material world is not real. This is not a philosophy of escapism or about claims there is some invisible magical realm over the rainbow. Buddhism is a philosophy specifically designed to better understand and live in our world - at least, the Buddhism I've been exposed to over the past several months.

I think people see phrases like "glimpse reality" and "illusion" and superimpose a Western dualism into their interpretation. Something like that might exist in the later schools, but I'm not convinced it's a part of original Buddhism (as far as we can determine it).

Conrad (to DT Strain):

DT Strain wrote:

Theravada Buddhism is where I would think most similarities with Stoicism would lie.

This, I agree with entirely, hence my personal journey from Buddhist to Stoic.

DT Strain wrote:

But it's the Theravada Buddhism that is *most* concerned with this world, whereas the latter schools moved into something that sounds a little more like dualism (my biased description would say, "more superstitious").

Hmmm... I agree with this, depending on the definition of "this world". I disagree with you that "this world" for Theravadin Buddhists is a fundamentally material world. All physical things are ephemeral, and therefore not truly real in the Hindu/Buddhist view. Instead, it is the spiritual (the Sea of Brahmin, the ground of reality, the Atman, etc.) which is permanent and real.

By this, I don't mean to imply a Western dualism. The key here is that the material world is merely a misunderstanding of the actual world. The Buddhist makes progress in the only world which exists, but interprets that progress through a distorted lens. There's no reason for the Buddha to have talked about otherworldly things, because there is no other world.

That, in any case, is my understanding of it all, after much study and practice, many years ago.

DT Strain wrote:

That's a very interesting way to put it, which I will have to mull over for a while. Thank you for giving me something to think about.

DT Strain wrote:

This is not a philosophy of escapism or about claims there is some invisible magical realm over the rainbow.

Absolutely! I hope I did not give the impression that I held such an opinion.

DT Strain wrote:

Buddhism is a philosophy specifically designed to better understand and live in our world - at least, the Buddhism I've been exposed to over the past several months.

The Buddhism I was exposed to is a philosophy centered around renunciation of the world and the realization that the self does not exist. Its central goal is not living harmoniously in our world (though that is part of the path), but escaping the cycle of birth and rebirth.

Purely out of curiosity, what sect does the monk you talked to belong to? I recently heard something similar from a friend of mine who is a lay Zen priest.

Conversant #1 (to DT Strain):

DT Strain wrote:

I have been told by a Buddhist monk that Buddhists do not believe that the material world is not real. Rather, they speak of illusions we have about it. For example, the 'self' is an illusion precisely because it is an aggregate of many parts interacting through cause and effect. [snip] Other illusions would be things like "chair". These are abstractions of patterns of aggregates. If we understood and intuitively saw the world as it was, we wouldn't get so caught up in all these abstract labels

That is precisely my understanding of Zen's point of view. Zen koans specifically aim at reality, not concepts.

"What is the Buddha? The cypress tree in the garden." While puzzling, the abstract "Buddha" (which in Mahayana has many rich meanings) is juxtaposed with something quite solid, not in the least conceptual.

DT Strain wrote:

This is not a philosophy of escapism or about claims there is some invisible magical realm over the rainbow. Buddhism is a philosophy specifically designed to better understand and live in our world - at least, the Buddhism I've been exposed to over the past several months.

I regret to add that some people do present Buddhism as a path to just such a magical realm. I've seen Zen portrayed as a means to gain near-magical powers, the cure to all one's ills (especially psychological), and the like.

Buddhism has been sold as snake oil, enlightenment used as a hook to bait gullible students into putting up with all sorts of financial and sexual abuse. See _Shoes Outside the Door: Desire, Devotion, and Excess at San Francisco Zen Center_ by Michael Downing for one example.

COMMENTARY

I found this a very helpful conversation (thus my inclusion of it on my philosophy site). Here are some important points that the conversation brought up, which I hope to explore more in the future:

Schools:
Due to the lack of some features in certain schools, and the presence of the supernatural and savior-like figures (as conversant #1 points out), it is probably meaningless to engage in any sort of comparison between Buddhism and Stoicism unless one restricts the former to Theravada Buddhism, or the original teachings of the historic Buddha, as far as they can be determined. I suspect more similarities can be found by sticking to earlier Stoics than later, but I have yet to fully confirm that.

Theism:
Jan mentions one difference between Stoicism and Buddhism is that Stoics were theists. Jan is far more knowledgeable of Stoicism than I, and he seems to share Long & Sedley's view. However, my interpretation and preference for earlier Stoics seems to indicate some wiggle room on this that would permit atheistic Stoicism. Meanwhile, as some of the other conversants mentioned, some branches of Buddhism have what seems to be theistic leanings. Thus the line remained somewhat elusive. For a more complete description of my take on theism and Stoicism, please see God and Stoicism [link here].

Compassion - Metta vs Oikeiosis:
It is clear to me that I need to learn more about the subtleties of the Buddhist concept of loving kindness (metta) often translated, perhaps inappropriately, as 'compassion'. I also need to learn more about the Stoic concept of oikeiosis. These seem to be possibly parallel notions on compassion. To what degree compassion is considered an intellectual matter, a feeling, an impulse, an emotion, etc. will all reveal more about the compatibility of Stoicism and Buddhism.

Fortifying:
Jan attempted to point out a difference considering the concept of 'self' in Buddhism, but ironically used some terms that, as Londonstoic pointed out, might indicate more overlap than contradiction. Jan said that, while Buddhists try to deconstruct the notion of self, Stoics turn the self into a "fortress". Meanwhile, Londonstoic points out that the Buddhist Dhammapada says we should "fortify the mind like a citadel". Thus, Buddhists do not suggest the mind is not real, but merely that it is not what we think it is. Both the Stoic and the Buddhist seek fortification of the "mind/self", although an obvious mismatch of terms and their usage seems obvious here.

Cycles:
Both Londonstoic and Sophia mentioned reincarnation as an obvious difference. However, I wonder about the ancient Stoic notion of the conflagration and the cyclical nature of the universe, in which we are supposedly to be reborn over and over. These are not identical concepts, to be sure. But one must wonder if they are 'close enough' and simultaneously not as central to the practice of either to be of importance. For my notes on a naturalistic interpretation of karma and rebirth, please see: A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma & Rebirth [link here].

Karma vs. the Will of God/Logos:
Londonstoic mentioned this difference in the reason behind why things happen. However, we must remember that (1) karma is simply 'causation' and (2) for the Stoics, the will of God was not the same as many today might picture it. It was more a description of the rational order by which the universe operates (Logos). Therefore, I would tend to think, in essence, both boil down to descriptions of things working as they do, due to a logical order of 'how interactions in the universe operate'.

Nevertheless, I can see how the issue of whose will is responsible comes up. In the case of karma, things happen to us because of our thoughts and actions. In the case of the logos, they happen because of external factors. This reminds me somewhat of Forest Gump's question, do we have a destiny or are we just floating around accidental-like? To which he wisely answered himself, maybe it's a little of both at the same time. I can't help but think that an ancient Stoic and an ancient Buddhist, after working through their semantic differences, might come to some similar concoction without leaving the fold of either philosophy. Still, this presents an interesting avenue for exploration of the subtle distinctions.

Moral Responsibility:
Stephen brought up an excellent point about moral responsibility. As he noted, it seems both philosophies tend to play down the self when it comes to promoting detachment, but then play it back up again when it comes to moral responsibility. It would be interesting, in general, to explore more about the relationship between notions of the self as they pertain to both detachment and moral responsibility. Or to come at it from another angle, to look directly at the relationship between detachment and moral responsibility to see how notions of the self fit in.

The Material Universe:
Conrad points out some very interesting avenues of exploration considering the 'renunciation of the self vs. renunciation of the world'. I see from his comments that I must learn more about the 'Sea of Brahmin' and 'Atman' in Buddhist schools as they relate to the material universe.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy:
I have read a little about CBT before, but Londonstoic's mention of its influences has lead me to note the need to learn more about it.

Points of Commonality:
Jan notes that both teachings focus on the ethical. Londonstoic notes that both focus on detachment and accepting impermanence. Both view philosophy as more than beliefs, but as a practice. As Amos says, both are "it's up to you" philosophies. I was also intrigued by Londonstoic's note that both attempt mindfulness - the Buddhists through meditation and the Stoics through recalling activities at the end of each day.

Many thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. I see I have my work cut out for me :)

Rational Atheism

2007-08-22T18:58:00.000-07:00

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine, and author of several books on reason and rationality. He has written a letter that appeared in the September 2007 issue of Scientific American. It addresses what many are calling the "new Atheists" who have been writing some books on atheism that many have described as quite aggressive and confrontational. Examples ranging from accusing religious moderates of aiding in the causes of terrorism and extremism, to calling religious parents child abusers, to an outright rejection of religious tolerance where theists are concerned, and more.

Shermer's position is a brief but concise summary of many of the arguments against this approach, which support my stance and the fourth of five basic concepts on which the notion of the Humanist Contemplative is based.

If you would like to read the article, you can order back issues from Scientific American, or read it on their website by clicking the link below. To subscribe to Scientific American you can click here:

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:
Rational Atheism: An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, by Michael Shermer

It is best if you can read the article from the original source. However, if the link above has expired or been lost, I have archived it below for scholarship and educational purposes...

=======================
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN:
Rational Atheism: An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, by Michael Shermer

Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.

Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”

2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”

3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. 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.

As King, in addition, noted: “The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.”

Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion.

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt, 2006).
===============================

Many thanks to Mary Beaty, who first alerted me to this letter.

The Best of the DT Strain Blog

2007-08-06T12:49:00.000-07:00

For those who are new to the DT Strain Philosophy Blog, this page should provide a running list of the best posts (according to the author) for purposes of catching up. They are chosen based on (1) how much original thought of my own is present in them, (2) how important the concept is to the overall focus I'd like my work to represent, (3) how entertaining or interesting I think the post is. All listings are in order of posting.

Other ways to enjoy the blog would be to do a search on particular topics, such as: ethics, religion, Humanism, complexity, consciousness, Buddhism, ect.

Please note, this is a list of blog posts only. It does not include the often-longer essays from the DT Strain Philosophy site (a different site from the blog), which can be viewed on its own, by the table of contents on the right.

TOP 10 POSTS FOR ENTIRE ARCHIVE (2004-2008)
Summary of the Primary Virtues
Virtual Virtue: Your Online Self
The Nature of the “Force”
Life & Death Are Not Opposites
The Big Deal About Complexity
Good for the Individual & Society the Same
Denver on Nature & Life
Consciousness Around Us?
Threads on Violence
I Am A Believer

TOP 10 POSTS FROM 2007
I Am A Believer
Either/Or's and Iraq
Socrates & The "Soul"
Increasing Wisdom
Humanist Ritual
How Messed Up Is This?
Analysis: How News Misleads
What Can't Be Proven?
Complexity, Economics, and Libertarianism
Why Determinism Doesn't Get Us Off The Hook

TOP 10 POSTS FROM 2006
Philosophy or Religion?
Exploring Meditation
Denver on Nature & Life
Revulsion at the Natural Brain
The Minions of Hitler
Consciousness Around Us?
The Puzzle of Our Time
Notes on “Christianity Without God”
Threads on Violence
Dehumanization: A How-To

TOP 10 POSTS FROM 2004 & 2005
These two years are grouped together since 2004 only included two months.
Summary of the Primary Virtues
Virtual Virtue: Your Online Self
The Nature of the “Force”
Life & Death Are Not Opposites
The Big Deal About Complexity
Cultural Conceptions of “Life”
Good for the Individual & Society the Same
Forgiveness Is A Gift To Ourselves
Terrel Pough & Being Good
ISO The Real Buddha & Jesus

The Connection, July 6, 2006

2007-08-05T11:19:00.000-07:00

In June of 2007 I was invited to be part of a panel on a local television program called "The Connection" (see video of the program below). The subject was about whether a good and meaningful life is possible without a belief in God. I was announced as the President of the Humanists of Houston. The other guests on the program included Nancy Fay, a retired teacher and a Freethinker who is a Director at the Houston Church of Freethought, a Methodist Pastor named Thaddeus Easland of the Hope Church, and Rabbi Stuart Federow of Congregation Shaar Hashalom. The host was Doris Childress.

The program went well I thought. Everyone was cordial and we hit on some good points. The program was only a half hour and it passed quickly, leaving still many things unsaid. The host of the show has communicated to me that they would like to do more shows on similar subjects in the future, and may like to invite me back to be on those, which I said would be fine.

Rabbi Federow informed me before the show that he hosts a radio program on 950AM KPRC called 'A Show of Faith' and might like to invite me or the others to be a guest sometime. I told him I'd be pleased to.

Below is the video of the program in its entirety. I'd like to thank David Forbus for converting and posting it. Below the video I have included some additional comments on things we didn't have time to address in the program...

The Connection, Part 1 of 3

The Connection, Part 2 of 3

The Connection, Part 3 of 3

Here are some notes from my position, on several of the things that we did not have time to address. So as not to be redundant, I have tried not to cover anything here which I was able to address in the program itself:

Humanist/Atheist Distinction
Ms. Childress asks, "...Humanist, atheist, are they one in the same?" I address this question in detail in The Principles of Socio-Personal Humanism, 2.9 Humanism & Atheism. In short, atheism is the simple non-belief in a deity, which could include anything from freethinkers to some forms of Buddhism, from philanthropists or Albert Einstein, to a genocidal dictator such as Joseph Stalin. It could include a purely rational scientific person or a New Age mystical and emotional thinker with all sorts of magical, paranormal, and supernatural beliefs - but merely lacking a belief in gods. Meanwhile, Humanism includes a naturalistic view of the world and is therefore nontheistic, but it also includes a commitment to rationality, ethics, and values of Human rights, compassion, and concern for our fellow human being. A Humanist content with the word 'atheist', would be like a Christian being content referring to himself only as a 'theist'.

Playing the Odds
Rabbi Federow believes that people can find meaning in life with or without a belief in a God, but claims that they are more likely to obtain meaning in their lives when they have a 'relationship with God'. This would be an interesting thing to measure. I would imagine one would go about it by surveying atheists to see what percentage of them would say they find meaning in their lives, and then ask theists the same question, comparing the percentage in both groups. To be safe, it would be best to ask that question before asking them whether they believed in God. I'm not aware of any study of this exact nature, but my anecdotal experience with the many nontheists I've known and worked with in various organizations, gives me the impression that Rabbi Federow's assessment of the odds is incorrect.

In any case, even if it were true that theists are more likely to find meaning in their lives, that doesn't necessarily mean that (a) that meaning is a good one that inspires better behavior or living, (b) that meaning translates into greater happiness, or (c) that the meaning is based on something true. To me, these would be important questions to address. But I must emphasize again that I do not, as yet, concede the premise of the odds being greater for meaning among theists.

Daniel, Why Don't You Believe in God?
Ms. Childress later would turn to Pastor Easland and ask, "Why do you believe in God?" Thus, she probably imagines herself to be fair and balanced in her even questioning. While this may be diplomatic, it unfortunately gives the incorrect impression that there is symmetry in the issue where there is none.

The question to Pastor Easland was rational and appropriate. Meanwhile, the question to me was not philosophically sound. The question presumes there is a burden of proof on the non-believer of a claim. Perhaps, taken on the whole, the two questions together presume that both sides have a burden of proof for each of their positions - but this is not the case.

It is the person making the claim who holds the burden of proof in supporting it. While there may be some 'anti-theists', the atheist position is merely the absence of belief in a deity - not necessarily the belief that "no deity can or does exist". So, where two people are present, and one of them is claiming that an invisible and undetectable entity exists, the rational approach is to ask that person why they believe what they do. The person not believing it, hardly even needs a label for their position, much less an answer as to "why".

Greatest Evils
Near the end, Rabbi Federow says we should remember some of "the greatest evils that have been produced in world history" have come from nonreligious people. He then lists the examples of the Nazis and the Communists. This is a common view, but it misses the mark in several ways.

The most egregious portion of this statement is the persistent yet completely incorrect notion that the Nazis were atheistic or nonreligious. Most followers of Nazism were Catholics, and Hitler himself professed his beliefs and his Catholicism. He visited churches, he prayed, he met happily with Cardinals and Bishops, and those church officials celebrated his birthday and stood in processions to shake his hands with smiles on their faces. There was a wedding of the Nazi party and the Christian faith at a very deep and integral level. The 'Hitler Oath' was "I swear by God, this holy oath, to the Führer of the German Reich and people. Adolf Hitler...". At no time was atheism ever professed by Hitler or the Nazis. See pictures and video of this and mere HERE.

Why then does this myth persist? Simply because of ignorance and mismatched association (i.e. good = religious, bad = nonreligious). But it is important for students of history to know how fascism used and integrated religious dogmatism and intolerance.

Could it be that Hitler didn't really believe in God or Catholicism, and that he was merely using these beliefs to control people? First, we have no evidence of that and secondly, if we merely define everyone who does evil as an atheist because, "they couldn't possibly have really believed in God" then we are simply 'defining away' cases of evil done under theism. More importantly, regardless of what Hitler 'really believed', it is impossible not to think that the majority of the Nazis weren't sincere in their professed Christian beliefs, or that the Catholic church wasn't sincere in their celebration of the party and the man. An evil twisted version of Christianity? Perhaps, but theists nonetheless.

The next problem with Rabbi Federow's statement is his equating of "sheer numbers of people destroyed" with greatness of evil. Certainly, the Stalinist regime was harshly anti-theistic, insisting on the state as a substitute for deity. This regime killed millions upon millions of people. But was Stalin 'more evil' than some rulers in the past? First, we should consider how rapidly the population of the planet had grown in the 20th Century. The previous kings, rulers, and emperors of past civilizations ruled over far fewer subjects to begin with. Secondly, the technological tools of the day allowed for more efficient killing of more people. The compact urban-style cities made starving and controlling populations easier. If the likes of earlier despots had controlled similar numbers of people, with similar means, would their belief in a deity had stopped them from the larger scale barbarism they showed on the scale of their times? What would the crusades have been like with several times the world's population, tanks, guns, and urban interdependence?

But the third and final problem with this notion is the failure to appreciate what I mentioned earlier in the program: the real problem is with faith-based dogmatic ideology, intolerance, and authoritarianism. These are the worst elements in religions, and these same elements can be found within other human institutions; social, political, or economic. Stalinist communism was essentially a secular state-based political religion. These elements are far more important than whether or not someone believes in a deity.

Having said that, it seems to be the case that when we are not operating by fear, we are not intolerant, we are not dogmatic or ideological, and we are not accepting claims out of faith without evidence, there seems to be very little reason left to assume that a deity exists, or that one is essential to ethics or meaning in our lives. Does that make those who do believe bad or stupid people? Not at all, but at the very least it completely eradicates any notion that those lacking belief are, in any way, leading less ethical or meaningful lives.

Letters on God

2007-07-10T13:11:00.000-07:00

On July 10, 2007, a reader of my philosophy blog named James sent in a letter with questions about my position on God. Below is James' letter (with paragraph separations added by myself), followed by my reply:
------------------------------------------

Mr. Strain,

If you are anything like me you may not like being called Mr. so I will just call you Daniel from now on if that is alright with you. I am emailing you because I have a question for you. Do humanists believe in the metaphysical? When I say metaphysical I mean, anything that is not physical. I know my definitions may be limited but its all I know at the moment.

Are things like art, music, beauty, love, etc. metaphysical or physical? Music does not actually exist. In my understanding music is an idea, its a metaphysical understanding in the mind that categorizes organized sounds as something to be liked or disliked. Music is generally thought of as to be composed or organized, it is something that expresses feelings and emotions, ideas, etc. through sound waves. Is this accurate?

I will be frank, I have a reason for asking this question. If a person does not believe in anything that cannot be proven or empirically verified, something like music, beauty, love, art, etc. cannot be proven. Therefore, music really is only sound waves that enter the brain and are interpreted. There is no meaning in "music" Music does not exist. Love, Art, Beauty, almost anything really becomes non existent. Because you cannot prove these exist in reality, only as an idea, you cannot believe them.
You recognize organized sound that is pleasing or non pleasing though, right? But you cannot prove it exists. You can only say there are sounds which enter the brain and for one reason or another are found pleasing or non pleasing. The moment you attach meaning to the sound you have defined music and music is not empirically verifiable. We can only describe what we hear and say it is pleasing to us. What is pleasing to me though is not pleasing to you, necessarily, right? I could say that screaming and yelling, nails on a chalkboard, babies crying, are all music. Not everyone, hardly anyone would agree that nails on a chalkboard are pleasing though right? Nonetheless you cant say that its not music to my ears. The same applies with beauty, art, love, etc.

These are all ideas understood in the mind. But because you can't empirically verify what my mind thinks, then you cannot believe them. Unless what is in my mind can be expressed... I guess this is where communication comes in, language. You cannot know it exists in my mind unless I tell you, right? Which ultimately leads me to my next question. Does God exist?

When I ask that question all kinds of presuppositions enter your mind, all kinds of ideas about who or what God is. When I ask you does God exist, you have a definition of God in your mind. You then answer emphatically, no. But you do not know that the God in my mind does not exist. I could have a totally different understanding of who God is. I could define God in a way in which you could not deny he exists. Are there limitations as to what one defines as God?

Let me try to explain what I think when I think of God. When I think of God I think of two things, whatness and whoness. The whatness of God is, exactly that, what. "Whatness" is the physical or nonphysical being of God. Someone can say that God is all of existence, anything and everything that exists is God. Anything that has ever existed, exists now, and will ever exist, is God. So in essence God is everything, past present and future. God is reality, that which is.

So if I were to say this is my definition of God, then you could not disagree with me that everything that has existence, past present or future, has existed. I call this, God. You may call it something else, but this is what I call God. I am sure you have heard this before, so I dont think I have to go into detail here, but all I want to say is this: I read your blogs on ethics of debate, and I agree. This however is not a debate. I am telling that which is to me, and no one can tell me what is and what is not. I am only telling you my point of view.

Getting back to the second thing I think of when I think of God. The second thing I think of is the "whoness" of God. This we could say is the personality of God. Is God a person, does this God have a personality? I am examining these questions myself as I write this email, you are only the person I am writing it to. I am not trying to prove a point, I am not debating. I am only thinking in form of an email.

So, in my understanding of God I said previously there are two things:

1: "whatness" which I define as what God is. I said God is everything that has been, is now, and will ever be. God is all of reality, that which has ever been, is now, and will ever be.

2: "whoness" which I define as personality. This describes what this God is like. To understand what God is like all we have to do is look at the past and the present. We cannot look at the future so I left this out. All we have to do is look at reality and we can see the "whoness" of God.

According to this, you cannot deny the existence of God because God is existence. You cannot deny existence therefore you cannot deny God. You also cannot deny that there is personality in reality. There are ideas, good and less than good. There are ideals. There is love, joy, peace, patience. There is kindness, goodness, faithfulness. There is beauty, order, art, music. There is life. God is inteligent because inteligence exists. God is personable because there are personable beings. God is order because there is order. You cannot deny that these "things" are. I suppose you could, but you would be denying reality. Ultimately I suppose we all define who God is to ourselves, we define the whatness and the whoness.

Our lives are expressions of what we believe about God (reality) You believe there is no authoritarian who tells you what to do, you are right, there is not. God does not tell you what to do. You only tell yourself what to do. God exists, God is reality. How we view reality(God)(whoness) is up to us. We all view it differently and how we want to. No one can tell us how to view it. We look at all that is around us and define Gods' "whoness" in whatever way we want.

You experience God every day of your life, you just dont call it God, you call it reality, or life, or whatever. When you hear the word God you think authoritarian, you think some supernatural being who commands everybody what to do, you think of a person with a cosmic gun to our head forcing us to obey. God does not force us to obey. But guess what! Reality exists and it has order. When we go outside that order we experience its consequences. If I want to listen to the Dr. when he tells me that if I dont eat right and exercise then I will experience certain consequences, then that is my choice, I dont have to listen. But that is stupid of me because then I experience pain. If I dont want to listen to the scientist who says that gravity is real and I chose to jump off the empire state building because I think I can fly, then fine, that is my choice. We all have the equal right to do what we want, God obviously values autonomy.

You want to know what God says? Read history. God is not supernatural in the sense that "he" works outside of nature, "he" is nature. God is supernatural from our perspective because we are limited finite beings, where as God is infinite. God certainly is supernatural, from the human perspective. If you want to see God, look around you, look at the natural created world, look at the stars, the moon, the heavens. Look at cells in a microscope, look at a human being in the womb. I am not God, I am only a product of God, God exists in reality and God exists in my mind. No one person has ever seen God in all its fullness, it is impossible. We all experience God in our lives. We are like those little sucker fishes that hook on to the side of the whale. We as humans are latched on the side of God only for a short while, the expanse of our life. But God lives on because God is eternity.

These are my thoughts, I wrote them down as they came. I have been thinking my entire life, trying to understand what is going on. This is where I am at right now. Think what you may. Thank you for your time.

God Bless

--------------------------------------------

Hi James, :)

Thanks for writing. I can tell by your wording that you must have seen the program on PBS. It was fun doing the program but shows the limitations of only being able to respond to specific questions and having only a short time. Let me preface my response to your letter with a few quotes from what I've written on my philosophy blog:

"But second only to learning and exploration of nature, is that we experience awe, appreciation, and humility before it. Whether we believe the universe is the product of an intelligent creator, has always existed, or was the product of natural forces, it is beneficial to have sense of wonder before its magnificence. It is possible to have a spiritual experience before the beauty of a sunset, the luminous nebulae in a telescope, the grace of a flying bird, or when communing with the ocean womb of life on a sandy beach.

The universe is a stunning marvel of complex patterns on the boundary of complete order and complete randomness. For ages, various peoples and traditions have drawn connections between the different patterns and forms in the universe. The Taoists refer to these patterns in nature as "Li". New emerging sciences of chaos and complexity are revealing the shared underlying mathematical basis between such seemingly disparate things as galaxies and sea shells, economies and ecologies. This is a sort of organic pattern that isn't perfectly sequential, but isn't random either. It has a sense of balance and form that is unpredictable yet recognizable.

Some might refer to this holistic order as God, infused throughout creation as the stoics did. Others may refer to it as some other cosmic force. Still others may simply marvel at and study its naturalistic complexity. In all of these cases, we gain insight and perspective through appreciation of the intricacy and wholeness of the universe.

This same sort of awe and reverence is expressed by scientists and the religious alike. It can inspire art, motivate learning, and encourage preservation and respect for the natural environment. This perspective on the universe is one foundational element of our shared spirituality."

-- from The Noble Conspectus, Chapter 2: Spirituality

You asked if Humanists believe in the metaphysical. Many people seem to regard the metaphysical and the supernatural as the same thing, but you seem keenly aware of the distinction. This, because you have recognized that the metaphysical also includes things like art, music, beauty, and love. I like to also use examples like 'democracy' and 'economics' as metaphysical things. These are things which are not objects in themselves. But, unlike supernatural concepts, these phenomena represent patterns of interaction and first-person experiences we have given labels to. Much of the field of Complex Systems Theory addresses these fascinating emergent properties. I think you'd be interested in my blog post: The Big Deal About Complexity. All of these metaphysical phenomena do indeed exist, but two things should be recognized:

1) They exist as emergent properties of the interactions between physical empirical objects:
In Phaedo, Socrates is written to have discussed ancient conceptions on the soul. As I cover in another article on my philosophy blog, Simmias brings up the notion that the soul is an like a harmony and the body in like the lyre that plays it. This seems to be a very accurate analogy by modern understandings of cognitive science. The lyre is a physical object like our brains, and the sounds it produces are like the mind - in other words, the effect of the activity of the brain. Similarly, 'democracy' is not an object one can put on a scale, but it is the effect of the activity of individual humans behaving in a certain pattern. Thoughts are the result of information processed along neural pathways in the brain, and memories (as well as thought processes) can be physically observed and tracked by scanning brains with sensors as people think about things. So, if a brain is destroyed, the function we call the mind seems to also come to an end. As to why we have a first-person experience of what it is like to be such a structure, that is a mysterious question which I am greatly interested in. If you go to my philosophy blog at http://dtstrainphilosophyblog.blogspot.com and, in the upper left corner, do a search of the blog for "consciousness" you'll see a series of posts you may find interesting.

2) We must take care not to confuse features of reality with our own definitions and applied labels:
You say that 'music does not exist' in the empirical sense. Of course, sound waves do exist. And there is a specific definition of music referring to a rhythmic pattern of sound. If the definition of music were sufficiently specific, we could absolutely say that music exists empirically. But then, definitions can be anything. We make up words and decide what their meaning will be so we can communicate ideas. But in reality, what's true is that sound waves exist, and sometimes they have a regularized pattern to them. Whether we want to use the sound "m-u-s-i-c" to describe that is completely arbitrary and up to us as a people.

Some other things you mentioned about music - you said that some sounds are pleasing to us "for one reason or another". There are likely very specific physical reasons why we find certain patterns of sound more pleasing than others, and it is probably the end result of a great many complex neurological, cultural, and psychological reasons. But what it all boils down to, is that, with detailed information we would be able to explain how a particular pattern affects the ear drum, then creates a particular electrochemical signal that travels up specific physical connections in the brain, interacting with and stimulating other regions which store information on memories, pattern recognition functions, and emotional centers - all of this according to particles interacting by the laws of physics. These reactions could then be traced outward to the rest of the body as we see the signals going forth to make the foot tap and the mouth say, "I like this song". Not only that, but if we had all the details and information on the person's brain functions, we could even determine whether or not they were being honest when they said it (see http://www.apa.org/releases/deception.html).

You also mentioned that there is 'no meaning in music' in the empirical sense. But that is the case with anything. Nothing in itself has meaning, inherent to that thing. Meaning is always a reference to a being for whom meaning exists. Nothing 'means something' on its own. It only means something 'to someone'. This is because different intelligent beings assign different categories to things based on those things' traits compared to that being's own preferences, perceptions, and memories. When a human makes these mental assignments, this is due to electrical activity moving about his/her neural brain structures according to the laws of physics as well. This is when and how meaning is assigned by that being, and this is the only instance in which something can be said to have 'meaning' that I know of. Therefore, music certainly does have meaning to myself, others, and I'm sure, yourself, because of the mental assignments we associate with it - which is all we can say for anything that has meaning (including life).

Next you spoke of the subject of God, saying:

"When I ask you does God exist, you have a definition of God in your mind. You then answer emphatically, no."

If you can find an emphatic statement "God does not exist" anywhere in my blog or philosophy sites, please let me know about it, because it shouldn't be there since I would never say such a thing, and haven't to my recollection. In fact, even if you can find a non-emphatic statement that "God does not exist" that too would not be my position. Here is a quote from my essay, "The Humanist Contemplative":

"Humility comes into play first, in recognizing our limitations. Human beings are not omniscient (all-knowing) and our senses and ability to know are imperfect and limited. Because of this, we do not attempt to make claims or hold beliefs in things of which we have no verifiable evidence. When asked ultimate questions such as ‘how or why did existence come to be?’ or ‘does anything exist outside the observable realm?’ we are content to admit we don’t know."

Thus, if anyone says that something exists which is invisible or not measurable by empirical means (including most notions of God) then I would say I do not know. This, by the way, means that I lack a "belief in God" in the typical usage of the term and am therefore non-theistic or a-theistic (i.e., an atheist). Although some do, all atheists (most I would guess) do not necessarily hold the opposite belief (that God does not exist). However, that misconception is so rampant it has even made its way into many a dictionary. For more on that, please see the Wikipedia articles on Antitheism and Atheism and the page on religioustolerance.org (none of which I had a part in writing).

Having said that, it is true that when I speak of God, I am referring to the popular conception of a separate supernatural thinking, personal being with opinions that makes decisions, and created the universe. This is what the vast majority of human beings who say they believe in God are referring to when they use the word. If you are using another definition then it's true that little of what I have to say about God would necessarily apply. I may as well be talking about a desk while you are talking about a chair.

Now to your definition of God. It's very true that I admit that 'everything in the universe, past, present, and future' exists. It's also very true that within that reality are intelligences and thoughts and personalities. Therefore, by your definition of God, I am a believer in God. But if you were to call a well-cooked hamburger God, then you could similarly say I am a believer in God. You could even say I love God!

Far be it from me to tell you what words you choose to use for what in your worldview. But it seems to me that if we reality-believers, you and I, were to call our belief "God" we are inviting a good degree of confusion and misunderstandings when we know that most people aren't talking about a bunch of atoms, energy, and emergent properties when they're talking about God. There are also some other subtle difficulties that arise when we use the word in that sense. For example, you said, "God obviously values autonomy". If we plug what you mean by the word back into this sentence, you are saying, "'all-that-exists obviously values autonomy". But if all we currently know of that exists is us, possibly other intelligent beings on other worlds, and the rest of inert matter that is not us, how can we say that the universe "values" anything? Don't you have to be an intelligent entity to value something? Perhaps we could say this as we might say, "My phone wants to ring loudly" if we can't figure out how to make the ring quieter. Of course, in such a case we are just speaking loosely and personifying the phone - phones don't "want" anything.

Or, perhaps you mean the universe values autonomy because we, the intelligent beings that are part of that universe, value autonomy. That's fair, but then again, it's leaving a lot open to misunderstanding because it sounds to the casual observer that you're personifying rocks and planets and gas, etc. In a similar line of thought, you end your letter with "God Bless", which is commonly understood as shorthand for "May God bless you". Again, "bless" is normally thought of as a verb, performed by an entity that makes choices. If, on the other hand, you are saying "may the universe bless you" then you are essentially saying "may things work out such in reality that you experience good things". Either way, I appreciate the sentiment, but you can see how, by your definition, this is not much different in accuracy than saying "my phone wants to ring loudly".

In essence and substance, I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. Feel free to use the label "God" for reality if you wish, but I prefer to simply speak of my appreciation of nature and the universe.

Thanks again for your comments and for reading, and may the universe operate so as to bring you good fortune as well! :)

Sincerely,
Daniel

The Humanist Contemplative

2007-06-14T07:24:00.000-07:00

by DT Strain, December 2006

Introduction

Humanist Contemplatives are not a separate group from Humanists, but are individuals who can work with and in existing Humanist organizations. These are Humanists with a particular focus on the personal aspects of Humanism as a life practice.

The Foundation

Compassion is the foundational principle on which Humanist Contemplative thought is based. Compassion means love, concern, and caring for self, our fellow human beings, and life in general. All other principles of Humanist Contemplative thought - the application of reason, the pursuit of a flourishing life, the function of ethics, and our role in society - spring from this foundation and serve its ends[1].

Humanist Contemplatives recognize that Compassion is natural to our healthy development as social beings. This springs from the fact that we are all interconnected and interdependent – a result of the workings of nature and the world[2]. When we nurture our Compassion, we live more fulfilled and meaningful lives because we act in accordance with our best nature as human beings[3].

Compassion includes love and caring for the wellbeing of everyone, which results in several things. For one, this Compassion includes ourselves. When we use Compassion it does not imply allowing ourselves to be dominated or abused by others[4]. Caring for everyone also implies that we attempt to have Compassion even for our enemies. Some people who act poorly may be victims of their own misunderstandings and they suffer greatly for their deeds, even if they do not realize the source of their suffering. When we try to help our enemies improve, we are improved[5].

Being Compassionate means more than speaking the words and simply ‘caring’ within our own minds. Compassion is most essentially practiced through action. Humanist Contemplative thought seeks to move individuals to act on their values to a greater degree - whether it is in their interactions with those around them in daily life, or whether this refers to doing good for others. Humanist Contemplatives do not pray for others – rather, they should do for others. Without action, we are hypocrites.

Many Humanist and other freethought organizations have often focused on reason and rationality as the starting point or foundation[6]. Reason is an important natural faculty but it is primarily a tool. The ends for which that tool is used depend on our underlying motivations – and that is where the foundation of a philosophy is to be found. Rationality leads to a better understanding of our world, but regardless of what is true or false about reality – the simple fact of our coexistence here and now, and the benefits of Compassion here and now, are true. The reason we promote rationality is precisely because of its ability to improve the lives of others and ourselves. This shows that the real foundation of Humanism is Compassion.

The Flourishing Life

The aim of the Humanist Contemplative is to work toward ‘the flourishing life’. This has been described as eudaimonia, ‘the good life’, eupraxsophy, excellence, and even ‘enlightenment’[7]. The flourishing life is a life with true happiness and contentment. This understanding of happiness is not based on materialism, greed, power, wealth, fame, or other short-term gratification – nor is it based on escapist notions about other worlds, other lives, other entities, or abilities.

A flourishing life is one where a person is getting fulfillment and wellbeing from living ethically, meaningfully, responsibly, lovingly, and healthily among those around him or her. The Humanist Contemplative recognizes that ethics and integrity are good for us – they are part of a healthy life[8]. Unethical behaviors may seem to be to our benefit in the short run, but this has longer lasting effects which are not beneficial. Unethical people, or people obsessed with material wealth, rarely experience deep happiness in life as such.

A flourishing life also consists of continually making progress in improving ourselves, learning, growing, appreciating the arts, and achieving greater understanding of ourselves, others, and the world. To the Humanist Contemplative, these notions of ethical integrity, loving natures, and continual growth are what true spirituality is all about.

Thoughts & Beliefs

Humanist Contemplatives try to form their thoughts and beliefs about the world rationally, carefully, and with the utmost humility. Rather than having a set of pre-determined beliefs, Humanist Contemplatives are more concerned with how we arrive at our beliefs. It is understood that those beliefs may change over time as new information arises.

Humility comes into play first, in recognizing our limitations. Human beings are not omniscient (all-knowing) and our senses and ability to know are imperfect and limited. Because of this, we do not attempt to make claims or hold beliefs in things of which we have no verifiable evidence. When asked ultimate questions such as ‘how or why did existence come to be?’ or ‘does anything exist outside the observable realm?’ we are content to admit we don’t know.

However, there are many things we can know. Humanist Contemplatives have a strong respect for the human faculty of reason. Our ability to reason is one of the things that makes us human. While we are imperfect in all our endeavors, including our use of reason, it has nevertheless been our key means of success and progress throughout history. Therefore, our careful use of reason and rationality is paramount.

Reason includes many things such as the principles of logic, the scientific method, a good understanding of what constitutes reliable evidence, and a healthy skepticism regarding unproved or unprovable claims. This means we believe that the degree of belief in a proposition should be matched to the degree of physical evidence for a proposition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence[9].

On the other hand, credulousness, unthinking dogma, unfounded ideology, mysticism, faith-based conclusions, and superstition are perversions of human reason. Some of these tendencies can make us arrogant and presume to know more than we do, which damages our proper sense of humility. Good reasoning is vital to having a sound understanding of our world, and this understanding is vital to making wise decisions with respect to our wellbeing[10]. Therefore, while many good intentions and intelligent people may be involved in some of these activities, such tendencies obstruct our ability to use reason effectively and compassionately for the benefit of others and ourselves.

Since we have no reason to hold particular beliefs about an afterlife, gods, spirits, and so on, Humanist Contemplatives focus on living well and helping others to live well in the here and now[11]. This requires a certain moral maturity to accept our finite conditions and focus our energies on living rightly rather than living eternally[12].

Ethics & Practice

Humanist Contemplatives try firstly to always match their life and practices to their beliefs and proclaimed values, without hypocrisy or contradiction. We seek truth first, and try to understand truth without bias, prejudice, favoritism, or ulterior motive, as much as is humanly possible. We do not believe in misrepresenting or distorting facts for unethical purposes and do not hold ideological loyalty to any one conclusion, group, or tradition above the pursuit of truth.

Our values and perspective should show in our behavior, words, how we treat others, and even body language. Humanist Contemplatives are expected to be compassionate in character, deliberative in intellect, and upstanding in ethics. The demeanor of the Humanist Contemplative is one of self control, patience, mindfulness, civility, diplomacy, friendliness, and dignity without snobbery. The Contemplative remains collected and is not easily angered or offended, but instead cultivates his or her rationality and objectivity. Humanist Contemplatives seek to build reputations of integrity and respect, even among those with different or opposed beliefs.

Humanist Contemplatives are always willing to spread knowledge of their perspective to those who would listen. We are also anxious to speak up for what is right. However, forceful, aggressive, and rude attempts at conversion are not our way. While Humanist Contemplatives may not share all beliefs, and may even lack respect for beliefs which do harm, they do not lack respect for the right of all individuals to think and believe as they wish, or necessarily for the people themselves. We have confidence that reason and rational views can flourish well in free, informed, and open human minds, so long as they are not forced into closing as a reaction to sarcasm, aggression, glibness, arrogance, ridicule, or threats.

Humanist Contemplatives also have an interest in the inner, subjective human experience. This includes notions of the ‘profound experience’[13] through healthy sources such as epiphany, emotion, art, music, performance, and literature. We are not opposed to the role of ritual in human life and some of us may be Humanist Ministers, officiating at naming ceremonies, weddings, funerals, and other important events.

We are also not opposed to exploring a variety of spiritual practices, when there is secular benefit not solely based on ideas which lack evidence. For example, many Humanist Contemplatives may engage in meditation for the sake of stress relief, developing mindfulness, focusing attention, contemplation, or exploring variations on the experience of perception[14].

Humanist Contemplatives do not recoil at anything that has been associated with other traditions or religions on that basis alone. We are not opposed to gathering wisdom wherever it may be found, provided the content is sensible, reasonable, and does not rely on superstitious or unfounded notions about reality[15].

Society

While we certainly hold many social values, one aim of Humanist Contemplative thought is to begin with the person in the mirror. To work first on ourselves and show, by example, real Humanist living and values[16].

Having said this, Humanist Contemplatives do believe that participation in one’s society, government, and community is part of a full and flourishing life. As people who are committed to Humanism proper, we believe in democratic and just systems that promote liberty and individual autonomy[17]. We believe in such things as free speech and freedom of the press, church/state separation, and freedom of religion. Humanist Contemplatives support equal rights for all human beings regardless of race, creed, color, nationality, religion, political status, orientation, or gender. We support rights to birth control, abortion, and voluntary euthanasia. We are generally adverse to war and certainly to unjust or pre-emptive wars of aggression. We support sound and responsible environmental policies informed by the consensus of the scientific community[18].

Other concerns include: the obsessive consumerism and materialism in society, and the power it has over the people; the prevalence of media which encourages taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, and more.

In all of these cases, Humanist Contemplatives may actively work on a social level to affect change. But a big part of the Contemplative’s perspective is in working first on self development so that we can be an example within our own communities and families.

Conclusion

Some might ask, "Is this a religion?" and the Humanist Contemplative response would be that it matters little. To some it may be, and to others not. This is because definitions of ‘religion’ vary greatly between individuals and covers a good deal of ground[19]. We therefore leave it up to individuals, both Humanists and others, to decide for themselves whether they consider Humanism a religion.

Becoming a Humanist Contemplative
Becoming a Humanist Contemplative is as simple as making the choice to try and live by the values expressed here. There is no ‘Humanist Contemplative organization’ that is separate or distinct from other Humanist organizations, nor do we believe there should be. We agree with the International Humanist & Ethical Union’s call for Humanists to drop adjectives or prefixes and simply be ‘Humanists’ (capital ‘H’). Contemplatives are meant to be a part of their local Humanist organizations - serving as examples, guides, volunteers, officers, and (in cases where some may decide to become Ministers) officiates. At the most, and with permission of local leadership, Humanist Contemplatives might consider forming ‘clubs’ within their respective local organizations so that they might gather and discuss their thoughts and support one another in improvement, in a serene location with a non-debating informal and personal format.

To those Humanists who might choose to organize clubs within their organizations around the concept of the Humanist Contemplative, here are the five principles on which the club in Houston, Texas was based[20]:

1) Commitment to the principles of Humanism
The Humanist Contemplative is committed to the values of modern Humanism.

2) Focus on perfecting personal ‘life practice’
The Contemplative Club is inward looking. Rather than merely telling others how they are to live, Humanist Contemplatives start with the person in the mirror.

3) Reclaiming the Spiritual
The Contemplatives are fully comfortable reclaiming spiritual language in a naturalistic context.

4) Rejection of religious conflict and evangelism
The Humanist Contemplative rejects undue focus on attacking the beliefs of others and prefers instead to speak of Humanist beliefs.

5) Behavior
Humanist Contemplatives are expected to be compassionate in character, deliberative in intellect, upstanding in ethics, have self control, patience, mindfulness, civility, diplomacy, friendliness, and dignity without snobbery.

-----------------------------

NOTES:

[1] A capital ‘C’ is used for Compassion to designate its specific understanding in Humanist Contemplative thought, and to denote its centrality to the outlook.

[2] This interdependence is recognized in Buddhism, and also shown in our knowledge of the ecosystem in modern biology - and more generally, in complex systems theory.

[3] ‘Acting in accordance with Nature’ is a principle of the ancient Stoics, part of which was the recognition that when we act according to our nature we are happiest.

[4] As Ayn Rand said, no one should ‘sacrifice himself to others nor sacrifice others to himself’, but this must be deeply understood. Both ancient and modern philosophers have observed that helping others is ‘enlightened self interest’. The Dalai Lama has called it "wise-selfishness". In other words, genuinely loving and helping others is good for us – and that is a wonderful thing to understand.

[5] It was Socrates who is written to have said that ignorance is the only evil, and Jesus who is written to have said that we should not hate our enemies, but love them. These notions are best understood not as commandments, but as pragmatic advice.

[6] Atheist, agnostic, nontheist, Humanist, and other freethought groups often make the primary focus epistemology (how we form our beliefs). The emphasis then becomes why we don’t believe this or that. Instead, it is important to realize that, without Compassion for ourselves and others, we would have no impetus to be promoting sound epistemology in the world. It is this overemphasis on epistemology that has obscured a more balanced and accurate view of Humanism in the past.

[7] Paul Kurtz has coined the term ‘eupraxsophy’ to describe ‘wise practice’ and achieving ‘excellence’ in life. This includes moral excellence and is similar to the ancient Greek notion of ‘eudaimonia’ which essentially means ‘flourishing’. Many versions of Buddhist and other traditions refer to enlightenment as a state of mind and living.

[8] Epictetus observed that ‘virtue is both necessary and sufficient for happiness’.

[9] The phrase ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ was popularized by scientist and author Carl Sagan.

[10] The enlightenment taught us the value of modern reasoning and thinking methods. Our empowerment through technical achievement and human quality of life and expectancy since has shown that these methods are on the right track concerning their accuracy. Buddhists regard the Kalama Sutra in saying that our beliefs should be questioned and not accepted on the basis of authority or tradition. The Christian Bible says, "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18), and reason is one of the three pillars of Anglican/Episcopalian thought. Examples can go on and on.

[11] This is similar to (Buddha) Siddartha Gautama’s proclamation in the ‘The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow’ when asked ‘does the universe have a beginning or end?’ and ‘does the Buddha exist after death?’ Siddartha said that the truly spiritual or religious life doesn’t depend on these questions, but rather on addressing suffering in this life.

[12] Avoiding suffering by maturely accepting things beyond our control is another aspect of ancient Stoicism.

[13] This refers to what many might call the ‘religious experience’. Author Sam Harris has expressed the notion that nontheists need to explore further the inner subjective human experience – a realm that has been almost exclusively left to traditional religions.

[14] While some forms of meditation may involve notions of the supernatural or paranormal, many traditional practices of meditation require no such ideas. They are simply natural-based techniques for conditioning our minds, with varying degrees of utility for different individuals.

[15] As, for example, in this very document – where these notes reveal a wide variety of inspirations on good ideas and wise thoughts.

[16] The Humanist movement has often been expressed on more of a ‘social level’, with much attention paid to supporting various social policies such as church/state separation, birth control, education, social justice, and so on. These are all worthy and wonderful endeavors, but the specific aim of the Humanist Contemplative is to focus on the more personal aspects of Humanism. Former American Humanist Association Executive Director, Frederick Edwords, has provided many good perspectives on this in his essay, "Life is to Be Lived Now: A Vital Personal Humanism", which can be read HERE.

[17] As the Taoist philosopher Chuang-Tsu says, "I think one who knows how to govern the empire should not do so. For the people have certain natural instincts -- to weave and clothe themselves, to till the fields and feed themselves." (Horses’ Hooves).

[18] Many of these social values are elaborated by Frederick Edwords in, "The Humanist Philosophy In Perspective" (1984), in the section entitled, "Current Positions on Social Policy" and can be read at HERE.

[19] Some might say the very epitome of religion is that it consists of faith and/or the supernatural, such as in the various criticisms of religion by notable freethinkers. But, as stated in note [11], the Buddha said that what was central to religion was the opposite – those things which address well being in this life. Albert Einstein held a similar notion when he said, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity..." Given these divergent views, it is far more helpful to speak of specifics such as traditions, rituals, beliefs, practices, methods, values, and ethics rather than the vague notion of ‘religion’.

[20] The first Humanist Contemplatives Club was founded as a focus group of the Humanists of Houston in Houston, Texas on June 29, 2006, by Daniel Strain. These five points were part of the ideas on which the club was created.

Stoicism chart

2007-05-15T09:29:00.000-07:00

This is a temporary posting for sharing this graphic. It is very speculative and may be inaccurate. Please do not use it for scholarly purposes.

AP Article on Kurt Vonnegut's death 4/11/2007

2007-04-12T04:26:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared the day after Vonnegut's death on April 11, 2007, from Associated Press on Yahoo News (original link HERE). It has been reposted here, in case the original link is no longer active. Links were added by me, and many were not necessarily present in the original article.

Novelist Kurt Vonnegut dies at age 84

By CRISTIAN SALAZAR, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Kurt Vonnegut, the satirical novelist who captured the absurdity of war and questioned the advances of science in darkly humorous works such as "Slaughterhouse-Five" and "Cat's Cradle," died Wednesday. He was 84.

Vonnegut, who often marveled that he had lived so long despite his lifelong smoking habit, had suffered brain injuries after a fall at his Manhattan home weeks ago, said his wife, photographer Jill Krementz.

The author of at least 19 novels, many of them best-sellers, as well as dozens of short stories, essays and plays, Vonnegut relished the role of a social critic. Indianapolis, his hometown, declared 2007 as "The Year of Vonnegut" — an announcement he said left him "thunderstruck."

He lectured regularly, exhorting audiences to think for themselves and delighting in barbed commentary against the institutions he felt were dehumanizing people.

"I will say anything to be funny, often in the most horrible situations," Vonnegut, whose watery, heavy-lidded eyes and unruly hair made him seem to be in existential pain, once told a gathering of psychiatrists.

A self-described religious skeptic and freethinking humanist, Vonnegut used protagonists such as Billy Pilgrim and Eliot Rosewater as transparent vehicles for his points of view. He also filled his novels with satirical commentary and even drawings that were only loosely connected to the plot. In "Slaughterhouse-Five," he drew a headstone with the epitaph: "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt."

But much in his life was traumatic, and left him in pain.

Despite his commercial success, Vonnegut battled depression throughout his life, and in 1984, he attempted suicide with pills and alcohol, joking later about how he botched the job.

"I think he was a man who combined a wicked sense of humor and sort of steady moral compass, who was always sort of looking at the big picture of the things that were most important," said Joel Bleifuss, editor of In These Times, a liberal magazine based in Chicago that featured Vonnegut articles.

His mother killed herself just before he left for Germany during World War II, where he was quickly taken prisoner during the Battle of the Bulge. He was being held in Dresden when Allied bombs created a firestorm that killed an estimated tens of thousands of people.

"The firebombing of Dresden explains absolutely nothing about why I write what I write and am what I am," Vonnegut wrote in "Fates Worse Than Death," his 1991 autobiography of sorts.

But he spent 23 years struggling to write about the ordeal, which he survived by huddling with other POW's inside an underground meat locker labeled slaughterhouse-five.

The novel, in which Pvt. Pilgrim is transported from Dresden by time-traveling aliens from the planet Tralfamadore, was published at the height of the Vietnam War, and solidified his reputation as an iconoclast.

"He was sort of like nobody else," said Gore Vidal, who noted that he, Vonnegut and Norman Mailer were among the last writers around who served in World War II.

"He was imaginative; our generation of writers didn't go in for imagination very much. Literary realism was the general style. Those of us who came out of the war in the 1940s made it sort of the official American prose, and it was often a bit on the dull side. Kurt was never dull."

Vonnegut was born on Nov. 11, 1922, in Indianapolis, a "fourth-generation German-American religious skeptic Freethinker," and studied chemistry at Cornell University before joining the Army.

When he returned, he reported for Chicago's City News Bureau, then did public relations for General Electric, a job he loathed. He wrote his first novel, "Player Piano," in 1951, followed by "The Sirens of Titan," "Canary in a Cat House" and "Mother Night," making ends meet by selling Saabs on Cape Cod.

Critics ignored him at first, then denigrated his deliberately bizarre stories and disjointed plots as haphazardly written science fiction. But his novels became cult classics, especially "Cat's Cradle" in 1963, in which scientists create "ice-nine," a crystal that turns water solid and destroys the earth.

Many of his novels were best-sellers. Some also were banned and burned for suspected obscenity. Vonnegut took on censorship as an active member of the PEN writers' aid group and the American Civil Liberties Union. The American Humanist Association, which promotes individual freedom, rational thought and scientific skepticism, made him its honorary president.

His characters tended to be miserable anti-heros with little control over their fate. Vonnegut said the villains in his books were never individuals, but culture, society and history, which he said were making a mess of the planet.

"We probably could have saved ourselves, but we were too damned lazy to try very hard... and too damn cheap," he once suggested carving into a wall on the Grand Canyon, as a message for flying-saucer creatures.

He retired from novel writing in his later years, but continued to publish short articles. He had a best-seller in 2005 with "A Man Without a Country," a collection of his nonfiction work, including jabs at the Bush administration ("upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography") and the uncertain future of the planet.

He called the book's success "a nice glass of champagne at the end of a life."

In recent years, Vonnegut worked as a senior editor and columnist at In These Times. Bleifuss said he had been trying to get Vonnegut to write something more for the magazine, but was unsuccessful.

"He would just say he's too old and that he had nothing more to say. He realized, I think, he was at the end of his life," Bleifuss said.

Vonnegut, who had homes in Manhattan and the Hamptons in New York, adopted his sister's three young children after she died. He also had three children of his own with his first wife, Ann Cox, and later adopted a daughter, Lily, with his second wife, the noted photographer Jill Krementz.

Vonnegut once said that of all the ways to die, he'd prefer to go out in an airplane crash on the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro. He often joked about the difficulties of old age.

"When Hemingway killed himself he put a period at the end of his life; old age is more like a semicolon," Vonnegut told The Associated Press in 2005.

"My father, like Hemingway, was a gun nut and was very unhappy late in life. But he was proud of not committing suicide. And I'll do the same, so as not to set a bad example for my children."

-------------
Associated Press writers Michael Warren, Hillel Italie and Chelsea Carter contributed to this report.

Simmias’ Harmony

2007-02-04T07:40:00.000-08:00

Socrates’ Arguments For A Distinct Soul Dissected
DT Strain, February 2006

Phaedo may be especially important in ancient Greek philosophic concepts on the soul. In it, Socrates is written to argue for the existence of an immortal soul, distinct and separate from the body. Much later, while the Hebrews did not accept the concept of a distinct soul, the Christian tradition had moved beyond the Hebrews and into Gentile culture, in which it took on some different aspects to which they could relate. Given that Greek philosophy was an influential factor in the later development of Gentile Christianity[1], the impact of the reasoning in Phaedo might be an original and profound, if forgotten, basis for the modern Western concept of the soul. This article looks back at those original arguments, parses them out from the conversational style of Phaedo, and speculates on how they would fare given today’s knowledge.

In his first two arguments, Socrates attempts to argue for the existence of a soul. Argument #3 attempts to support its pre-existence, before our current life (perhaps as in some sort of reincarnation). Argument #4 attempts to prove the continued existence of the soul after death. Following Argument #4, Simmias (a person with whom Socrates is conversing) offers a counter proposal for understanding the relationship of the mind to the body. Remarkably, Simmias’ argument and his analogy make perfect sense, given what we know of the brain through science today. Nevertheless, Socrates follows with three more arguments (#5, #6, #7) designed to show Simmias’ model to be unfounded and thus, the concept of the distinct soul triumphs in Phaedo.

One thing to take note of here is that (at least in my translation) the words ‘mind’ and ‘soul’ are used interchangeably. These philosophies on the soul are especially naturalistic in nature. Unlike our supernatural conception of the soul and the afterlife, Socrates in his time did not make a distinction between the real and “ethereal” planes, as modern theistic philosophy does. These were people attempting to understand their world and they viewed the soul and the afterlife as much a part of nature as the seasons, fire, breath, democracy, or decay.

One indication of this naturalistic view is Socrates’ line to Simmias, “You fear that, upon death, the soul may scatter in the wind, especially if a man dies in stormy weather.” Another indication of Socrates’ materialist view of the soul is in the fourth premise in Argument #3, “The concept of equality (as with all other absolute concepts) can only be known through the medium of the senses.”

In a later section of Phaedo, Socrates describes to Simmias his understanding of the nature of the world, heaven, and the gods...

I believe that [the earth] is vast in size, and that we who dwell between the river Phasis and the Pillars of Hercules inhabit only a minute portion of it... We do not realize that we are living in its hollows, but assume we are living on the earth’s surface. Imagine someone living in the depths of the sea. He might think that he was living on the surface, and seeing the sun and the other heavenly bodies through the water; he might think that the sea was the sky. He might be so sluggish and feeble that he had never... emerged and raised his head from the sea into this world of ours, and seen for himself... how much purer and more beautiful it really is than the one in which his people lives. Now we are in just the same position... We call the air heaven, as though it were the heaven through which the stars move. And this point too is the same, that we are too feeble and sluggish to make our way out to the upper limit of the air. If someone could reach to the summit, or put on wings and fly aloft, when he put up his head he would see the world above, just as fishes see our world when they put up their heads out of the sea. And if his nature were able to bear the sight, he would recognize that that is the true heaven and the true light and the true earth...

There are many kinds of animals [above the air], and also human beings... As water and the sea are to us for our purposes, so is air to them, and as air to us, so the aether is to them. Their climate is so temperate that they are free from disease and live much longer than people do here, and in sight and hearing and understanding and all other faculties they are as far superior to us as air is to water or aether to air in clarity.

They also have sanctuaries and temples which are truly inhabited by gods, and oracles and prophesies and visions and all other kinds of communion with gods occur there face to face. They see the sun and moon and stars as they really are, and the rest of their happiness is after the same manner.[2]

Absent in this talk is any notion of a ‘supernatural’ realm. Socrates moves smoothly, as though in a literal rocket ship, from the land to the sky, and above the air into what we call space today. He then speaks in the same context of heavenly beings, gods, and moons in the same breath. His explanation for the purity, long life, and better understanding of the gods is based on his suspicions regarding the material properties of elements in these regions. As Socrates speculates about the nature of the world, his outlook is thoroughly naturalistic. What he describes is closer to a ‘science fiction’, rather than theology as we approach it today. This naturalistic monism continued into philosophies such as Stoicism, which in other ways had a large impact on Paul and the Bible.

When the ancient Greeks like Socrates spoke of heaven, they literally meant what one sees in the night sky. When they spoke of an underworld, they literally meant a place that could in principle be reached with a shovel. These were expectations about far-off lands in their world, and talk of souls were investigations into how and why natural life forms are able to move and think. These souls were seen as a sort of natural phenomenon, yet invisible – as we might think of gasses and electromagnetism today.

Much later, when such literal concepts began to seem ridiculous (or at least extraneous) in light of more information about the world and biology, people began to find new ways of explaining nature, while the older explanations had since become cherished beliefs. This is when the concept of the supernatural began to emerge as it exists today.

In his book, Christianity Without God, Lloyd Geering explains that, although Jewish prophesies referred to a literal and physical heaven and earth, Christians in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries mentally constructed the notion of an immaterial and separate supernatural realm to account for the failure of a quick second coming of Jesus[3].

This ‘unseen realm’ allowed believers to go on believing what they wished, without any fear of disproof from surrounding evidence. What is important to understand in viewing the following arguments in Phaedo is that they take place in a philosophically pre-supernatural setting.

Another point to take note of is that these dialogues take place about two thousand years before the scientific revolution. Only then was it fully appreciated that that physical evidence is required to prove assertions about matters of fact (such as what exists), and such assertions cannot be proved by analogy or argument alone. Nevertheless, Socrates and his bunch often refer to assertions as having been ‘proved’ merely by analogy or argument - something we must naturally take with a grain of salt today.

Without further ado, these are the arguments regarding the soul in Phaedo, broken down into premises and conclusions...

ARGUMENT #1: Opposites
1. All opposites are generated out of their opposites.
2. Anything that becomes greater, must become greater after being less.
3. Between each extreme, there are two intermediate conditions: increase and decrease (wax & wane, cool & heat, growing & shrinking, etc.)
4. There is an opposite to life (death) with two intermediate processes.
5. If death comes from life, then life comes from death.
6. The dead must come from somewhere to make the living.
Conclusion: The dead must exist somewhere.

ARGUMENT #2: Entropy
1. If all things died and remained dead, then all things would eventually be dead.
2. All things are not dead.
Conclusion: All things must not remain dead after dying.

ARGUMENT #3: The pre-existence of the soul
1. All things remind us of other things, some like, and some unlike.
2. There is a higher quality shared by like things which makes them equal.
3. In order to recognize that some things are more or less equal, we must have had a concept of equality before we first looked upon these things.
4. The concept of equality (as with all other absolute concepts such as beauty, good, justice, and holiness) can only be known through the senses.
Conclusion: All learning is recollection of previous learning, with the physical senses, we experienced before our current lives.

ARGUMENT #4: The continuation of the soul after death
1. the compound may change, while the uncompounded is stable and remains the same.
2. Beauty, justice, and all other “essences” are constant, while horses, men, etc. are in a constant state of change.
3. Horses, men, etc. can be touched and perceived with the senses, while the unchanging essences can only be seen with the mind - they are invisible.
4. There are, then, two forms of existence: the seen (changing), and the unseen (unchanging).
5. The body is seen and the soul is unseen.
6. The body changes.
Conclusion: The soul is unchangeable and will exist forever.

SIMMIAS’ ARGUMENT: The harmony and the lyre
1. A lyre and its strings are matter, material, earthly, composite, and akin to mortality.
2. The harmony is invisible, incorporeal, fair, divine, and abides in the lyre.
3. When the lyre is broken, the harmony has perished, even before the lyre.
Conclusion: The soul, like the harmony, perishes when the body, like the lyre, ceases to function.

ARGUMENT #5: First response to Simmias (pre-existence)
1. Harmony is not pre-existent to the lyre.
2. Either Simmias’ argument, or the pre-existence of the soul, is invalid.
3. The pre-existence of the soul has been proven in Argument #3.
Conclusion: Simmias’ lyre/harmony analogy must be invalid.

ARGUMENT #6: Second response to Simmias (degrees)
1. There are different degrees of harmony: some “less” of a harmony than others.
2. There are not degrees of souls: some “less” of a soul than others.
Conclusion: Simmias’ lyre/harmony analogy must be invalid.

ARGUMENT #7: Third response to Simmias (opposition to its parts)
1. A harmony cannot be in a state other than that of the elements out of which it is compounded.
2. A harmony does not make up the parts, but only follows them.
3. A harmony cannot have any sound or motion which is opposed to the parts.
4. Every harmony depends on the manner in which the parts are harmonized.
5. The soul is sometimes at variance with the body.
6. The soul leads the body, and not vice versa, as with the harmony and the lyre.
Conclusion: Simmias’ lyre/harmony analogy must be invalid.

Commentary

Socrates went on to say that he once loved the natural sciences and enjoyed investigating such questions as, “what is the nature of decay?” and “What is the source of thought? Is it blood, air, fire, or perhaps the brain?” (these would be the equivalent of today’s studies in taphonomy and neurobiology). He then concluded that he was “wholly incapable of these inquiries” - no doubt, due to a lack of the knowledge and technology in his time. Having, abandoned these studies, he then appears to make an expression of what might be ‘sour grapes’ when he criticizes the natural sciences as confusing cause with effect. Nevertheless, it seems that, with his desire to seek Truth objectively, his willingness to go against the grain, and his naturalistic/monistic outlook on the world, Socrates would have likely concluded quite differently had he the biological and scientific knowledge of the body and brain that we enjoy today.

For instance, knowledge of brain function would be especially beneficial to his misunderstandings in Argument #7. Premise 6 of that argument is, “The soul leads the body, and not vice versa, as with the harmony and the lyre”. However, modern studies of brain function by researchers such as Benjamin Libet, reveal that what we would call the mind today is indeed led by the body. Despite our perception that we make a decision and the body carries it out, Libet’s volition scans showed that the brain actually makes decisions a split second before we become aware of making them[4].

Knowledge of how memory functions in the brain and the basics on neural activity would likely have also destroyed Argument #3 for him. Recognizing that some things are “more or less equal” is a product of pattern recognition – a function we can replicate with other neural network structures. This allows one to understand how such evaluations can be made in the brain without prior knowledge. That is, unless one considers the genetic data that determines the growth of that neural network to be ‘prior knowledge’. But if Socrates were to have known about DNA, genetic codes would have to become Socrates’ “soul” based on Argument #3, and it seems unlikely he would have gone in this direction rather than simply discarding the argument.

As it goes, Argument #5 rests upon Argument #3. If there is no reason to suspect the pre-existence of the soul, then the fact that a harmony doesn’t exist before the lyre in no way harms Simmias’ argument.

A simple correction in Simmias’ argument, changing “harmony” to “sound” would overcome Argument #6. This means that all three of Socrates’ arguments in response to Simmias (#5, #6, #7) are invalidated given what we know about information processing, neural networks, and brain function today.

Socrates’ approach was a naturalistic one that sought to take into account all available evidence. There are no tendencies in Socrates toward accepting claims on the notion of ‘faith’. Therefore, had Socrates access to the information we have today, it seems very likely he would have been convinced by Simmias’ argument (or perhaps even thought of it first). If so, Socrates’ position on an immortal soul would have much more closely aligned with modern materialists – the effects of which may have been profound on the philosophic atmosphere in Greece and proceeding Western, and perhaps Christian, thought about souls.

Any relevant, applicable, or practical philosophy to be pursued regarding a ‘soul’ in today’s time must look at current understanding about brain function, and build new arguments from the ground up. That is not to say that an argument for a distinct soul couldn’t be made given today’s information. But in order to pass muster as a serious notion on the level it had been in Socrates' day, those arguments would need to take into account behavior as it relates to brain function. More importantly, such arguments would need to justify themselves against Ockham’s Razor, have predictive power, and align with the expectations of any serious theory. When brain function can explain behavior, why should we assume the machine is haunted by additional phenomena? This is the challenge of the modern proponent of the dualistic soul.

Perhaps the most promising avenue for soul proponents would be to note what Consciousness philosopher David Chalmers calls the ‘hard question’ of consciousness, which is beyond the scope of this essay[5]. Still, such notions would be mere hypothesis at best and be very much in danger of slipping into extraneousness.

Rather, we currently have every reason to suspect that when the brain is destroyed, Simmias’ harmony also ceases. We cannot hold it against Socrates for addressing what was, in his time, a serious hypothetical contender for a description of living entities. But as for today, until or unless more sophisticated arguments are discovered, the notion of a distinct soul should be considered out of the realm of serious philosophical thought and more in the realm of superstition and folklore – at best, when described materially, an ancient scientific hypothesis now obsolete.

References:

[1] Cliffs Notes on The New Testament, Charles H. Patterson, Ph.D., Department of Philosophy, University of Nebraska, 1995, Cliffs Notes, Inc., pp. 17, 20-21, 23-24.

[2] Plato: Collected Dialogues, editors Edith Hamilton & Huntington Caims, 1989, Princeton University Press, pp. 90-91.

[3] Christianity Without God, Lloyd Geering, 2002, Polebridge Press, pp. 89.

[4] A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination, Gerald M. Edelman & Giulio Tononi, 2000, Basic Books, pp. 68-69.

[5] “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness”, David Chalmers, http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf.

Stoicism and the Search for Truth

2006-12-22T12:23:00.000-08:00

The following is an email exchange I had beginning on December 21, 2006 with a man named Matt. He asked about Stoicism and searching for solutions and a good upbringing for his child after having abandoned many of his Christian beliefs...

[Matt's text will be in blue; mine in black]

MATT:

Dear sir,

I wanted to thank you for the brilliant website you maintain. I have found it to be tremendous and thought provoking resource as I have been researching and understanding various philosophies of life. What has recently intensified my search for a new philosophy of life has been the recent birth to my wife and I our our first child. My belief is that I have a duty to provide to our son a logical and moral system of beliefs that he can use to deal with the difficulties of modern life and use to live a happy, fulfilled and moral life.

While not a regular church-goer, I have been nominally Christian for much of my life. However, since my middle teen years, I have been increasingly unable to reconcile so many precepts of Christian faith with logic and reason. The traditions, sense of community and fellowship, and generally sound moral guidance that are part of many churches are a wonderful thing. However, I find it difficult to reconcile myself to what I see as the inherently hypocritical position of belonging to a church when I do not in my heart believe in the most basic "supernatural" tenants of Christian faith.

As I read the works of Edith Hamilton on the ancient world, I became intrigued with the stoic philosophy. I am greatly attracted to its focus on self improvement and self reliance, as well as the philosophy's rich history. I am also strongly attracted to its overall theistic underpinnings which do not require any belief in the supernatural, but a belief in only that which our senses can clear observe. i.e. God is not an abstract supernatural entity but the reason and natural order in the world that we observe with our own senses.

Just when I think Stoicism may offer the makings of a complete, deep and integrated philosophy of life to follow and teach my son, problems and questions arise with some of the seemingly basic tenants of stoic philosophy . The ancient stoics seem to go off the deep end with some of their teachings.

My two issues with Stoic philosophy as I currently understand it are:

#1 -- Seeming notion by Epictetus and other Stoics that health, money, and other "external" things are of no importance. In my view this stands totally against reason. It seems to me that good health and a reasonable level of material comfort are good things that enrich one's life and without one's life can be pretty miserable. It is only when one steps outside reasonable balance and moderation that as desire for good and and money becomes an issue.

#2 -- The other is a seemingly passive acceptance of what ever injustices may exist in the world. Accepting and being at peace with what we have no control over seems logical, but to accept all the injustices of the world as just Nature's way. I shudder to think what would have become of the Western world had Churchill and FDR taken Epictetus' view of the world.

What I am searching for is some "modern" take on Stoicism, which retains its positive features but balances them out with some Aristotelian logic. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on others who have successfully addressed these issues, or do you think I am attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable?

Best Regards,
Matt

DT STRAIN:
Hello Matt!

(note, there are hyperlinks in this email - please let me know if they aren't functional for you)

Thank you for reading my website and for your kind comments on it. Needless to say, the task you have before you as a parent is a very important one and I'm happy to see you taking the thought with it you are - you have my respect.

I also think your dilemma is not uncommon in the U.S. While we all desire a community, this country seems to be undergoing a cultural revolution of sorts, as more and more people come to question their traditional faiths. My hope is that we not abandon our concern for ethical principles and good living along with the various mythologies.

Stoicism definitely has a lot to offer, and I'd encourage you to learn more about it. It has certainly improved my life (even though I am nowhere near a perfect practitioner of it). I do suspect you'll also find that the ancient stoics had some ideas we might not find relevant, given their time - but what is relevant is surprisingly abundant. On the concept of God, I think you'll find a range of 'takes' within stoicism - from the more traditional/personal conception, to the more abstract impersonal. At the far end of that spectrum would be myself, who wouldn't even use the word 'God' to describe the 'Nature' in stoicism. Zeno seemed to me to hold a less personal view of the deity than Epictetus did - who almost sounds Christian in some passages.

Dr. Keith Seddon is quite an expert on stoicism and has written a book called Epictetus' Handbook and the Tablet of Cebes: Guides to Stoic Living. I haven't read this book but I know Dr. Seddon to be a bit more on the 'personal deity' side of stoicism - still, I'm sure it's a wonderful book with much useful in it, judging by other things I've read of his.

The only book I know of where someone has taken stoicism and consciously attempted to modernize it (and strip it of any personal-god elements) is called A New Stoicism by Lawrence C. Becker. I do have this book and have read most of it, but unfortunately it is quite hefty in its technical jargon. I've received more from books like The Spiritual Teachings of Marcus Aurelius by Mark Forstater and The Art of Living: The Classical Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and Effectiveness edited by Sharon Lebell.

I have written a short essay called "About Stoicism" in which I don't use any technical language and try to explain the concepts in a very modern-compatible sense.

To answer your two points:

#1 - While things like wealth and health and relationships are in the category stoics call 'indifferents' it is important to note that there are 'preferred indifferents', 'dispreferred indifferents', and just plain 'true indifferents'. I think they would say that wealth, health, and friends, while not 'goods' in themselves, are nevertheless 'preferred indifferents'. This means that we can strive for them, but we must realize that they are not ultimately within our control and therefore we cannot attach our fundamental happiness to having them as a prerequisite. In other words, they use a different category in order to emphasize the thought, "don't get carried away with attachments to these things". As a Humanist, I find it easier to say that we can enjoy the material and relational benefits to life and that's wonderful, but our True Happiness comes from within, and shouldn't be so dependent on our material conditions.

#2 - Stoics will debate vehemently the notion that they are suggesting inaction. Rather, what stoicism demands is virtuous action. In some cases this may mean acting or in others not. What they are saying is that, as long as we handle the part that we have control over (acting virtuously), then we need should simply accept those things we don't have control over (such as the outcomes of our actions). Failure to accept what we cannot control is the source of unhappiness. For example, if a person is drowning and we did nothing, we could not find contentment because we had failed to act virtuously. But if we act virtuously and do everything we can to save the person, and it turns out the person dies anyway, then we can rest assured in the knowledge that we made the virtuous choice - the rest was out of our hands and in the hands of Nature (i.e., the coming together of all the factors according to rational cause and effect, which we had no control over). This is what accepting the nature of things is about, rather than inaction.

One thing I might point out is that, in your search, it need not be the case that you find one pre-packaged tradition, philosophy, or religion. I have experienced that useful truths can be found in many of these. For example, I have found many aspects of Buddhism just as relevant, true, and useful as stoicism. I wouldn't consider myself a Buddhist, or even a stoic, but rather a Buddhist-enthusiast and a Stoic-enthusiast. Because the elements are consistent with my Humanist outlook, I still mainly consider myself a Humanist. Although I no longer hold supernatural views and I'm no longer a Christian, I even found myself recently asking at a difficult time, "what would Jesus do?" - as I find some of the thoughts on compassion, love, and peace in this iconic figure's story to be useful.

What is more important than finding a source with all the answers (which I have yet to do), is to have some good ideas about how to seek good answers. This may be what you're doing in the "reconciling" you mentioned. I might suggest you take a look at my essay "What is a Philosopher?". You might also take a look at my answer to question #3 on raising children in my report of a recent panel discussion HERE.

I have also recently completed an article that neatly sums up what I think is most important, called "The Humanist Contemplative" (link HERE). I hope this may be helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Daniel
(PS - would you mind if I placed this exchange on my blog? I can leave off your whole name if you prefer.)

MATT:

Daniel,

Thank you for taking the time to provide such a thoughtful reply. You kind help is much appreciated.

I clearly have my work cut out for me, probably a lifetime of it. You have truly given me a wealth of ideas as to how to proceed further, and I am leaving for the bookstore this evening to purchase some of the texts you mentioned for further study. Thank you in particular for your comment on the Unitarian Church as well as Humanism, two areas in which I am largely ignorant but which certainly seem worth investigating further.

Your point about it not being necessarily the case that the answers I am seeking will come neatly packaged in one existing philosophy is very well taken. I suppose I've always known that it was somewhat naive to expect one philosophy to be "the answer" My concern has been that if I am not very careful and take an undisciplined cafeteria approach to different philosophies, I could very well end up with a contradictory mishmash rather than a coherent approach and outlook on life. I look forward to reading your essay "What is a Philosopher?". and other suggestions to see how you have dealt with this issue.

I too share the concern you noted in your e-mail that as many in society move away from traditional belief systems that we as a society do not just fall into a sort of hedonistic nihilism. With the threat posed to the world today by fanaticism, I think this is a particularly concerning issue and makes the work done by people such as your self of high importance. Keep up the good work.

Of course, if you feel our discussion would be of some benefit to others by posting on your blog, you are welcome to do so.

Best Regards,
Matt

DT STRAIN:
Thanks for your permission to post Matt - I think other readers would find it interesting.

On the cafeteria approach, I think the danger you mention is a valid concern - but I tend to look at the exercise of carefully considering and selecting these various bits and pieces as a means of sharpening our moral deliberation skills (WHY is this a good idea, and that a bad idea? WHY is it true, moral, good, beneficial? etc) --not to mention the fact that in our times we may have little alternative than to forge new paths. We should conduct that exploration with some good foundational principles and methods to keep us from going too far astray (such as outlined in "What Is A Philosopher" and "The Humanist Contemplative"). But the main point is, if we're having to do that sort of exploration, then we are doing more than merely subscribing to a doctrine - we are engaging in a practice.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Philosophy of Religion Panel 2006

2006-12-08T04:35:00.000-08:00

On December 2, 2006, Professor Thi Lam hosted a Philosophy of Religion Panel Discussion at San Jacinto College. It was subtitled, "Exploring the Relationship Between Faith & Morality". The panel consisted of four participants: Jim Ashmore representing Freethought, Zeeshan Ramzan representing Islam, Patricia Gehret representing Christianity, and myself (DT Strain) representing Humanism. It was attended by approximately 200 people, consisting of both Thi Lam's students and visitors from among various beliefs.

After a brief summary of their position on religion, the panel was asked four questions by the moderator. Following these, members of the audience were able to ask questions to the panelists. Once the event concluded, several panelists and attendees had lunch together at a local restaurant.

Here is a video of this event in two parts. Below the videos are the questions that were asked in Part 1, and my response to each in print form, with some slight variation and elaboration at points. The sound quality is not perfect on these so you may need to turn your volume up to hear...

Part 1: Presentations

Part 2: Questions & Answers

=====================

What is Humanism?

Humanists are people who believe in a natural universe as understood through reason, people who wish to live ethical and meaningful lives without faith in the supernatural, and people who care for their fellow human being. Humanists are informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. The International Humanist & Ethical Union summarizes Humanism as follows:

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for building a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

Well-Known Humanists include Star Trek creator Gene Rodenberry, Scientist Carl Sagan, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, Actor Marlon Brando, Polio Vaccine inventor Jonas Salk, broadcaster Ted Turner, author Kurt Vonnegut, architect Frank Lloyd Wright, and more. The International Humanist & Ethical Union represent the views of over three million Humanists in over 100 national organizations in 30 countries. Still many more people are Humanists by belief, but have simply never heard of term ‘Humanism’.

1. Do you find the Divine Command Theory to be persuasive? Is it a viable ethical theory that one can use in the real world to resolve ethical problems? Are there any difficulties in its application?

For the DCT to be persuasive, one would first have to provide rational reasons to believe that such a God that issued moral commands existed in the first place. They would then need to provide reasons as to how we know what it is such a being is actually commanding. Therefore, the DCT is not persuasive to Humanists.

Nor is the DCT a viable theory one can use to resolve ethical problems in the real world, unless we are speaking only of ethical problems that arise between those members of the same close religious sect. These people can resolve ethical issues by resorting to their shared beliefs. For the rest of the world, or between members of different belief systems, the DCT is practically useless – certainly for Humanists it is.

Instead, Humanists say that the good is good in its own right. The Humanist Manifesto III states that, “Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.” The Humanist Manifesto 2000 says, “Using reason and cognition will better enable us to appraise our values in the light of evidence and by their consequences.”

Humanists believe it is the consequences on overall human happiness and wellbeing that determine whether or not a value, a virtue, or an ethic is good. In our view, no supernatural sanction or command is needed to justify the wisdom of being good.

2. Can one lead a morally virtuous life without belief in God? If so, how?

There have been numerous examples of virtuous people who lacked a belief in a personal God. There have also been numerous examples of theists who lived very unethical lives. Contrary to popular conception, there is no statistical evidence that theists are any more law abiding, civil, just, or ethical than nontheists. Although legal adherence is not identical to ethics, it is something which is easier to measure. We can at least know that – statistically – a higher percentage of theists find themselves in prison than nontheists, and that sort of comparison accounts for the fact that theists outnumber nontheists.

Authoritarianism may be a necessary approach for very young children who are learning discipline and can’t yet comprehend ideas about right and wrong. But Humanists believe that real morality – real virtue – cannot come from the extortion of punishments or threat of suffering. We believe that ethical values can’t be properly understood if they are represented merely as authoritative edicts without appreciation of exactly how and why a moral character is important to human wellbeing.

Humanists believe that when a person is raised to view morality merely as obedience, they miss out on a more mature understanding of moral excellence as a part of a healthy, happy, and compassionate human life.

Such a mythological view of the world seems to repress that deeper understanding of morality and keep the theist at a childlike level of moral maturity. For the Humanist then, the real question becomes, “Is it really possible to lead a morally virtuous life with a belief in such a God?”

3. How can parents best teach their children about morality?

Humanists are fully convinced that morality, at its heart, makes sense. Morality is rational, it is logical, it is practical, it is compassionate, and it is helpful. To be sure, we believe parents should teach their children to think critically, to value truth over what they simply want to believe is true, to question authority, and to have a healthy skepticism and curiosity to find out for themselves. These skills will help them engage in moral deliberation but will also serve them well in other areas.

Beyond good thinking skills, Humanists believe it is important to nurture a child’s natural sense of empathy. Empathy is something humans have which allows us to identify with what other people are feeling, and to see things from others’ perspective. This inclination can be suppressed through abuse and neglect, or nourished by a loving environment and active examples and lessons.

Next, Humanists teach their children about tolerance and love for their entire human family. Being a minority, Humanist children have often experienced ridicule or ostracism for not participating in prayers, not holding a belief in gods, and so on. It is important to teach all children not to build unfounded ideas about whole groups based on the actions of a few, and not to engage in the same sort of behavior in return. It is important to teach them to provide an example of Humanist values in their own actions - that differences are best addressed with compassion for others and honest, considerate dialogue. Lastly, Humanists believe that people should live their values, and not be hypocrites – proclaiming one belief but living their lives in contradiction to those beliefs.

4. From your position, what is the meaning of life?

The word ‘meaning’ necessarily refers to someone for whom something has meaning. It is nonsensical to say “x means y” without saying “x means y TO someone”. When most theists talk about the meaning of life, what they are really asking is, “what is the meaning of my life to God?”

Humanists believe that we each have the right and ability to define our own meaning in life. The meaning of life for me may be different from the meaning of life for you - and this is far superior to having your life’s meaning handed to you on a platter.

As naturalists, Humanists believe that our minds and our consciousness arise from the activity of our brains. When this activity stops, we have every reason to believe that our conscious life ceases. This is the very reason why Humanists hold that life is sacred and each day of our lives is priceless. As with the laws of supply & demand, the more limited a commodity is, the more valuable it becomes - so each day of a finite life is of far greater worth than those of an infinite life.

While some may view a finite life negatively, Humanists believe that life should not be viewed as a means to an end - as in, "What did I live for?" Instead, life should be viewed as an end unto itself; to be enjoyed for its own sake. The value in life is in the living of it.

A good illustration of this can be found in the example of other finite experiences: sand castles and ice sculptures. Why do we build these? Neither structure is permanent and yet, for the audience the value is higher because of the transience of the experience. For the artist, the joy is in the creation process, rather than the finished product per se. This is not unlike the Tibetan Monks who go to great lengths to pour colored sand into meticulous elaborate designs. These designs are eventually swept away but, for the monks, it is the process of creating them that serves as a spiritual experience. In life, it is each day we live and the experiences we have that have a value in and of themselves. This is the "now" of Eastern and Stoic thought and it is one way to find great meaning in life.

There are certainly some other common avenues and experiences that tend to yield happy and fulfilling lives, and many philosophers have spent lifetimes exploring good ideas on this. We often find that the positive contributions we make to others can give great meaning to our lives. To many, a meaningful life consists of being a good parent, a good spouse, and so on - contributing positively to the world around us. In this way we live on in the memories of others and the effects we had on the world.

Freethought Perspectives: Lives of Purpose

2006-11-13T17:16:00.000-08:00

The following was presented in the Houston Church of Freethought by Arthur A. Fay, Nov. 12, 2006.

TODAY
I have wrestled with this phrase “lives of purpose” and how to address it as I attempt to try and give you what it is about this life that I value and what makes me happy. I finally decided as a man of 63 years of age and retired earlier than expected, I maybe should begin with today. Hopefully, I will be able to give you enough information of how I got here so you might at least know me better and maybe add a bit to your view of Freethought.

First, in the couple of years since retiring, I appreciate time as never before. It seems my life has been a gigantic merry-go-round since early childhood, and suddenly, all that changed when I was handed a severance check and forms to fill out for receiving a pension. I truly appreciate the phrase “time to smell the coffee” as that exactly captures the essence of what I am trying to say. Before, I rushed around with busy schedules and career concerns; now, I take each day (even each hour) one at a time, and try and enjoy all of them. This has enabled me to read at my leisure, learn new stuff on the computer that interests me and that are not just demands of a job, and best of all, I barely remember what commuting on clogged highways each morning and evening was like.

And there are a lot of other things I value more today than ever before. Nancy, my wife who practically saved my life in the mid-seventies, brings me complete joy. Of all the wonderful experiences she has brought me, that smile in the morning or whenever she re-enters the house is worth more than gold.

Today, I value watching my two stepchildren and my son conduct rational and productive lives. One of my greatest joys has been their telling me that my influence and values have contributed to some of their successes in life.

I thoroughly enjoy my life today. And I really think one of the reasons it is possible is the fact that the values I have held for about forty years are valid, consistent, and dare I say, universal. I’m certain of them, yet it is also true I could be wrong. And that, for me, is the essence of a Freethinker, i.e. sound conclusions always subject to rational revision.

In my EARLY YEARS, my values began forming in childhood, as often is the case. There were two main sources- society and parents. I absorbed them relatively uncritically, again as many people do. Through exposure to the Methodist Church, neighborhood friends, schools, and parental input, I was a sponge soaking up all manner of values and mores.

My earliest memories of the beginning of critical thinking began in my early teens when I began resisting church and Sunday school. I was instinctively offended by admonitions that I was basically unworthy and could only become worthy with subservience to an invisible and incomprehensible being. Those attitudes made no sense to me, and they soon led to my being able to skip the further stifling experience of church.

In my later teens, I began thinking more and more about the things I was learning in school about history, science, and literature. Still, I emerged from high school thinking Jesus was probably the Son of God, and somewhere there had to be a plausible explanation of everything. Yes, I thought God was there, but it still didn’t make sense.

As a YOUNG ADULT in my early 20s, I bumped into my first “epiphany” (“a sudden intuitive leap of understanding, especially through an ordinary but striking occurrence”). And that was the realization that everything we perceive as “existence” does not require a cause. This experience began with the familiar “first cause” argument, and I sum it up with the phrase, “Time is IN the universe; the universe is not in time.”

You all know the first cause argument. God is proposed as the first cause. What, then, created God? “God does not require a cause,” it is said. Then how is it existence requires a cause? A cause either exists or it doesn’t. If it exists, it is part of existence. If it doesn’t exist, it cannot be a cause. Therefore, existence has always existed in one form or another, and that gives the word “eternal” meaning.

This realization happened to me in 1963 when I was 20 years old. Within the next couple of years, and with this fundamental view of existence, I was able to make sense about virtually everything.

My second “epiphany” occurred shortly after the first when I realized man has a specific nature, and that is the fact he has a brain, and the functioning of that brain on a conceptual level is essential to his survival.

Man is not given an automatic means of survival like that of plants, ants, and birds. With relatively few exceptions (like chimpanzees), man survives strictly through cognition and abstract thinking. And regardless of whatever claims to the contrary, cognition is volitional. It is a choice. And this is the true meaning of the much-aligned concept known as free will. Science is beginning to discover many aspects of how the brain functions, and I welcome this inquiry. Yet I firmly think, in the end, we all know we consciously make decisions to take actions, and these decisions can be changed at any time with further thought and new information.

Parts of this “epiphany” lead me to a profound concept: freedom. Most people accept this concept as “a good thing,” but not everyone has any particular basis for thinking so. Rational thought, which leads logically to rational actions, requires the condition of freedom, which is the absence of force, in order for them to take place.

Suddenly, all of my knowledge of history and philosophy fell into place. Freedom is the basis of science, the Enlightenment, and the virtues and values in the founding of this nation, the United States of America. So at age 25, I possessed philosophical knowledge that has served me well for about 40 years now.

This brings me to 1968 and what I consider the true beginning of my ADULT YEARS. Recall some of the events of that year. There was the Tet Offensive in the Viet Nam War. We lost Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Lyndon Johnson decided not to run. And that was the year I destroyed my draft card. I realized a free man not only cannot be coerced into giving up his life, but SHOULD NOT be forced to do so. Not recognizing the fundamental concept that man owns his own life makes totalitarianism possible. If a society cannot convince someone to sacrifice his life on rational grounds, it doesn’t deserve to survive. Conscription is slavery, and I would have no part of it.

The 70s, 80s, and 90s were filled with productive efforts, mostly in energy industries. I am gratified that they enabled me to provide a decent living. And I have always been proud that all along the way, I was always considered competent, but above all, trustworthy for providing insight with integrity.

The values I have been describing formed the basis of my work ethic. I realized there’s nothing more rational or practical than people exchanging values on a voluntary basis. This is the value of America. This is the value human survival. And this brings me back to today.

Returning to TODAY (AGAIN) I do have a few regrets. Let me mention one. I am not always as patient as I should or want to be. I sense the rapid passing of time, and the fact this life truly is very, very short in the scheme of things. And with not a scintilla of evidence that our sentient nature survives its dependence on a physical existence, our lives are a very precious commodity. So part of my happiness today rests on the knowledge that my conscious existence, is indeed, very precious.

I would like to close with a comment about atheism today. We are witnessing for the first time in my experience, some excellent spokespersons in Richard Dawkins, David Eller, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. I cringe at times with other atheists criticizing minor points while ignoring the importance of hearing in the public media what is for them, if not radical ideas, at least rational challenges to theism.

Finally, I see signs that the ancient societal taboo against open examination of some of the principles of religion may be beginning to crumble. I hope so. If 9/11 had any meaning at all to truly free and rational people, it is that religion can have a very pernicious effect. And if we don’t soon learn effective means of challenging such people, all rational concepts will have no longer have meaning. We will no longer exist.

Threads on Violence

2006-09-23T06:21:00.000-07:00

The following began as a post on my Philosophy Fridays blog Friday, September 15, 2006. But given it's length, it's importance to my philosophical journey, it's interest, and the fact that there were many comments of some length which followed and seemed to be getting cut off - I decided to make this an article on my Philosophy Site.

==============================

In recent thoughts, several different threads of thought emerged at once, and the contradictions between them made me question my ideas about violence and pacifism. After considering these ideas for a while I finally came up with something presentable, even if tentative:

Thread 1: Pacifism as Impractical
I have long held that pure pacifism is impractical. While I greatly admire the nobility, good intentions, and self sacrifice of notable pacifists, I think these good people are simply making an error in reasoning. While I respect pacifists, I have condemned pacifism as actually being unwittingly unethical. This, because it is a prescription for eternal human enslavement by whomever is not a pacifist. It is a behavioral algorithm, if you will, that guarantees only the most vicious and brutal will lead humanity.

Thread 2: Jesus and Escalating Cycles
In a recent presentation I gave at the Houston Church of Freethought, I stressed the importance of Compassion. In one section on Compassion for enemies, I stated that “we must face up to the fact that there are times when compassion should be given when it is not deserved.” In a blog post called “Forgiveness Is A Gift To Ourselves” I noted Biblical scholar James Robinson who said that Jesus’ teaching that we love our enemies and not return violence for violence was revolutionary because he realized that forgiveness for violence was the only way to break an escalating cycle of it. I then noted Professor Axelrod’s computer simulations which proved the most successful behaviors are those which included the possibility of forgiving wrongdoing from others.

Thread 3: The Muhammad-Violence-Ethic (MVE)
I recently saw a program on the History Channel called Decoding the Past. The specific episode was called “Secrets of the Koran”. This documentary covered the origins of the Koran’s teachings in the story of Muhammad. It noted that many have called the Koran a violent book, and provided a quote saying that Muslims should fight non-Muslims. But then the program noted this behavior was only in response to being attacked and provided another quote showing that if an enemy wants to be peaceful, that Muslims should be peaceful as well. The Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed a local Muslim cleric, Imam Naser Khatib, on violence and the Koran, who said that the Koran says people should be peaceful to non-Muslims, but it says that if they try to “fight you or kick you out of your homeland” then you should fight back.

Thoughts On These Threads
There is debate over what the passages in the Koran really say, what they mean, and what they inspire. But none of that is relevant to my topic. The fact is, you have two approaches to violence in the Jesus-Violence-Ethic (JVE) and the Muhammad-Violence-Ethic (MVE), as I have termed them here (even though both ethics have been expressed by other people before them).

The completely pacifist JVE states that we should never use violence, turning the other cheek, while the MVE states that we should be violent only when others are violent toward us. I suppose another “ethic” (if you could call it that) might state that we should always use violence whenever it suits us and the most powerful should get their way. Perhaps I’ll call this the Extreme-Violence-Ethic (EVE). Seen in that light, the MVE could be viewed as a middle-ground attempt to allow for the use of violence, but only in certain ethical conditions, while the JVE discards it altogether, regardless of conditions.

One of the more remarkable things is that Muslims are not the only ones who operate by the MVE. In the vast majority of cases, and certainly in the case of major governments, nearly the entire world operates according to the MVE even if they haven’t received it from Muhammad – including nearly all devout Christians. I have heard voices critical of Islam say that Muslims make war in nearly every nation they inhabit. But, could our own adoption of the MVE in the West be a reason why the globe, in general, has known so much war?

Meanwhile, very few people have actually lived according to the JVE; Christians included. Even the pacifistic Buddhists have their history of past and present warriors. I heard one modern rationalization for this by the Christian author of The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren. He said on the Fox News television program DaySide, that there are personal ethics and government ethics. This sounds very similar to the Muslim cleric Khatib’s response when asked about the extremist Wahhabis sect. He said despite what the Wahhabis believe, “the decision to go to war or not is by the hand of the caliph, and we don't have a caliphate right now.”

I’m not sure what the biblical justification is for the distinction between the personal and government ethics that Warren claims. By all modern (and decent) models of political authority, as the U.S. founding fathers believed, authority flows from God to man, and then from man to the State. The State cannot therefore have ethical authority that hasn’t been given to it by man, and man cannot give what it doesn’t have. But it is not surprising to see a modern Christianist with a medieval view of politics (in which authority allegedly flows from God, to the State, to man).

The absence of practicing the JVE among Christians leads one to wonder just what a Christian meaningfully is, apart from whatever’s going on inside their skulls. President George W. Bush claims to be a Christian and many conservative Christians seem to talk about Bush as though he were some sort of prophet. However, Matthew 7:16 says of false prophets that you will ‘know them by their fruits’. Certainly, Bush doesn’t live by the JVE. In fact, he doesn’t even operate by the MVE like the rest of Christianity and the world. The BVE (Bush-Violence-Ethic) states that you use violence if there’s a chance another might use it against you in the future (see Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine which I haven’t read, but have read of).

But all of these issues of what the Koran really says, why Christians live by the MVE rather than the JVE, political matters, and what Bush is, are distractions in my search. That is, the search for the truth when it comes to the proper violence-ethic. To glimpse it, we must look above and beyond such transient issues.

My question now is this: Has the MVE that the entire world operates on been proven a failed experiment? Can we say that any of our previous wars were ever really won? How can we consider WWI to have been won if it set up the conditions which lead us to WWII? How can we say that WWII was won when it gave us conditions which lead to the Cold War and the conflicts in the Middle East? All of these names and titles we give conflicts distract us from the reality that we have been in one long conflict throughout our history, from neighbor to nation, with only brief and sporadic pauses. Given Earth’s history of war, we must eventually wonder when someone is finally going to win – win in a way that leads to lasting peace? It seems to me that humanity’s experiment with the MVE has been a failure, and our continued use of it may spell our demise.

Does this lead us back to the JVE - to complete pacifism? One obvious figure that comes to mind whenever pacifism is discussed is Mohandas Gandhi. When one reads of Gandhi’s life, his sacrifices, his simplicity, his strength, and his values, how is it not possible to love this man? Upon his death, Albert Einstein remarked, “Generations to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood.” More to the point then, how can one not want to become more like that which one loves?

This alone, least of all the puzzles of our time, is enough to give reason for me to seriously reevaluate the merits of pacifism; this time absent what may have been a nearly glib dismissal in my earlier years. But how can I ignore the seemingly obvious conclusion that pure pacifism will allow the vicious to overrun the world and rule it in their vicious way?

Consider examples of pacifist movements which have succeeded, such as in Gandhi’s India. Surely pacifism has not worked in all cases; but then, neither have all wars been won. Still, if that seemingly obvious conclusion of the futility of pacifism were true, the fact that it ever worked is remarkable. Why did it?

Axelrod said that the most successful programs were those with a combination of forgiveness and retaliation. When discussing this with a friend, and wondering about pacifism, he asked, “What happened to the programs that always forgave?” I told him I imagined they’d been less successful – probably along the lines I describe in Thread 1 above.

But do these computer simulations really capture all of the subtleties of the real world? It seems to me by the descriptions I’ve read that the simulations look at survival rates of the individual units and compares those with differing behaviors. Or, perhaps they look at which behaviors become more widespread as an indicator of selective success. They might even measure the overall survival of a population of those with a shared behavioral program.

In all of these cases, it seems to me that one important factor might be absent from the simulations. That factor would be the emotional effect of inspiration through example; i.e., the ‘human heart’. It could be that, logistically speaking, pacifism doesn’t work, but in practice it can work because people are inspired by the example of others, and feel empathy for others’ sacrifices. It might also be the case that sympathy for the non-violent by third parties creates pressures on the violent to stop, making him look like the bad guy even when his position is the correct one. Perhaps it might be the case that pacifism is illogical, but because people are illogical, it can work? If so, some might say, “let us all be illogical together, in peace”. Maybe there is some other explanation for the examples of success in pacifism?

Still, there seems to be something noble in a person willing to fight for a just cause or to vanquish malicious people who would otherwise harm the innocent. How can we ignore what seems to be the noblest of character in these actions? The encompassing factor in both heroic fighting and pacifism seems to be self sacrifice. Both of these tactics include a willingness to give up one’s life and safety for a higher cause. There are many ways to sacrifice.

Likewise, both noble fighting and pacifism also have an ugly side: both also involve sacrificing others. In noble fighting there is the inevitable harm that comes to innocent bystanders as conflict ensues. Similarly, it’s one thing for a pacifist to sacrifice his own life, safety, or freedom for a cause, but this nearly always makes a sacrifice of his neighbor, who often shares in his fate - lacking the pacifist’s aid in resistance or suffering retribution for the pacifist’s passive resistance.

Perhaps, then, it isn’t the use or non-use of violence that is the issue, but choosing rightly in each case and living according to our proper natures (as the Stoics would put it). Borrowing perhaps from Stoicism, the fictional Jedi of the Star Wars films (who often used violence) would say that what is important is following the will of the Force, rather than looking at violence in the abstract. Even in Buddhism, known for its peaceful nature, there is a ‘right way’ to perform violence in some schools of thought. Once when I was in a Buddhist temple, the teacher told us of a monk who was asked, “if there were a problem with pests over the crops, would it be bad Karma to spray the crops and kill the insects?” His reply was, “as long as it is done without negative feeling, there would be no bad Karma.” If you are unaware of my non-supernatural use of the Karma concept, please see A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma and Rebirth.

The aim of Buddhists are to learn to see things clearly, as they really are, without bias, desire, or fear. Terrorists and Politicians alike, intentionally or not, tend to play on our fears. Non-violent democracy activist Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, said in her speech Freedom From Fear:

“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

In the film “V for Vendetta” the character of Evey Hammond learns through a particular set of hardships to ‘see without fear’. In that same film, Inspector Finch says that he had a brief glimpse that the past, present, future, and all of the various events in and around are lives are interconnected. In our world, 9/11, the presidency, homeland security, what we do and don’t allow in terms of our personal liberties, terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, the ecology, are all connected and we view them all through the filter of our desires and our fears. What would we think if we could glimpse it all without enslavement to our desire or fear?

I don’t know. Maybe I should stop there, and I encourage the reader to take off from there. But I have a possible guess.

It seems to me that some combination of retribution and forgiveness is suitable, as in Axelrod’s computations. While the MVE seems to be an attempt at allowing for violence and forgiveness in some combination, its demonstrable failure over history and throughout all of our nations indicates its particular formulation is flawed.

I would propose the “Avoidable Violence Ethic” (AVE). The AVE is similar to the MVE, in that it allows for violence (unlike the JVE) and also demands restrictions on it (unlike the EVE). However, it is different from the MVE in important ways.

The MVE states that you should be peaceful to your neighbor unless he is aggressive toward you. In that case, Muhammad allows a variety of hostile actions in fighting aggressors, infidels, etc. Both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds have taken this ethic on fully. Concepts of Justice include retribution for wrongs done and demand equilibrium.

The AVE would say that we should use violence when it is absolutely necessary to defend the innocent (be they ourselves, if innocent, or others). However, equilibrium is irrelevant, and thus so is retribution. In cases where violence can prevent harm to innocents, or shift harm from the innocent to the aggressor, it would not only be permissible but considered a duty. But as soon as the physical threat is over or halted, non-aggression is demanded.

Many might say, “this is what we operate by now”, but not really. Let’s take World War II – the attack of Pearl Harbor for example. The AVE would say that, during that attack, we should have fought back as best we could (which we did). But the AVE would also say that, immediately after the attack was over, we should not have started to counter-attack. The same thing goes for 9/11, the invasion of Kuwait, etc. The concept is that we build up military force to protect. Then, if attacked, we fight to protect. But if we fail in that task, we don’t seek to level things back out or get back what was lost through counter attack. At that point, the tactics of pacifism should come into play. In other words, you don’t ‘turn the other cheek’ but rather attempt to stop the slap. But if you can’t, then you don’t slap back. In fact, you forgive – a thousand times if you must. In a nuclear conflict, you might return fire if you think doing so will take out missile sites or stop the volleys from your enemy. But once they stop firing, you don’t return fire out of spite, for purposes of justice, or for longer term tactical purposes.

This approach requires a degree of risk-taking and trust. If we hadn’t attacked back after Pearl Harbor, we would have been in a less advantageous position, tactically speaking, with the Japanese Empire. This will always be the case. But at the same time, the AVE doesn’t prescribe that we lay down and surrender to enemies when violence is immediate and immanent. It’s called the “Avoidable Violence Ethic” because we should seek every moment to halt violence if it is at all possible to do without immediate harm to innocents. Might the use of AVE after 9/11 allowed the U.S. to capitalize on the massive outpouring of sympathy from across the world for America, rather than squandering it? The basic concept is to remove all sense of vengeance, pridefulness, demand for equilibrium, or fear of loss from the formula - to see things without fear of either the enemy or fear of the use of violence.

-JVE (Jesus Violence Ethic) = no violence ever.

-AVE (Avoidable Violence Ethic) = violence only when absolutely necessary for immediate defense.

-MVE (Muhammad Violence Ethic) = violence when attacked, for justice, and in long term struggles.

-BVE (Bush Violence Ethic) = violence when attack seems likely or even possible.

-EVE (Extreme Violence Ethic) = violence at all times for domination.

It’s a difficult concept and I’ve yet to fully consider it’s implications. But I mention it here to log and share one step of my thinking on these things. I would like to learn more details about simulations such as Professor Axelrod’s, about applied pacifism in real world historic situations, and about theories on violence. I’ve heard that Leo Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You contains Christian arguments for pacifism I’d like to read as well.

Comments that followed included:

HolyRomanEmperor said...

Good stuff.

Just out of curiosity, how does the AVE mesh with a criminal justice system?

If someone is in the act of committing a murder, obviously the AVE says you can use violence to stop that action.

If, however, the crime is committed and done and the criminal is caught after the fact, then wouldn't the AVE prescribe that no punishment (at least not violent punishment) be handed out to the murderer?

Also, there seems to be some crossover between the AVE and the BVE.

If I understand correctly, the AVE says violence is ok to "stop the slap", and the BVE says violence is ok if you "think you are about to get slapped in the near future". Clearly, it seems like there could be some overlap there where might think you are about to have violence committed against you, so you act (even before that violence is ACTUALLY committed).

If someone walks up to you and says "I am going to stab you". then they pull out a knife and walk towards you, you would be foolish to wait for them to physically land the blow before taking action. In this case, it seems like the BVE is more appropriate. If you truly believe that violence is ABOUT TO BE DONE, then you can act.

Those are some initial thoughts. I am interested to hear your reaction.

DT Strain said...

Thanks for the comments. Those are good questions.

With a justice system, although I have been for the death penalty in principle, I must admit that the AVE would seem to suggest that only containment for defense of the public, and reform should be taken into account. Any notion of punishment in the form of visiting displeasure or harm on the offender would need to be disregarded. Keep in mind this is all in flux in my mind, but that seems to be what AVE suggests anyway.

As for stopping incoming violence, I would say that the AVE has a very strict definition of that. On a personal level, it would be equivalent to the guy coming at you with a knife, and *not* your knowledge that the guy has plans to do you in. On the global level, it would be the immanent launch of missiles or invasion, and not merely the knowledge of plans for such.

In other words, it must fit these requirements:
(1) Is it possible that my violence against the offender will stop the impending harm to innocents?

(2) Is it possible that the offender has the time or the ability to revert course himself?

#1 ensures that our violence is not after-the-fact retrobutive in nature. #2 ensures that the violence is taken only out of response to a reality, and not the *fear* of a future reality.

This means that, as long as there is a space of time which allows for even the possibility of a change of heart or some other effect to prevent the harm, we must risk ourselves to allow for it. Surely, this is a risk or even sacrifice, but then, so is fighting in a preemptive war. At least the former risk is trying something new than the MVE the world has operated by so far. That's my thought in this anyway.

Qwerty said...

In my game theory class, we recently went over the hawk-dove problem (of which you might be aware).

The best course of action ended up being a mixed strategy of violent strife and passive attempts for a "resource". The "resource" or goal had value p. There were four scenarios.

If player I and II took violent action (A,A), then there was 1/2 probability that either would win obtaining the resource p, while the other suffered a cost c of losing the conflict (damage, ect). 1/2(p-c).

If either player I or II took a violent course of action, while player II or I took a passive course of action, then the violent player wins the resource, and the passive player retreats. (A,P) => (p,0). (P,A) => (0,p)

If player I and II both take a passive course (P,P), then each player has half a chance of getting the resoure (or they both share or something). 1/2(p). However, neither player is in danger of suffering the cost c.

The mixed strategy was dependent on the ratio of p to c. If c <= p, then the best strategy was to always be violent, averaged over the course of repeated games. If c>p, then the best strategy ended up playing aggressive p/c times, and passive (1-p/c) times.

Anyway, in this simplistic scenario, at no time did a strategy of total pacifism make sense (unless the cost of losing was infinite).

I would guess that as your model ends up becoming more elaborate, and if it's close enough to real world conditions, then you would get something like what you see in nature for competitive confrontations. You'd better either be 1 of 3 things: An effective predator, nasty enough to defend yourself in a fight, or able to pick up and flee in general (and weather the inevitable losses and retreats). Predators exist because predation works. Barbarians exist (once existed? may yet exist under future conditions?) because barbarism works. I've yet to see a nation that wasn't a protectorate work on principles of pure pacifism.

Qwerty said...

Oops. Got my term backwards. I meant nation that wasn't effectively being defended by a stronger power work under pacifism long term.

Comparing the AVE to BVE - assume you were in a scenario where you could defend yourself to good effect against an enemy advance. If you were in a medieval-warfare scenario where the means of attack allow you to do little damage against entrenched defenses, and the defenders could repel you and make attacking them cost you more than you would gain, then AVE seems more rational than BVE. Just turn your country into a fortress an repel all belligerent parties over the course of months and years.

However, if you were in an offense dominated scenario, where relatively simple means of offense can overcome all available means of defense and inflict deniable, extensive, or otherwise unanswerable damage to the defender, then BVE begins to appear more necessary. After all, AVE would have you wait until the attack has already, occured, or is imminent, to attempt thwarting or answering it. You would incur the loss anyway. In a scenario such as the cold war, where each wanted to win, but each party placed greater value on survival than "victory", mutually assured destruction was accomplished, though the "stability" of the strategy is still somewhat doubtful.

In this war, the conservative's main fear is that the enemy is not a rational actor. He may value "victory" over survival, or may doubt our will to retaliate in a sufficient manner to completely destroy him. After all, one of Al-Qaida's original demands for the US was to withdraw all cultural influence and contact from the ME and cease subverting their citizens. A society that is sufficietly threatened culturally by our involuntary influence may choose to assault us because it won't survive us in the long run anyway. (Fundamentalist Islam may lose it's grip on the minds of it's citizens as external world culture progresses, and thus will not "survive" in a gestalt sense, and thus be desperate to attack us while they can). I think this is the basis for some of the pre-emptive offense of BVE. The conservative's strategy is to try to speed up the fundamentalist gestalt's collapse by creating liberal societies that, in theory, won't go running for a Taliban-state, and will help infiltrate the surrounding cultures with liberal ideas. (PS, I'm defending this strategy because I'm a conservative, just so my bias is out in the open. I sympathise with it).

PS. Isn't part of the MVE (as historically practiced by islamic societies) to wage a long term perpetual war of expansion with whoever you can get away with waging it on? Hopefully we can convince muslims to give that part of it up.

Qwerty said...

Sorry for the extended posts. I'm just commenting on things as I read your post.

I might point out that not all fear is irrational. Fear exists for very good reasons. While unwarranted fear can distort your perception of reality, something that makes you want to fight or flee is relevant to bring to your attention matters where violence or harm is likely to be imminent. The same is true of all of our emotions. They all exist to prompt behaviors that are valuable to the survival of ourselves and our families/tribes/nations.

DT Strain said...

Thanks for the comments. In your thoughts on game theory, I think you may be logically correct. But there are two problems with limiting one’s self to thinking in this manner. One, all of what you have defined with your if/then statements and the parameters of the game are givens. But in real life, we don’t usually know exactly what the parameters are. So, not only do we have the puzzle of playing the game, but we can’t even begin to play the actual game until we can know the parameters. For example, we don’t know what the probability is of obtaining our goal while taking various actions, unlike your exercise, in which we know the probability is 1/2.

The second problem with this way of thinking is that it only looks at probabilities of success, cost/benefit analysis, and so on. This would be fine if all other participants were robotic game-players too. But what about obtaining massive empathy from third parties who then add costs onto your enemy for taking certain actions? What about situations where you affect the hearts and minds of your enemy through your compassion? Even if the cost (c) is less than the resource (p), what about situations where the aggressor stops and thinks, “we don’t want to be that kind of people” and then decides not to use violence even though it computes as being logical (“always” as you put it)? These sorts of things are not anomalies or exceptions - they are an integral part of the usual complexities of human and state interactions. Game theory just doesn’t provide that subtlety it seems to me. Or, perhaps our ability to plug the right variables into game theories doesn’t often account for such subtleties.

In any case, I’d be interested to see how such game theories take the conclusions you mention, and extrapolate them out over the long term. In a system of actors going by the same evaluation process, do they result in continual sporadic fighting? If so, then there is something wrong. The point of the AVE is to continuously look for opportunity to halt escalating cycles of violence.

Also, in your considerations you look at whether the other party values victory more than survival, or the reverse. What if the party doesn’t value victory *or* survival most? What if that party values the contentment of doing the right thing for its own sake, regardless of the outcome? You can compute that they wouldn’t survive, but then, if that is not their ultimate goal, then they haven’t really failed have they? These models you present seem to only value survival and rank everything according to that. But:

(1) On an individual level, we all die. What we will find more important is to live a contented life of deeper happiness while we *do* live. This cannot be achieved with a value system that ranks survival as #1. What we need as intellectual beings is not always the same as what biological organisms may have evolved to seek. In fact, I’d say that any value system that ranks survival as the #1 goal is corrupt and inherently unwise.

(2) The effect of living for the right thing has a demonstrable effect that inspires other individuals and cultures. This contagious virtuous action can have rippling psycho-cultural effects throughout the system, not usually appreciated.

(3) As intellectual beings, it is not merely our individual physical survival that is important, but our intellectual survival. A nation can live on through its influence on other nations and peoples. We are entering a world where passing on our thoughts is more important than passing on our genes. So, looking only at physical survival is limiting and not robust enough to give us a world in which it will be worth surviving *in*. If we use logical systems that only take into account our animal instincts and function, then we shouldn’t be surprised if they yield to us a world of animalistic behaviors – not worth surviving in, in my view.

Lastly, as for fear – yes, there is much fear that is rational, in the sense that it inspires action that may be necessary for survival, as are other emotional instincts. That works fine for fruit flies and baboons, but human life is more complex. It is the case that it is not always the wise choice to survive. Therefore, as rational as fear or desire may be in terms of their existence in biological life forms, they always necessarily cloud our perception and judgment from objective reality. It may be the case, after a wise and contemplative look at the situation, that the proper course of action happens to be consistent with what our instincts may push us to do – but not always. Therefore, they are an incidental impulse, correct by happenstance at best - and a nuisance to our understanding at worst.

Qwerty said...

I admit the earlier game theory scenario is simplistic. It's the easiest well defined model that I could pull from my memory. Later on in class we will be going over iterated strategies for games where things like forgiveness or tit-for-tat retaliation come into play, but we're not there yet. Of course, for human behavior, any model we develop is going to be simplistic. If it gets too complicated or hairy, if it has too many knobs, then the guidance it provides is likely to get equally unclear and sensitive to the conditions and assumptions provided.

On the placement of other goals higher than survival:

I suppose that personal survival for a person may or may not be the goal which he most highly values. In some cases, other concerns may trump personal survival and lead to behavior to accomplish some greater goal or aim. However, many personal motivations do not translate at all into collective motivations. While any given individual may be willing to pursue a higher goal than his own life, the majority of people at any given time are going to be pursuing and valuing life and happiness first and foremost. Furthermore, there isn't any way to agree on what or predict or control what this higher goal than life and happiness is supposed to be. This can't be worked out collectively, and must be done individually if at all.

And so, for representative governments constituted to look after the interests and security of their citizens, as defined by their citizens; they cannot simply choose to "take losses" like 9/11 or any other random attack in stride for some greater purpose. While these losses might not be threatening to national survival, they are of extreme importance to the people that convened the government. The losses that must be borne for some greater good are people's friends, children, and grandparents, and hence there isn't any good great enough to justify it (especially not sympathy in world opinion! Many people like myself hold that goal in low regard because we can't see what we're supposed to be able to do with it, seeing as how it is only offered on the condition that we do nothing), from the perspective of these people, whose goals are, on average, life, liberty, and happiness. Our government does have to be concerned first and foremost with the survival of its citizens for this very reason. It can't operate with any higher goal that requires the random sacrifice of it's citizens. Something like Maslow's heirarchy of needs, only the government is forced to operate on the lowest level common to its citizens. Even majority rules is not enough, because the minority are still in line to be sacrificed, and have their fundamental goals subverted.

Soldiers on the other hand are somewhat different. These are people that have individually made the decision to place the greater goal of the nation's security before the security of their own lives. Basically, the only people a representative government can conciously and legitimately decide to sacrifice for another goal are people who individually volunteer for it and concur with that goal.

So this is one reason why government ethics and collective ethics might necessarily be different from personal ethics. It also goes back to the government properly deriving it's purpose from the purpose's of the individuals composing it. For the government to demand sacrifice from it's people for a goal that they don't share would be to reverse the direction of authority.

PS. I agree on your post on emotions. Still, in the case of the Burmese rebels, is there any good non-tactical reason why they shouldn't be frightened? They've chosen pacifistic course to oppose a ruthless police state! They're on course to get rubbed out. Fear is the natural result of placing your life in jeapordy. My father's airborne instructor once said: "Jumping out of an airplane is a highly unnatural act. If you're not afraid, we don't want you - you're an idiot!"

Humāinism said...

Excellent work, Daniel. I like your concept of AVE, since it has pretty much been my viewpoint for awhile, though I tended to call it 'pragmatic pacifism'.

It is a difficult subject with no easy answers. It's a question I've asked myself for a long time... How do civilized, kind and peaceful people defend themselves against savagery without becoming savages themselves? How do the non-violent defend themselves against the violent without becoming violent themselves. I don't think it's possible.

I am generally not a proponent of Gandhi-style absolute pacifism, because it will only work if your enemy has something like a conscience. Even Gandhi admitted that his tactics would not have worked against the nazis. If we make ourselves like domesticated sheep, we will be easy picking for the wolves. Better to be like a great stag; never deliberately harming any other being, but being ready and able to defend oneself if attacked. Still... which rain drop is more responsible for the flood, the first to fall or the last?

We need to lose this concept of preemptive strikes. Preemptive strikes have started every war in history. While a good offense might be the best defense from a military standpoint, it is usually bad from almost ever other standpoint. Winning wars is no accomplishment. Somebody always wins them. Winning a long term peace hasn't been done very much, and when it has been so, usually under threat of war. Can human-kind do any better than peace enforced by duress? I don't know. I wish I could say otherwise, but I frequently have my doubts.

I remember all the things about 9/11 that everyone else remembers... Where I was, the horror, the death, the initial dumbfounded shock followed by sadness and crying. But I remember something else that most people didn't notice, perhaps because they were part of it... the hatred and desire for revenge that swelled up in almost everyone I knew. I remember watching the towers burn on a TV at work, and I said to a coworker "Many people will die because of this", and he replied "God, I hope so." I remember gas station attendants, which we still have here in Jersey, and which are often turban wearing Sikh's. They replaced their turbans with baseball caps, least they be mistaken for Arab and be harassed, or worse.

I don't know were I'm going with this... sometimes I just despair that, despite all our technological progress, we haven't really evolved much at all. How little we've changed since the days when we used to club each other with mastodon tusks. The only difference is that now we use self-guided smart tusks, and we make up fancy terms like 'just war' to rationalize our violence. *sigh*

-Rick

DT Strain said...

QWERTY,
Thanks again for your comments. I'd somewhat agree that values like those I'm talking about do not naturally exist on the collective level, but I think they must be something that begin on an individual level, and become manifest in a society. Whole nations do frequently act according to the viewpoints of their people (whether due to representative government, or the fact of rulers having grown up in those cultures). As such, if something like AVE were to become part of the mindset of individuals, it could conceivably effect what that society does on an international level.

I would agree that governments should be concerned with the happiness and survival of its citizens. But governments already *do* operate with higher goals that require the random sacrifice of its citizens. The sacrifices simply take a different form (such as soldiers or collateral damages), and the goals are different (such as freedom or protection of the economy). You make a good point about the fact that military people are volunteers, but what about the effects of their actions on the non-volunteers in their society, should they fail? Or, even, the effects *during* their operations?

I'd stress that the thought behind AVE is not simply that the peaceful people be sacrificed only - but rather that these tactics will result in greater gains overall (thus the talk about garnering sympathy and support from third parties or changing the hearts of one's enemies). If AVE is a tactic that results in a more peaceful world, then the end result would be more prosperity for that nation. The government would be fulfilling its mandate just the same, only more wisely and effectively than its usual tactics. Again - that's what I'm considering, but not fully convinced of myself yet :)

HUMAINISM,
Thanks for your comments. I think you're right that we've a long way to go. But when I imagine nuclear weapons in the hands of any societies before, say, 1500 CE, it seems to me *more* likely we would have seen global devastation sooner. Not that human nature has changed, but maybe some of our ethical concepts *do* seem to have developed.

But also, we are under different pressures, given that our international situation now means nations economies are more intricately tied together. Maybe under those same pressures, our earlier ancestors would have become more cautionary. It could be that getting nukes is like the common situation of an irresponsible delinquent young person who suddenly finds themselves a parent and then begins to shape up. Necessity is the mother of invention, and perhaps that goes for the invention of the various forms of responsibility?

Michael Darley said...

Daniel wrote:
“Once when I was in a Buddhist temple, the teacher told us of a monk who was asked, ‘if there were a problem with pests over the crops, would it be bad Karma to spray the crops and kill the insects?’ His reply was, as long as it is done without negative feeling, there would be no bad Karma.”

Perhaps the monk should have let the other sandal fall by explaining that there also must be no positive feeling. In order for there to be no bad Karma, the conscious, intentional act of killing must be performed with no feeling at all. (One might envision the Samurai, the Jedi, or the Stoic in this light.)

At the end of the Paul Scofield version of “A Man For All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More says to his executioner, “Be not afraid of your office,” thus absolving him of bad Karma (as long as the executioner performs his “office” with neither regret nor spite).

States’ “vengence,” on the other hand (capital punishment), besides being unnecesary and ineffective, creates bad Karma, even if the whole world rejoices.

If a pilot in a war were to say (as doubtless many have), “Let’s drop the bomb on the ‘insects.’ Maybe some napalm or agent orange while we’re at it,” and proceed to perform his “office” with a song in his heart, he should not expect to fly away with his Karma unscathed.

On a separate topic in this essay, Mr. Strain asks: “Consider examples of pacifist movements which have succeeded, such as in Gandhi’s India. Surely pacifism has not worked in all cases.... Still.... the fact that it ever worked is remarkable. Why did it?”

As you probably are aware, both Gandhi and Martin Luther King cited Henry David Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” as the impetus for their movements. The reason they succeeded is not because of pacifism: They were well conceived political ploys. Gandhi and King understood that if they could keep the jails filled beyond capacity, create enough fuss, and draw sufficient attention to economic and political inequities, their "movements" would stand perhaps their only chance for success. In their cases, force and violence would obviously have been counterproductive.

These men, in my view, were political pacifists, not religious ones. If the political benefits of pacifism had dissipated, they would have been abandoned. Gandhiji even stated that if violence became necessary for self-defense, he was not against it. (Paradoxically, these were religious men, and not political ones.)

DT Strain said...

Mike: "Perhaps the monk should have let the other sandal fall by explaining that there also must be no positive feeling."

Ah yes, quite true! An excellent point, including what you elaborated on after that.

Mike: "...both Gandhi and Martin Luther King cited Henry David Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience”..."

Yes I recall reading that - thanks for reminding me, because that's something else I should become more familiar with.

Mike: "The reason they succeeded is not because of pacifism... Gandhi and King understood that if they could... create enough fuss... their "movements" would stand perhaps their only chance for success."

To me, this would be part of the pacifism I am considering, rather than considering it some external "political ploy". Surely, there are religious reasons people might be pacifists, but my aim here is to look at the pragmatic effects of it and not merely try to promote it for personal or spiritual reasons. I think, if there are some subtle benefits to pacifism as a tactic, that allow us to avoid violence (even if only in some cases) then that is worth understanding more. This is in line with my belief that there is no distinction between what is virtuous and what is wise. So, you make wonderful points about Gandhi and King's tactics, and I think this might be an excellent part of an argument for 'pragmatic pacifism'.

Thanks much for these comments - they have enhanced thought on this greatly! :)

Letters on Buddhism with John Horgan

2006-07-28T12:03:00.000-07:00

John Horgan is a freelance science writer, now writing for The Center for Science Writings. His blog site, is called the Scientific Curmudgeon.

I came across an article of his at Slate.com called "Buddhist Retreat: Why I Gave Up On Finding My Religion" which can be read HERE (if that link doesn't work, please see this backup link).

After reading the article, I send Mr. Horgan this letter...

==========================

Mr. Horgan,

I have recently read your article 'Buddhist Retreat: Why I Gave Up On Finding My Religion' at Slate.com. Thank you for bringing to my attention aspects of Buddhism that some of my fellow scientifically-minded humanistic freethinkers may have objections to.

I'm sure you've already been told that your characterization of karma as a 'tally' and moral judge is incorrect and your responses to Buddhism may only be relevant to some versions of it (which I'm sure you know there are many).

But I would like to offer up my article called "A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma and Rebirth". If you'd like to read it, it can be found HERE...

Many thanks! :)
Sincerely,

Daniel Strain

==========================

To which John Horgan replied...

==========================

You attenuate Buddhism so much that it's not even Buddhism any more. What's the point? I honestly don't get it. To get a better sense of where I'm coming from, see my website articles about Buddhism,
http://www.johnhorgan.org/work20.htm, and
http://www.johnhorgan.org/work16.htm.

==========================

After reading these articles, I replied...

==========================

Mr. Horgan,

Thanks much for those articles, they were incredibly interesting. I especially liked “Beyond Belief”. However, as I read them, I found them to be consistent with my own article. They could have even been inspirational to it, in fact.

You say I’ve attenuated Buddhism to the point that it is no longer Buddhism. I have a few responses to this. First, I should point out that my article was specifically only about rebirth and karma; one small part of Buddhism, and not even the central part. So, if taken as an article on Buddhism as a whole, it would certainly be extremely attenuated, and this was not my intention.

My second response would be that it is not my aim to preserve Buddhism, or to proclaim Buddhism, or to be an “ideal Buddhist”. Throughout all three of your articles, I detected a general perspective on these sorts of things that I can’t identify with. That is, the tendency to view all of this as though we had to pick a ‘citizenship’ under some particular flag; as if there can only be one official membership card in our wallet at any given time, and we must be fully legitimized, homogenized, orthodox members of that group or else go stand under a different flag. Batchelor seemed to share this unfortunate ‘pigeonhole affliction’ as he debated with himself over whether or not to “announce that he was no longer a Buddhist”. His entire conundrum seemed invented and unnecessary to me.

Instead, my aim is to find good, useful, and true ideas wherever they are. Whether what I end up with counts as Buddhism, Stoicism, Humanism, atheism, or any other ‘ism’ is not my problem – other people can worry about that if they like. Nevertheless, I am going to give credit where credit is due, and not shy away from an influence or an inspiration because of guilt-by-association with other ideas I may not desire (such as superstition, dogma, and so on).

Indeed, I think Batchelor was on to something similar as he expressed wanting to be grateful for what Buddhism had done for him. But I think he goes too far in assuming that it was all just a ‘phase’ which is now over and which no longer serves its purpose. It seems to me, rather, that Buddhist perspectives and ideas are infused throughout his comments even today, in subtle ways he may not even appreciate, and this is the answer to your question of “why bother”.

The truth is that Buddhism, as well as many other ancient philosophies (I am partial to Stoicism myself), do contain many perspectives and realizations that are every bit as true and as useful in our modern materialist universe as they ever were. These were often rational people who addressed many of the same concerns as we do in our lives, and their answers have sometimes been profound.

Now, in mining these treasures from ancient philosophy, we have to have a reasonable sifting process. I would agree with Batchelor on The Tao of Physics. After scanning through various portions of the book, I decided that to read the thing in its entirety would be a waste of my time. This book is a perfect example of religious retrofitting. This is where someone takes the various poetic or blunt attempts to describe reality in primitive scriptures or other writings and points to the latest scientific theories and says, “that’s what this is referring to!” as if the words had somehow now been scientifically validated. Another example might be a Christian trying to convince us that “Let there be light” was referring to the Big Bang. This is a ridiculous practice in which the two instances are causally distinct from one another, but yet seem to match up only because of the general malleable nature of poetic language and the human brain’s ability to connect patterns. It is not much different than supposedly psychic people giving vague fortunes so they can later retrofit them to whatever events transpire.

If this is all my article on karma and rebirth were, then I would delete the entire thing and hope that it was forgotten by everyone who ever read it. However, this is not at all what I propose. Rather, as I point out in the article, we can plainly see that the approach that Gautama Siddartha takes is a naturalistic one. As described on a Tao website...

“The Tao is not something different from nature, the birds, the bees, the trees, or ourselves. The Tao is the way all that behaves...”

Throughout early Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, and others, we can read in the language that these folks early on were talking about nature – about the world around them. As Batchelor said, “I certainly don’t feel [supernatural and cultural elements] have much to do with what I consider to be the heart of my Buddhist or spiritual practice... spirituality is about seeing this reality right here and now, in front of us”. Buddha would agree. When they describe nature and its workings, and we find consistency to this in modern complexity theory, and it is something they reasonably could have observed in their environment, then there is a reasonable causal connection between what they are saying and what I am claiming it refers to.

When what they are saying about this is something moving, or useful, or consoling, or true, then it is something the modern naturalist can apply just the same, with the only difference being that a more detailed and precise definition of their natural subjects are available today.

But in the case of Buddhist karma and rebirth, to get what I am saying about a naturalistic interpretation, one would have to start with an accurate understanding of traditional Buddhist rebirth. You described reincarnation as a Buddhist doctrine, “The idea that individual human souls persist in some disembodied form even after the body dies...” This is false, and not just by the interpretations in my article. It is false according to mainstream orthodox Buddhism. What you describe is a Hindu doctrine. In Buddhism there is no such thing as a “soul”, and nothing of a similar nature by another name, and certainly nothing disembodied. A soul would contradict the core Buddhist concept of the no-self, but I digress.

I just have a few other thoughts to consider about your articles...

1) Batchelor said “the world appeared to me as a question”. Compare this notion to Sumi asking her questions and trying to discourage responsive answers. I think they would agree.

2) I have not come at these things through Zen, so I can’t pretend to know about Zen specifically. But I have meditated a little both on my own and with guidance at a Buddhist temple. I’ve recently posted some thoughts on meditation that might be interesting to you HERE.

It seems to me in your article “Why I Gave Up Zen”, the things that bothered you most were the references to superstition (God making music, and so on) and the overly-specific cultural idiosyncrasies (and the personalities of cell-phone-man and your instructor). You also seemed overly distracted by what I think had to be an effort on your part to seek out incongruities. For example, do you really believe that the intention behind referencing to the innocents of children is to suggest that we should all be ignorant and gullible? If so, why to Buddhist children go to school and what about the Kalama Sutra that teaches critical questioning of all claims? Isn’t it more reasonable that the comparison was brought up to suggest something else? Children do not look at the world with pre-packaged ideology. They assess it for what it is without bias. The analogy, therefore, is one that is consistent with freethought, rational skepticism, and escaping dogma. Children also crap their pants, but only someone going out of their way not to appreciate useful notions would assume that we are being taught to discard our toilet training.

Now, of course, over time, Buddhism and other belief systems have become laden with all manner of superstition and other silliness. Along the way, people have packaged these various notions together and given them solitary labels like “religion” and “Buddhism”, but the thinking person isn’t required to buy in bulk. It is the task of a good philosopher (indeed a good human being) to recognize helpful advice, useful insights, and beautiful perspectives on life, and to know when something else is nonsensical.

3) Batchelor was reluctant to say that life is good. You described him as “trapped” and then inexplicably turned around mid-paragraph and wondered if you’d have the same “courage”. Courage to be trapped? Batchelor didn’t want to say that life was good because he dismissed the very notion of goodness as “anthropocentric”. This is madness. Yes, the notion of good is anthropocentric because it is centered on human beings. It is a relative term we use. But if the very definition of “good” is subjective, that means that every sentence in which the word is used, is used in that sense. Batchelor seems to forget, as all people who dismiss the anthropocentric forget, that he is a human being. Why should human beings require that something have value “to the universe” in order to hold value in it? I’m not the universe, so why should I care what the universe “thinks”? I’m a human and I therefore value and like human-centered things. Goodness, therefore means something to humans and it is applicable and useful to them – therefore it is applicable and meaningful to me. I can say, being the anthro that I am, that life is good – and that sentence has coherent meaning and applicability.

Anyway, I know this was long-winded and, if you’ve gotten this far, I thank you for your time, and thanks again for your wonderful articles. You are a good writer and I plan to follow your work in the future! :)

Sincerely,
Daniel Strain

==========================

Lastly, John Horgan replied...

==========================

[Daniel], The better the letter, the harder it is to reply. You've just made so many good points I don't know where to start. All I can say is, I'm trying to keep an open mind, as you'll see if you follow my blog (I just wrote about Buddhism again). If the url doesn't work, just google "Scientific Curmudgeon. Peace, John

==========================

John Horgan was speaking of THIS article on his blog.

Buddhist Retreat: Why I Gave Up On Finding My Religion

2006-07-28T11:56:00.000-07:00

by John Horgan

The following article was found on Slate.com at http://www.slate.com/id/2078486. It is presented here only for scholarly purposes and to ensure that access to it isn't lost, should Slate.com decide to remove it. The reader is encouraged to view the original article at Slate.com if it is still possible, by clicking the above link, rather than reading it here.

For a 2,500-year-old religion, Buddhism seems remarkably compatible with our scientifically oriented culture, which may explain its surging popularity here in America. Over the last 15 years, the number of Buddhist centers in the United States has more than doubled, to well over 1,000. As many as 4 million Americans now practice Buddhism, surpassing the total of Episcopalians. Of these Buddhists, half have post-graduate degrees, according to one survey. Recently, convergences between science and Buddhism have been explored in a slew of books—including Zen and the Brain and The Psychology of Awakening—and scholarly meetings. Next fall Harvard will host a colloquium titled "Investigating the Mind," where leading cognitive scientists will swap theories with the Dalai Lama. Just the other week the New York Times hailed the "rapprochement between modern science and ancient [Buddhist] wisdom."

Four years ago, I joined a Buddhist meditation class and began talking to (and reading books by) intellectuals sympathetic to Buddhism. Eventually, and regretfully, I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than the Catholicism I lapsed from in my youth; Buddhism's moral and metaphysical worldview cannot easily be reconciled with science—or, more generally, with modern humanistic values.

For many, a chief selling point of Buddhism is its supposed de-emphasis of supernatural notions such as immortal souls and God. Buddhism "rejects the theological impulse," the philosopher Owen Flanagan declares approvingly in The Problem of the Soul. Actually, Buddhism is functionally theistic, even if it avoids the "G" word. Like its parent religion Hinduism, Buddhism espouses reincarnation, which holds that after death our souls are re-instantiated in new bodies, and karma, the law of moral cause and effect. Together, these tenets imply the existence of some cosmic judge who, like Santa Claus, tallies up our naughtiness and niceness before rewarding us with rebirth as a cockroach or as a saintly lama.

Western Buddhists usually downplay these supernatural elements, insisting that Buddhism isn't so much a religion as a practical method for achieving happiness. They depict Buddha as a pragmatist who eschewed metaphysical speculation and focused on reducing human suffering. As the Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman put it, Buddhism is an "inner science," an empirical discipline for fulfilling our minds' potential. The ultimate goal is the state of preternatural bliss, wisdom, and moral grace sometimes called enlightenment—Buddhism's version of heaven, except that you don't have to die to get there.

The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.

The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. Meditation, the brain researcher Francisco Varela told me before he died in 2001, confirms the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which holds that the self is an illusion. Varela contended that anatta has also been corroborated by cognitive science, which has discovered that our perception of our minds as discrete, unified entities is an illusion foisted upon us by our clever brains. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as anatta does.

Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.

Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.

What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom.

But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.

Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an "agnostic" perspective in spite of his Buddhist training—not because of it. When I asked him why he didn't just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself.

All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'être of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel. Buddhism raises radical questions about our inner and outer reality, but it is finally not radical enough to accommodate science's disturbing perspective. The remaining question is whether any form of spirituality can.

Click HERE to read my email exchange with John Horgan on this article, and Buddhism in general.

Roots of Human Family Tree Are Shallow

2006-07-03T06:41:00.000-07:00

This article appeared online from the Associated Press on July 1, 2006. It has been pasted into this page below to insure it isn't lost but, if the link is still active, the reader is encouraged to view it at its original source at this address:
LINK HERE

Roots of Human Family Tree Are Shallow
By MATT CRENSON, AP National Writer

Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago, somewhere in East Asia — Taiwan, Malaysia and Siberia all are likely locations. He — or she — did nothing more remarkable than be born, live, have children and die.

Yet this was the ancestor of every person now living on Earth — the last person in history whose family tree branches out to touch all 6.5 billion people on the planet today.

That means everybody on Earth descends from somebody who was around as recently as the reign of Tutankhamen, maybe even during the Golden Age of ancient Greece. There's even a chance that our last shared ancestor lived at the time of Christ.

"It's a mathematical certainty that that person existed," said Steve Olson, whose 2002 book "Mapping Human History" traces the history of the species since its origins in Africa more than 100,000 years ago.

It is human nature to wonder about our ancestors — who they were, where they lived, what they were like. People trace their genealogy, collect antiques and visit historical sites hoping to capture just a glimpse of those who came before, to locate themselves in the sweep of history and position themselves in the web of human existence.

But few people realize just how intricately that web connects them not just to people living on the planet today, but to everyone who ever lived.

With the help of a statistician, a computer scientist and a supercomputer, Olson has calculated just how interconnected the human family tree is. You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years — and probably on the low side of that range — to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.

Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back a little farther — about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago — everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors. In other words, every person who was alive at that time is either an ancestor to all 6 billion people living today, or their line died out and they have no remaining descendants.

That revelation is "especially startling," statistician Jotun Hein of England's Oxford University wrote in a commentary on the research published by the journal Nature.

"Had you entered any village on Earth in around 3,000 B.C., the first person you would have met would probably be your ancestor," Hein marveled.

It also means that all of us have ancestors of every color and creed. Every Palestinian suicide bomber has Jews in his past. Every Sunni Muslim in Iraq is descended from at least one Shiite. And every Klansman's family has African roots.

How can this be?

It's simple math. Every person has two parents, four grandparents and eight great-grandparents. Keep doubling back through the generations — 16, 32, 64, 128 — and within a few hundred years you have thousands of ancestors.

It's nothing more than exponential growth combined with the facts of life. By the 15th century you've got a million ancestors. By the 13th you've got a billion. Sometime around the 9th century — just 40 generations ago — the number tops a trillion.

But wait. How could anybody — much less everybody — alive today have had a trillion ancestors living during the 9th century?

The answer is, they didn't. Imagine there was a man living 1,200 years ago whose daughter was your mother's 36th great-grandmother, and whose son was your father's 36th great-grandfather. That would put him on two branches on your family tree, one on your mother's side and one on your father's.

In fact, most of the people who lived 1,200 years ago appear not twice, but thousands of times on our family trees, because there were only 200 million people on Earth back then. Simple division — a trillion divided by 200 million — shows that on average each person back then would appear 5,000 times on the family tree of every single individual living today.

But things are never average. Many of the people who were alive in the year 800 never had children; they don't appear on anybody's family tree. Meanwhile, more prolific members of society would show up many more than 5,000 times on a lot of people's trees.

Keep going back in time, and there are fewer and fewer people available to put on more and more branches of the 6.5 billion family trees of people living today. It is mathematically inevitable that at some point, there will be a person who appears at least once on everybody's tree.

But don't stop there; keep going back. As the number of potential ancestors dwindles and the number of branches explodes there comes a time when every single person on Earth is an ancestor to all of us, except the ones who never had children or whose lines eventually died out.

And it wasn't all that long ago. When you walk through an exhibit of Ancient Egyptian art from the time of the pyramids, everything there was very likely created by one of your ancestors — every statue, every hieroglyph, every gold necklace. If there is a mummy lying in the center of the room, that person was almost certainly your ancestor, too.

It means when Muslims, Jews or Christians claim to be children of Abraham, they are all bound to be right.

"No matter the languages we speak or the color of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who labored to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu," Olson and his colleagues wrote in the journal Nature.

How can they be so sure?

Seven years ago one of Olson's colleagues, a Yale University statistician named Joseph Chang, started thinking about how to estimate when the last common ancestor of everybody on Earth today lived. In a paper published by the journal "Advances in Applied Probability," Chang showed that there is a mathematical relationship between the size of a population and the number of generations back to a common ancestor. Plugging the planet's current population into his equation, he came up with just over 32 generations, or about 900 years.

Chang knew that answer was wrong because it relied on some common, but inaccurate, assumptions that population geneticists often use to simplify difficult mathematical problems.

For example, his analysis pretended that Earth's population has always been what it is today. It also assumed that individuals choose their mates randomly. And each generation had to reproduce all at once.

Chang's calculations essentially treated the world like one big meet market where any given guy was equally likely to pair up with any woman, whether she lived in the next village or halfway around the world. Chang was fully aware of the inaccuracy — people have to select their partners from the pool of individuals they have actually met, unless they are entering into an arranged marriage. But even then, they are much more likely to mate with partners who live nearby. And that means that geography can't be ignored if you are going to determine the relatedness of the world's population.

A few years later Chang was contacted by Olson, who had started thinking about the world's interrelatedness while writing his book. They started corresponding by e-mail, and soon included in their deliberations Douglas Rohde, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist and computer expert who now works for Google.

The researchers knew they would have to account for geography to get a better picture of how the family tree converges as it reaches deeper into the past. They decided to build a massive computer simulation that would essentially re-enact the history of humanity as people were born, moved from one place to another, reproduced and died.

Rohde created a program that put an initial population on a map of the world at some date in the past, ranging from 7,000 to 20,000 years ago. Then the program allowed those initial inhabitants to go about their business. He allowed them to expand in number according to accepted estimates of past population growth, but had to cap the expansion at 55 million people due to computing limitations. Although unrealistic in some respects — 55 million is a lot less than the 6.5 billion people who actually live on Earth today — he found through trial and error that the limitation did not significantly change the outcome with regard to common ancestry.

The model also had to allow for migration based on what historians, anthropologists and archaeologists know about how frequently past populations moved both within and between continents. Rohde, Chang and Olson chose a range of migration rates, from a low level where almost nobody left their native home to a much higher one where up to 20 percent of the population reproduced in a town other than the one where they were born, and one person in 400 moved to a foreign country.

Allowing very little migration, Rohde's simulation produced a date of about 5,000 B.C. for humanity's most recent common ancestor. Assuming a higher, but still realistic, migration rate produced a shockingly recent date of around 1 A.D.

Some people even suspect that the most recent common ancestor could have lived later than that.

"A number of people have written to me making the argument that the simulations were too conservative," Rohde said.

Migration is the key. When a people have offspring far from their birthplaces, they essentially introduce their entire family lines into their adopted populations, giving their immediate offspring and all who come after them a set of ancestors from far away.

People tend to think of preindustrial societies as places where this sort of thing rarely happened, where virtually everyone lived and died within a few miles of the place where they were born. But history is full of examples that belie that notion.

Take Alexander the Great, who conquered every country between Greece and northern India, siring two sons along the way by Persian mothers. Consider Prince Abd Al-Rahman, son of a Syrian father and a Berber mother, who escaped Damascus after the overthrow of his family's dynasty and started a new one in Spain. The Vikings, the Mongols, and the Huns all traveled thousands of miles to burn, pillage and — most pertinent to genealogical considerations — rape more settled populations.

More peaceful people moved around as well. During the Middle Ages, the Gypsies traveled in stages from northern India to Europe. In the New World, the Navaho moved from western Canada to their current home in the American Southwest. People from East Asia fanned out into the South Pacific Islands, and Eskimos frequently traveled back and forth across the Bering Sea from Siberia to Alaska.

"These genealogical networks, as they start spreading out they really have the ability to get virtually everywhere," Olson said.

Though people like to think of culture, language and religion as barriers between groups, history is full of religious conversions, intermarriages, illegitimate births and adoptions across those lines. Some historical times and places were especially active melting pots — medieval Spain, ancient Rome and the Egypt of the pharaohs, for example.

"And the thing is, you only need one," said Mark Humphrys, an amateur anthropologist and professor of computer science at Dublin City University.

One ancestral link to another cultural group among your millions of forbears, and you share ancestors with everyone in that group. So everyone who reproduced with somebody who was born far from their own natal home — every sailor blown off course, every young man who set off to seek his fortune, every woman who left home with a trader from a foreign land — as long as they had children, they helped weave the tight web of brotherhood we all share.

A Naturalistic Approach To Buddhist Karma and Rebirth

2006-05-01T15:44:00.000-07:00

DT Strain, 2006

Note: good prerequisites to understanding some of the points I mention here would be to first read the following essays of mine (in this order)...

• The Big Deal about Complexity
• The Nature of the “Force”
• Visit to a Buddhist Temple
• Question Everything

Introduction

I am a naturalist (someone who has no focus or particular belief regarding anything outside this material universe). As such, I find Nature pretty “super” as is and see no need to posit a supernatural realm. Many of my friends and associates have similar leanings and backgrounds. Therefore, as I have discussed my recent explorations of Buddhist philosophy with them, a common response has been concern over the Buddhist belief in karma and reincarnation. Even many others in the West who may not consider themselves strict naturalists might have reservations about these concepts. I suspect that for Buddhists seeking to spread their ideas to the West, addressing this consideration might be important; especially in the light of an increasingly secular West.

I should begin by mentioning that it is not my intention in this essay to make claims about what Buddhism is or isn’t. Neither is it my aim to imply that the following is necessarily or exactly how Siddhartha Gautama (the founder and Buddha) originally intended it. It is also not my aim to suggest that what I am saying is consistent with the Pali Canon or any other Buddhist scripture. Lastly, it is not my aim to suggest that what I describe is consistent with the majority of practicing Buddhists, or even a considerable number of them.

Not that any of these things might not be true, but the fact is that I am still a beginning learner, and I simply can’t presume to know to what degree my thesis applies. It is not really my concern to uphold or justify any particular dogma, doctrine, or religion. Rather, I prefer to explore good and useful ideas which may commonly be elements from different religions and philosophies, without concern for semantic labels or quibbles over whether I qualify as this religion or that.

What I do claim is this:

First, Buddhism appears to have a wide range of conceptions among its practitioners. It has a very large number of different schools and sects, and their historic and doctrinal relationship to one another is complex. Both between and within these schools can be found a spectrum of practice that ranges from the very religious to the very secular. By ‘religious’ I mean that which includes a great deal of ritual and many transcendental and supernatural-like ideas. By ‘secular’ I mean that which focuses on pragmatic practices which keep to the scientifically-understood natural universe as much as possible. While practice seems dispersed along this spectrum, I do not know of any statistics regarding the proportions of these different types of practitioners. It does seem, however, that practitioners in the West frequently favor the more secular end of that spectrum; but this conclusion is purely anecdotal.

Second, the following naturalistic understanding of karma and rebirth is a general impression I have received after reading various books and online sources that lean in this direction, and after speaking with various like-minded Buddhists (or Buddhism enthusiasts). More importantly, I believe the following to be a ‘good idea’ and a perspective which can provide the naturalist Buddhist explorer ample logic and foundation to the rest of Buddhist philosophy.

Modern Correlates to Ancient Understandings

Many ‘life philosophies’ have an underpinning which is a particular understanding or perspective on the world, followed by a way of dealing with that world, followed by conclusions on practice (or ‘oughts’ or prescriptives). In the West for example, ancient Stoic philosophy was divided into Physics, Logic, and Ethics. Each branch proceeded the next and was founded upon the conclusions of its predecessor.

Of course, it is the first stage (understanding of the world or ‘Physics’ in the ancient sense of the word) which has changed considerably over the centuries thanks to the many advances in science. These changes have rendered the worldviews of some philosophies completely illegitimate. This has the effect of destabilizing the logic and prescriptives on which those philosophies were based.

But in many cases, we find that the logic and prescriptives of ancient philosophies are maintained because the original worldview on which they were based is still ‘essentially’ legitimate given the new scientific understanding. Or, perhaps, it might be better to say that the perspective derived from the ancient and the modern worldview are similar enough so as to still provide the same basis for following the logic and prescriptives of that philosophy. Yet, often, it may take a reinterpretation of those ancient perspectives in the light of our modern understanding in order to see how the foundation of a philosophy is actually maintained.

However, we must be cautious in this sort of endeavor. The more harmful among the risks of this line of thinking is the temptation to bend scientific theory to our will, slightly distorting its meaning into a pseudoscientific understanding so as to match up to what is required as a foundation to the philosophy we are dealing with. This distortion of scientific findings can sometimes be intentional on the part of a charlatan, but more often it is the result of simple ignorance of science or its theories or its principles, and unconscious wishful thinking. An example of this unfortunate tendency is the New Age misrepresentation of quantum mechanics as suggesting that consciousness creates or determines reality – something that quantum mechanics simply does not mean to imply.1 Another example are various distortions of Relativity to justify some religious or philosophic idea about supernatural dimensional planes, a subjective universe,2 immortality in a timeless realm, or other miracles and pseudoscience.

Not only is it not my intention to distort science, but it is also not my intention to invent fanciful-but-possible stories which happen to fit with known science - even as it is. I am a believer in the wisdom of Ockham’s Razor when it comes to reaching belief on matters of fact. It is always possible to construct false fantasies which ‘happen to fit the facts’. Rather than proposing new facts which ‘might be possible given what we know’ it is instead my aim simply to point out a perspective – a way of looking at the facts, such that many of the logic and prescriptives of Buddhism might still be well founded. Therefore what follows is not some hypothesis about reality that requires additional proof, but simply a choice to look at the facts we already agree on scientifically from a certain perspective.

As such, it may be the case that there are modern correlates for ancient understandings of the universe. These maintain the validity of those ancient understandings to the extent that they remain valid foundations for the systems of ethics and practice upon which they were based. These correlates may place the ancient understanding into the role of simile to the modern one. But preferably, the correlate should take the form of being merely a less precise description of the modern understanding; perhaps even simply a result of translation from another language (which would be the ideal type of correlate).

The important thing is that we not take the philosophy first, and then try to find a perspective on the modern universe that preserves it. As is a common distinction between science and pseudoscience for example, the issue of our starting motivation is an important one here. We should simply ask, do the logic and prescriptives of a philosophy still seem wise in the light of our modern universe? The correlates should then begin to emerge naturally as we answer that question. Not all philosophies will yield a positive answer to that question, but many modern people are finding that, in the case of Buddhism, modern correlates to its ideas are often surprisingly on base.

Is This Buddhism?

As religions go, Buddhism may be ideally suited to this sort of thought or investigation. As mentioned, there are a wide range of takes on Buddhism. In addition, according to Buddhist teaching, Siddhartha Gautama himself stressed that adherents should question and examine all claims, including those of Buddhist scripture and even his own.3 It is this sort of ongoing examination in the light of new information that can help many older philosophies and religions evolve in positive, more enlightened directions. For Buddhism in particular, this openness and positive skepticism, as espoused in the Kalama Sutra, may be one of the reasons for the flexibility, longevity, and relevance of Buddhism.

If a naturalistic interpretation of Buddhism seems like a retrofit or even a perversion of the original, remember that in ancient times (500 BCE or so) the thought of a dualistic supernatural realm distinct from our natural universe may have been unfamiliar or at least not as universal as it is to spirituality today. It seems, rather, that the wording of many ancient philosophies, East and West, suggest a unity of the entirety of existence. In the West, Stoic ideas of an ‘ever-living fire’ and the Logos (the rational order that governs the universe) were considered a part of the natural and material whole.4 In the East for example, the very notion of the Tao was not meant as a supernatural ‘magical force’ as some might view it today, but rather a description of our universe and how it operates.5 These concepts were not thought of as magical loopholes to our natural world, but were instead attempts to explain the nature and operation of this universe in which we live.

As described in my article on visiting a Buddhist temple for the first time, Gautama specifically chose not to focus on the metaphysical.6 Yet, he included concepts of karma and rebirth. This would seem to support the notion that these were seen as aspects of how this material universe functions. Furthermore, Gautama altered the notion of reincarnation to rebirth and in this, removed the idea that there is a continuous indestructible ‘soul’ which survives death and moves on to the next life form. In Gautama’s model, nothing transcends or is transmitted from one life to the next. This is a crucial difference between Hindu reincarnation and Buddhist rebirth. Here we see the Buddha himself taking the first steps to interpret rebirth in naturalistic terms (more on rebirth later). If anything, a naturalistic interpretation of Buddhist concepts may be a return to something nearer Gautama’s original conception, albeit adjusted somewhat to account for new physical information gained over the last 25 centuries.

As it turns out, substantive adjustments aren’t really necessary so much as rewordings, clarifications, and perhaps a few additional perspectives. This fact may be one reason why so many scientifically-minded folks find Buddhism attractive.

What Karma is Not

Although many readers are likely already aware of this, I think it is important to mention a few misconceptions regarding karma as it is. First, karma is not something you receive from doing good or bad things. Karma is actually the act itself. If you steal something – that act is karma. Later on, if you suffer for it, that is the fruit of your karma. Because of rampant misconceptions in the U.S. at least, this may be a difficult mental adjustment to make for some folks. I know at least that those around me (non Buddhists) have always described karma as this magical stuff that builds up on your spiritual bank account when you perform certain acts – but it isn’t; it’s the original act itself that is the karma. Thinking otherwise seems to be a semantic and conceptual misunderstanding that is common among most non-Buddhist people I have associated with.

Secondly, there is a misconception about the connection between the act and the suffering. Matthew Bortolin is an ordained member of Thich Nhat Hanh’s Buddhist Community and is also a Star Wars fan who recently wrote a book outlining Buddhist themes found in the film series called The Dharma of Star Wars. In that book he describes karma saying:

Karma is not a cosmic decree of justice or system of reward and punishment. If you break your leg today it is not because you swore at your brother yesterday. That is not the functioning of the law of karma. The remorse you feel for swearing at your brother is the fruit of karma, not the fact of the bone fracture. Similarly, an act of kindness does not always necessarily produce happiness – the intention behind the action or thought is of critical importance. If one performs a kind deed in the hopes of being rewarded by the stars or God then that deed is not good karma.7

It seems, however, that if you broke your leg because you were distracted by a nagging sense of guilt, then a broken leg could be said to be the result of “bad” karma. It may also be the case that if your brother broke your leg because he was upset at you for swearing at him, this is karma as well.

The open source online encyclopedia Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) currently says the following of karma:

In Buddhism, the 'Law of Karma' refers to "cause and effect". The word Karma literally means "action" - often indicating intent or cause. Buddhists believe that the sum of their previous actions creates their present state and that the actions they perform now will create their future. Therefore, they try to stop performing 'negative actions' and perform 'positive actions' instead.

American scholar and author Alexander Berzin has created an online archive of Buddhist teachings at www.berzinarchives.com. On that website, he discusses karma as follows:

We could talk about a network connecting physical points in one moment, like all the different parts of a machine. That is how we usually think of a network, isn’t it? Here, let’s change dimensions and think of a network in terms of connecting different moments of time. We acted like this; we acted like that. I yelled then; I yelled another time; and then I yelled again.

For example, each time I complain, the karmic force of that act networks with the karmic forces of previous times I complained. The more times I complain, the stronger the network of karmic force from complaining grows and the stronger its effects can be. Here, the abstraction becomes what we in the West might call a "karmic pattern."

This is what karmic networks are talking about, and I think this way of explaining it makes a lot better sense of the whole picture of karma than using such words as "collection of merit." It is certainly not a collection of points that we keep in a book and, with enough points or "merit," we win a prize.8

We must remember that when we hear karma being discussed, we are looking through a filter of culture and perspective. The filter of language can often lead to inexact translation as well. Thirdly, we are looking through a filter of two and a half millennia. Add to that the fact that many native practitioners in the East have overlaid a variety of dogmas and it becomes quite easy for a westerner hearing these concepts to interpret them exclusively as some sort of cosmic magical force.

What Karma Is

When one carefully examines the above, one can see that karma is an abstract way of describing and discussing cause and effect. It is basically the same as saying that if we act atrociously, then we should expect consequences for those actions. These consequences take several forms, but each of them is a result of the simple interactions of physical events.

It’s as though one were to notice that slapping another person makes them angry at you. However, karma goes deeper than this, and therein lies the value of its perspective. The Law of Karma recognizes that our world is a giant intricate system of causes and effects, only the most simple and direct of which we tend to notice on a regular basis.

For example, we can easily observe and comprehend a single neuron in the brain as it fires and causes its neighbor to fire. But now consider an entire brain made up of billions of these neurons, all linked in a complex web. Trying to comprehend the sheer complexity of its activity is impossible. It is at times like this when abstraction is needed in order to grasp what’s happening in any useful sense. We therefore speak of the function of various regions of the brain and the general implications of “brain activity” moving throughout different parts.

Likewise, in the complex web of interactions throughout our world, our slapping someone has many more effects than we can possibly comprehend on an event-to-event level. The individual’s immediate reaction might be analogous to the single neuron’s firing. But consider just a few of these additional effects...

1) How will this effect the victim’s psyche later?
2) How will his psyche effect his own future interactions with others?
3) How will those interactions affect the overall average condition of the society in which you live?
4) What discussions will the victim have with others about this event?
5) What will others think of you?
6) What actions might others take in response to their thoughts?
7) How will you be affected by the victim’s response?
8) How will that response affect your psyche and interactions with others?
9) How will you performing the initial action effect you, your emotions, and your thoughts?
10) How will this action add to the cumulative habit-building patterns of your behavior and your future inclinations?

These are only ten simple effects from one simple action. But remember that each question in this list is itself an abstraction of much more complex events. When we ask, “what discussions will the victim have with others” we are really asking about a multitude of interactions between the victim and others, and wrapping the entire notion into a subset we label “discussions”. When one thinks along these lines in respect to an entire life, or a lifestyle, it should be apparent just how complex these matters can become, and how important abstractions can be in dealing with them.

Consider a body of water with various motions and waves. In reality, this is a collection of molecules and atoms interacting in a series of complex events. But we use the abstraction of a wave to deal with the overall effect of these interactions. We can watch a wave move from one location to the other with our eyes, even though nothing of substance is actually moving between those locations. We even create complex mathematical formulae to describe the activity and interaction of waves. However, waves don’t actually exist as discrete objects; rather, they are a pattern of the collective causes and effects. We can describe this as an abstraction, in the sense that it is something which is “disassociated from any specific instance... expressing a quality apart from an object” as Merriam-Webster Online defines “abstract”. As the Berzin Archives state:

Question: Are these networks some sort of energy?

No, the networks of karmic force are not forms of energy; they are nonstatic abstractions imputed on a continuum.8

Karma is a conceptual abstraction of the complex web of interactions in our lives. More specifically, karma refers to the willful actions of intentional decision makers and the effects of those actions on suffering.

Why create such an abstraction? There is a utility to speaking of actions in terms of karma when it comes to our intentions and their effects on a happy life (or something like karma, even if we don’t use that particular word). As mentioned, it would be impractical and perhaps impossible to speak of each and every particular interaction which plays a role in our overall suffering. As with the usefulness of any abstraction, the abstraction of karma allows us to speak of those aspects of action and consequence which go beyond any one particular instance, and which can be found recurrent throughout many varied situations as a norm. This is not unlike the many universally applicable relationships discovered between widely divergent phenomena in the field of complex systems.

One of the remarkable things about the notion of karma is just how deep and robust the concept goes. Everyone can easily see the immediate wisdom that being nice to others engenders the same from them. But consider questions #3, 8, 9, and 10 in the list above. These questions are far more subtle; especially the realization that our intentions behind an action can affect our sense of guilt, our mood, our memories, our preoccupations, and our habits. Indeed, the shape of our brains and our very selves change, based on the habits we build through our actions.

With each new action comes a subtle shift in our character, like the minerals in a water drop slowly building into a stalagmite over decades. This new character will either result in us having a more satisfying or less satisfying and contented life. Most ethics tend to focus greatly on the effects and end results of our actions, but rarely is the intention behind our actions given much focus in today’s way of thinking. We often talk of good character, but rarely address how and why a character forms as it does. Consider again these words on karma from the Berzin Archives:

Participant: It is not adding one to other, but rather one reinforces the other or strengthens it. When I have repeated something, it gets stronger because it includes the second, third, and fourth times.

Correct. The karmic force of the first act networks with the karmic forces from the second, third and fourth repetitions. And not only that, but of course every time we do something, it is slightly different. It is not an exact repetition. This is why "pattern" is a helpful word here. It goes in that direction. This is not like filling a bag with more and more rice, as in a collection of rice.8

Through the idea of karma and its behavior, we can approach these complex issues with a handy conceptualization. In this way, the abstraction of karma allows us to see larger patterns in life. We can easily see and grasp the waves on the water – so much so, that it is difficult not to think of them as real things.

But were we as microscopic mites floating on the water’s surface, we might not even know we were riding waves. We might have to run complex calculations on our surroundings before we figured out the nature and behavior of these waves, much less their existence. But even after learning of these waves intellectually, it would be difficult to have the perceptual deep understanding of their existence and activity as we macro-scale entities looking at the surface of the water have.

For another analogy, consider the difference between knowing intellectually that the Earth is traveling around the Sun, and perceiving and intuitively grasping yourself moving on a merry-go-round. Karma, as a concept, attempts to give us this larger, more intuitive, wave-function view of the intricacies of our actions and their results. This is the conceptual utility of the notion of karma, when taken in a fully naturalistic sense.

Rebirth, Commonly Understood

If the notion of karma is difficult for a naturalist, the notion of rebirth is even more so. First, it should be noted that most Buddhists don’t technically believe in ‘reincarnation’ per se, but rather ‘rebirth’. Reincarnation is more of a Hindu concept which involves the transmigration of souls from one body to another.9 This apparently is yet another common misconception about Buddhism.

That isn’t to say, however, that the concept of rebirth as it is accepted by millions of Buddhists is secular and compatible with naturalism. Quite often it is treated not much different from reincarnation in terms of its supernatural-like conception. Even a pure reading of Buddhist rebirth cannot easily be thought of as purely material and compatible with modern physical science.

Given Siddhartha Gautama’s preference for addressing the challenges of this life, and given the influence of Hindu reincarnation in his time and place, it almost seems as though his notion of rebirth is an olive branch to the Hindi. He has retained a connectivity of sorts between the lives of people, but has removed transmigrating souls. Therefore, what remains in rebirth offers some concepts useful to the naturalist, even if he doesn’t share all of the ways rebirth is interpreted by all Buddhists.

Impermanence and Consciousness

While interpretations of rebirth vary, it can be said more broadly that Buddhists don’t believe in souls, or any sort of impermanent self. They believe our egos are the result of the coming together (aggregation) of many different individual parts. These aggregates include our bodies, our perceptions, our feelings, and our psychological dispositions. When those parts cease to be formed into those aggregations, this illusion of self ceases10. In this way, a ‘person’ is much like a rainbow or, again, a wave: simply a pattern that appears to be a discrete entity which is actually the result of accumulated intersecting parts. This much is indeed fully compatible with a modern, purely materialist view of human beings and nature. In fact, given the time in which it was conceived, amazingly so.

The most confusing thing to wonder, then, is what exactly is carrying on from one to another in rebirth? Rebirth springs from the concept of karma. We often read of one’s ‘karma carrying on to another life’. But surprisingly, when we read in detail what’s being described, it is not always the carrying on of karma to another of our lives. Rather, it is the continuation of karma (cause and effect) into the lives of others. This is what is meant by some Buddhist authors when they say “another life”.

To understand why this isn’t always expressed more bluntly, one must think again of the Buddhist concept of no-self. Think of the phrase, “my future life”. If there is truly no self, then what does it mean to say “my” in this phrase? In physics two electrons with the same properties are said to be identical; indistinguishable. In other words, and electron is an electron, is an electron. This has special consequences for statistical mechanics. For the Buddhist, a similar conception applies to our experience of consciousness.

While we may differ in our memories, thoughts, attitudes, and more, all of these things are due to impermanent aggregates (the particles making up our neural structures, inputs, and so on). The one thing we have during our lifetimes is that intangible first-person experience of consciousness. This is what consciousness philosophers call “quale” (plural, “qualia”). Qualia are “what it is like” to have experiences as a living being.

As far as Buddhists can tell, once you strip away the particular aggregates making up our personhood, this experience of consciousness is identical in all conscious beings. Like the electron, consciousness is consciousness, is consciousness. Philosopher David Chalmers suspects that consciousness may be an inherent property of the universe wherever certain systems of organization exist in nature.11 This would probably be compatible with Buddhism in my view.

This doesn’t mean that consciousness, like some sort of ghost, drifts from person to person. If that were so, then we would merely be replacing the word ‘soul’ with ‘consciousness’. Consciousness doesn’t exist without aggregates, but more importantly, wherever certain aggregates exist, so too does consciousness, as a general fact of nature - and all instances of it are indistinguishable. This conception of consciousness is one reason why some Buddhist authors don’t go out of their way to distinguish between the possible interpretations of the phrase “another life”.

Consider the following, from David S. Noss’ “A History of the World’s Religions”:

This does not mean, the Buddha said, that one who is born is different from the preceding person who has passed his or her karma on at death, nor does it mean that one is the same. Such an issue is as meaningless as to say that the body is different from the self or that self and body are the same.

Here, if we understand the conception of ourselves as aggregates, and the universality of the phenomenon of consciousness, it becomes easier to see why the question of whether or not the person passing on karma to another are the same is meaningless. The author goes on to say:

Since there is no permanent ego-entity accompanying the skandhas [aggregates], discussions as to whether the successive personalities in a continuous series of rebirths are the same or different lack point. It is better simply to know that a specific necessity (karma) leads to the origination of one life as the total result of the having-been-ness of another, and that connection is as close as that of cause and effect... It is difficult to construe, but the fundamental fact remains – that what one does and thinks now carries over into tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow.12

Further Explanation and Similes for Rebirth

A common way of explaining rebirth is to use the example of lighting one flame with another. This is a decent approach for several reasons. For one, a flame itself is not a single thing. It is a form made up of moving particles which are continuously replaced, much like ourselves. This is reminiscent of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus who, also noting aggregates in nature, said, “You cannot step twice into the same river.”13 In Complex Systems Theory, this is similar (but perhaps even more precisely applicable to persons) to autopoiesis; the process of a system which keeps its basic form but replaces itself with new material.14

In addition, while one flame lights another they are clearly no longer the same flame. One simply brought about the other. In this respect one is simply observing that lives affect other lives.

For purposes of seeing rebirth from a naturalistic point of view, a more useful simile would be the commonly used example of pressing of a signet ring into sealing wax. This notion is used to show how causation (karma) can carry on, without any transfer of substance.15

When we think about what’s happening with the sealing wax, we can see that a mold is being formed. Molds can carry that pattern forward. If we were to extrapolate this common Buddhist simile for rebirth into what we know of the naturalistic world, we could say the following:

A person (his choices, actions, words, etc.) affects his environment. A person is also affected by his environment. His thoughts, memories, and even personality are all affected by environment. When a person affects the environment, that environment can go on to affect the very nature of another person. In this way, the environment is like the sealing wax; a mold. This mold can then reproduce similar patterns in nature, be they in the environment or in neural structures, or more.

Again, complex systems often reveal many repeating patterns in nature. In Chaos theory, this might be akin to repeating patterns found in fractals. While these are much more uniform, predictable, and exactly duplicated, there has been shown a general fractal-like activity within natural systems.16

Does this mean that my nephew is actually Elvis reborn? No. It just means that his persona will be somewhat affected by growing up in a world that once contained Elvis. Maybe he might one day store in his mind the words to Heartbreak Hotel – words (patterns) which also resided in the mind of Elvis, and now many others. But even if he doesn’t, we’ll never know the many subtle ways his mind has been affected by the minds of others through the causal nexus that is karma.

If a person is the pattern of information created by the formation of neural systems in the brain, and if those patterns can be recreated from one brain to another, and since there is no impermanent soul, then what does it mean when we find parts of one mind echoing within another? Certainly, this notion doesn’t vivify the version of reincarnation as commonly accepted by many, but it is at the very least food for thought, even for the naturalist.

Rebirth for the Naturalist

But this would mean that rebirth isn’t simply linear, going from one particular person to another particular person. Instead, rebirth is happening between multiple personas all the time. Indeed, this is exactly what some Buddhist authors suggest in saying that we are never the same person from moment to moment; we are constantly being reborn as our natures change from the effects of karma (the causes and effects from all people’s choices).

If naturalists get past their immediate knee-jerk reaction to what appears at first to be pure mysticism, they can then begin to see many of the subtleties of Buddhist concepts, which offer some insight and perspectives on important notions relating to life in a universe of ever-changing composite materials.

Conclusion

The naturalist might then wonder if all of this is just some poetic way of phrasing things. He might wonder what the purpose is of going through the gymnastics of sorting out the mystical from the natural in the various renditions of these concepts.

First, many of these concepts relating to karma and rebirth are useful, even profound, in grasping what is perhaps a more existential and unbiased philosophical look at our world and our lives. Secondly, the real benefit in Buddhism are its applicable practices relating to meditation, mindfulness, and so on. It is a shame that many naturalists get overly distracted by concepts like rebirth to the extent that they miss the opportunity to learn about these other practices.

We should realize that, although much is made of rebirth in the western descriptions of Buddhism, many Buddhists see it as a relatively minor footnote. If we can at least see the truths within some interpretations of karma and rebirth as relating to a materialist universe, it might help us move on and focus on the core of Buddhism, which is the practice of mindfulness and the ethical notions found in the eight-fold path. If we do so, we can then take the time to get a clearer picture of those elements within Buddhism which are every bit as applicable and useful to the naturalist.

Endnotes

1. Victor J. Stenger, Quantum Quackery (LINK, 22 April 2006).
2. Denis Dutton, Delusions of Postmodernism (LINK, 22 April 2006).
3. Kalama Sutra, Anguttara Nikaya, Tipitaka (LINK, 22 April 2006).
Wikipedia, Kalama Sutra (LINK, 22 April 2006).
DT Strain, Question Everything (LINK, 22 April 2006).
4. Wikipedia, Stoicism (LINK, 22 April 2006).
5. Religious Tolerance, Taoism (LINK, 22 April 2006).
6. David S. Noss, A History of the World’s Religions (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 2003), 174-175.
7. Matthew Bortolin, The Dharma of Star Wars (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2005), 112-113.
8. Alexander Berzin, The Mechanism of Karma (LINK, 22 April 2006).
9. Wikipedia, Rebirth (LINK, 22 April 2006).
10. David S. Noss, 176.
11. David Chalmers, Consciousness and its Place in Nature (LINK, 22 April 2006).
12. David S. Noss, 177.
13. Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Philosophy: History & Problems, Fifth Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill), 13.
14. Alder Fuller, Autopoiesis and Dissipative Structures (Euglena Edu: LINK, 22 April 2006).
15. David S. Noss, 176.
16. Florent Gabon, Tino Kluge, Daniela Mancuso, Andreas Putz, Fractals and Dynamic Systems (University of Wales, Aberystwyth: LINK, 22 April 2006).

Freethought and Compassion

2006-04-23T14:57:00.000-07:00

By DT Strain, 2006.
This paper was originally prepared for oral presentation at the Houston Church of Freethought - April 9, 2006 service. A few parts have been altered to be more suitable for the written word. This article also appeared in the American Humanist Association's national philosophic journal, 'Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism', volume 15 (LINK).

Introduction

According to the Houston Church of Freethought website, a Freethinker is “a person who forms opinions about religion independently of tradition, authority, or established belief.” I might quibble a bit that this is somewhat narrow, because I would suspect that we try to form all of our opinions in this manner – not just those pertaining to religion. The site goes on to say that “Freethinkers attach more importance to the why of belief than to the what.”1

There is a great deal of focus among Freethinkers on epistemology, or how we decide what is true. There is relatively less emphasis on what we do with that knowledge, and how to live in light of it. Given the faith-based culture we find ourselves in, it is understandable that Freethought would have that focus. But if we are to ‘make a life’ of Freethinking, then we should begin to broaden our focus to build a more robust and well-rounded understanding of what it means to live as a Freethinker.

Surely the epistemological principles of Freethought carry with them an implied number of ethical ideals. Among them would be honesty, consistency, integrity, and fairness – all of which are inherently necessary for the handling of evidence and claims in a rational manner.

But many other principles don’t quite fall under the umbrella of an epistemology, yet are crucial to a happy life. Still, the HCOF website provides at least one more sentence relevant to this. It says:

“Freethinkers, therefore, look for and find meaning in their daily lives: in their efforts to learn, to grow, to understand, to help others, and to try, at least, to leave the world perhaps a little better place than they found it.”1

This speaks to me of compassion. Unfortunately, compassion is under assault in our world. Our media and our popular culture is rife with things that encourage cruelty, denigration, and even a complete absence of civility. The Germans have a word, for which there isn’t a simple English version: schadenfreude, which means taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.2 Schadenfreude is a major source of entertainment with the advent of daytime talk shows, and it has only grown with the popularity of reality television.

At the same time, the internet has provided a faceless arena in which the usual social constraints of face to face interaction have been stripped away. People feel completely free to exchange insults of the most crass, heartless, and bitterly mean-spirited nature imaginable. Even between friends, the faceless screen can lure us into phrasing things more harshly than we would in person. In addition, vocal inflection and facial expression are masked, making what might be meant lightly to be taken more sensitively than it would have.

While the access to information is one of the greatest advances in history, one can only wonder what the effects of growing up in such a cruel social environment will have on humanity in the future. It seems inevitable the vitriol of chat rooms and forums will begin to spill out into the real world. Like so many advances before, with such access to mass media and communication, we have once again empowered ourselves – empowered to help or harm ourselves, that is.

The answer to this challenge is the same as it has always been and involves, to a large degree, a commitment to compassion. But I think it’s necessary to define exactly what is meant by compassion.

What is Compassion?

Compassion has held a significant place in the teachings of major religions, philosophies, and traditions throughout history, even if the practitioners of these traditions have not always lived up to their teachings’ lofty ideals.

Still, it seems likely that these elements of compassion have been an inspiration for people, and part of the widespread appeal of the major traditions. In fact, if we can say anything positive about many of them, it’s their plea for compassion.

The Dalai Lama has said that “the whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, forgiveness.” Christian monk Thomas Merton said, “compassion is the keen awareness of the interdependence of all things.” Developmental Psychologist Arthur Jersild said, “compassion is the ultimate and most meaningful embodiment of emotional maturity. It is through compassion that a person achieves the highest peak and deepest reach in his or her search for self-fulfillment.”3

Unfortunately, in the case of many religions, this noble call has often been obfuscated by extraneous or counter productive notions, mainly due to a lack of emphasis on intellectual honesty and rational means of assessing truth – something which, incidentally, Freethought excels at.

Merriam-Webster defines compassion as a “sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.”4 The core of compassion is empathy, but with the added impetus to help others. As such, compassion is both a feeling and an intellectual objective. I will address shortly the question of whether this objective is a logical one.

People conceive of compassion in a variety of ways. Many see compassion as a form of altruism or charity. Or, they might even view compassion, especially towards those who do not give it, as a type of appeasement. They might look on it as something we do because of social pressure to conform to the needs of the whole. By this reckoning, a plea to be more compassionate so that we might have a nicer world, would be akin to asking someone to donate their time picking up garbage so that we can all enjoy a cleaner city.

I believe these notions are wrong. They are misunderstandings of compassion which are responsible, in large part, for instances of its absence. Just as with the virtue of reason in Freethought, compassion is not a charity or appeasement, but rather, something which benefits the user; something we cultivate in ourselves which serves us directly.

Why Compassion Makes Sense

We are Social Animals:
Human beings, like dolphins or wolves, are social animals, and social animals tend to harbor instincts and proclivities which encourage them to form relationships with others. When these are strained, damaged, or absent, it creates feelings of guilt, anger, jealousy, loneliness and so on.5

Empathy, as the core of compassion, is one of those inclinations we harbor. It can be suppressed through an unhealthy upbringing, or it can be nurtured through a loving supportive upbringing. Even adults, through determined effort, can nurture and improve their sense of empathy. But the vast majority of us do have it. This is the reason why we can all go to the movies and experience emotional sways along with the emotional experiences of the characters on the screen. The fact that these are strangers, and fictional events, make no difference to our simple, automatic empathic responses.

Our Physiology:
Over ten years ago, neuroscientists discovered a system of neurons in the brain that allow us to empathize with others by ‘walking in their shoes’ so to speak. These are called mirror neurons.

When we make a certain movement, some of our mirror neurons activate, but also activate in the same pattern when we merely see others make the same movement. Mirror neurons are said to be involved in our ability to “really feel what [we perceive the other] person is feeling”.6

But is all of this just a silly biological quirk we’ve picked up through happenstance? While we do have our appendix and other vestigial traits, many complexity theorists have been running computer simulations in an effort to understand more about the development of our cooperative behaviors.

Logistics of Survival:
In these simulations, various sub units interact and are allowed to evolve different algorithms for dealing with one another. Over time, the more successful behavioral inclinations rise to the top. Similar analyses have been conducted by game theorists many decades before that. Those behaviors that rise to the top tend to include many we might recognize as forgiveness, nicety, and other aspects of compassion.7 In our case, ‘survival of the fittest’ meant ‘survival of the compassionate’.

Importance to Reason:
There are also aspects of compassion that interact directly with reason. In that regard, objectivity may be the nexus between reason and compassion. As I’m sure many will agree, objectivity is essential to good reasoning and the unbiased handling of information. But objectivity involves the ability to see things from outside our own point of view, and this is where empathy may help provide that wider view. For example, neuroscience has recently suspected that autism may be linked to a problem with mirror neurons.6

Compassion for Enemies:
It’s easy to have compassion for those we care about or feel sorry for. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that we can be compassionate to one, and not to another. This is because we mistakenly think of compassion as an action - an action that can be dealt out when specific circumstances and people call for it, rather than as an internal and habitual character trait.

Those mirror neurons don’t care whether or not the person on the movie screen is fictional. These instinctive traits aren’t that fine tuned. A person who is cruel to animals can be cruel to people. By the same token, a person who is cruel to enemies can be cruel to friends. Empathy is a habit and every choice we make further shapes that habitual nature - and either nurtures or diminishes a compassionate character.

It’s like a muscle. Being compassionate to friends and loved ones is like using your muscles everyday as you hang around the house. Being compassionate to those who don’t seem to deserve it, is like lifting heavy weights. Those who are happiest tend to be the ‘body builders’ of compassion.

It’s not just about our instinctive emotions and impulses. Compassion is more than just empathy, but also includes a conscious rational commitment based on the logic of compassion. Imagine, if you will, a world in which compassion is dispensed only when it is received and considered deserved. In addition, take note of the fact that human beings are imperfect; imperfect in their knowledge, imperfect in their self control, and imperfect in their fortitude.

It stands to reason that, a decent percentage of the time, a human being will not do what they are supposed to do. They may forget to say “thank you”, they may take out their frustrations on the wrong person, or they might even harbor ill will out of a lack of information, wisdom, or misunderstanding. Of course, there are also hateful people with conscious mal intent, but the bulk are simply imperfect everyday people.

Each time someon acted inappropriately they would be undeserving. The behavior toward them would cause them to deem the other person undeserving. The total number of incidents in which compassion was transferred between individuals would begin to decrease.

In such a case, what we would have is a hole in our boat. Like Hawking radiation quietly leaking out of a black hole, the total mass of our collective compassion would enter into a downward spiral. So mere quid-pro-quo is not a workable formula for our mutual well-being. In fact, the computer simulations I spoke of earlier show that forgiveness, mercy, and trust are essential algorithms for a sustainable system of cooperation. In other words, we must face up to the fact that there are times when compassion should be given when it is not deserved.

When we combine that logical fact with the fact that our own empathic character can’t be switched on and off but must be nurtured, this should be a well grounded rational argument for the notion of “love thy enemy”.

I’m not suggesting an extreme pacifism as cruel power-hungry people abuse and seek to dominate us. I’m not one who thinks that every bad person out there is simply confused and 'doing the best they can'. Some are as conscious as any of us of the facts and yet harbor ill will and lust for control. In these cases we must resist them however we may.

But in the process of maintaining our defense, we should not become sadistic or cruel in our actions. If we must use aggressive actions, we should do it without taking glee or relishing in it, which might damage our humanity. Rather, these incidents should be taken solemnly and with regret for those who left us no option. We should always be looking for opportunities to be compassionate where least expected. This will not only nurture our compassionate natures, but will give us opportunities to reverse downward spirals of cruelty.

As I’ve described so far, compassion is in our physical build. That build is not incidental, as we are benefited by our own compassion in the logistical sense of survival. Thirdly, it seems that the empathic foundation of compassion may be a necessary element in our ability to think rationally. And these facts work together to justify compassion even when we wouldn’t normally consider it deserved.

All of these are notions in favor of compassion are consistent with the reason-based aspects of Freethought, but in addition to those, there are also individualistic psychological and philosophical benefits. These benefits have to do with living a well rounded life - something that any church might want to explore with its members.

Compassion and the ‘Good Life’

Nearly anyone who works with the sick or the needy will tell us that when we help other people, it puts our problems in perspective. We get a better, more existential, conception of our problems – and the good feelings don’t hurt much either. Obviously, when we are compassionate, we engender the same behavior in others. When we are extraordinarily compassionate, or when we are compassionate when no one would expect us to be, the effects on others toward us can be profound.

Sometimes even small acts of unexpected compassion can be an inspiration to others. To those who haven’t been so compassionate, these acts often serve as abrupt wakeup calls, leading them to wonder about their own actions. In either case, we tend to personally benefit from the improved relations.

Consider this:

1) The most profound effects on others often come when
acts of compassion are unexpected.

2) Friends and loved ones often
exchange compassion so this is expected. The least expected acts of compassion
are those towards strangers and enemies.

3) Strangers, even if improved,
will usually be gone from our presence and never seen again. Meanwhile, enemies
are usually considered such because we encounter them frequently.

Therefore (conclusion):
The greatest personal gains we stand to make individuality, are most likely to come from our acts of compassion toward enemies.

This sort of endeavor requires courage and some degree of confidence. Some might call it a “leap of faith” in humanity. I would say, however, that logic, reason, the facts, and even history are on the side of compassion. The odds-makers might be inclined to calculate compassion as the “favored horse” – and it takes no faith to bet on the favored horse.

This isn’t to say that we should make ourselves a sacrifice to others. This would be a misunderstanding of compassion. In fact, it would be an under-utilization of compassion. That same universality of compassion that suggests it be applied to enemies and friends alike, also means that we ourselves are included. Compassion includes compassion for ourselves.

But wherever we are compassionate, the personal benefits to us can be great. Our personal lives are improved by our better relations, as well as the good feelings we experience as fulfilled social beings. In general, a compassionate person lives a happier, more content, life than a person consumed with animosity, bitterness, and hatred – regardless of whether or others deserve it.

Compassion, then, would seem to be an important component of the “good life” – what Socrates would call eudaimonia or “flourishing”.8 Secular Humanist Paul Kurtz would call it achieving “excellence”.9 I’m sure there are many other terms.

This may seem a selfish way to look at compassion. But, indeed, all ethics eventually come down to self interest on some level. If not, then there would be no reason for individuals to concern themselves with them. But there’s selfishness, and then there’s selfishness. Many philosophers refer to it as “enlightened self interest” – not to be confused with the shallow vice of selfishness.

Instead, this sort of notion comes out of a profound realization. The realization that personal ethics are good for us. Like health and brushing one’s teeth, compassion would fall into this category as well. Compassion is beneficial to its user’s emotions, its user’s psyche, it’s user’s rationality, it’s user’s network of allies, and its user’s world. It is not an obligation or a commandment, so much as it is wise practice. Compassion is “good medicine”.

A Well-Rounded Freethinking Life

As I mentioned, Freethought is heavily centered on reason. Compassion is not opposed to reason. In fact, compassion is not even a tandem element sitting alongside reason in partnership. Compassion is within and of reason. Compassion is important because of reason.

What’s also interesting is that reason is important because of compassion. One of our primary arguments regarding reason and its use to establish facts about the world is because of what we know it can do for humanity, and that motivation for valuing reason is a compassionate one.

If we are to promote Freethought as a way of life, it must be more than simply about how facts are determined. It must have something to say about our humanity and about living a happy and meaningful life. Therefore, I would make a plea to my fellow freethinkers that we become vanguards of compassion in a world that needs more of it. As it is with individuals, compassion will be good medicine to the Freethought movement.

Improving Compassion

Unlike many principles I believe in as a Humanist, compassion is not a “social policy” or a large-scale principle. Compassion is a personal thing. It begins with the person in the mirror and grows by example. Therefore, I’d like to offer what I’ve found helpful for those seeking to exercise their compassionate muscles. I offer these as suggestions for one particular goal – not ‘commandments’...

1) Do not fill your time and your mind with vitriol
Vitriol and hateful thinking is insidious, as tempting as candy, and as addictive as a narcotic. It’s so easy to slip into without realizing it. But no logical or sensible position or action ever requires it. Even if violence or aggression were the only logical alternative, it can be done without hatefulness. That hatefulness may seem to be our ally when it comes time to perform certain actions or present certain positions, but it lingers around long after its worn out its welcome. It shapes our habits and our character, and that hatefulness will breed. Not even counting its effects on our external world, it will make us bitter and negatively affect our contentment internally. When you notice yourself thinking hatefully, try to imagine how tragic it is that our enemies weren’t more enlightened, how unfortunate it is that they didn’t turn out to be loving happy people themselves.

2) Avoid media that ‘poisons the soul’
Of course, “soul” is a poetic word here. Films with generally bad people in them aren’t a problem. All good stories need bad guys. But some forms of media, especially the likes of talk shows and some reality television, relish in meanness toward others and the suffering of others. Even many radio talk programs can do this. I used to listen to many of them out of curiosity for the topics, but some contained such vitriol that I found myself affected by it and it seemed to be shaping my attitudes. Since leaving vitriolic programming behind, I have found myself much happier.

3) Smile more
This was a suggestion I heard at the a Buddhist temple recently. I also read it recently in #3 of Ron Titus’ “Ron’s Rambings” in the Houston Freethought Alliance's April newsletter. It may sound fake and make you feel hypocritical smiling when you don’t really feel that way. But soon you’ll discover that that it’s not just smiles that follow emotional state, but emotional state can follow smiling too. In addition, you’ll get some nice responses from time to time.

4) Learn how to moderate your words without sacrificing the integrity of your position or content
This is an important one for those who think of compassion as some form of appeasement. As mentioned, no position or action ever requires extraneous meanness, insults, or phrasing. Anything substantive that can be said, can be communicated just as well by taking care to word things in a compassionate way. In fact, this will often help those words be more effective because they won’t cause the reader to bring up ‘defensive shields’ and stop listening. Some people are going to be offended no matter what simply based on the content. But why miss out on the opportunity to get through to those who might not by throwing in extraneous vitriol? Remember too, that these words affect your habits and your character, which will affect your own long term happiness.

5) Be mindful of your own internal emotional responses and states
There are all sorts of stoic philosophies and meditative practices for interjecting your conscious awareness between outside stimulus and passionate response, but even just the attempt to watch ourselves can be helpful. It may seem odd to advise controlling your emotions in order to be more compassionate. This is because, usually, a lack of compassion is due to emotionalism rather than the opposite. This is another indicator that compassion is not merely a feeling, but has a rational component.

6) Remember the source of the benefits of compassion
Remember that most of the benefits of compassion don’t change based on the behavior of the other person. Compassion is about who we are – not about who they are. It’s a matter of asking ourselves, “what kind of person do I want to be?” and enjoying the fruits thereof.

7) Become the advocate for your enemy
First, learn to tell the difference between a person with genuine malicious intent and a person with whom you simply have a misunderstanding, even if they may have done wrong things. For the former, do what you must to protect the innocent (including yourself) and don’t let hatred consume you in the process. But for the latter, consider what motivates them and try to help them in a careful way, to become a better person. Disarm their fears and challenge their preconceptions with kindness.

Notes
1. Houston Church of Freethought website (link , 23 April 2006).
2. Wikipedia, "Shadenfreude" (link , 23 April 2006).
4. Merriam-Webster Online, "Compassion" (link , 23 April 2006).
5. Neil Schoenherr, "Humans Evolved to be Peaceful, Cooperative, and Social Animals, Not Predators" (Medical News Today: link , 12 December 2005).
7. Ken Binmore, "Review of: The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration, by Robert Axelrod" (The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, SIMSOC Consortium: link , 23 April 2006).
8. Wikipedia, "Eudaimonia" (link, 23 April 2006).
9. Paul Kurtz, "Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism" (Prometheus Press: Amherst, NY, 1988), 97-128.

DT Strain Philosophy

Welcome to DT Strain Philosophy (2004-2008)

Are We All Faithful?

Natural-Objective Ethics

The 20 Synthophic Precepts

Photo Storage

Buddhism & Stoicism

Rational Atheism

The Best of the DT Strain Blog

The Connection, July 6, 2006

Letters on God

The Humanist Contemplative

Stoicism chart

AP Article on Kurt Vonnegut's death 4/11/2007

Simmias’ Harmony

Top 20 Blog Posts 2005-2006

Stoicism and the Search for Truth

Philosophy of Religion Panel 2006

Freethought Perspectives: Lives of Purpose

Threads on Violence

Letters on Buddhism with John Horgan

Buddhist Retreat: Why I Gave Up On Finding My Religion

Roots of Human Family Tree Are Shallow

A Naturalistic Approach To Buddhist Karma and Rebirth

Freethought and Compassion