Additions to my proposals for the BCMCA constitution for discussion (see Dr. Velociraptor 29/8/11) as follows:
To support and provide training for BC Seniors Games and other national and international seniors games;
To support cycle racing as part of schools athletic programs;
To promote grass track racing on municipal or school board grounds as a safe venue;
To encourage the development of safe closed circuits for cycle racing;
To support velodromes;
To promote and encourage commuting, touring, shopping, delivery, and transporting by bicycle.
To promote cycling and cycle racing as an environmental, health, and community benefit.
To support worthy charities through cycle races and fun rides.
To change our official name to BC Seniors/Masters Cycling Association.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
BCMCA Goals and Structure
Due to the informal nature of the BCMCA we lack a clear accessible statement of its constitution and bylaws. BCMCA is not a registered BC non-profit society. The constitution and bylaws of a registered BC non-profit society have to comply with certain criteria.
Different BCMCA members will have different views on the philosophy and goals of the BCMCA and how these can best be realized. My own suggestions, for discussion, are as follows.
Become (again) a registered non-profit society – eligibility for government grants; enhanced image for municipalities, Ministry of Transportation, sponsors, etc.; criteria for governance transparent.
Constitution. (Purposes).
To promote and organize lifelong recreational cycle racing for people of all ages and ability levels.
To promote athletic fellowship, exhilaration, enjoyment, social, and personal well-being through helping with, and participating in, cycle racing.
To honor the following: performing community service through contribution to cycle racing; maintaining athletic ability in, and participation in, cycle racing despite aging, genetic endowment, medical limitations, and limited training time; displaying chivalry, fairness, and concern for others while racing – winning is not the main thing.
Special emphasis (not necessarily exclusive) on the following:
Cycle racing for Seniors (55+) and Masters (40+);
Australian Pursuit road races (staggered starts are less disruptive of traffic flow and hence more acceptable to municipalities and Ministry of Transportation than mass start);
Age standards and results and awards based on age standards;
Starting gaps in Australian Pursuit based on age;
Classification of riders in the main competition into A (elite) and B (regular) with separate awards for the latter;
Development of comprehensive age standards and starting gaps for all races not just 50 – 75 k (‘2 hour’) road races;
Development of plausible criterium age-related points scoring;
Provide incentive for under 40’s to participate in the main race;
Provision of B races of shorter length, e.g. 40 k, starting just after the main race, for those with a medical condition or just out of shape;
Provide incentives for people to marshall.
To give due weight to the judgement of long-time organizers, administrators, and founders.
Bylaws. (Structure and Governance).
Directors: President; Secretary/Treasurer; Results Coordinator – main competition; Web Master; Awards Coordinator – subsidiary competitions; at least 1 director from each of the recognized geographical regions (currently 3 – Island, Lower Mainland, Interior).
No restriction on number of terms served.
Members to submit proposals and suggestions to directors at any time. Directors to discuss amongst themselves and make recommendations to the membership before a general vote.
AGM (and social) to be held outside of racing season, e.g. late October, in Greater Vancouver, e.g. Delta, - accessibility to members from Interior and Island.
Motion for 2011 AGM: To strike a committee consisting of the aforementioned 5 officials plus Olaf Stana, and Ray Morrison, of the Interior to discuss BCMCA Constitution and Bylaws, members’ suggestions and proposals, and to report back to the general membership with recommendations by March 21st 2012.
Different BCMCA members will have different views on the philosophy and goals of the BCMCA and how these can best be realized. My own suggestions, for discussion, are as follows.
Become (again) a registered non-profit society – eligibility for government grants; enhanced image for municipalities, Ministry of Transportation, sponsors, etc.; criteria for governance transparent.
Constitution. (Purposes).
To promote and organize lifelong recreational cycle racing for people of all ages and ability levels.
To promote athletic fellowship, exhilaration, enjoyment, social, and personal well-being through helping with, and participating in, cycle racing.
To honor the following: performing community service through contribution to cycle racing; maintaining athletic ability in, and participation in, cycle racing despite aging, genetic endowment, medical limitations, and limited training time; displaying chivalry, fairness, and concern for others while racing – winning is not the main thing.
Special emphasis (not necessarily exclusive) on the following:
Cycle racing for Seniors (55+) and Masters (40+);
Australian Pursuit road races (staggered starts are less disruptive of traffic flow and hence more acceptable to municipalities and Ministry of Transportation than mass start);
Age standards and results and awards based on age standards;
Starting gaps in Australian Pursuit based on age;
Classification of riders in the main competition into A (elite) and B (regular) with separate awards for the latter;
Development of comprehensive age standards and starting gaps for all races not just 50 – 75 k (‘2 hour’) road races;
Development of plausible criterium age-related points scoring;
Provide incentive for under 40’s to participate in the main race;
Provision of B races of shorter length, e.g. 40 k, starting just after the main race, for those with a medical condition or just out of shape;
Provide incentives for people to marshall.
To give due weight to the judgement of long-time organizers, administrators, and founders.
Bylaws. (Structure and Governance).
Directors: President; Secretary/Treasurer; Results Coordinator – main competition; Web Master; Awards Coordinator – subsidiary competitions; at least 1 director from each of the recognized geographical regions (currently 3 – Island, Lower Mainland, Interior).
No restriction on number of terms served.
Members to submit proposals and suggestions to directors at any time. Directors to discuss amongst themselves and make recommendations to the membership before a general vote.
AGM (and social) to be held outside of racing season, e.g. late October, in Greater Vancouver, e.g. Delta, - accessibility to members from Interior and Island.
Motion for 2011 AGM: To strike a committee consisting of the aforementioned 5 officials plus Olaf Stana, and Ray Morrison, of the Interior to discuss BCMCA Constitution and Bylaws, members’ suggestions and proposals, and to report back to the general membership with recommendations by March 21st 2012.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Meaning of Life
Standardly, when people talk about the meaning of life they are not particularly clear about what they mean – they don’t mean anything very definite or clear-cut. Rather, as usually happens with terms and concepts with a heavy philosophical weight, they have something rather woolly or nebulous in mind which nevertheless seems very important. Perceived philosophical depth is typically inversely proportional to clear-cut cognitive, factual content. Use of loose or opaque language is often a substitute for clear, testable thinking.
‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reasonable, somewhat objectively verifiable purpose in life which will bring a fairly lasting, resilient sense of fulfillment, validation, of your life being worthwhile. ‘Meaning of life’ is conceptually connected with self-validation, self-worth, and also with finding comfort and consolation. The question of ‘the meaning of life’ arises when your own life or contribution seems paltry given your talents and opportunities, you have made terrible mistakes, your own prospects for happiness seem rather hopeless, your present situation is not good, you have not accomplished anything like what you thought you would.
‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reason/justification for going on living even if your own prospects for fun, enjoyment, happiness, status, wealth, romance, health are not good. What sort of lasting inner fulfillment, satisfaction, contentment, peace of mind, together with making a contribution which others could reasonably judge as worthwhile, are still available to you even if you lack some of the common goods, benefits, and privileges? ‘Meaning of life’ as a psychological problem is not just academic, theoretical doubt that human achievement in general is significant in the cosmos. It is doubt that one’s own life has been or still is worthwhile.
If you are fairly happy, comfortable, enjoying life, healthy, with good prospects of continuing in this state the question of the meaning of life is not of great concern. You might admit that you are not contributing much to higher values and that the cosmos is indifferent to higher values but this does not disturb your equanimity. If you have money, health, status, and love it is fairly easy to laugh at life being ultimately rather pointless. Moreover, if you have money, health, status, and love it is easy to convince yourself you are making a good contribution (living a meaningful life) whether you are a civil servant, bank manager, sell cars or bottled water. It is easy to be the smug, amused, calm philosopher above material concerns when you have nearly a million dollars in assets and are in reasonable health. It is much easier to find happiness or meaning in life if you have money and good health.
‘Meaning of life’ is in part about how to be happy if you lack some of the common aids to happiness. But it is also about questioning the importance given to common aids to happiness. Sure, money and status – recognition, appreciation from others for one’s achievements, efforts, contribution – are important, but should these be the main goals in life or society? Is the main point in life to have ever-increasing economic growth, material standard of living, while ensuring that the poorest have the basics?
Examining the meaning of life even questions whether happiness itself – maximizing one’s own happiness and allowing others to do the same – is the sole intrinsic good, the only real worthwhile-making feature of life. Isn’t there more to a full, enriching, meaningful life than just the pursuit of happiness (let alone just the pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasures)? Where do art, literature, philosophy, intellectual attainment, promotion of justice, kindness, and animal rights fit in? Is it better that everyone be satisfied consumers or that there be some dissatisfied Socrates?
Finding a meaning to life seems to have two components. On the one hand finding inner happiness, contentment. On the other a justifiable belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values – that you are doing something worthwhile. The two are empirically, causally, psychologically connected. You are likely to have a lasting inner happiness if and only if you have a reasonably well-founded belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values. If you find a lasting inner happiness you are likely to find life has sufficient meaning – your contribution is good enough.
Human beings have remarkable capacities for self-deception, rationalization, denial, delusion, obsession, fantasy, repression, suppression, idealizing, demonizing, etc. – protective, coping, psychological defence mechanisms. Thus, it is possible for an intelligent, well-informed person to be mistaken that she is making a significant contribution to higher values (or the best contribution she could make given her circumstances). Consider a woman who gives up a promising career as a musician and music teacher to a) watch tv soap operas; b) be a housewife; c) strive for a manicured lawn and spotless, neat household; d) play golf; d) run a marathon in under 3 hours; e) care for a severely brain damaged child; f) run a cat’s home; g) join a fundamentalist religious cult. Virginia Woolf and Sylvia Plath may have been mistaken in thinking that their lives were no longer worthwhile and that suicide was their best option.
People do make serious mistakes about what will make them happy. They may be mistaken about the source of their happiness/unhappiness. Perhaps you can even be mistaken about the extent to which you are happy/unhappy. There are layers of feelings, desires, thoughts, misgivings, doubts, hopes, regrets, anxieties, disappointments, conflicts, etc. and one can focus on the good or the bad.
Many assume that the meaning of life must consist in some overarching purpose we can ascribe to the cosmos, life, or human life in particular (apart from common biological drives and processes). This could be the conscious intent or desires of a creator God, or the inexorable development towards some higher goal of an underlying divine power, life force, or historical process. But if there is no overarching pre-ordained goal to human life it does not follow that life is meaningless, that objective meaning cannot be given to human life in general and your life in particular, that there are not some states or activities (available even to those who are relatively poor, in poor health, aging, or disadvantaged) which fairly objectively make life meaningful, worth living. To ask ‘Why are we here, what is life for?’ in the sense of what is the overarching, embedded purpose apart from biological drives is the fallacy of the false question like ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’
It might be there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos or the emergence of higher consciousness or higher values. This just happened. Perhaps, too, there is no inevitable cosmic progress or evolution towards full realization of goodness (or reabsorption into a godhead). Again, thirdly, it may be that pursuit of higher values does not lead eventually, after death or rebirths perhaps, to some kind of personal reward – heaven or more abstractly nirvana. Even without these religious props, though, it is possible objectively to find meaning in life which does not consist simply in having as much personal pleasure, fun, enjoyment, or even happiness as possible.
God is very much a human construct rooted in human psychology good and bad. There may be healthier, albeit more challenging, ways of finding meaning in life than through religion. The standard God is a Jekyll and Hyde creature. On the one hand benevolent, loving, merciful, forgiving – perhaps goodness and justice conceived as a transcendent, supernatural power independent of human activity. On the other an omnipotent, omniscient, creator law giver judge demanding absolute submission and obedience, who is vindictive, jealous, sexist, patriarchal, homophobic, anti-pleasure, anti- open critical thinking, petty, obsessed with rituals of behaviour, clothing, and diet. This second aspect of the traditional God reminds one of the worst kind of husband, father, schoolmaster, priest, or political leader – not a nice chap. Indeed the concept of God as absolute lawgiver is probably in large part a projection of primal ugly features of the male ego and id – a sexually insecure control freak wanting power over others, not tolerating disagreement. Men (and women) can regard this God monster/tyrant as great precisely because it is a fundamental part of their own natures (what they aspire to, or are familiar with). It is no psychological accident that psychopathic, megalomaniac dictators and religious leaders receive the same mass following and adulation as the traditional lawgiver God. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Khadafy, Robert Mugabe, et al, not Jesus, are the incarnation of the traditional Godfather, the God of Abraham and Muhammad.
God devotees claim we cannot, with our puny minds, grasp the how and why of God (though they have no trouble themselves making all sorts of dogmatic pronouncements about what God wants!!) – ‘where did God come from?’ God just is eternally. But then why not suppose matter/energy just is eternally, or that it somehow popped out of nothingness? The appeal to a creator God supplies a familiar anthropomorphic model of creation and purpose but then arbitrarily forbids further inquiry. Likewise, the appeal to God as the ground of Being, or as Being in itself is a pseudo-explanation. God as Being does not explain why there is something rather than nothing, but rather affirms that things do exist and that there is a mysterious foundation, ‘support’, or sufficient reason for this but one can’t say what it is. When you want an explanation but can’t find one, just call it God (or Fate). Back this up with a powerful institution based on supposed divine revelation. Add that to question the purported divine revelation (blasphemy – blaming or slandering the Almighty) is to challenge the Divine Lawmaker and Goodness itself and hence must be severely punished.
God is not necessary philosophically, scientifically, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically. Rather God is a psychologically necessary prop for most human beings given traditional systems of education and upbringing. Religious claims (including those of quasi-religions such as Marxism, Jungianism, astrology, or Deconstruction) are questionable even when (or especially when) they hide behind supposed incorrigible insight or revelation. Similarly, it is a reasonable question whether religion in general is a force for good or rather evil. If I am not allowed to criticize religions why should the religious be allowed to criticize my atheism, humanism, or pantheism? If criticism of religion is forbidden why not ban criticism of someone’s artistic, literary, or political beliefs or tastes, or cultural practices? Is it healthy to suppress questioning or calm, reasoned criticism on the grounds that it offends or supposedly might lead to prejudice towards some allegedly disadvantaged group?
We can revere goodness without grounding it in the edicts of a supernatural Deity. We don’t need the sanction of Divine command or threat of Divine punishment to pursue goodness. Citing God’s commands to justify being moral is basically an appeal to force (and personal reward) rather than to the inherent nature of good for its own sake. Even if there is no God (at a minimum a quasi-eternal force of goodness existing independently of human activities – see my blog posting Minimalist God ) goodness still exists or can be cultivated, e.g. equality of opportunity; equitable distribution of wealth; open critical thinking, reduction of suffering; right of women to higher education and birth control; providing all with the basics; kindness; courtesy; empathy; personal responsibility. With or without belief in God there will always be room for disagreement about what policies or practices are good and just, and what goodness and justice consist in.
It is probably psychologically more challenging to find meaning in life without the solace of traditional religious belief. If there is no personal afterlife or rebirth there is diminished capacity for making amends for one’s own grievous errors, making it up to someone you hurt. At some point, too, there is little chance for further personal happiness. No more chances – this is it mate. For instance, when you are 60 years old you realize you love someone deeply (someone you mistreated and did not appreciate), that she/he is a wonderful person just right for you. Before you can tell her and enrich her life and yours she is killed or dies prematurely. You will never meet again. You will likely never have another soul mate. Again, if there is no arbiter God or karmic law then there is no guaranteed tangible personal reward for your efforts towards goodness - all the suffering, deprivation, and striving you may go through. The possibility of simply greater inner peace may seem insufficient reward. Also, without an arbiter God or karmic law, it is harder to bear the unfairness of life – sometimes good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Even in a just society some people will have a better chance at happiness than others – some have better genes and parenting than others.
There are several different paths by which people commonly seek meaning in life (consciously or unconsciously). Many seek meaning through individual personal achievement and distinction. This could be artistic, intellectual, athletic, physical feats, career, business, profession, or in politics. Others are oriented more towards the goal of personal pleasure or happiness as supplying the meaning of life – romantic love, material standard of living, financial security, sex, thrills, eventual reward in paradise. Third, some find meaning in the pursuit of virtue, community service, good works, being a good person for its own sake. Fourth, some people find meaning in life largely through supposed spiritual development – cultivating compassion, letting go of anger, resentment, material desires, the ego, being more aware of the putative transcendent, deep, consoling mystical states, qualities, and apprehensions which allegedly go beyond ordinary, utilitarian, logical language. Fifthly, people can find meaning in life by pursuing knowledge, greater understanding or clarification largely for its own sake (or artistic creativity for its own sake). Sixthly, some people in effect get their meaning in life largely by merging with or identifying themselves with some cause or group. This could be a religion, ideology, ethnic group, sports team, pop star, or literary celebrity. Submitting oneself unquestioningly to the supposed will of God might be included in this sixth path.
There is a seventh route to meaning in life which is unduly neglected. This is the path of emotional development – being more aware of one’s own feelings and emotional processes including triggers, investments, and those of others. Being more able to admit one’s own biases, privileges, and flaws. Being curious about one’s own emotional processes, and those of others. Exploring, imagining, what it would be like to be of a different gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, class, philosophical or political outlook, have different aesthetic preferences.
This elucidation, analysis, and exploration of the meaning of life has several implications. One: it may be a mistake to look for some one all-encompassing meaning or comfort in life whether through Jesus, Allah, Virgin Mary, Jung, Marx, or Dalai Lama. Two: it may be a mistake to look for some fairly straightforward foolproof recipe for finding meaning (or happiness) in life which fits people of all temperaments, abilities, and interests.
Nonetheless one can point to some general aids to finding meaning (and happiness). First, pay attention to basic biological and psychological needs. Second, allow time for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation. Third, develop the whole person – intellectual, athletic, artistic, emotional, social, spiritual, and moral. Fourth, stop thinking mainly or solely of your own well-being, welfare, just treatment, or interest (wealth, health, security, opportunities, rights) or that of your family, tribe, or ethnic group. Have regard for the well-being and happiness of those outside your group. Fifth, switch your energy and focus to simple goods which are available even if you don’t have money, good health, or romantic partner e.g. kindness, friendship, beauty, literature, art, music. Sixth, remember there are others who have gone through similar suffering who would be sympathetic to you. Seventh, remind yourself there will always be some unfairness and mistakes in life – others have suffered far greater misfortune and injustice, and made worse mistakes than I. Eighth, let go of having to be right. Instead focus on developing tentative views which are plausible and reasonable
The meaning of life is that there is no definite, demonstrable, certain meaning to life. You have to make it up, work something out for yourself, as you go along. Some ways of finding meaning harm others or yourself. You can be mistaken about what is worthwhile even for yourself. Learn to live with doubt, uncertainty, disagreement, mistakes, disappointment, rejection, sexual frustration, loneliness, unfairness. Develop flexible mechanisms for coping with life’s inevitable setbacks. Life is messy and frustrating. Accept your weaknesses and strengths.
You are just one amongst billions of humans, and one amongst billions upon billions of sentient beings. Yes you are unique but so is every snowflake, blade of grass, leaf, or bacterium. You are part of the flow of life and so are those you dislike or who dislike you. You (and those you dislike) are more wonderful and intricate than a butterfly or sparrow. You have a capacity for nobility lacking in an eagle, lion, or killer whale. The nobility you attain depends on you. If you are lucky you will have a lover and best friend who challenges, encourages, and treasures you. If you are unlucky you can be an unsung, unknown treasure. There will always be some conflict and flaws. Heaven is when you realize there is no heaven.
‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reasonable, somewhat objectively verifiable purpose in life which will bring a fairly lasting, resilient sense of fulfillment, validation, of your life being worthwhile. ‘Meaning of life’ is conceptually connected with self-validation, self-worth, and also with finding comfort and consolation. The question of ‘the meaning of life’ arises when your own life or contribution seems paltry given your talents and opportunities, you have made terrible mistakes, your own prospects for happiness seem rather hopeless, your present situation is not good, you have not accomplished anything like what you thought you would.
‘Meaning of life’ is semantically associated with finding a reason/justification for going on living even if your own prospects for fun, enjoyment, happiness, status, wealth, romance, health are not good. What sort of lasting inner fulfillment, satisfaction, contentment, peace of mind, together with making a contribution which others could reasonably judge as worthwhile, are still available to you even if you lack some of the common goods, benefits, and privileges? ‘Meaning of life’ as a psychological problem is not just academic, theoretical doubt that human achievement in general is significant in the cosmos. It is doubt that one’s own life has been or still is worthwhile.
If you are fairly happy, comfortable, enjoying life, healthy, with good prospects of continuing in this state the question of the meaning of life is not of great concern. You might admit that you are not contributing much to higher values and that the cosmos is indifferent to higher values but this does not disturb your equanimity. If you have money, health, status, and love it is fairly easy to laugh at life being ultimately rather pointless. Moreover, if you have money, health, status, and love it is easy to convince yourself you are making a good contribution (living a meaningful life) whether you are a civil servant, bank manager, sell cars or bottled water. It is easy to be the smug, amused, calm philosopher above material concerns when you have nearly a million dollars in assets and are in reasonable health. It is much easier to find happiness or meaning in life if you have money and good health.
‘Meaning of life’ is in part about how to be happy if you lack some of the common aids to happiness. But it is also about questioning the importance given to common aids to happiness. Sure, money and status – recognition, appreciation from others for one’s achievements, efforts, contribution – are important, but should these be the main goals in life or society? Is the main point in life to have ever-increasing economic growth, material standard of living, while ensuring that the poorest have the basics?
Examining the meaning of life even questions whether happiness itself – maximizing one’s own happiness and allowing others to do the same – is the sole intrinsic good, the only real worthwhile-making feature of life. Isn’t there more to a full, enriching, meaningful life than just the pursuit of happiness (let alone just the pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasures)? Where do art, literature, philosophy, intellectual attainment, promotion of justice, kindness, and animal rights fit in? Is it better that everyone be satisfied consumers or that there be some dissatisfied Socrates?
Finding a meaning to life seems to have two components. On the one hand finding inner happiness, contentment. On the other a justifiable belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values – that you are doing something worthwhile. The two are empirically, causally, psychologically connected. You are likely to have a lasting inner happiness if and only if you have a reasonably well-founded belief that you are making a significant contribution to higher values. If you find a lasting inner happiness you are likely to find life has sufficient meaning – your contribution is good enough.
Human beings have remarkable capacities for self-deception, rationalization, denial, delusion, obsession, fantasy, repression, suppression, idealizing, demonizing, etc. – protective, coping, psychological defence mechanisms. Thus, it is possible for an intelligent, well-informed person to be mistaken that she is making a significant contribution to higher values (or the best contribution she could make given her circumstances). Consider a woman who gives up a promising career as a musician and music teacher to a) watch tv soap operas; b) be a housewife; c) strive for a manicured lawn and spotless, neat household; d) play golf; d) run a marathon in under 3 hours; e) care for a severely brain damaged child; f) run a cat’s home; g) join a fundamentalist religious cult. Virginia Woolf and Sylvia Plath may have been mistaken in thinking that their lives were no longer worthwhile and that suicide was their best option.
People do make serious mistakes about what will make them happy. They may be mistaken about the source of their happiness/unhappiness. Perhaps you can even be mistaken about the extent to which you are happy/unhappy. There are layers of feelings, desires, thoughts, misgivings, doubts, hopes, regrets, anxieties, disappointments, conflicts, etc. and one can focus on the good or the bad.
Many assume that the meaning of life must consist in some overarching purpose we can ascribe to the cosmos, life, or human life in particular (apart from common biological drives and processes). This could be the conscious intent or desires of a creator God, or the inexorable development towards some higher goal of an underlying divine power, life force, or historical process. But if there is no overarching pre-ordained goal to human life it does not follow that life is meaningless, that objective meaning cannot be given to human life in general and your life in particular, that there are not some states or activities (available even to those who are relatively poor, in poor health, aging, or disadvantaged) which fairly objectively make life meaningful, worth living. To ask ‘Why are we here, what is life for?’ in the sense of what is the overarching, embedded purpose apart from biological drives is the fallacy of the false question like ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’
It might be there is no ultimate purpose to the cosmos or the emergence of higher consciousness or higher values. This just happened. Perhaps, too, there is no inevitable cosmic progress or evolution towards full realization of goodness (or reabsorption into a godhead). Again, thirdly, it may be that pursuit of higher values does not lead eventually, after death or rebirths perhaps, to some kind of personal reward – heaven or more abstractly nirvana. Even without these religious props, though, it is possible objectively to find meaning in life which does not consist simply in having as much personal pleasure, fun, enjoyment, or even happiness as possible.
God is very much a human construct rooted in human psychology good and bad. There may be healthier, albeit more challenging, ways of finding meaning in life than through religion. The standard God is a Jekyll and Hyde creature. On the one hand benevolent, loving, merciful, forgiving – perhaps goodness and justice conceived as a transcendent, supernatural power independent of human activity. On the other an omnipotent, omniscient, creator law giver judge demanding absolute submission and obedience, who is vindictive, jealous, sexist, patriarchal, homophobic, anti-pleasure, anti- open critical thinking, petty, obsessed with rituals of behaviour, clothing, and diet. This second aspect of the traditional God reminds one of the worst kind of husband, father, schoolmaster, priest, or political leader – not a nice chap. Indeed the concept of God as absolute lawgiver is probably in large part a projection of primal ugly features of the male ego and id – a sexually insecure control freak wanting power over others, not tolerating disagreement. Men (and women) can regard this God monster/tyrant as great precisely because it is a fundamental part of their own natures (what they aspire to, or are familiar with). It is no psychological accident that psychopathic, megalomaniac dictators and religious leaders receive the same mass following and adulation as the traditional lawgiver God. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Kim Jong Il, Khadafy, Robert Mugabe, et al, not Jesus, are the incarnation of the traditional Godfather, the God of Abraham and Muhammad.
God devotees claim we cannot, with our puny minds, grasp the how and why of God (though they have no trouble themselves making all sorts of dogmatic pronouncements about what God wants!!) – ‘where did God come from?’ God just is eternally. But then why not suppose matter/energy just is eternally, or that it somehow popped out of nothingness? The appeal to a creator God supplies a familiar anthropomorphic model of creation and purpose but then arbitrarily forbids further inquiry. Likewise, the appeal to God as the ground of Being, or as Being in itself is a pseudo-explanation. God as Being does not explain why there is something rather than nothing, but rather affirms that things do exist and that there is a mysterious foundation, ‘support’, or sufficient reason for this but one can’t say what it is. When you want an explanation but can’t find one, just call it God (or Fate). Back this up with a powerful institution based on supposed divine revelation. Add that to question the purported divine revelation (blasphemy – blaming or slandering the Almighty) is to challenge the Divine Lawmaker and Goodness itself and hence must be severely punished.
God is not necessary philosophically, scientifically, morally, spiritually, or aesthetically. Rather God is a psychologically necessary prop for most human beings given traditional systems of education and upbringing. Religious claims (including those of quasi-religions such as Marxism, Jungianism, astrology, or Deconstruction) are questionable even when (or especially when) they hide behind supposed incorrigible insight or revelation. Similarly, it is a reasonable question whether religion in general is a force for good or rather evil. If I am not allowed to criticize religions why should the religious be allowed to criticize my atheism, humanism, or pantheism? If criticism of religion is forbidden why not ban criticism of someone’s artistic, literary, or political beliefs or tastes, or cultural practices? Is it healthy to suppress questioning or calm, reasoned criticism on the grounds that it offends or supposedly might lead to prejudice towards some allegedly disadvantaged group?
We can revere goodness without grounding it in the edicts of a supernatural Deity. We don’t need the sanction of Divine command or threat of Divine punishment to pursue goodness. Citing God’s commands to justify being moral is basically an appeal to force (and personal reward) rather than to the inherent nature of good for its own sake. Even if there is no God (at a minimum a quasi-eternal force of goodness existing independently of human activities – see my blog posting Minimalist God ) goodness still exists or can be cultivated, e.g. equality of opportunity; equitable distribution of wealth; open critical thinking, reduction of suffering; right of women to higher education and birth control; providing all with the basics; kindness; courtesy; empathy; personal responsibility. With or without belief in God there will always be room for disagreement about what policies or practices are good and just, and what goodness and justice consist in.
It is probably psychologically more challenging to find meaning in life without the solace of traditional religious belief. If there is no personal afterlife or rebirth there is diminished capacity for making amends for one’s own grievous errors, making it up to someone you hurt. At some point, too, there is little chance for further personal happiness. No more chances – this is it mate. For instance, when you are 60 years old you realize you love someone deeply (someone you mistreated and did not appreciate), that she/he is a wonderful person just right for you. Before you can tell her and enrich her life and yours she is killed or dies prematurely. You will never meet again. You will likely never have another soul mate. Again, if there is no arbiter God or karmic law then there is no guaranteed tangible personal reward for your efforts towards goodness - all the suffering, deprivation, and striving you may go through. The possibility of simply greater inner peace may seem insufficient reward. Also, without an arbiter God or karmic law, it is harder to bear the unfairness of life – sometimes good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Even in a just society some people will have a better chance at happiness than others – some have better genes and parenting than others.
There are several different paths by which people commonly seek meaning in life (consciously or unconsciously). Many seek meaning through individual personal achievement and distinction. This could be artistic, intellectual, athletic, physical feats, career, business, profession, or in politics. Others are oriented more towards the goal of personal pleasure or happiness as supplying the meaning of life – romantic love, material standard of living, financial security, sex, thrills, eventual reward in paradise. Third, some find meaning in the pursuit of virtue, community service, good works, being a good person for its own sake. Fourth, some people find meaning in life largely through supposed spiritual development – cultivating compassion, letting go of anger, resentment, material desires, the ego, being more aware of the putative transcendent, deep, consoling mystical states, qualities, and apprehensions which allegedly go beyond ordinary, utilitarian, logical language. Fifthly, people can find meaning in life by pursuing knowledge, greater understanding or clarification largely for its own sake (or artistic creativity for its own sake). Sixthly, some people in effect get their meaning in life largely by merging with or identifying themselves with some cause or group. This could be a religion, ideology, ethnic group, sports team, pop star, or literary celebrity. Submitting oneself unquestioningly to the supposed will of God might be included in this sixth path.
There is a seventh route to meaning in life which is unduly neglected. This is the path of emotional development – being more aware of one’s own feelings and emotional processes including triggers, investments, and those of others. Being more able to admit one’s own biases, privileges, and flaws. Being curious about one’s own emotional processes, and those of others. Exploring, imagining, what it would be like to be of a different gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, class, philosophical or political outlook, have different aesthetic preferences.
This elucidation, analysis, and exploration of the meaning of life has several implications. One: it may be a mistake to look for some one all-encompassing meaning or comfort in life whether through Jesus, Allah, Virgin Mary, Jung, Marx, or Dalai Lama. Two: it may be a mistake to look for some fairly straightforward foolproof recipe for finding meaning (or happiness) in life which fits people of all temperaments, abilities, and interests.
Nonetheless one can point to some general aids to finding meaning (and happiness). First, pay attention to basic biological and psychological needs. Second, allow time for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation. Third, develop the whole person – intellectual, athletic, artistic, emotional, social, spiritual, and moral. Fourth, stop thinking mainly or solely of your own well-being, welfare, just treatment, or interest (wealth, health, security, opportunities, rights) or that of your family, tribe, or ethnic group. Have regard for the well-being and happiness of those outside your group. Fifth, switch your energy and focus to simple goods which are available even if you don’t have money, good health, or romantic partner e.g. kindness, friendship, beauty, literature, art, music. Sixth, remember there are others who have gone through similar suffering who would be sympathetic to you. Seventh, remind yourself there will always be some unfairness and mistakes in life – others have suffered far greater misfortune and injustice, and made worse mistakes than I. Eighth, let go of having to be right. Instead focus on developing tentative views which are plausible and reasonable
The meaning of life is that there is no definite, demonstrable, certain meaning to life. You have to make it up, work something out for yourself, as you go along. Some ways of finding meaning harm others or yourself. You can be mistaken about what is worthwhile even for yourself. Learn to live with doubt, uncertainty, disagreement, mistakes, disappointment, rejection, sexual frustration, loneliness, unfairness. Develop flexible mechanisms for coping with life’s inevitable setbacks. Life is messy and frustrating. Accept your weaknesses and strengths.
You are just one amongst billions of humans, and one amongst billions upon billions of sentient beings. Yes you are unique but so is every snowflake, blade of grass, leaf, or bacterium. You are part of the flow of life and so are those you dislike or who dislike you. You (and those you dislike) are more wonderful and intricate than a butterfly or sparrow. You have a capacity for nobility lacking in an eagle, lion, or killer whale. The nobility you attain depends on you. If you are lucky you will have a lover and best friend who challenges, encourages, and treasures you. If you are unlucky you can be an unsung, unknown treasure. There will always be some conflict and flaws. Heaven is when you realize there is no heaven.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Dr. Velociraptor Personal
One man’s attempt to package his personality, hopes, values, and outlook in less than 1000 words.
Seeking : Friendship with some degree of mutual physical attraction (‘yes I would like to kiss this person’) with slim woman 5 ft. + , any race/nationality, non-smoker, age 52 – 60 (older women usually find my vigour and drive a bit daunting), who enjoys cycling and shares some of my interests. Would appreciate, but not counting on, romantic, soul mate, monogamous, lifelong partnership.
Myself : 5’ 9’’, 152 lbs, brown eyes, grey hair, glasses just for reading, clean shaven, Caucasian, grew up in UK, turn 68 in 2011. Very athletic – racing cyclist, intellectual (former university philosophy teacher), guitarist/singer, writer. Practise meditation, Tai Chi. Don’t have a tv. Don’t take a newspaper or magazine. Rarely drink. Don’t eat much meat. Simple, modest lifestyle. Low income, not wealthy by N. American standards. Don’t buy lottery tickets or gamble. No debts. Able to travel.
Not a gardener or pet lover. Home Victoria BC. Lived on the prairies for 8 years – Calgary, Red Deer, Regina.
2 adult sons. One university math teacher Eastern U.S. Other pharmaceutical research Switzerland. One grandchild – 1year old girl.
Founded unique cycling and philosophy group : Velociraptors Cycling Association.
Have cycling and philosophy blog : Dr. Velociraptor.
Ran a philosophy discussion/reading group in Victoria, BC : Diotima.
Good genes : dad lived to 92. Mum to 86. Both active and independent until last few days.
Photos available soon. Not got a camera yet. Computer skills limited.
Qualities I admire : Ability to laugh at oneself; explore different viewpoints; admit own privileges and good fortune; admit own flaws and less noble desires; admit own biases and emotional investment; kindness; courtesy; question and elucidate underlying presuppositions; clarify nebulous core concepts; look at evidence for and against.
Support for equal opportunity; right of women everywhere to higher education and birth control; acceptance of some personal responsibility – not just blaming government, society, big business, politicians, the rich; support for freedom to criticise views of left or right, ruling ideologies; acceptance of disagreement, conflict, compromise, (stress, rejection, loss, etc.) as part of life.
Revered writers : Shakespeare, Keats, some of Wordsworth, Blake, D.H. Lawrence despite his being over the top. Favourite religious quotation: Matthew 7.3.
Dislikes : Self-opinionated, overbearing people - presumption of being morally superior (holier than thou attitude) or more enlightened; bullying; cruelty; snobbery; pretentious woolly language; wanting ever more financial security; knee-jerk ‘motherhood’ sentimentalism; desire to amass wealth for one’s grandchildren; tribalism; cult of celebrity/personality; dogmatism – clichés of right or left; assumption that bottled water is superior to municipal tap water; concern with style, image, being cool/fashionable – glamourisation of people on tv and in movies; glib 30 seconds packaging in media; overuse of intercontinental travel and tourism; overuse of motor homes, motor boats, snowmobiles, car cult; presumption that religion is good; presumption of having religious truth; romanticizing/idealizing ethnic, aboriginal, non-Western cultures; disparate treatment of marijuana, etc. compared with alcohol and tobacco.
Outlook : Sceptic, open critical thinker with an interest in the notion of the transcendent – supposed non-logical mode of apprehension, thinking , or justification.
Not an adherent of any religion or quasi-religion including : monotheisms, Marx, Jung, political correctness, postmodernism, or astrology.
Somewhat sympathetic to philosophical Taoism and Buddhism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Spinoza, pantheism, and Platonism.
Critical of the notion of sacred, supposed infallible texts whether based on alleged divine revelation or proclaimed deep insight or intuition. ‘Why is your divine revelation or poetic insight superior to mine?’
Think all standard political parties avoid the main social/global problems, viz.: human overpopulation; ever-increasing material expectations; desire for high return on savings/investment; consumerism/materialism; false sense of entitlement and unrealistic expectations; unacknowledged greed of the average person – hypocrisy concerning one’s own greed, desire for status and control; not acknowledging roots of social/global problems in basic human psychology including one’s own; not shifting the tax burden to all those earning more than $50, 000 per year; belief in ever increasing economic growth; belief that jobs/services/production are good no matter what is being produced/bought and sold; restriction of free expression and association and women’s rights in much of the non-Western world.
Fun, Enjoyment : Nature walks, reading, outdoor swimming, road and off-road bike rides, exploring BC. Companionship of cycling and cycle racing fraternity (although they do tend to be loners and sometimes narrow-focused!). Some live theatre, occasional foreign language movie, intelligent comedy (e.g. Tom Stoppard, Michael Frayn, David Lodge, Augusten Burroughs). Occasional Beethoven, Mahler, opera, ballet. CBC radio – some Tonic, Tempo, Q, The Current, Quirks and Quarks, Day 6, White Coat Black Art, The Persuaders, Sparks. Occasional restaurant with a great view.
Important Qualities in Relationship : Mutual comfort, sympathy, encouragement, appreciation, support, respect, tenderness. Sharing fears, hopes, dreams, disappointments, personal histories. Sharing cooking, shopping, domestic chores.
Willingness to compromise. Doing something because my partner would appreciate it even if it’s not my first preference.
Never forgetting the wonder of this other human being who has chosen to share her life with you. Being intimate lovers and best friends.
Expectations : Don’t expect a rush to my door. Not out to win a popularity contest. Hope to appeal to a discerning, talented few who are outside the norm.
Even if you are alone there is always beauty, goodness, love within you and around you to help you be calm and find enjoyment amidst life’s inevitable setbacks.
Seeking : Friendship with some degree of mutual physical attraction (‘yes I would like to kiss this person’) with slim woman 5 ft. + , any race/nationality, non-smoker, age 52 – 60 (older women usually find my vigour and drive a bit daunting), who enjoys cycling and shares some of my interests. Would appreciate, but not counting on, romantic, soul mate, monogamous, lifelong partnership.
Myself : 5’ 9’’, 152 lbs, brown eyes, grey hair, glasses just for reading, clean shaven, Caucasian, grew up in UK, turn 68 in 2011. Very athletic – racing cyclist, intellectual (former university philosophy teacher), guitarist/singer, writer. Practise meditation, Tai Chi. Don’t have a tv. Don’t take a newspaper or magazine. Rarely drink. Don’t eat much meat. Simple, modest lifestyle. Low income, not wealthy by N. American standards. Don’t buy lottery tickets or gamble. No debts. Able to travel.
Not a gardener or pet lover. Home Victoria BC. Lived on the prairies for 8 years – Calgary, Red Deer, Regina.
2 adult sons. One university math teacher Eastern U.S. Other pharmaceutical research Switzerland. One grandchild – 1year old girl.
Founded unique cycling and philosophy group : Velociraptors Cycling Association.
Have cycling and philosophy blog : Dr. Velociraptor.
Ran a philosophy discussion/reading group in Victoria, BC : Diotima.
Good genes : dad lived to 92. Mum to 86. Both active and independent until last few days.
Photos available soon. Not got a camera yet. Computer skills limited.
Qualities I admire : Ability to laugh at oneself; explore different viewpoints; admit own privileges and good fortune; admit own flaws and less noble desires; admit own biases and emotional investment; kindness; courtesy; question and elucidate underlying presuppositions; clarify nebulous core concepts; look at evidence for and against.
Support for equal opportunity; right of women everywhere to higher education and birth control; acceptance of some personal responsibility – not just blaming government, society, big business, politicians, the rich; support for freedom to criticise views of left or right, ruling ideologies; acceptance of disagreement, conflict, compromise, (stress, rejection, loss, etc.) as part of life.
Revered writers : Shakespeare, Keats, some of Wordsworth, Blake, D.H. Lawrence despite his being over the top. Favourite religious quotation: Matthew 7.3.
Dislikes : Self-opinionated, overbearing people - presumption of being morally superior (holier than thou attitude) or more enlightened; bullying; cruelty; snobbery; pretentious woolly language; wanting ever more financial security; knee-jerk ‘motherhood’ sentimentalism; desire to amass wealth for one’s grandchildren; tribalism; cult of celebrity/personality; dogmatism – clichés of right or left; assumption that bottled water is superior to municipal tap water; concern with style, image, being cool/fashionable – glamourisation of people on tv and in movies; glib 30 seconds packaging in media; overuse of intercontinental travel and tourism; overuse of motor homes, motor boats, snowmobiles, car cult; presumption that religion is good; presumption of having religious truth; romanticizing/idealizing ethnic, aboriginal, non-Western cultures; disparate treatment of marijuana, etc. compared with alcohol and tobacco.
Outlook : Sceptic, open critical thinker with an interest in the notion of the transcendent – supposed non-logical mode of apprehension, thinking , or justification.
Not an adherent of any religion or quasi-religion including : monotheisms, Marx, Jung, political correctness, postmodernism, or astrology.
Somewhat sympathetic to philosophical Taoism and Buddhism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Spinoza, pantheism, and Platonism.
Critical of the notion of sacred, supposed infallible texts whether based on alleged divine revelation or proclaimed deep insight or intuition. ‘Why is your divine revelation or poetic insight superior to mine?’
Think all standard political parties avoid the main social/global problems, viz.: human overpopulation; ever-increasing material expectations; desire for high return on savings/investment; consumerism/materialism; false sense of entitlement and unrealistic expectations; unacknowledged greed of the average person – hypocrisy concerning one’s own greed, desire for status and control; not acknowledging roots of social/global problems in basic human psychology including one’s own; not shifting the tax burden to all those earning more than $50, 000 per year; belief in ever increasing economic growth; belief that jobs/services/production are good no matter what is being produced/bought and sold; restriction of free expression and association and women’s rights in much of the non-Western world.
Fun, Enjoyment : Nature walks, reading, outdoor swimming, road and off-road bike rides, exploring BC. Companionship of cycling and cycle racing fraternity (although they do tend to be loners and sometimes narrow-focused!). Some live theatre, occasional foreign language movie, intelligent comedy (e.g. Tom Stoppard, Michael Frayn, David Lodge, Augusten Burroughs). Occasional Beethoven, Mahler, opera, ballet. CBC radio – some Tonic, Tempo, Q, The Current, Quirks and Quarks, Day 6, White Coat Black Art, The Persuaders, Sparks. Occasional restaurant with a great view.
Important Qualities in Relationship : Mutual comfort, sympathy, encouragement, appreciation, support, respect, tenderness. Sharing fears, hopes, dreams, disappointments, personal histories. Sharing cooking, shopping, domestic chores.
Willingness to compromise. Doing something because my partner would appreciate it even if it’s not my first preference.
Never forgetting the wonder of this other human being who has chosen to share her life with you. Being intimate lovers and best friends.
Expectations : Don’t expect a rush to my door. Not out to win a popularity contest. Hope to appeal to a discerning, talented few who are outside the norm.
Even if you are alone there is always beauty, goodness, love within you and around you to help you be calm and find enjoyment amidst life’s inevitable setbacks.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Minimalist God
There is a minimalist concept of God which is more plausible and noble than the standard Judaic/Christian/Islamic concept of God. However, the existence of God remains improbable (given available evidence of all kinds) even under this minimalist concept. Furthermore, even this minimalist concept of God is not necessary for upholding worthy moral values or making life meaningful.
One can postulate the existence of a widespread, long-standing, almost indestructible, powerful force which responds to yearnings for higher values, and sustains these values and helps to promote and realize them. This force exists apart from the existence of various individual biological beings who have higher consciousness (have language, abstract thought, the capacity for appreciating higher values – moral thinking and feeling, art, intellectual attainment, open critical thinking, a sense of the putative transcendent), though it might cease to exist if all biological beings with higher consciousness are eliminated from the cosmos. Furthermore, this cosmic minimalist God force corresponding to higher values might have emerged (fully) only as higher consciousness developed/evolved in the cosmos. (Higher values are contrasted with more materialistic, animalistic pleasures of eating, alcohol, drugs, non-loving sex, procreating, status, fame, power, ego gratification.)
The higher values which the cosmic minimalist God force nurtures might include :
Kindness;
Regard for the well-being and suffering of other beings of higher consciousness as being of equal worth to one’s own (or to those of one’s own family, tribe, coreligionists, ethnic group, class, nation, gender, species);
Tolerance of disagreement and conflict in basic beliefs, values, priorities as being part of higher consciousness;
Equal opportunity to try to train for (compete for) more prestigious, personally rewarding, influential positions, e.g. lawyer, doctor, politician, senior civil servant, scientist, university professor, artist, spiritual leader, regardless of gender, ethnicity, parentage, sexual preference, religious or ideological belief – i.e. level the playing field, end discrimination;
Open critical thinking ( opposed to truth based on authority, sacred text, or personal conviction – see future blog);
Appreciation of beauty, art, literature, music, science, math;
Concern for all sentient beings;
Equitable distribution of wealth;
Right of all to higher education, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual development; Assumption of some personal responsibility for one’s own situation;
Assumption of some personal responsibility for social, global, and environmental problems;
Being able to admit/acknowledge one’s own benefits, privileges, and luck;
Willingness to give up some of one’s own benefits so that others can have the basics;
Right of all to some say in government;
Freedom to form different political parties;
Openness to non-materialistic/non-utilitarian modes of thinking (even putative non-logical or non-conceptual thinking or awareness) – awareness of thoughts, feelings, ‘perceptions’, ‘intuitions’, ‘insights’, mystical experiences which seem to ‘transcend’ the mundane and quantitative - go beyond ordinary, logical, factual, literal language, and not be capable of, or require, justification in logical terms – possibility of non-logical modes of justification, apprehension, and states of affairs;
Emotional awareness of self and others;
Curiousity, wonder, willingness to challenge oneself;
Ability to laugh at oneself, admit one’s own weaknesses, foibles, and biases.
The higher values which the cosmic minimalist God force nurtures might exclude :
Organized religion – especially the belief that conforming to a particular (or any) ritual or doctrine is a guarantee of salvation and a sign of spiritual superiority;
Buying into some ideology as beyond criticism;
Political correctness (knee-jerk liberalism) – idealization or romanticisation of the poor, the disadvantaged, drug addicts, criminals, etc., as having no personal responsibility for their own situation , just an inner goodness which has been thwarted by abuse, neglect, oppression, lack of educational opportunity, low income;
Cult of victimhood;
False sense of entitlement;
Unrealistic expectations;
Welfare dependency;
Ascribing all or most of the blame for social, environmental problems, injustice, war, famine, poverty, to big business (multinational executives not the millions of ordinary shareholders!), corrupt politicians, white imperialism or colonialism;
Running down, blaming Western societies, especially the USA, while idealising and exonerating non-Western societies;
Denying that some differences in ability may be due to genes;
Transmission of wealth or power through family dynasties, e.g. monarchy, aristocracy, castes, heiresses;
Romanticized, sanitized, Pollyanna view of human nature – ordinary human beings just given love, education, money, will be free from bad (baser, darker) qualities or flaws such as (apart from one’s already mentioned – unrealistic expectations, false sense of entitlement, etc.) greed, selfishness, self-centredness, wanting more money, power, or status than the next guy, being unable to admit that one already has significantly more than an average share, being unable to admit that one has significantly more than what is needed for basic security and inner satisfaction, personal bias, favouritism, nepotism, emotional investment, vested interest, prejudice, irrationality, unreasonableness, rationalizing, informal fallacies, defence mechanisms, smugness, hypocrisy, self-deception, projection, pretentious obfuscating language, exaggeration, distortion, ignoring counterevidence, resisting clarification and subjecting/opening one’s own cherished beliefs to criticism and examination, demonizing, idealizing hero worshipping, scapegoating, sentimental cant, snobbery, sour grapes, resentment, reactivity, fantasy or delusion;
Self-delusion (self-opinionated, tendency to egotistical megalomania) – not coming to terms with the fact that you are just one educated, intelligent, sensitive, articulate, well-read, talented person amongst millions many of whom have different opinions from yours about literature, politics, human nature, science, the nature of mind, what is best for society, what is fair, etc.
Belief that good qualities and attainments can be acquired without a lot of hard work and some pain – that good learning can just be fun and entertaining.
In other words, being kind and compassionate, and believing in equal opportunity and justice do not mean denying differences in attainment and excusing all those who do not have the best start in life. Still less do they mean excusing even the now privileged members of an ethnic group which is or was on the whole disadvantaged.
The minimalist concept of God has some affinity to notions of God found in some sophisticated versions of the Upanisads, Buddhism, Taoism, and Zen. It also has some affinity to the God of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Epicureans, Spinoza, Shelley, Blake, Hegel, Nietzsche, Bergson (élan vital), D.H. Lawrence, and Einstein. According to the minimalist concept of God the standard God of most major religions is a psychopathic, male chauvinist, bullying, control freak, dogmatic bigot. ‘He’ exemplifies the worst hang-ups of human beings – those surrounding fear, insecurity, resentment, and jealousy concerning the sexual enjoyment and pleasure of others especially women (and fears concerning threats to one’s own power, wealth, and status). The standard God of major religions is far more concerned about sexual ‘purity’ and ‘correct’ ritual and dogma than ‘He’ is about ending war, poverty, injustice, and sexual discrimination.
A major function of standard religions is to provide comfort by feeding into and reinforcing deep-rooted fears and prejudices. Standard religion suppresses or represses a reasonable exploration of ignoble aspects of human nature by substituting a crude doctrine of sin (and taboos) against simplistic rules of sexual mores, ritual, and dogma. Instead, a clear, calm, honest examination of ignoble aspects of humanity (embedded in the basic psychology of all races, cultures, and societies, not just Western society – present in myself and those I like and agree with, not just in those I dislike and disagree with) would enable people to come to terms with (acknowledge, embrace, make friends with, let go of) the true nature of their fearful, selfish, greedy, self-centred, smug, ego-defending traits then transcend them in noble achievements and activity here on Earth.
The minimalist God is rather impersonal, serene, inscrutable, imperturbable, detached. There is a clear, lofty, sad, magnificent, mysterious beauty and wonder to It. A philosopher’s, poet’s, scientist’s, mathematician’s, composer’s, artist’s, skeptical humanist’s God. A God which ‘loves’ women, eros, romantic love, nurturing, vivacity, curiousity, hopefulness, atheists, racing cyclists, and intelligent humour. The minimalist God would count it an honour if you disbelieved in It – so long as you gave clear, calm reasons. It would like it if you made fun of It too – being a bit of a cosmic jester Itself. (Naturally, like everyone else, I fashion God in my own image, desires, or values!)
Belief in the minimalist God does not provide justification for any of the following common theological tenets: personal afterlife; resurrection; reincarnation; heaven; hell; the truth of any holy scriptures as being the revealed word of God (holy scriptures and religious edicts as unquestionable are heretical, blasphemous, and anathema to the minimalist God); efficacy of prayer; religious institutions as being guardians of morality; priests, imams, Popes, etc., as being spokespersons of God; God as omniscient; God as creator of the universe; God as omnipotent.
The minimalist God force is inimical to religious, political, and ideological dogma, the desire for simplistic, black and white answers. It is also inimical to homophobia, the subjugation of women (and, I would argue, to prohibiting birth control, abortion, assisted euthanasia, and use of alcohol and recreational drugs by adults).
The minimalist God force might not Itself be conscious per se. It just responds to and facilitates goodness in higher consciousness. Also, the minimalist God force might not be the basic, fundamental reality in the cosmos. God Itself might be an emergent non-basic force somehow developing out of basic (quantum) ‘mechanistic’ forces: electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, basic chemical processes, evolution by natural selection.
The minimalist God force is similar to other concepts of God in that it fosters hope for the eventual triumph of goodness (goodness naturally conceived in a certain way since different people have different ideas of what constitutes goodness – or what God’s law [or the ‘Natural Law’] is, if you put it that way). However, the eventual triumph of goodness is not pre-ordained or guaranteed under the minimalist God conception. Also, the unity (or Trinity) of God is not entailed by the minimalist conception. There might be more than one God force at one or various times – though individuation here would be a problem.
Belief in a Minimalist God Force (full capitals to denote God concept qualitatively distinct from standard one, but just as worthy of respect) goes beyond the common naturalistic psychological fact that we derive comfort, consolation, inspiration from the thought of great artists, writers, composers, thinkers, moral teachers, etc. Their spirit lives on in their work and example. Belief in (the/a) Minimalist God Force (MGF for short) does not require that the individual consciousness of a great composer, say, actually survives death. But it does posit that the God force (into which part of the consciousness of a great composer may be absorbed) is somehow out there influencing events in the realm of higher consciousness apart from mental acts and states of biological creatures with higher consciousness. If there is a time when no biological (or electronic) creature with higher consciousness is thinking of a minimalist God force it does not follow that the God force thereby ceases to exist. The Minimalist God Force is supposed to be not just a subjective psychological phenomenon (or a whole collection of them) but something objectively in the cosmos, outside of human or similar mind/brain states, like cells, chemical elements, and electro-magnetism.
There is, though, insufficient evidence to warrant belief in even a minimalist God force actually out there apart from/over and above (though not independent of) yearnings, hopes, desires, feelings of human beings or similar biological or artificial consciousnesses. Such a God force would have to be a mysterious, occult force such as is supposed to be at work in astrology, telepathy, or psycho-kinesis (or possibly Jungian archetypes, the Enneagram, etc.). But there is little objective evidence to indicate that such putative psychoid, para-normal processes over and above known physico-chemical ones do occur. Such unusual phenomena as are observed seem susceptible of a naturalistic, ‘mechanistic’, non-psychic explanation.
Mystical yearnings and experiences, a sense of the ‘transcendent’, are indeed a basic part of human experience – important, enriching ones. However, this does not mean that there is something out there apart from the human mind corresponding to the mystical experience. It need not be that in mystical experience, say, the mind is actually ‘perceiving’ or intuiting some non-natural (or supra, or trans-natural) state of affairs – part of reality apart from the human brain. A mystical experience may be more like a dream or hallucination than an extra-sensory ‘perception’. It may be essentially subjective and human mind-dependent like sexual joy and romantic love even though deeply moving and transformative. Similarly, visions of the Virgin Mary etc. may be hallucinations brought on by religious fervour and indoctrination, not actual visitations by a divine spiritual being. Stigmata (and witch doctor spells) may be due to naturalistic human psychology (suggestibility) and brain chemistry, not to divine (or spirit) intervention or manifestation.
Even if you believe in an MGF – the objective existence of a merely minimalist God force (or something like it) – there is still room for (irresolvable?) disagreement about what qualities God is drawn to or opposed to, what is good, best social policy etc. For instance, my minimalist God force would foster upper limits on wealth, income, inheritance, procreation, and parents’ rights. Yours might not. Disagreement about what is good or what God wants, whether or not He, She, or It exists, what the heck the semantic content of “God” is, is perfectly healthy and legitimate. Why try to suppress such disagreement by religious (or ideological) dictatorship and brainwashing? If God really is ineffable then for God’s sake stop telling us what God does or doesn’t want! Be honest and say it is what you want or don’t want and often for very murky and ignoble motives.
Even if there is no God, not even an MGF, this does not divest the universe of beauty, kindness, sensitivity, love, joy, justice, forgiveness, art, clear thinking, serenity, wonder, and so on. All it means is that these noble qualities reside in the higher consciousness of creatures like human beings. The values we rightly treasure and which make life meaningful will disappear unless embodied in the actions and thoughts of human or similar beings. All the more reason for not destroying ourselves through religious (or ideological) intolerance, fanaticism, fundamentalism, dogma, and superstition (or through the desire for power and control, or through near universalized and rationalised greed). It is perhaps consoling to believe that even if the human species were eliminated kindness, love, etc. would not perish because they would still reside in a God force. But even with no God force there is still the possibility that the universe will again throw up some creatures with higher consciousness who have noble values. It is nice to think there is a God force at work in the cosmos helping us along to peace, justice, kindness, wisdom, and love. But surely we would not give up a valued, important journey because the loving mother or partner we set off with as guide has died.
You personally may never reach the Promised Land (maybe we never do, and the journey is the point, not arriving at some fictitious, fairy tale, fantasy, paradise, utopia, heaven). You may have no descendants who honour your memory. Perhaps you leave nothing which will survive for some members of future generations to value. (We can’t all be great writers, artists, musicians, philosophers, scientists, sports or entertainment stars, etc.). Yet you have still been an unknown warrior in a noble struggle, a participant in an heroic endeavour, a great adventure, even if you did not achieve anywhere near as much as you had hoped. You have done your bit to help bring about a better world, add to the store of goodness, make people nobler. Hopefully, you have some joy and fun too.
One can postulate the existence of a widespread, long-standing, almost indestructible, powerful force which responds to yearnings for higher values, and sustains these values and helps to promote and realize them. This force exists apart from the existence of various individual biological beings who have higher consciousness (have language, abstract thought, the capacity for appreciating higher values – moral thinking and feeling, art, intellectual attainment, open critical thinking, a sense of the putative transcendent), though it might cease to exist if all biological beings with higher consciousness are eliminated from the cosmos. Furthermore, this cosmic minimalist God force corresponding to higher values might have emerged (fully) only as higher consciousness developed/evolved in the cosmos. (Higher values are contrasted with more materialistic, animalistic pleasures of eating, alcohol, drugs, non-loving sex, procreating, status, fame, power, ego gratification.)
The higher values which the cosmic minimalist God force nurtures might include :
Kindness;
Regard for the well-being and suffering of other beings of higher consciousness as being of equal worth to one’s own (or to those of one’s own family, tribe, coreligionists, ethnic group, class, nation, gender, species);
Tolerance of disagreement and conflict in basic beliefs, values, priorities as being part of higher consciousness;
Equal opportunity to try to train for (compete for) more prestigious, personally rewarding, influential positions, e.g. lawyer, doctor, politician, senior civil servant, scientist, university professor, artist, spiritual leader, regardless of gender, ethnicity, parentage, sexual preference, religious or ideological belief – i.e. level the playing field, end discrimination;
Open critical thinking ( opposed to truth based on authority, sacred text, or personal conviction – see future blog);
Appreciation of beauty, art, literature, music, science, math;
Concern for all sentient beings;
Equitable distribution of wealth;
Right of all to higher education, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual development; Assumption of some personal responsibility for one’s own situation;
Assumption of some personal responsibility for social, global, and environmental problems;
Being able to admit/acknowledge one’s own benefits, privileges, and luck;
Willingness to give up some of one’s own benefits so that others can have the basics;
Right of all to some say in government;
Freedom to form different political parties;
Openness to non-materialistic/non-utilitarian modes of thinking (even putative non-logical or non-conceptual thinking or awareness) – awareness of thoughts, feelings, ‘perceptions’, ‘intuitions’, ‘insights’, mystical experiences which seem to ‘transcend’ the mundane and quantitative - go beyond ordinary, logical, factual, literal language, and not be capable of, or require, justification in logical terms – possibility of non-logical modes of justification, apprehension, and states of affairs;
Emotional awareness of self and others;
Curiousity, wonder, willingness to challenge oneself;
Ability to laugh at oneself, admit one’s own weaknesses, foibles, and biases.
The higher values which the cosmic minimalist God force nurtures might exclude :
Organized religion – especially the belief that conforming to a particular (or any) ritual or doctrine is a guarantee of salvation and a sign of spiritual superiority;
Buying into some ideology as beyond criticism;
Political correctness (knee-jerk liberalism) – idealization or romanticisation of the poor, the disadvantaged, drug addicts, criminals, etc., as having no personal responsibility for their own situation , just an inner goodness which has been thwarted by abuse, neglect, oppression, lack of educational opportunity, low income;
Cult of victimhood;
False sense of entitlement;
Unrealistic expectations;
Welfare dependency;
Ascribing all or most of the blame for social, environmental problems, injustice, war, famine, poverty, to big business (multinational executives not the millions of ordinary shareholders!), corrupt politicians, white imperialism or colonialism;
Running down, blaming Western societies, especially the USA, while idealising and exonerating non-Western societies;
Denying that some differences in ability may be due to genes;
Transmission of wealth or power through family dynasties, e.g. monarchy, aristocracy, castes, heiresses;
Romanticized, sanitized, Pollyanna view of human nature – ordinary human beings just given love, education, money, will be free from bad (baser, darker) qualities or flaws such as (apart from one’s already mentioned – unrealistic expectations, false sense of entitlement, etc.) greed, selfishness, self-centredness, wanting more money, power, or status than the next guy, being unable to admit that one already has significantly more than an average share, being unable to admit that one has significantly more than what is needed for basic security and inner satisfaction, personal bias, favouritism, nepotism, emotional investment, vested interest, prejudice, irrationality, unreasonableness, rationalizing, informal fallacies, defence mechanisms, smugness, hypocrisy, self-deception, projection, pretentious obfuscating language, exaggeration, distortion, ignoring counterevidence, resisting clarification and subjecting/opening one’s own cherished beliefs to criticism and examination, demonizing, idealizing hero worshipping, scapegoating, sentimental cant, snobbery, sour grapes, resentment, reactivity, fantasy or delusion;
Self-delusion (self-opinionated, tendency to egotistical megalomania) – not coming to terms with the fact that you are just one educated, intelligent, sensitive, articulate, well-read, talented person amongst millions many of whom have different opinions from yours about literature, politics, human nature, science, the nature of mind, what is best for society, what is fair, etc.
Belief that good qualities and attainments can be acquired without a lot of hard work and some pain – that good learning can just be fun and entertaining.
In other words, being kind and compassionate, and believing in equal opportunity and justice do not mean denying differences in attainment and excusing all those who do not have the best start in life. Still less do they mean excusing even the now privileged members of an ethnic group which is or was on the whole disadvantaged.
The minimalist concept of God has some affinity to notions of God found in some sophisticated versions of the Upanisads, Buddhism, Taoism, and Zen. It also has some affinity to the God of Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Epicureans, Spinoza, Shelley, Blake, Hegel, Nietzsche, Bergson (élan vital), D.H. Lawrence, and Einstein. According to the minimalist concept of God the standard God of most major religions is a psychopathic, male chauvinist, bullying, control freak, dogmatic bigot. ‘He’ exemplifies the worst hang-ups of human beings – those surrounding fear, insecurity, resentment, and jealousy concerning the sexual enjoyment and pleasure of others especially women (and fears concerning threats to one’s own power, wealth, and status). The standard God of major religions is far more concerned about sexual ‘purity’ and ‘correct’ ritual and dogma than ‘He’ is about ending war, poverty, injustice, and sexual discrimination.
A major function of standard religions is to provide comfort by feeding into and reinforcing deep-rooted fears and prejudices. Standard religion suppresses or represses a reasonable exploration of ignoble aspects of human nature by substituting a crude doctrine of sin (and taboos) against simplistic rules of sexual mores, ritual, and dogma. Instead, a clear, calm, honest examination of ignoble aspects of humanity (embedded in the basic psychology of all races, cultures, and societies, not just Western society – present in myself and those I like and agree with, not just in those I dislike and disagree with) would enable people to come to terms with (acknowledge, embrace, make friends with, let go of) the true nature of their fearful, selfish, greedy, self-centred, smug, ego-defending traits then transcend them in noble achievements and activity here on Earth.
The minimalist God is rather impersonal, serene, inscrutable, imperturbable, detached. There is a clear, lofty, sad, magnificent, mysterious beauty and wonder to It. A philosopher’s, poet’s, scientist’s, mathematician’s, composer’s, artist’s, skeptical humanist’s God. A God which ‘loves’ women, eros, romantic love, nurturing, vivacity, curiousity, hopefulness, atheists, racing cyclists, and intelligent humour. The minimalist God would count it an honour if you disbelieved in It – so long as you gave clear, calm reasons. It would like it if you made fun of It too – being a bit of a cosmic jester Itself. (Naturally, like everyone else, I fashion God in my own image, desires, or values!)
Belief in the minimalist God does not provide justification for any of the following common theological tenets: personal afterlife; resurrection; reincarnation; heaven; hell; the truth of any holy scriptures as being the revealed word of God (holy scriptures and religious edicts as unquestionable are heretical, blasphemous, and anathema to the minimalist God); efficacy of prayer; religious institutions as being guardians of morality; priests, imams, Popes, etc., as being spokespersons of God; God as omniscient; God as creator of the universe; God as omnipotent.
The minimalist God force is inimical to religious, political, and ideological dogma, the desire for simplistic, black and white answers. It is also inimical to homophobia, the subjugation of women (and, I would argue, to prohibiting birth control, abortion, assisted euthanasia, and use of alcohol and recreational drugs by adults).
The minimalist God force might not Itself be conscious per se. It just responds to and facilitates goodness in higher consciousness. Also, the minimalist God force might not be the basic, fundamental reality in the cosmos. God Itself might be an emergent non-basic force somehow developing out of basic (quantum) ‘mechanistic’ forces: electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, basic chemical processes, evolution by natural selection.
The minimalist God force is similar to other concepts of God in that it fosters hope for the eventual triumph of goodness (goodness naturally conceived in a certain way since different people have different ideas of what constitutes goodness – or what God’s law [or the ‘Natural Law’] is, if you put it that way). However, the eventual triumph of goodness is not pre-ordained or guaranteed under the minimalist God conception. Also, the unity (or Trinity) of God is not entailed by the minimalist conception. There might be more than one God force at one or various times – though individuation here would be a problem.
Belief in a Minimalist God Force (full capitals to denote God concept qualitatively distinct from standard one, but just as worthy of respect) goes beyond the common naturalistic psychological fact that we derive comfort, consolation, inspiration from the thought of great artists, writers, composers, thinkers, moral teachers, etc. Their spirit lives on in their work and example. Belief in (the/a) Minimalist God Force (MGF for short) does not require that the individual consciousness of a great composer, say, actually survives death. But it does posit that the God force (into which part of the consciousness of a great composer may be absorbed) is somehow out there influencing events in the realm of higher consciousness apart from mental acts and states of biological creatures with higher consciousness. If there is a time when no biological (or electronic) creature with higher consciousness is thinking of a minimalist God force it does not follow that the God force thereby ceases to exist. The Minimalist God Force is supposed to be not just a subjective psychological phenomenon (or a whole collection of them) but something objectively in the cosmos, outside of human or similar mind/brain states, like cells, chemical elements, and electro-magnetism.
There is, though, insufficient evidence to warrant belief in even a minimalist God force actually out there apart from/over and above (though not independent of) yearnings, hopes, desires, feelings of human beings or similar biological or artificial consciousnesses. Such a God force would have to be a mysterious, occult force such as is supposed to be at work in astrology, telepathy, or psycho-kinesis (or possibly Jungian archetypes, the Enneagram, etc.). But there is little objective evidence to indicate that such putative psychoid, para-normal processes over and above known physico-chemical ones do occur. Such unusual phenomena as are observed seem susceptible of a naturalistic, ‘mechanistic’, non-psychic explanation.
Mystical yearnings and experiences, a sense of the ‘transcendent’, are indeed a basic part of human experience – important, enriching ones. However, this does not mean that there is something out there apart from the human mind corresponding to the mystical experience. It need not be that in mystical experience, say, the mind is actually ‘perceiving’ or intuiting some non-natural (or supra, or trans-natural) state of affairs – part of reality apart from the human brain. A mystical experience may be more like a dream or hallucination than an extra-sensory ‘perception’. It may be essentially subjective and human mind-dependent like sexual joy and romantic love even though deeply moving and transformative. Similarly, visions of the Virgin Mary etc. may be hallucinations brought on by religious fervour and indoctrination, not actual visitations by a divine spiritual being. Stigmata (and witch doctor spells) may be due to naturalistic human psychology (suggestibility) and brain chemistry, not to divine (or spirit) intervention or manifestation.
Even if you believe in an MGF – the objective existence of a merely minimalist God force (or something like it) – there is still room for (irresolvable?) disagreement about what qualities God is drawn to or opposed to, what is good, best social policy etc. For instance, my minimalist God force would foster upper limits on wealth, income, inheritance, procreation, and parents’ rights. Yours might not. Disagreement about what is good or what God wants, whether or not He, She, or It exists, what the heck the semantic content of “God” is, is perfectly healthy and legitimate. Why try to suppress such disagreement by religious (or ideological) dictatorship and brainwashing? If God really is ineffable then for God’s sake stop telling us what God does or doesn’t want! Be honest and say it is what you want or don’t want and often for very murky and ignoble motives.
Even if there is no God, not even an MGF, this does not divest the universe of beauty, kindness, sensitivity, love, joy, justice, forgiveness, art, clear thinking, serenity, wonder, and so on. All it means is that these noble qualities reside in the higher consciousness of creatures like human beings. The values we rightly treasure and which make life meaningful will disappear unless embodied in the actions and thoughts of human or similar beings. All the more reason for not destroying ourselves through religious (or ideological) intolerance, fanaticism, fundamentalism, dogma, and superstition (or through the desire for power and control, or through near universalized and rationalised greed). It is perhaps consoling to believe that even if the human species were eliminated kindness, love, etc. would not perish because they would still reside in a God force. But even with no God force there is still the possibility that the universe will again throw up some creatures with higher consciousness who have noble values. It is nice to think there is a God force at work in the cosmos helping us along to peace, justice, kindness, wisdom, and love. But surely we would not give up a valued, important journey because the loving mother or partner we set off with as guide has died.
You personally may never reach the Promised Land (maybe we never do, and the journey is the point, not arriving at some fictitious, fairy tale, fantasy, paradise, utopia, heaven). You may have no descendants who honour your memory. Perhaps you leave nothing which will survive for some members of future generations to value. (We can’t all be great writers, artists, musicians, philosophers, scientists, sports or entertainment stars, etc.). Yet you have still been an unknown warrior in a noble struggle, a participant in an heroic endeavour, a great adventure, even if you did not achieve anywhere near as much as you had hoped. You have done your bit to help bring about a better world, add to the store of goodness, make people nobler. Hopefully, you have some joy and fun too.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Dr. Velociraptor Guitar Vocals
Dr. Velociraptor Versatile Guitar Vocals
Elite Senior racing cyclist. Former university philosophy teacher.
Over 600 covers + originals.
Elvis. Sinatra. Beatles. Stones. Credence. Buddy Holly. Dylan. Hank Williams. Chuck Berry. Eric Clapton. Roy Orbison. Platters.
Aretha Franklin. Supremes. Billie Holiday. Janis Joplin. Vera Lynn. Julie Andrews.
Duke Ellington. Gershwin. Cole Porter. Many more.
Dance tunes. Singalong. Xmas. Hymns. Lounge easy listening. Affordable solo entertainer.
Victoria B.C. Canada (778) 430-0646
davidmercerphd@yahoo.ca
drvelociraptor.blogspot.com
www.velociraptors.ca
Elite Senior racing cyclist. Former university philosophy teacher.
Over 600 covers + originals.
Elvis. Sinatra. Beatles. Stones. Credence. Buddy Holly. Dylan. Hank Williams. Chuck Berry. Eric Clapton. Roy Orbison. Platters.
Aretha Franklin. Supremes. Billie Holiday. Janis Joplin. Vera Lynn. Julie Andrews.
Duke Ellington. Gershwin. Cole Porter. Many more.
Dance tunes. Singalong. Xmas. Hymns. Lounge easy listening. Affordable solo entertainer.
Victoria B.C. Canada (778) 430-0646
davidmercerphd@yahoo.ca
drvelociraptor.blogspot.com
www.velociraptors.ca
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Ground Zero Islamic Centre?
On a pragmatic note: who gave planning approval for the project? Surely New York City administrators could see this project was ill-advised politically even if morally justifiable.
Liberals and the politically correct stridently drive a wedge between Islam and terrorists who usurp and pervert Islam. But is a sharp distinction between mainstream Islam and fundamentalist, militant Islam fully justified? Some imams in the West have condemned terrorism and suicide bombings as unIslamic. However, worldwide there are clearly millions who see themselves as devout Muslims yet are sympathetic to, and supportive of militant Islam - violence in the name and cause of Islam. If the terrorists did not have widespread support from coreligionists how could they be so formidable? Has there yet emerged/evolved a mainstream Islamic denomination which officially and categorically renounces and denounces violence in the cause of Islam. What are ‘Al Qaeda’ and ‘Taliban’ but names for those Muslims who endorse or commit violence in order to, as they see it, promote the cause of Islam and hence the will of God? Have these Muslims been branded as heretics and excommunicated from mainstream Islam? Christian and Buddhist pacifism are well-known but is there yet an Islamic movement of ahimsa or non-violence?
We have to cut through the rhetoric and emotional bias and investment (on both sides) and acknowledge differences between cultures, societies, values, ideologies, and religions. Difference and disagreement, even at a deep level, need not be bad or frightening. We have to look at actual practice as well as what people preach.
Religion is still a sacred cow (!) even in the secular, democratic West. Someone who criticizes religion (or advocates serious upper limits on wealth, income, or inheritance, or parental power) is unlikely to be elected to political or public office. Religion is widely seen as the foundation for morality, and the gateway to an underlying spiritual reality. Religions are wealthy, powerful institutions offering group solidarity and a feeling of superiority to those who are not members of one’s own religion.
It is easy to assert that Islam (Catholicism, Baptism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jungianism, aboriginal culture, etc.) preaches love, tolerance, peace, respect, spirituality, a sense of connexion with one’s fellow humans and nature, and so on. Such motherhood, apple pie slogans sound lovely though gaseous – they give a warm, comforting glow. But what does the factual content of such claims amount to? How do they translate into specific positions on fundamental social issues such as the following?
Abortion, contraception, right of women to education, to hold political, religious, judicial, or administrative office, to wear rational dress, move freely and independently in public;
Separation of Church and State, laws based on open debate not on religious authority, the right to run for office as an alternative party – freedom of political affiliation;
Freedom of expression – including freedom to criticize religion or ideology or the ruling party, freedom to give offence to some (even members of a so-called disadvantaged group);
Punishment of criminals, the death penalty, conscientious objectors, gun control;
Assisted euthanasia, legalization with regulation of recreational drugs, censorship; Prostitution, animal rights, apostasy or conversion to a non-established religion.
It is fatuous, deceitful, and hypocritical to ignore that, at present, mainstream Islam (and conservative Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Baptism) is opposed to many values which are basic to the vision of liberal, democratic society – values which may be elicited by considering liberal positions on the aforementioned social issues, and are articulated by people like John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, etc. Equally, it is ludicrous to maintain that Islam and Christianity (or Judaism) assert essentially the same Word of God (doctrines) except that for the former this Truth was channeled through Muhammad and for the latter through Jesus, and that both are essentially benign and simply preach love, brotherhood of man, social justice, peace, forgiveness, avoidance of greed, materialism, and selfishness, etc. If this were the case, why so much friction and bloodshed between the religions and various denominations over the centuries and which continue still? It’s no use trying to pass off the violence and hate as simply due to politics since without religious backing the political disagreements would not get such a ferocious grip. (Can one separate political from religious differences and disagreements anyway?)
It is not clear for instance that Islam agrees with some basic Christian moral doctrines. This is not to say that the Christian doctrines are superior (Nietzsche would say that they are inferior.) For example, is there anything in the Qur’an equivalent to the New Testament teachings of turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, doing good to him who hurts you, forgiving 70 times 7, not stoning the woman taken in adultery. Not for nothing do some Muslim scholars call Christianity the Buddhism of the West. Whereas there is a well-established Pacifist Christian movement and pacifism seems to be at the core of Buddhism ‘Pacifist Muslim’ may be as yet something of an oxymoron. Again, note I am not saying that pacifism is correct or superior.
Liberals and the politically correct stridently drive a wedge between Islam and terrorists who usurp and pervert Islam. But is a sharp distinction between mainstream Islam and fundamentalist, militant Islam fully justified? Some imams in the West have condemned terrorism and suicide bombings as unIslamic. However, worldwide there are clearly millions who see themselves as devout Muslims yet are sympathetic to, and supportive of militant Islam - violence in the name and cause of Islam. If the terrorists did not have widespread support from coreligionists how could they be so formidable? Has there yet emerged/evolved a mainstream Islamic denomination which officially and categorically renounces and denounces violence in the cause of Islam. What are ‘Al Qaeda’ and ‘Taliban’ but names for those Muslims who endorse or commit violence in order to, as they see it, promote the cause of Islam and hence the will of God? Have these Muslims been branded as heretics and excommunicated from mainstream Islam? Christian and Buddhist pacifism are well-known but is there yet an Islamic movement of ahimsa or non-violence?
We have to cut through the rhetoric and emotional bias and investment (on both sides) and acknowledge differences between cultures, societies, values, ideologies, and religions. Difference and disagreement, even at a deep level, need not be bad or frightening. We have to look at actual practice as well as what people preach.
Religion is still a sacred cow (!) even in the secular, democratic West. Someone who criticizes religion (or advocates serious upper limits on wealth, income, or inheritance, or parental power) is unlikely to be elected to political or public office. Religion is widely seen as the foundation for morality, and the gateway to an underlying spiritual reality. Religions are wealthy, powerful institutions offering group solidarity and a feeling of superiority to those who are not members of one’s own religion.
It is easy to assert that Islam (Catholicism, Baptism, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Jungianism, aboriginal culture, etc.) preaches love, tolerance, peace, respect, spirituality, a sense of connexion with one’s fellow humans and nature, and so on. Such motherhood, apple pie slogans sound lovely though gaseous – they give a warm, comforting glow. But what does the factual content of such claims amount to? How do they translate into specific positions on fundamental social issues such as the following?
Abortion, contraception, right of women to education, to hold political, religious, judicial, or administrative office, to wear rational dress, move freely and independently in public;
Separation of Church and State, laws based on open debate not on religious authority, the right to run for office as an alternative party – freedom of political affiliation;
Freedom of expression – including freedom to criticize religion or ideology or the ruling party, freedom to give offence to some (even members of a so-called disadvantaged group);
Punishment of criminals, the death penalty, conscientious objectors, gun control;
Assisted euthanasia, legalization with regulation of recreational drugs, censorship; Prostitution, animal rights, apostasy or conversion to a non-established religion.
It is fatuous, deceitful, and hypocritical to ignore that, at present, mainstream Islam (and conservative Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Baptism) is opposed to many values which are basic to the vision of liberal, democratic society – values which may be elicited by considering liberal positions on the aforementioned social issues, and are articulated by people like John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, etc. Equally, it is ludicrous to maintain that Islam and Christianity (or Judaism) assert essentially the same Word of God (doctrines) except that for the former this Truth was channeled through Muhammad and for the latter through Jesus, and that both are essentially benign and simply preach love, brotherhood of man, social justice, peace, forgiveness, avoidance of greed, materialism, and selfishness, etc. If this were the case, why so much friction and bloodshed between the religions and various denominations over the centuries and which continue still? It’s no use trying to pass off the violence and hate as simply due to politics since without religious backing the political disagreements would not get such a ferocious grip. (Can one separate political from religious differences and disagreements anyway?)
It is not clear for instance that Islam agrees with some basic Christian moral doctrines. This is not to say that the Christian doctrines are superior (Nietzsche would say that they are inferior.) For example, is there anything in the Qur’an equivalent to the New Testament teachings of turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, doing good to him who hurts you, forgiving 70 times 7, not stoning the woman taken in adultery. Not for nothing do some Muslim scholars call Christianity the Buddhism of the West. Whereas there is a well-established Pacifist Christian movement and pacifism seems to be at the core of Buddhism ‘Pacifist Muslim’ may be as yet something of an oxymoron. Again, note I am not saying that pacifism is correct or superior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)