The Humanist Contemplative Blog

Top 10 signs of good spirituality

2012-01-23T13:40:00.000-06:00

(cc) tiltti (flickr.com).

Over the course of my comparative studies, there are some general traits I've noticed which seem to be shared between those wisdom streams and I thought it could be helpful to point them out. Here are some traits that are a sign of a good and healthy spiritual path...

10) Aim of True Happiness

Good spirituality will have as its aim the happiness of the practitioner. Of course, deep understanding of what this entails is essential. By 'True Happiness' we mean something more than mere pleasure associated with one's conditions. Rather, the kind of happiness a good spirituality will pursue will be a deeper sense of contentment that transcends circumstance. It will be a source of inner strength in the face of adversity and humble appreciation in the face of fortune. Such a happiness is also not selfish in the shallow sense of the word, in that the practitioner will come to see that mere self interest is not always a path to it.

9) Humble approach to knowledge

A good spirituality will engender humility in the practitioner when it comes to beliefs. It will produce a practitioner that is careful about making claims that cannot be substantiated. The practitioner will appreciate their limitations as a human being, not assuming they have more ability to 'know' things than they do. They would learn to be comfortable with a state of 'not knowing' all things. Such an approach will guide the practitioner in their own assumptions, as well as in accepting the claims of others without good reason. A good spiritual path will encourage doubt, asking questions, etc. It will not encourage the practitioner to accept claims on the basis of authority, or tradition, or faith, or any other means than good sense and self experience. But at the same time, this principle will not be one that encourages the practitioner to spend their time telling others what they should or shouldn't believe. Rather, its focus will be on helping the practitioner in their own walk.

8) Holistic, not dualistic

A good spirituality will inspire appreciation of the interconnectedness of all things. Dualistic thinking, whether it comes to nature, ourselves, us/them mentalities, and so on, will be anathema to a sound spirituality. Such a spiritual path will, in part, help to guide the practitioner to operate more effectively in an interconnected universe; appreciating subtle cause and effect, and acting more wisely in such a system. This 'skillful means' will be a way for the practitioner to see the big picture - to handle the complexities of life more like a surfer on ever-changing waves, moving in a dance with the universe, rather than stubbornly trying to move against the grain.

7) Acceptance of impermanence

The ever-changing flux of the universe, and the impermanence in which that results, has always been obvious to any observer. Nearly all worldviews, philosophies, traditions, or religions can be grouped into two categories regarding how they handle impermanence. One group will try to claim that there really is some permanent phenomenon to which we can attach our hopes and secure our philosophy (an afterlife, a deity, a 'salvation', magic powers, etc). While this may or may not be true, #9 (a humble approach to knowledge) suggests that we cannot know for certain whether it is. For that reason, a good spirituality will belong to the second category, which instead helps the practitioner to come to terms with impermanence; to accept it and learn to live effectively and happily in an impermanent universe. Spirituality, at its best, even helps to grow a sense of awe and wonder at such a grand flux, as we come to realize that impermanence means not merely death, but birth as well, and makes possible everything we love and experience.

6) Motivation-focused, not consequentialism

While much philosophy is often concerned with elaborate logical models to define the ethical, based on actions, consequences, and outward results, a good spirituality will know the limitations of these approaches. In the face of highly complex situations we rarely know all the variables, let alone their values and the results of our actions. But a good spirituality will emphasize the importance of good motivation on behalf of the practitioner. It will direct the practitioner to that inner motivation in all actions. Surely, it is important to use our reason as best we can to take responsible action, but in the end, if we have good motivation and take that due diligence, outcomes are not entirely within our say, as the rest of the universe will play its part as well. A good spirituality engenders a deep appreciation and intuitive-level knowledge of that truth. In this way, our deeper happiness in life begins to divorce itself from circumstantial outcomes.

5) Practice-centered

A good spirituality will be more than merely intellectual teachings or academic philosophy or a 'world view'. It will not be merely centered on intellectual assent to a certain set of beliefs. Rather, its true power will be in its practice. That is, it will be a system of disciplines one can apply and become more skillful at over time. Its wisdom and its practices will be integrated and support one another. In this way, one's spirituality will not merely be a label - it will be an activity; and the practitioner will have a sense of making continual progress, day by day, as they walk that path.

4) Changing self instead of others or the world

A legitimately spiritual person will certainly be found taking positive action to help others and help make positive change in the world, but these are merely symptoms of the spiritual life. A good spirituality will help the practitioner always to focus on changing what they have the most capacity to change: the person in the mirror. Understanding that we live in an impermanent and interconnected world, the practitioner will understand that all of their efforts may or may not come to fruition. Therefore, a good spirituality will help us to change our focus from "I must change the world" to, "I must be the kind of person that seeks positive change in the world". Thus, when we adopt this focus we have already succeeded, regardless of outcomes. This focus not only helps against 'burn out' in activist efforts, but it helps us avoid the pitfalls of focusing too much on how others ought to be acting without tending to our own shortcomings.

3) Transcending the ego

A sign of a poor spirituality will be that it coddles the practitioner and makes all things about them. Perhaps it promises wish fulfillment and certain externals such as wealth, health, reputation, etc. It fools us into thinking we have more control than we do. These claims to empower the practitioner appeal to the practitioner's shallow and mundane self interests and reinforce the ego. A good spirituality will be ego-busting. It will help to free the practitioner from the prison of the ego, expanding one's sense of self and concern outward to include others. Only through such a liberation from the ego can we begin to see what had been consuming distress for what it is, and begin to know a larger world. Healthy spiritual paths will help us in this process.

2) Wisdom, not -ism

Good spirituality will not be about labels, or a particular people or culture, or particular brands, or personalities. It will inspire the practitioner to seek out and respect wise notions and practices wherever they can be found. It will not inspire the practitioner to defend their 'ism' as though holding a flag, but rather to seek truth first with an open mind. Such a practitioner will not care too much whether this or that is considered a religion by some or a philosophy by others, or what titles by which they may or may not be called. They will be adept at exchanging lexicons to suit the context and the conversant, keeping in mind the meaning behind that language as what is important. They will not turn away from certain sources because of bias, ignorance, or reactionary tendencies. Good spirituality encourages the practitioner not to form attachments to the trappings of its own form.

1) Compassion as foundation

Most importantly, a good spirituality will have compassion at its core. Even the pursuit of truth is only worthwhile because of the good it makes possible for all people and is thus secondary to compassion. Good spirituality will help to expand one's sense of empathy and compassion, ultimately toward all beings. It will teach forgiveness and reject retributive approaches toward dealing with human conflict. Even when action against others is necessary, it will help the practitioner maintain compassion even for enemies. A good spirituality will reject the notion that compassion and pragmatism are at odds - that the virtuous and the advantageous can be exclusive to one another. Ultimately, the practitioner of a good spiritual path will come toward greater perception that virtue (including compassion) and wisdom are synonymous.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

This Saturday: Secular Ethics & Ancient Philosophy

2012-01-18T11:01:00.001-06:00

It seems I'm going to be doing more speaking engagements this year. I recently was honored to present the Dharma talk at the Jade Buddha Temple in Houston, where I spoke about how Stoicism prepared me to better understand Eastern philosophy, particularly Buddhism when I first came upon it, and pointed out many of the similar themes between the two. In March I may be speaking again on East/West intersections in philosophy, but that hasn't been solidified yet.

This Saturday, January 21, 2011, I'll be speaking at 1:00pm, at the Bayland Community Center (6400 Bissonnet Street, Houston, TX 77074) on the topic of Secular Ethics & Ancient Philosophy for the Humanists of Houston. The event is free and open to the public. Please feel free to join us there :)

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Thirst - poem by DT Strain

2011-12-30T18:37:00.001-06:00

(cc) Milan Boers (flickr.com).

Before I was
the music was
and the earth and the
moon and the stars

'twas long before
those days of yore
with the girls and the
tits and the bars

And from that thirst
I planted thus
my roots in that
safe warm place

a cool vast sea
surrounds and nurtures me
in that time of
self and play

But it was not long
in my short song
before I'd hear
those fateful words

I am thirsty

The others in the sea
eventually
made me see where
the waters run dry

and though I'd wept before
when the sea held me
only now did I see
what it was to cry

The others and I
took it all in stride
we were here to
save the world

there was no ailment
we could not prescribe
and so we set out
flag unfurled

we journeyed wide
we journeyed far
and, oh yes, the girls, and the
tits, and the bars

Yet we were thirsty

We left our homes
intrepidly
that cold and
dried up sea

and though our thirst
had not quenched
we knew all the
reasons that be

but through the battles
we had waged
and the dragons
we had slain

our prescriptions failed
my friends were felled
my trinkets proved
quite plain

Alone again
but far from home
I could not
save the world

And still I was thirsty

My cup run dry
no tears to cry
exhausted of
reasons why

but then I see
the earth speak to me
and the sun and the
moon and the sky

Over there
behind that flag
there seems to
be a trail

my answers gone
but if I could bring
myself along
to see

if maybe be
something for me
no not me but
perhaps the sea

It is thirsty

The path is dark
not clear to see
but well worn and
old it seems

and as I go
I gather fruits
that fill and
nourish me

Then I come
eventually
to a place I've
never been

still far to go
but waters flow!
enough for the
others in the sea

I fill my cup
what little I may
and turn toward
that place I'd spurned

For they are thirsty

Running now
incessantly
with my little
cup I'm free

returning home
to share good news
to the thirsty
in the sea

A new crop has sprung
a new group has come
from that warm
safe place to cry

one by one
I go to them
to quench them
or to try

but they turn away
no time to drink
though even
they lament

We are thirsty

Yet there is no ailment
they cannot prescribe
no dragon
they cannot slay

their trinkets shine
much more than thine
and must surely
light their way

And then I see
that they nor me
could ever
fill the sea

for crying is
and will always be
it's wellspring
by necessity

But still I wonder
what lie down
the remainder of
that path?

its waters glisten
if I will listen
not blinded by
what I hath

Though each must
find their path
to extinguish that
harsh thirst

my tongue is wet
though look forward yet
to that music
I heard first

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

New article for naturalists looking beyond meditation

2011-12-18T23:09:00.001-06:00

More and more Humanists, atheists, and other secular people discovering the usefulness of meditation. With this in mind, I have recently written an article that gives an overview of some other concepts that go beyond meditation, into a more fully contemplative practice for the naturalist. The article appears in The New Humanism, produced by the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University. You can read it HERE.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Happy Bodhi Day

2011-12-08T08:51:00.001-06:00

Today, December 8th, is Bodhi Day, which is the Buddhist holiday that celebrates when Siddhartha Gautauma (the historical Buddha) reached enlightenment. The day is in remembrance of his coming to realization of the Dharma (wisdom) foundations of what would become Buddhist philosophy. Namely, a rejection of the asceticism he had been involved in, in favor of the Middle Path of moderation, and the deep understanding of suffering and how to relieve it through non-attachment. This is referred to as ‘the Great Awakening’.

Traditionally, the day was “the 8th day of the 12th lunar month” but this has been set to December 8th in Western and Western-influenced countries using the Gregorian calendar. Of course, it doesn’t really matter which day Buddha’s enlightenment actually occurred. Shocking to many of other beliefs perhaps, some monks will tell you it doesn’t really even matter if the story is even true. What matters are the teachings, and whether they work in alleviating suffering and promoting happiness. The existence of these teachings are the real thing worth celebrating for the Buddhist.

The reason you’re reading about this in an article by a Humanist is because most of the core, earliest documented teachings of the Buddha are Humanistic in nature; focused on human happiness in this life, through a series of practical practices and principles. This is why Humanist contemplatives have begun to meditate and explore mindfulness and its role in human well-being more and more.

Also, we’ll be having a traditional celebratory dish, rice pudding, tonight! Happy Bodhi Day!

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Local practice groups in new year

2011-11-30T10:07:00.001-06:00

Here in Houston, I'm going to be starting up new local groups for spiritual naturalists in January, primarily using Meetup.com (a website that helps organize in-person meet-ups for groups of all kinds). The first of them is my previously existing group which has been on hiatus, The Humanist Contemplatives Houston Meetup. This group will host a monthly get-together at a local tea house on the second Wednesday evening of the month. The format will be very casual. There will be a general contemplative subject introduced, followed by discussion. Everyone is welcome and the subjects will be stand-alone topics so sporadic or irregular attendance is fine.

The other group is a new one, the Spiritual Naturalists of Houston. Membership in this group will be more exclusive to a select group of naturalists who want to seriously engage in a more structured long-term program of practice together. Our gathering will be each Sunday afternoon in a more private location, and will include meditation, followed by a discourse, and then a period of personal sharing and moral support. Our topics will include teachings from many of the wisdom traditions and practices, East and West, which are helpful to pursuit of the flourishing 'good life'.

Whether you're interested in the less frequent casual public format of the Humanist Contemplatives monthly Contemplative Conversation, or the more frequent, structured program of the Weekly Gathering of the Spiritual Naturalists of Houston, please feel free to check us out if you are here in Houston, Texas. If you are interested but do not live here, I look forward to continued interaction with readers online, and hope you will keep an ear out for the launch of our international organization, The Spiritual Naturalist Society, coming soon!

Best wishes :)

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Occupy Forgiveness: Spiritual Activism

2011-11-23T08:21:00.000-06:00

(cc) Robert Danay (Unlikely
Ghost), Flickr.com

Normally I write here about personal spirituality, which is about working on ourselves to be better people and achieving greater happiness and contentment in life. So, I tend not to talk about outward, external, and social-level issues. Recently, however, I submitted a proposal to the Occupy movement, and would like to talk about one exchange I just had with a poster on their Facebook page regarding forgiveness.

In my writing, I have frequently promoted the ancient notion that virtue is both necessary and sufficient for happiness; and when it comes to making virtuous decisions, this often involves the correct choices with respect to our outward actions. Contemplative inner spiritual cultivation ultimately gives us a greater bedrock of strength and fortitude as we move out into the world to do good things. Contemplative practices help to keep the activist from 'burning out' or becoming hopeless in the face of steep challenges.

This is because it helps us to shift the seat of our focus from external circumstance, to internal value. We are able, though proper wisdom and practice, to detach our contentment from our conditions, and instead make the source of contentment and peace come from our inner character and pure motivation. Instead of thinking, "I must make the world better" - we come to think, "I must be the kind of person who tries to make the world better". When we achieve this shift deeply into our intuitive responses, we place our happiness solely within our control. We free ourselves of circumstance, and so we have already succeeded, even before the results of our attempts are manifest; regardless of what happens. This internal shift happens slowly, in degrees over time, through the application of wise philosophy via disciplined practices.

I cannot claim to be an "Occupier" as I haven't put in physical presence time, but I do agree with the gist of their complaints and think they are worthy causes. Further, I think most of their non-violent tactics, albeit imperfect, have been justifiable (with the exception of some on the fringe who have used violence and hatred). We can't know where the movement will go from here, but recently there have been a number of negative incidents with police in several cities which have made the news (and many positive ones which have made the news to a considerably lesser extent).

What I suggested, was that the movement host a "Day of Appreciation for Our Police". I included possible wording for a proclamation to be made on that day (the full body of which can be read below). I put this to friends on my Facebook page first, and then shared it to the Facebook pages of Occupy Together and Occupy Wall Street. I also emailed it to the address given on their website.

Among the points were: appreciation for police in general, inclusion of them in the 99%, apologies for those who have been violent, an explanation of civil disobedience and why they're doing it, an expectation of minimal force in making arrests, and a call for an end to the use of violence in response to non-violent protests. It is still too soon to know what the response will be, although I have a few 'likes' and 'shares'. But the first comment I received was regarding my last point: an offer of forgiveness for those police who have behaved inappropriately. One poster on the Occupy Together Facebook page, replied:

This is an excellent idea - it's constructive, innovative, and good public relations. The only part of your suggestion that I disagree with is where you suggest the following: "To those officers who have assaulted unarmed and non-violent citizens with tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, beatings, and other forms of violence, we forgive you."What?!!! Such behavior is fascistic, and intolerable, So we should no more forgive those who behave in that manner than we would forgive the Nazis for their atrocities during WWII, or Bush and Cheney for their atrocities in Iraq. We're not missionaries, so let them seek forgiveness from Jesus in the hereafter, but we must vigorously condemn and ostracize such people here on Earth.

This is a common (but unfortunately flawed) understanding of forgiveness. It views forgiveness as a benefit to the forgiven instead of the forgiver, and it imagines that forgiveness excludes condemnation of the behaviors or somehow accepts them, or calls for less vigorous action to fight them. In previous articles, I have explained how forgiveness is a gift we give to ourselves. This is made easier when we recognize how harmful unvirtuous behavior is to us, as I have explained in, On Retribution: How Bad People Lose. I later describe a technique for increasing our empathy for wrongdoers in Motherhood as road map to universal compassion. In Jesus in New York, I refer to Jesus' teachings on forgiveness as I call on Christians to invite Muslims into their homes for a meal. And, in a longer essay, Freethought and Compassion, I examine that prescription to love our enemies and why it is essential that we forgive, specifically when it is not deserved.

Lastly, the poster I quoted above said, "We're not missionaries..." I beg to differ. The Occupy movement is a mission, and in its underlying values it has an ethical dimension. In my response I mentioned an anecdote I had passed along in On Loving Humanity about Buddhist monk Palden Gyatso, who was held and tortured as a political prisoner in China for 33 years. He'd been beaten, starved, burned, shocked, and put into forced labor. Released in 1992, Palden does not hate his captors. When asked what his greatest fear had been, he said that what he most feared was losing compassion for his torturers. Forgiveness is perhaps the most important part of the following declaration, and it will be healthy medicine for those in the movement.

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

Suggestion submitted to Occupy movement, full text:

OCCUPY MOVEMENT: DAY OF APPRECIATION FOR OUR POLICE

- We would like to thank those who work as our nation's police. We want to thank you for your service in protecting us and in enforcing just laws. We appreciate that you place yourselves in harms way every day for our security and safety.

- As middle class workers, you too are one of us, the 99%, and we support better pay, prosperity, and opportunity for you as well.

- We encourage people to vote and to exercise their Constitutionally protected free speech rights within the law. But in addition, because the extreme corruption in our system limits the effectiveness of only using means available within that system, we have chosen to additionally use the age-old practice of peaceful resistance and civil disobedience in working for our cause. While this is an illegal activity, we do not condone the use of violence against anyone, nor the unrestrained breaking of any and all laws.

- Please know that the use of civil disobedience does not equate to disrespect for all police, law, or order, or equate to hatred for you - even if individuals in our large and diverse group may have said and done things to that effect.

- We therefore want to apologize for those few individuals among us who have used violence and strayed from our non-violent resistance principles, and those who might do so without our approval in the future.

- We recognize that your duty will be to arrest us when we break the law, and expect the minimum use of force necessary to do so, as per traditional policing principles in a democracy. We do not agree with some police officers who have chosen to use assaults and violence in response to non-violent protests.

- We recognize that most of you want to do good and conduct yourselves nobly and professionally. We therefore invite you to avoid and resist these kinds of responses in the performance of your duties.

- To those officers who have assaulted unarmed and non-violent citizens with tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, beatings, and other forms of violence, we forgive you. This does not mean we do not call for you to be held accountable for your actions and face disciplinary measures, and it does not mean we do not demand an end to such behavior. It also does not mean we believe all of you may be deserving of forgiveness, or be asking it of us. But we forgive you because we want to be better than those who have wronged us, and we want to express compassion even for those who have harmed us.

We hope the above statement of principles will help to facilitate understanding between the Occupy movement and police departments. Having made them, we want to emphasize in closing the purpose of this day, which is to honor you and your service to our communities, and hope that someday our actions will benefit all of us.

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

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

An alternative to Black Friday

2011-11-22T11:03:00.004-06:00

Crowds on Black Friday
(photo: Wikipedia)

In my last article, I posted a letter my wife and I sent to our family and friends, telling them we'd like to stop giving and receiving store-bought merchandise as gifts, with exceptions for children and those in real need (see the letter that explains more). We asked only for their company, but recognized that giving is a valuable thing to celebrate and express too. So, we offered an alternative for those who wish to give, that gifts be something of their own creation. For those without the time or desire to make something, but wanted to give anyway, we suggested giving to a charity on our behalf.

We've gotten mostly positive feedback from friends and family, with the exception of one passive-aggressive, but still charitable, response. But our effort to simplify the holidays and return to core values brings up the question: What then of Black Friday?

Corporations have been known to create or modify holidays in the past to serve their interests. Some believe the reason fish was allowed as an exception to the no-meat rule on Fridays in Catholicism was because of the economic needs of the fish markets, and later, the reason for reducing the no-meat restriction from all Fridays to only those during Lent may have been to help an ailing meat market. Valentines Day, although associated with romantic love for ages, and sometimes accompanied by the giving of handwritten letters, has since been replaced by a day in which we are expected to buy mass-produced pre-written letters (cards), along with over-priced candies, props, and anything else comprised of cheep components which sell at much larger margins than their cost to produce.

The relatively modest and personal giving that used to go on for Christmas, has since been replaced with Consumas, whereby we buy as much as we can manage. You can still often see statuettes and paintings of the green and brown-clad "Father Christmas" in the stores; a little closer to St. Nicholas from which the figure hails. The modern image of Santa Claus began to form in the late 1800's, and by the early 20th Century companies began featuring the familiar red and white clad Santa in their advertisements - and image popularized even more by the Coca-Cola company marketing in the 1930's. Many are already forgetting that the retail chain Montgomery Ward created Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer in 1939. Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving, when droves are expected to make the pilgrimage to retail shops and buy hordes of merchandise. It's name refers to the day in which retailers are "in the black", meaning a positive revenue balance. None of this is happening by accident. These are deliberate campaigns designed to shape the culture, the norms, and the traditions in directions conducive to profitability.

Now, corporations are not inherently evil or bad. They make possible countless goods and services that have helped to improve our quality of life since the industrial revolution. The ability of any person to harness their own productivity and capital in a free market is absolutely essential to personal liberty. As someone who is part owner in a business of my own, and someone with a background in marketing, I can't hold it against companies that they try to put out messaging that helps them make profit. That is what they are supposed to do. But what we are supposed to do is: be aware of what is happening, informed about where these messages are coming from, make sure that what we are doing is really what is in our best interests, not accept the social norms without question, and not being afraid to do what we know is right despite the pressures from those around us to 'go along'. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a magic show, but one of the magicians (me) is sitting next to you in the audience, reminding you that what these companies are telling you is 'just make believe'. We have our own agendas, which is to pursue the flourishing good life - something not dependent on material goods. We too want to be "in the black" but our positive balance refers to quality of life.

So, back to Black Friday...

For those taking a similar course to us this holiday season, it looks like we won't be doing a great deal of shopping compared to many others. This frees up our Friday after Thanksgiving. Here are some ideas for what we can do with that time:

1) One of the big challenges in trying to make our gifts be things of our own making, is having the time to actually do this. When you look at your pocketbook, and look at your calendar, it quickly becomes apparent that - even for those not super wealthy - our time is often a more scarce resource than our funds. This is what encourages us to just go buy something instead. But perhaps we can use Black Friday to instead stay home and make things for others? This can be as simple as custom hand-written letters, or it can be something like scrap-booking, artwork, crafts, etc. If we have a knack for cooking, it can be some kind of special dish or baked good.

2) If you lack the materials you need on that day, then you can use the time to plan what you're doing and for whom. Don't get discouraged - start with a list of people you'd like to do something for. Then for each one, think about what would be especially relevant and meaningful to them. Maybe they're facing a specific need and doing something for them or helping them with something can be a gift? Maybe you haven't given them as much of your time as you or they would like and you can organize an outing or other occasion with them. Once you figure out what you're doing, you can schedule your time in future weeks to gather supplies, work on things, and/or visit as needed.

3) If you'd like to give to a charity in their honor, you could spend time on Black Friday researching charities and picking something that would be meaningful and relevant to their interests and concerns. Even cash donations can be made far more meaningful in this way.

These are just a few examples, but the main point is that when we decide to make the season about something other than consumerism, this can give a whole new purpose to Black Friday.

How will you spend your Black Friday?

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Changing course on consumerism

2011-11-16T11:37:00.000-06:00

It came without ribbons!... it came
without tags!... it came without
packages, boxes, or bags!

This year, with concerns about the rampant consumerism of our culture, my wife and I have decided to begin changing our tradition regarding gift giving. In doing so, we've sent the following letter to our friends and family. If you would like to join us in the first steps of changing our nation's habits, please feel free to use whatever portions of this letter you find useful in letting your friends and family know...

Dear family and friends,

Starting this year, Julie and I would like to do something different for the holidays. We have been thinking about this for several years now, and we have come to think that the ‘buying frenzy’ that goes on around Christmas time is not a good thing for any of us.

To be sure, we have many fond memories of your wonderful gifts over the years, and appreciate them all. We don’t think that you have done anything wrong, and all of our hearts have always been in the right place as we have bought gifts for one another. To our parents especially, who sacrificed to give us nice things, we are especially grateful. We know it was never about the ‘things’ but about the intent for our happiness.

But this is also why we now wonder where our society has come to, that so many people are encouraged by the culture to go out and spend large sums of money on material goods. We think this might not be so much a real tradition, as it is encouraged by the companies that would like to sell these things. Regardless of whatever religious beliefs or values we each hold about this time of year, Christmas has become more like “Consumas” and we think that is contrary to all of those values, difficult for many in hard times and facing debt, part of a larger problem of waste that harms our planet and will eventually become a bigger problem for humanity, and unfair to those around the world where there is great need.

Therefore, we will not be asking for any CDs, DVDs, gift cards, electronics, clothes, jewelry, or any other store-bought items this year. We pretty much have what we need, and if we don’t we can buy things on our own. Likewise, we will not be buying such things for others, with perhaps a few minor and occasional exceptions for young children or if someone is in real need.

What we do believe, is that it is good to have a time of year where we celebrate the brotherhood of humanity, and our love for one another. The winter is a perfect time for this. People can often become depressed in the cold and dark of the year, so the warmth of friends and family are a blessing as we look to the New Year with the hope of renewal.

With this in mind, we ask that if you’d like to give us something, give us your time and your company – this is better than anything you can buy (something we ourselves have not been the best at, and will try to be better). And, despite our aversion to purchasing and exchanging manufactured goods, we do recognize that generosity and the giving of gifts can be a special thing. Although it isn’t necessary, if you prefer to give a gift you could consider a unique gift of your own making (art, letters, crafts, baked goods, etc) rather than a store-bought gift manufactured by someone else. Another really nice gift idea is to make a donation to a worthy charity for us – preferably for those most vulnerable and in need.

Whatever you choose, we hope to be able to see you for the holidays, and send our best. We hope you will respect our wishes regarding our gifts, and will understand our choice regarding yours.

With love,

Daniel & Julie

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Does faith in God differ from dogma & morality?

2011-11-15T14:46:00.001-06:00

You know the secrets of the universe?
Great. How does that help me love
my neighbor?

This week, Texas Faith asks:

In a conversation last week with Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoeffer: Martyr, Prophet, Spy and now Socrates in the City: Conversations on Life, God, and Other Small Topics, he brought up the distinction between faith in God and dogma and morality.

As an example, he pointed to how dogma can become an idol of its own. People worship the tenets of their faith, not the God who is behind it.

Likewise, moralists can be pinched sourpusses. Their rigid code becomes a substitute for religious faith.

Of course, people of any faith need some guiding beliefs. Otherwise, their faith is grounded in nothing more than their subjective ideas.

So, as part of our ongoing debate about how people of any religious tradition balance faith and dogma, how would you respond to this question:

Is there a distinction between faith in God and dogma and morality?

As a naturalist, I can answer this one of two ways. I can address the difference between faith in God and dogma and morality as naturalists see it in theists. Or, I can address what the distinction between foundational beliefs and dogma and morality are for the naturalist. But both can be answered in that this question, either way, ultimately boils down to our approach to knowledge and to ethics.

There can certainly be found many naturalists plagued by the hubris that is so hard for all human beings to avoid. Some of them say things like 'reason shows' as one would claim to know what 'God says'. The Spiritual Naturalist's aim is to have an approach to knowledge that places humility at its core. A humble approach to knowledge means that we accept our limited ability to know all things; we do not make claims for which we have no evidence. We instead attempt to discipline ourselves to recognize there are many things we simply don't know.

Dogma technically means simply the doctrines of a church, and this version of the word is fairly innocuous, or at least it could be. But dogmatism is thought of more as a rigid belief-based mindset whereby we become convinced in our own infallibility. Often we fail to recognize this because we claim that the sources to which we refer are infallible, and imagine that we can simultaneously recognize our own infallibility and therefore escape criticism of hubris. But this approach fails on two accounts: first, we can make mistakes in choosing which sources are wise to defer to. Secondly, sources are all ultimately written by some human hand, and as such, subject to imperfection as well - even if there may be a perfect 'message sender'. Rationalists meanwhile make claims about rationality, but fail to keep in mind that - although rationality itself may dictate something - they are imperfect in their ability to be perfectly rational at all times, even when they think they are. So, whether theist or atheist, if we are not guilty of personal hubris, we are guilty of hubris with respect to humanity when behaving in this manner. This is why all knowledge should be held to be provisional, subject to reconsideration upon new information.

Ethics refer to those principles on which we act. For the Humanist, these principles should be derived from the needs of human happiness and well-being. They are similarly judged by their objective effects on that objective. But to prescribe certain behaviors and principles requires we make a judgment about 'how things are'. If knowledge is provisional then, so are the ethics we derive from them.

We are all traveling on a boat that we're having to build and work on as we travel. This means we cannot wait for perfect knowledge before we establish ethical standards. We must endeavor to act ethically, but recognize that none of us are perfect in our ability to know the best ethics. We must do the best we can - not being nihilistic, not claiming to 'know nothing', and not claiming that all knowledge is hopelessly biased and subjective. But, at the same time, we must keep an open mind, be willing to reexamine our beliefs when reasonable challenges are made to them, and always be ready to correct our course - not flippantly or based on self interest, but with careful and earnest moral deliberation.

For those who believe in God, remember that while such a being would have definite qualities, your knowledge of them is subject to error. For those who have no such belief, remember that your knowledge of whatever is true is equally prone to misunderstanding. This humility is what is important for all of us. Rather than concerning ourselves so much with what our brothers and sisters believe or don't believe about the ultimate mysteries of existence, we should be considering something more within our immediate control and down to earth; namely: how compassionate and humble are we acting toward them?

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

What is 'personhood' for the naturalist?

2011-11-08T13:38:00.006-06:00

The Winchester Mystery House,
reported to be haunted

As many have heard by now, one measure on the Mississippi ballot today asks voters to decide whether to redefine 'personhood' at the moment of fertilization of a cell (see report here). This seemed like a good time to explain the naturalist position on the matter.

What does 'personhood' mean for a naturalist?

Of course, I cannot speak for all naturalists, and I'm sure some may disagree with the following. But I can give the reader a view that is consistent with naturalism, and that is my view as a naturalist. Further, I believe the following, in general, to be in agreement with most naturalist views on the issue.

When all of us of any belief look at people, as life forms, we can see skin, muscles, bones, organs, a nervous system, brains, etc. We can see tissues, and we can look at them with instruments to see they're made out of small individual cells. We can see how these cells function, and we have discovered cells are made out of atoms, and know a good deal about how and why these atoms interact the way they do. When it comes to the actions of a human being, we can see that the activity of the brain has a great deal to do with them. We can look at cases of many varieties of unfortunate brain injuries, and see their effects on human personality, abilities, and consciousness.

We do not know every detail there is to know about all things in biology, but the overall picture of a functioning organism, including thoughts, personality, memories, and emotions, seems to have pretty convincingly come into focus through these discoveries. Does this mean an immaterial and invisible entity controlling these bodies is impossible? By the very nature of the claim, we can't know such a thing, and to say it's impossible would be unjustified. But we can at least all see and agree on the physical aspects of human functions that we do see.

Yet even the naturalist recognizes, in consciousness and personhood, there is obviously something there that is greater than the sum of its parts. The ancient Stoics distinguished between that which 'exists' and that which 'subsists'. While physical bodies exist, many things subsist via the relationships between them. In modern terms, we can consider subsisting phenomena to be those things which are a result of the complex interactions of components. These things consist of form, relationships, patterns, etc.

A wave is an example. A wave on water describes a relationship of interaction between particles. When we see an ocean wave move from left to right, nothing of material existence has actually moved in that direction at that distance, yet we can describe the motion and its effects mathematically. Something like an ecology, or a democracy, or capitalism are also examples of things which no one would say are supernatural, but yet are not physical objects you can hold in your hand. They are things that result from the complex interactions and relationships between their components. In scientific terms, these are called complex systems.

In complex systems theory, there is something called an emergent property. This is when components interact in such complex ways that they produce properties that don't exist among them individually, and these properties are said to be irreducible to the simple interactions between their components (in other words, greater than the sum of their parts). What's more, these emergent properties can be causal sources of their own, even creating a 'top-down' effect on the components out of which they are made.

As described in Plato's Dialogues, when discussing the nature of the soul with Socrates, a man named Simmias used an analogy to describe how he viewed the soul. He said the soul was like an attunement as produced by an instrument - existing as a result of the instrument's behavior, and ceasing to exist when the instrument is destroyed. Meanwhile, the Buddhists have a concept often translated as 'no-self' whereby they recognize that if we peel away our capacity of memory, feeling, thought, sensation, etc. that we will find there is no one single thing we can point to and say "that is me". Instead, we are the result of many aggregates operating in unison.

If we think of persons as beings capable of thought, memories, feelings, opinions, and a number of these features, it seems that Simmias and the Buddhists describe something very close to what we can all see in our modern understanding of the brain and biology. Personhood also seems, very well, to be like the kind of emergent property described by those who study complex systems like the brain. Just as 'democracy' is real, and results from the pattern of activity between individuals, a mind or person is also just as real, and results from the activities of the brain.

Spiritual naturalists hold life to be sacred, and persons to be supremely sacred. Yet, how do we know where the boundaries lie? To help illuminate the matter regarding the beginnings of life and personhood, let's look at how we handle the ending of life...

Regardless of whether we believe the person exists elsewhere or is gone, most of us recognize that a person is no longer present once their brain stops functioning. This is why no one is out there shooting morticians for embalming and burying the deceased. But consider an example where a person's brain has been completely destroyed, yet they are being kept 'alive' on machines. Here, the heart is beating, the cells of the body are replicating and living, nutrients are being used, the lungs are breathing, and so on. Yet, almost everyone would agree that to let this body die would not be a murder. Most cases of controversy in similar situations has been because some part of the brain was still functioning and there was debate over whether or not any person was there. But to keep a headless body alive on a machine? Most people would recognize this was simply tissue, even though it is human DNA and even though it is 'life'. So, even among those who believe in immaterial souls, there is some acceptance that the soul is only present while the brain is operating - at least at the end of life.

Now, looking at the beginning of life, we see a form that is coming into being gradually. Amidst this form is a brain which eventually begins functioning (I believe at around 8 weeks). Though even its first functioning stages do not have the kind of function we have been able to associate with what we would call a 'person' in the sense of a being that can have thoughts, feelings, experiences, ideas, and so on. The first kinds of brain functions to form are the simple systems that even insects have, which regulate heart operations and so on. In an injured adult, we would not consider these to be a 'person' if deciding to keep them on life support. However, the emergence of this property called personhood is fuzzy, but we can at least compare the point before brain activity to the headless body on a ventilator, quite easily.

For those who do not assume there to be extra invisible forces present, this implies that pre-brain activity tissues are just that - tissue, with no person existing. I would therefore expect most naturalists to disagree with the notion of defining personhood as beginning with fertilization of a single cell.

This is not to say that the matter of how we treat such things should be made flippantly. Many may bring up the issue of 'potentiality'. Yet, even before fertilization there is potentiality if we do or don't perform various tasks. And, were our technology sufficient, every shed skin cell becomes a 'potential' person, so potentiality is a somewhat unconvincing measure. Rather - because potentiality exists throughout all situations, even in the thought of having children - all of the process is to be approached with reverence. This includes not only whether or not to carry a child to term, but whether or not to become pregnant in the first place, and much more. It is fitting and beautiful that mothers and fathers look on the unborn with love and caring, even at the earliest stages. But this is a different quality that does not necessarily mean that what they care for in the beginning is currently the person they hope it to become - a special and important quality nonetheless.

To the naturalist, saying there can be a 'person' without a high-functioning brain, is much like saying there can be a 'democracy' without a population of people. Again, by the very nature of the claim, an immaterial soul is not disprovable and we could never know if an immeasurable thing exists or not. But those who claim there is a person that must be protected which inhabits a single simple cell, are in the same logical boat as someone who argues before the state that houses where someone has died must be forbidden from being demolished because there is a disembrained 'person' still existing in the house. Can we prove a house is not haunted? No, and we cannot prove a cell is not haunted either.

But if some of us desire to legally protect either the house, or the cell, then the burden is upon them to show that it is inhabited by an invisible entity somehow existing apart from a physical brain. The reason the burden of proof is theirs, is because such laws impose on the free activity of other citizens. And, in a free democracy, any law which imposes restrictions on others, must be shown via publicly available means to be necessary to protect the rights of others - and the first step is showing that there is indeed an 'other' to protect in the first place.

Now, as to whether corporations are persons - that's a-whole-nother article :)

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Wisdom is justified, true happiness

2011-11-07T15:39:00.004-06:00

The wisdom essential for
True Happiness must be
cultivated over time.
Photo: (cc) Oskar Nijs
(OskarN), Flickr.com.

Wisdom is justified, true happiness.

Knowledge is often described as "justified, true belief". This means, if you hold a belief, and it is true, that is not enough to call it knowledge. It must also be a justified belief. Meaning, there must be a good rational reason for the belief that is somehow causally linked to the external fact. So, a person could hold a belief for foolish reasons, that happens to turn out to be true by chance, but this is not knowledge.

On the other side of the coin, the belief being justified is also not reason enough to call it knowledge if it is not also true. Sometimes we have a good reason to believe something, but the evidence on hand simply points in a direction that isn't true. No matter how justified, if the belief isn't actually true, then it isn't really knowledge.

Now for wisdom...

Wisdom can be described as "justified, true happiness". This means that there are no distraught sages (ultimately wise folks). If a person is wise, you will know their wisdom by its fruit, which is happiness. While all sages are happy, not all happy people are sages. A person could be a 'happy fool'. In other words, they may be happy for ignorant, naive, shallow, or unrelated reasons. This is why I say that the happiness must be justified. A sage is happy because the sage understands the true way to happiness and reasons for happiness. The happiness must also be true happiness. In other words, it must be a deep enduring contentment and joy that transcends external circumstance, and not be a happiness based on shallow transitory pleasures.

So, if someone appears to be typically grouchy, mean-spirited, sad, upset, angry, bitter, or erratic in their happiness - then it is reasonable to question the wisdom of their ways. Beware the path they have chosen, unless you too wish to be similarly unhappy. True Happiness and relief from suffering is, after all, is the ultimate purpose of spiritual practice.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Images of God and mental health

2011-11-02T09:31:00.001-05:00

Baylor’s Wave III religion survey, which came out in late September, takes a look at the connection between religion and mental health. Among the findings, the authors report that:

“When it comes to religion, beliefs are more important than are behavior or affiliation…Frequency of prayer has no consistent effect on the number of reported mental health issues in past month. Respondents who pray every day report statistically the same number of mental health issues as those who never pray or pray only on certain occasions.”

Likewise, the authors report:

“Prayer, religious attendance, and religious affiliation, three mainstay measures of religiosity in Western culture, have no effect on the number of reported mental health issues.”

But here’s the part that makes a difference:

“When it comes to mental health, the aspect of religion that matters the most is the nature of one’s relationship with God.” The authors concluded that “Those respondents who believe that they have a strong, loving relationship with God report fewer mental health issues, while those respondents who report more ambiguity in their relationship with God report more mental health issues.”

With that as background, here’s the Texas Reason Blog question for this week:

How do you interpret this data about the supremacy of a strong, loving relationship with God?

In the first case, when they noted that frequency of prayer was not a factor so much as beliefs, this tells me that a person’s perspective matters. Indeed our perspective on life and our value judgments about ourselves and our world have an amazing effect on our happiness and well being. This is one thing I noticed in the power of Stoicism as it helped me to look at the world in a different way.

The second point is also unsurprising, that prayer, attendance, and affiliation have no effect on mental health. Especially in the West, religions are not typically looked at as a set of practices with direct improvement purposes, as you have in the East with meditation and so on (although in the original study there was one mention of meditation in relationship to entrepreneurship). Instead, the West tends to focus on what you believe, not what you do. Therefore the “practices” of Western religion tend to be largely ceremonial or obligatory, or even experiential rather than the kind of practice that is meant to cultivate any particular quality.

On the third item, there is a lot of presumption here. The survey has a sharp Western, even Abrahamic, bias in the way it has framed the matter at hand, and in surveys the way you frame things can greatly influence results. Here, it was assumed that all religion necessarily includes monotheism. Secondly, the above summary of the study suggests that a number of real effective practices were unaddressed because they weren’t part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is, perhaps, understandable since the study was meant to look at the United States, of which Eastern practices are an extreme minority.

But when it comes to those who do believe in one God, it makes perfect sense that a person’s disposition toward that God would be affected by one’s mental health, and the reverse causality should also be obvious. In more broad terms, what’s likely going on is that, when one has ‘made peace’ with one’s situation as they believe it to be (God, Nature, the universe, etc) then they are mentally more healthy, and are more healthy by that disposition. This, at least, is what I have noticed among non-theists as well. Therefore, I interpret this data to be touching on something more broad than just a particular mindset about a monotheistic belief.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Beware pseudoscience in the guise of spirituality

2011-11-01T20:44:00.001-05:00

The End of the World
John Martin, 1851-1853

Occasionally I get emails from various bloggers, authors, or others sending me press releases because they'd like me to promote their product on my website. I suppose any blog that's been out and around a bit will end up on such lists. If something is genuinely related to the topics on which I write, and I feel it would be of interest to my readers, and I really do intend to check it out myself, then I'm more than happy to pass along word about it. Most of these messages don't fit that criteria, however.

Today I got a notice about a new book claiming that 2012 will be both the end of the world and a 'new beginning'. The language describing this book was along these lines...

Drawing on meticulous research as well as personal shamanic experience, the author clarifies the 'big picture' of planetary evolution from the perspectives of ancient wisdom and modern science. He reveals an intricate interplay between phenomena (such as galactic super-waves, magnetic pole reversals, evolutionary impulses within matter, and the descent of supramental light) shaping a new species of humanity on a rapidly evolving earth.

After reading that I thought to myself, "I hope I don't sound like this in my articles". I do use the phrases like, "ancient wisdom and modern science" to describe my subjects, but - as they say - the devil is in the details. I can see how someone could easily confuse this kind of book with the sound of some of my work if they only skimmed it.

While I do try to synthesize ancient wisdom with a modern scientific understanding of the universe, there are a few things I don't do. I don't try to stretch ancient peoples' ideas into meanings they probably didn't have in mind in order to fit it to some theory today. This would imply that I'm suggesting ancient people somehow had access to discoveries only made recently. That's not impossible, but such a claim would require a lot of evidence, not merely retrofitting some vague description to something else. More importantly, it implies I'm trying to prove things about 'what exists' by using ancient philosophy - which would never be the case. On the other side of the coin, I also do not try to bend or reinterpret scientific theories of our time into some different version of themselves in order to fulfill a predetermined belief or ancient idea (such as with the common distortions and misrepresentations of quantum physics by New Age and postmodern writers).

Genuine spirituality for the modern world should not be in the business of telling people what exists or doesn't, why the cosmos came into being, what happens in some unknowable realm, or what's going to happen in the future. Claims about reality should be left to those who do the hard work of observing the natural universe through proven scientific means. Instead, genuine spirituality takes the facts of Nature as best as science can approach them, accepts them provisionally, and builds upon that. It encourages a humble approach to knowledge. Cultivating such humility means we do not make claims about things we cannot show to others that we really know. Further, such a humble approach to knowledge is an important spiritual value itself.

Instead of trying to 'nail down' all the grand secrets of the cosmos, genuine spirituality teaches us to accept that we do not know all things, including many things we really wish we knew. Instead, spirituality is about learning to live with what we do know and learning to be open to more as it becomes rational and responsible to accept it. But most of all, genuine spirituality is about focusing on making ourselves a better person, building our character, discipline, empathy, and compassion to the point where we can enjoy a deeper joy and contentment in life that is possible only through such virtues.

The truth is, we can't know what's going to happen in 2012, and it has yet to be demonstrated that anyone has any more access to that knowledge than anyone else (including the Mayans or their modern 'interpreters'). By all reasonable standards, we have little reason to suspect 2012 will be highly unusual. Instead of worrying what will happen to the world in 2012 or any other thing that's outside our control, a genuine spirituality would direct our attention to what the person in the mirror will do in 2012 to try and make life better for themselves and those around them.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Journaling and spiritual practice

2011-10-31T09:46:00.000-05:00

I have recently started being more attentive to keeping a journal each night. While the benefits of keeping a journal have been espoused by many sources of wisdom, my particular practice is inspired by the Stoics, and takes on a certain form for a certain purpose.

In the past I have written about how we should have a sense of 'making progress' in our spiritual walk. In this effort, Epictetus prescribes careful self observation, saying that the Stoic philosopher "keeps watch over himself as over an enemy lying in ambush". Seneca likewise recommended self observation in the form of making a daily review of ourselves. Each night as we retire for the evening we should put these questions to ourselves: What bad habit have you cured today?, What fault have you resisted?, In what respect are you better? Seneca suggests that our sleep will be more tranquil, having 'sifted' through the whole day and admonished or praised ourselves appropriately. The practice of having to answer for that day's behavior will help us stay mindful and hold up in our continuous effort to make progress[1].

I've found this kind of review is best made in writing (or even typing/tapping). Putting this review into words makes them more real, and we can refer back to them easily if we need to. The famous Meditations of Stoic Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius were, in fact, a journal he wrote to himself; never intended for publication.

By practicing thus, I've noticed a few additional things that are helpful. For one, I make sure not only to review what I've improved, but where I've failed. Noting the good and the bad is important. I then sum up with what I plan to do tomorrow to improve.

Finally, there is one other benefit to this review in journal form that has been quite striking. Make a practice of reading again your previous night's entry the next morning, perhaps just after meditation. This is surprisingly powerful. I think it must be because our frame of mind changes so vastly over a night's sleep that we need to be reminded of that person who existed the night before and what their concerns were. If needed, the previous night's entry can be read yet again later in the day if we need to stay on course.

If you would like to try this ancient Stoic practice, here is a checklist you might entertain as you proceed:

1) Put thought into what form your journal will take. I originally had a small notebook, but later moved to the notebook app on my smartphone because the convenience of it made it easier to always have nearby, and since I always have my phone, I could easily review it each day. Think about what will work best for you in the long run.

2) Ask: What were my most significant failures today in my spiritual practice?

3) Ask: Did I perform all the regular practices I planned to?

4) Ask: Did the traits I am trying to cultivate hold up under the day's events? (think specifically through the events of the day and if you performed as you'd preferred)

5) Ask: What did I do right and where did I make progress? (it is important to look for things to praise as well)

6) Ask: What do I plan to do tomorrow that will further improve my habits and my spiritual practice? (these might be disciplines, better adherence to practices, read/study more, work harder, better mindfulness or things such as being more compassionate, considerate, or being kinder in demeanor, and more)

7) The next morning, re-read your previous night's entry. You will be surprised how well it helps you reset your focus and stay on the path. If you need to, read it again later in the day too.

Feel free to comment on how journaling has helped you, or even come back later after trying this to report your experiences!

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

[1] Professor Keith Seddon, "The Stoics on why we should strive to be free of the passions". [LINK]

Should the word "sin" be part of our political vocabulary?

2011-10-28T18:24:00.000-05:00

I have contributed recently as one of the writers at the Texas Reason Blog, which is a secular response to the questions addressed by several religious leaders at the Dallas Morning News' Texas Faith Blog, which has decided not to present a Humanist viewpoint.

Today's question is:

Should the word "sin" be part of our political vocabulary?

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Humanist Charities needs help amidst cholera in Haiti

2011-10-27T15:44:00.000-05:00

This is based on a notice, just in, from Humanist Charities...

Last year when a devastating earthquake hit Haiti, Humanist Charities donors provided water, food, medicine, and supplies for the people of Jacmel—a city that hadn’t received any relief assistance until humanist volunteer Sebastian Velez arrived. Since then, Sebastian has worked to bring contraceptives and reproductive care for the women of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and Humanist Charities has helped to establish two humanist clinics that provide medications and services to hundreds of patients every month.

But now cholera is spreading in Haiti, fueled by lack of latrines. One community of subsistence coffee farmers at the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti is especially vulnerable to a cholera outbreak. Because the community is upstream from several other villages, an outbreak could affect thousands. Sebastian is working with community members with a goal of installing 100 latrines, enough for all the houses in this small community.

To learn more or offer your support in helping these villagers' fight against cholera, please see: http://humanistcharities.org/haiti.php

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

How we view Nature and control

2011-10-26T15:24:00.000-05:00

Click to enlarge.

My wife and I were talking last night about one way someone could think about the different faiths, religions, traditions, and philosophies. Most of these, in some way, address (1) how we view the world, and (2) how we should act in light of that. In more specific terms, one could consider how a spirituality looks at Nature, and how it looks at the issue of control.

In the first case, you have a spectrum that ranges from acceptance of Nature as one all-inclusive interdependent whole. Nothing 'transcends' or is outside of Nature. If the system includes deities, those would be immanent rather than transcendent. In other words, they would exist in and throughout Nature rather than outside it. On the other end of that spectrum is rejection of Nature as a lesser kind of thing, with a superior 'transcendent' reality outside or above Nature. By this view, Nature is something to be overcome.

On the other axis you have another spectrum that deals with how we are best off approaching the world in order to achieve happiness. On one end of that spectrum you have the outlook that we must learn about the important matters of our world so that we can better manipulate them and get them to do as we need. This end focuses on externals and external conditions, and the power to control them. On the other end of that spectrum, the focus is on self control. By this view, we must understand our world and ourselves so that we may condition ourselves to be in harmony with it, thereby being happy as a result.

So, looking at the graphic pictured here, you can see that in the upper left quadrant would be systems that say all of Nature is one interconnected whole, deities (if any) are immanent, and we are made happy by aligning ourselves with Nature. This would include Stoicism, Taoism, and much of conservative (earlier) Buddhism.

In the lower left quadrant, you have those that say all of Nature is one interconnected whole, deities (if any) are immanent, and we are made happy by learning to manipulate and control Nature. This would include many practitioners of Wicca, much of Paganism (particularly those with an emphasis on casting spells or conducting other rituals to bring about desired results), and much of New Age.

In the upper right, you have those that say Nature is to be rejected for a higher truth, deities (if any) are transcendent, and we are made happy by aligning ourselves with that transcendent truth. This would include some later Buddhism, but also those parts of Christianity that emphasize self discipline and acceptance of God's will.

In the lower right would be those that say Nature is to be rejected for a higher truth, deities (if any) are transcendent, and we are made happy by learning to manipulate and control higher powers. The words "manipulate" and "control" can have negative connotations those in this quadrant would likely reject, but the gist is that, by performing certain actions or having a certain disposition, one can get the higher powers to do things desired by the practitioner. This includes much of Christianity that prays for interventions and specific outcomes, as well as 'prosperity doctrine' within Christianity. It also includes some of the other Abrahamic religions, in part. Some of New Age also falls into this quadrant.

Most spiritual traditions will mix and match a little of each of these aspects, which is why it is better to view these as gradient spectra, with the traditions occupying a space that may overlap the central lines. But, generally speaking, this can be an illuminating way to look at these issues.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Exploring Humanism and Paganism with B.T. Newberg

2011-10-07T10:03:00.001-05:00

B.T. Newberg

Many forms of Spiritual Naturalism are growing, inspired by the ideas and wisdom from many different philosophies and traditions. Naturalists also exist within paganism, and one website has been making strides in exploring the nexus between Humanism and Paganism.

B.T. Newberg is the editor of Humanistic Paganism, a website devoted to naturalistic spirituality for the 21st Century. I recently interviewed B.T. about his philosophy and his project...

DT Strain
Thanks so much for your time and your thoughts! I'll begin by asking, what is the best way to summarize Humanistic Paganism?

BT Newberg
Mythology and science married. If you can picture that, you've got Humanistic Paganism.

In a nutshell, Humanistic Paganism is a naturalistic way of life rooted equally in science and myth. Modern empirical science has revealed a startling universe that is a wonder to behold, and we have every reason to stand in awe. At the same time, the world's ancient mythic traditions reveal our inner, psychological universe. Both are valuable in the 21st century. When it comes to science and religion, there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. One way of life that fully embraces both is Humanistic Paganism.

The website by the same name appeals to all those who feel akin to this way of life, including a wide range of folk from Neopagans to Spiritual Humanists to Taoists.

DT
What can you tell us about your background and what brought you to what you're doing with Humanistic Paganism today?

BT
There was a moment in late high school when I was riding along on a John Deere tractor in the tiny, all-Christian town where I grew up, when I had a eureka experience. It occurred to me: If I'd grown up in China, I would be just as certain about Buddhism being "true" as I was about Christianity. In a flash the spell of dogma was shattered, and I saw religions as natural cultural phenomena. Since then I've been agnostic but intensely interested in spirituality.

Fast forward a decade or so. I'd explored most of the world's religious traditions, looking for some way to still be spiritual and revere nature, but without the woo-woo of superstition or dogma. Paganism made a deep impression, and it had a long tradition of naturalism as one of its many valid modes of belief. So I have come to practice Paganism in a form that puts those naturalistic elements at the forefront. I call it Humanistic Paganism. Others call it Naturalistic Paganism, and still others prefer a broader label like Spiritual Naturalism.

DT
Beyond the philosophy itself, tell us about what you're doing with the website, and what your future goals are.

BT
The mission of the website is to amplify the voice of naturalism within spirituality. To do that, we seek out and publish the best writing of spiritual naturalists. Some of our writers are established authors, but we are particularly interested in everyday folk like you and I. The most honest and candid pieces often come from those who are just struggling to work out some kind of meaning in their daily lives.

Some of the writings are about the science of spirituality, like Rhys Chisnall's Paganism and the Brain. Others explore practices, like Thomas Schenk's Bicycle Meditation. Still others are personal experiences, like Ryan Spellman's How the Universe Speaks to Me. We've even done interfaith work, like our ebook Encounters in Nature, which brings together a Celtic polytheist, a Vodou priest, and a Humanistic Pagan to talk about experiences in the wild.

In addition to publishing articles, we also provide resources and community links so naturalists can find each other more easily. Most of all, our site is there to help the struggling seeker realize there are valid ways to be spiritual without all the woo-woo.

In the future, we hope to expand our line of ebooks, and refine our goals and mission. Our next ebook, tentatively titled Our Ancient Future, aims to refine our roots as well as our vision for the days ahead. That vision will be directly shaped by debates happening right now on a weekly website feature called Thing on Thursday.

DT
What do you say to Humanists who might think you're including a lot of material they see as extraneous at best, or perhaps even too condoning of superstition?

BT
They are right to be suspicious. They should investigate us with a critical eye. That's what good science does, after all. If they do so, they'll find we subject our experiences and practices to the same examination. We're working toward theories of spiritual experience which are consilient with biology and the physical sciences, and which make the least extraneous assumptions about God or gods beyond the observable universe. Superstition is precisely what we leave behind.

Where we might have differences of opinion is on whether mythic language has any value today. We think it does. The symbols of myth, including words like "spirit", "Goddess", or "Dionysus", raise the hackles on our necks. They lead us into certain vital states of mind that cannot be experienced in any other way. How they do so is a matter for scientific inquiry. That they do so is simply self-evident from experience. That it enriches our lives is equally self-evident. Experiencing the depth of myth is no less natural than experiencing the beauty of the full moon. And like the latter, it deepens the sense of wonder and mystery in life.

DT
What are some of the criticisms you envision from the Pagan side, and how do you respond to them?

BT
One person reported going to a Pagan gathering and being pitied for not being "properly wired" to receive signals from the gods. Author Brendan Myers has been accused of being a non-Pagan. I've been scolded for using the names of the gods of myth if I don't "really" believe in them. These are the sorts of criticisms we find leveled against us. You see, lately there's been a swing in Contemporary Paganism toward literal belief, the idea that deities literally exist "out there" somewhere, independent of our minds. Now, naturalism has been around in Paganism for a long time, all the way back to the Stoics of ancient Greece and farther still. It used to be strong in modern Paganism too, whether you interpreted deities as Jungian archetypes, metaphors, or what not. But lately some have started to assume that literal belief is the only genuine belief. It's not unlike the fundamentalism of certain other religions. We're responding by developing a stronger presence, amplifying our voices so people know that naturalistic Pagans are "real" Pagans too.

We're also responding by taking the situation as a challenge to refine our own understandings. As John Halstead argues, when we psychologize gods as archetypes, we risk reducing them to "just" archetypes. What we need to do is find a way to raise them back to gods, to express the truly godlike nature of archetypes, and to utter the numinous power of all such naturalistic phenomena.

DT
I like what Jung said in Halstead's article, that the gods refer to the "ruling powers" of our universe. That would indicate that, at least in some form, what the gods represent does indeed exist outside of our own minds wouldn't you say? I'm reminded of Dr. Ellie Arroway in the film version of Contact - when the aliens appeared to her in a human form to which she could relate. Would you say that the gods are one way human beings can relate to those ultimate "ruling powers" of our universe which are difficult, perhaps impossible, to fully communicate in words?

BT
No. There's a big "on the other hand..." coming up in a sec, but first I gotta say no. I know a lot of readers will want to read that statement as supporting literalistic god concepts, i.e. intelligent beings with independent wills that respond to prayers and magical invocations, but with a minimally scientific twist. We have to be very careful not to exploit science to justify our pet theories. That happens a lot in Paganism, as when quantum physics is invoked to explain magic. So, no, I wouldn't say it indicates something outside our minds, or alien-like entities unknowable except through myth.

On the other hand, if by "ruling powers" you mean the existential realities that shape our lives, like the sun, sky, death, love, or the profound sense of order in the universe, then my answer is yes. They are outside our minds, and myths are uniquely capable of helping us fully express them. Alternatively, if "ruling powers" means the archetypes, or modules in the unconscious mind that drive our deepest behavior patterns, then yes in that case too. That's what Jung actually meant, as he makes clear elsewhere in the passage. These are not outside our minds, but they are outside our conscious ego's control, so in that sense they are beyond us. Since they are also beyond conscious perception, the symbolic images of myths help us glimpse them, just as Perseus glimpsed Medusa reflected in a mirror. And I can't stress enough that this transcendence of the conscious self makes them godlike, deserving of religious awe.

This gives a sense of the razor's edge we walk when trying to heal the rift between science and religion. The science has to be truly science, and the religion has to be truly religion. It's not an easy path to tread. But if we can do it, we may lead lives in which what we know about the world and what we need to feel fulfilled are in harmony.

DT
Yes, that latter sense of 'ruling powers' is the one I meant. Have you heard much from readers who are enthusiastic about Humanistic Paganism? And, what have you been most surprised and/or inspired by in those responses?

BT
I've been blown away by the response. The website started out as a one-man show, a platform for my own personal explorations. Within six months, it became a burgeoning spiritual community. That was a big surprise. We are now typically booked six weeks out with submissions from authors.

What inspires me most is the sheer number of folks out there, each trying to figure it out on their own. Hey, there are others just like me! At the same time, there aren't enough high-profile places for us to find each other. So it's hard to connect, and easy to feel like you're on your own. But others are out there. We're out there. And hopefully projects like Humanistic Paganism and the Spiritual Naturalist Society can help make it a little easier to link up.

DT
Yes, I have high hopes for the Spiritual Naturalist Society. We'll be ready to launch soon and it's my hope that people doing work such as yours will find the Society a useful avenue to share what you're doing and contribute to an even larger community of Spiritual Naturalists that include Pagans as well as naturalists from many other traditions. How do you foresee your relationship with the SNS once it's up and running?

BT
Potentially intimate. Humanistic Paganism can be seen as a form of Spiritual Naturalism, so it would fit right in as a close partner. I'm looking forward to seeing what we can do for the SNS, and what it can do for us all.

DT
Is there anything else you'd like to share?

BT
Yes - we accept "challenge" pieces. If you're reading this and you just don't buy it, write up your critique and submit it as an article! As long as it's constructive and offered in the spirit of dialogue, i.e. not a rant or flame but a well-reasoned argument, we'd love to publish it. Peer review is an essential element of the scientific method. Criticism may not be the most pleasant to hear, but it keeps us on our toes. It's how all good ideas become great ideas.

Finally, I'd like to finish up with a question:

What kind of spirituality is best suited for our times?

In this postmodern age of alienation and confusion, it is tempting to want to trade observable reality for simplistic supernatural models. On the other hand, it is equally tempting to want to stamp out all spiritual language for fear of "fuzzy thinking." We believe we can do better than both of these.

Imagine it: a natural world where the language of myth and the discoveries of science mutually reveal the wonder of life.

That's spirituality for the 21st century.

DT
Well said! Thank you so much for your time. I wish you all the best and look forward to working with you in the future.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Speaking about Humanism

2011-09-21T21:53:00.002-05:00

Today I visited Eagle's Trace retirement community, where I was invited to speak about Humanism. They have a group that discusses religion and religious issues. They had discussed Christianity, Judaism, and other beliefs in the past but some of the members were Humanists and requested the topic be addressed. Everyone was very friendly and it was a great experience. After I finished a cursory overview of Humanism, we spent most of the time in question & answer. Some I could tell were very amenable to the ideas in Humanism and some gave me more challenging questions, which are good to hear too. I even ran into a friend I originally met through my local Humanist organizations, who is living there now. We also discussed a number of other philosophies I brought up because I feel they help to 'round out' and fill in a lot of life guidance for naturalists such as Humanists. There was at least one woman in the group who was very excited by ideas of interconnectedness. Another woman I met is a Christian humanist who has a very liberal take on Christianity. I don't know if she was a naturalist per se, but would certainly share a lot of perspectives on compassion and other ethics with me and other Humanists, I'm sure. I'm grateful to Mary Kate Kell, who invited me, and to everyone else for having me.

On a side note, I've recently discovered a wonderful article at the Huffington Post: Beyond the Theism/Atheism Divide: A Plea for Humility.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

It's all philosophy

2011-09-01T09:34:00.004-05:00

The School of Athens, Raphael

Yesterday in the New York Times, Notre Dame philosophy professor Gary Gutting wrote an opinion piece, Happiness, Philosophy and Science. In it he makes excellent points about the importance of philosophy alongside science, in the pursuit of happiness.

Having said that, I wonder if part of the conundrum is imagined (by all of us), in that it is based on a false distinction between science and philosophy. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Applied, that is the pursuit of eudaimonia, or "the flourishing life" (i.e. the good life), which necessarily involves happiness.

Any time you are (a) asking what is, (b) asking what therefore ought to be on our part, or (c) asking how you know either, you are doing philosophy. This is the process of the earliest philosophers. Both the early Taoists and the Greek philosophers, for example, didn't merely sit around pontificating. They went out into the world making careful observations, talking with others, and then applied those to their best estimates of what our place was in the world and how we ought to live for best results. Heraclitus, for example, made highly detailed observations about his natural world. Socrates went around Athens talking with people. Chuang-Tzu spoke constantly about his observations of nature. They tested these against competing ideas to come up with whole models and made their way quite well. This full spectrum of activity is why, for example, the Stoics considered their philosophy in the three areas of Physics, Logic, and Ethics.

Over time we specialized such that those focusing on "a" eventually developed a rigorous scientific method and became "scientists". Those focusing on "b" became the ethicists and, in the case of religious philosophies, holy leaders. Those focusing on "c" became the logicians, linguists, etc. But all of them are still philosophers and always have been, for the entire endeavor is merely different branches of philosophy. Science is philosophy. It's the part of philosophy that asks 'what is?'. When we take that data and use it to build a road map to happiness, we are moving from description to prescription (from "a" to "b") but we are still doing philosophy throughout.

I wonder if Gutting may be looking at the matter too much through the lens of academia, which has sliced up the disciplines for the sake of orderliness and for making good corporate worker bees in different industries. As a result, that practical thing that the original philosophers lived - that thing that was their guiding path in life, has been stripped down almost to the mere recitation of old, out of date, philosophy with everything else of utility having been handed over to other departments; forgetting that the first and foremost purpose of philosophy is practical and results-driven - not the detached, esoteric, academic, intellectual game it has become in all to many educational settings. Today, what many people imagine philosophy to be is not much beyond a mix of snobbish name-dropping and the entertaining-yet-useless wild speculations one might expect in a pot-smoking circle at a party. It's no wonder we so often hear people saying preposterous things such as, "philosophy is obsolete". If I had the same mixed-up conception of philosophy some people have today, I would think it was obsolete too, instead of the very crucial basis of human life that it is.

Gutting, at one point says, "philosophical thinking". I don't know what that means. Philosophers think using reason and rationality. While the era before a rigid scientific method, and a resulting over-reliance on analogy at times, might sometimes give another impression, philosophers relied on observation and reason in their work. After putting forth what he believed to be an evident truth about the world, would Socrates have been disinterested if someone had surveyed the matter and found another result? Of course not. In fact, one wouldn't get far telling Socrates they had 'faith' that something were true. Any philosophy worth its salt depends upon the raw facts gleaned from those who do the work to collect them - those philosophers who specialize on that aspect of philosophy (who we call scientists today). To build philosophy off of any other foundation is not philosophy, but mysticism.

Not to lay all of this at Gutting's feet. I suspect he might agree with me on some of these points, and I think the overall thrust of his article as being a call to the importance of working with philosophers on the matter of happiness is an excellent one. My responses here are not so much criticism as addendum. But I think a reminder about the essence of real, practical and applied, philosophy can further illuminate the matter, and illustrate the inherent relevance of all the philosophers - the physicists, cosmologists, biologists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, mathematicians, logicians, ethicists, and others.

Many thanks to Jennifer Hancock, who made me aware of Gutting's article...

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

New book on Naturalistic Buddhism

2011-08-31T23:34:00.002-05:00

As longtime readers know, I have been studying, writing, and giving talks on naturalistic takes on Buddhism for a few years now. One book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, I happily discovered after much of my own initial thoughts and writing on the subject, and now another one has been published by a philosopher at Duke University, Owen Flanagan, called, The Bodhisattva's Brain: Buddhism Naturalized. I have not read this book yet but plan to. An article at the Boston Globe's website a few days ago gives some background on Flanagan's thoughts.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

DT Strain talks Buddhism on Open Air Atheist podcast

2011-08-30T09:51:00.006-05:00

James Stillwell, Open Air Atheist

James Stillwell has recently invited me to be a guest on his Open Air Atheist podcast. In Episode 6, we discuss Buddhism for the naturalist, compatible with atheist, agnostic, Humanist, freethinker, and skeptic worldviews. The discussion is about an hour and a half, and can be heard for free by going to iTunes and searching "OpenAirAtheistPodCast". There are some sound issues but they get better over the course of the program.

Followup Notes:

Rebirth: At 25:10, we get into the subject of reincarnation and I could have addressed it better. For more information on this, what Buddhists mean by it, and a naturalistic perspective on it, please see my essay, A Naturalistic Approach to Buddhist Karma & Rebirth. Another relevant article would be Visit to A Buddhist Temple.

Quantum Physics: At 49:18 James asks about correlations between Buddhism and quantum physics, which I largely dismiss as common distortions by new agers and others. However, I should have added that one area of modern science that does greatly illuminate concepts in Buddhism and Taoism is Complex Systems Theory.

Ritual: At one point I say that I'll get around to ritual in a moment, but never do. The role of ritual for the spiritual naturalist is primarily for the purposes of self conditioning, integrating a sense of meaning, and focusing into a certain mindset for habit-building, awareness, and self development. There are also fellowship aspects to ritual. This, as opposed to ritual for the purposes of appeasing some other entities or causing external alleged phenomena to be effected somehow.

Meditation: At 1:04:52 we begin discussing meditation. For the full explanation of meditation I reference, see Humanist Meditation 101.

For those who listened to the podcast and have thoughts and questions, please feel free to comment here.

Many thanks to James for a stimulating conversation!

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Even naturalists don't stay in the grave

2011-08-23T00:41:00.005-05:00

(cc) Mike Baird, Flickr.com.

In 1932, a young Jewish girl (Margaret Schwarzkopf) staying with a florist (Mary Frye) was unable to return to Germany to visit her dying mother because of rising Antisemitism and, after Margaret's mother died, she expressed to Mary regret that she never had a chance to shed a tear by her mother's grave. Mary was moved to write a poem to Margaret about her thoughts on death, which has come to be known as Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep. This is the background of the popular poem, as confirmed by the research of Dear Abby columnist Abigail Van Buren, reported in The London Times, and which I first learned of through Wikipedia. The full verse of the poem is as follows:

Do not stand at my grave and weep
I am not there. I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush.
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there. I did not die.

Recently, thanks to a post by Pamela Daw on Facebook, I saw a most remarkable musical rendition of the poem by Conor O'Brien of the Irish band Villagers. While other musical versions exist, I think this is my favorite:

I have no knowledge of Frye's beliefs, but from the perspective of a Spiritual Naturalist, Frye's poem hits home in several ways. The second line reads, "I am not there" which brings up the matter of what we mean when we say "I" or "me". Naturalists recognize that a person is distinct from merely the atoms that compose the body. Once death has come, there is clearly 'something missing'. But since naturalists have no beliefs in a supernatural soul, what is it that's missing?

Like the Buddhist concept of no-self, naturalists recognize that a person is a composite of many different aggregates, traits, qualities, and functions. There is no single, simple, thing one can point to and say, "that is me". The person - that thinking being which experiences, has memories, makes choices, and who we come to know and love - is a complex system of activity that takes place in a functioning brain, and grows over a lifetime of experiences. It is a careful balance of chaos and order of the sort complex systems theorists study (see also, The Big Deal About Complexity). When the balance is disrupted and the pattern is disturbed to the point where normal function is impossible, that system ceases to be and the person we know dissolves. So, they are truly not in the grave, but does that mean they are nowhere?

The following lines 3 through 10 of the poem are spent comparing the person to a number of different things in nature: the wind, reflections, sunlight, rain, the flight of birds, and the stars. These are not merely random comparisons to 'things we like' because they sound pretty. Nor are they the kind of talk about death one would hear from the traditional religious viewpoint of souls and the afterlife. There is a very careful perspective being expressed here - one that is deeply profound and which can be found in some of the most sophisticated philosophies throughout human history. I do not know precisely what that florist with no formal education in 1932 knew of such things, but the Times described her as an avid reader with a remarkable memory. Is it possible she had been influenced by several philosophies? That is certainly possible and it is also possible that Mary Frye was perceptive enough on her own to pick up on some important truths about her world, just as many early thinkers did.

"I am the swift uplifting rush"

On the most basic level, the comparisons of the person with nature work as metaphor because, when we view the beautiful things around us, we are reminded of the beautiful qualities of the person we knew and the times we had with them.

"I am the soft stars that shine at night"

Another angle would be, as Carl Sagan eloquently pointed out, we are made of 'star stuff' and all of our particles were at one time a part of the cosmos, and return to that awe-inspiring mix.

"Of quiet birds in circled flight"

But even more profoundly, there is a recognition that the intricate maelstrom of relationships that make a person possible, are based on the same universal principles that make possible all of the universe. I mentioned complex systems theory before, and it is apropos that one important series of studies in complexity theory has been on the movement of birds in flock behavior. It is a study of how higher orders of complexity and coordinated operations arise spontaneously from simpler interacting components. These are the very principles that underlay not only bird flocks, but hurricanes, galaxy formations, living organisms, societies, and persons themselves. That means, when I breathe in and out, that motion of air is happening for the same ultimate reason the wind moves through the trees, or the waves of the ocean crash upon the shore. So, comparisons of those found in Frye's poem are more than mere analogy or metaphor.

These are the aspects of nature that caught the eye of early Taoist thinkers. They lend themselves to the Stoic notion of the Divine Fire - that tumultuous flux and inherent creative force out of which all things rise. The Stoics knew that to live in accordance with Nature meant, among many things, to understand deeply that those things which bring death are the very same things that make life and all the things from which we benefit possible. This is the Logos - the pervasive underlying rational order on which the universe is based, and which can be found in persons as well. Like complexity theorists today, Heraclitus knew we could not lie twice in the same river because it is in a constant state of replacement, and the Buddhists teach us to lie in that river and, instead of grasping at every attachment that passes our way, experience the bliss of the moment as it flows by us, always letting go and ready for what lies ahead.

And, if persons are patterns, then patterns repeat, and in more ways than merely the meme. Through their actions and interactions in life (what Buddhists call karma) people are like the Chaos Theory thought experiment of the butterfly that can affect the course of a hurricane. Our loved ones create causes and effects which ripple outward in uncountable and unimaginable ways that cannot be contained. Just one of those ways is in their impressions upon us, which recreate similar patterns in our minds through communication and our deep knowledge of them. Thus, if naturalists remain consistent in their definition of the essence and end of personhood within a complex causal world, then it is true our loved ones are not in the grave. We, quite literally, carry a part of them within us, and so on to others. If that is so then, as Mary Frye says, in many important ways they did not die.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404
Visit www.SpiritualNaturalistSociety.org to sign up to be kept informed of this new organization as it develops

If you liked this, you might also like Adieu to Immortality.

The Devotion of Love

2011-08-15T11:40:00.002-05:00

A play on Michel's Stoic symbol.

Today's article is by guest writer and fellow Stoic, Michel Daw:

When I finally was able to obtain a copy of Musonius Rufus’ lectures (which are notoriously difficult to find in translation), I was pleased to read that I was, in fact, a married Stoic who was Stoicly married! And without even knowing it. As a practicing Stoic, I am concerned with ensuring that my emotional responses are appropriate, within reason. But I REALLY love my wife, a lot. My wife and I have been married (to each other) for 25 years now, and we continually get comments and questions about our ‘unusual’ relationship. We are still affectionate with each other, still attentive and more ‘in love’ than ever. How can I claim to be a Stoic, with the evidence apparently stacked up against me? I will let Musonius speak for me:

“…In marriage there must be above all perfect companionship and mutual love of husband and wife, both in health and in sickness and under all conditions, since it was with desire for this as well as for having children that both entered upon marriage. Where, then, this love for each other is perfect and the two share it completely, each striving to outdo the other in devotion, the marriage is ideal and worthy of envy, for such a union is beautiful.”

The solution to the paradox is in how we have chosen to define ‘love’. Popular romance novels, movies and TV have painted an extremely emotional definition of love. “You have to feel it,” we are told “and when you don’t feel it anymore, move on.” Tying the actions of love within the relationship to an emotional state subjects the relationship to the ephemeral nature of the passions. There is a better way, and we have proven it.

Love, for us at any rate, is not an emotion, it is a devotion. Of course there are emotional times, but these come and go with the years. Regardless of the emotional level, we genuinely admire each other's qualities, seek each other's advice, and support each other's activities. We call it the 'Daw factor.' When you engage one of us, you engage both, because one always acts as the back up to the other. We admit our mistakes, ask each other for forgiveness when we are wrong and forgive readily and easily. Early in our relationship, (we were both 19) we agreed to several guidelines. These have been ‘tweaked’ over the years, but are essentially the same as what they were when we first agreed to them.

1 - If we were to marry, we agreed that there would be no easy way out. Divorce would not be an option (short of some form of abuse).

2 - Arguments are a lose/lose proposition. Rational discussion, firmly held opinions, are welcome. But as soon as one of us got entrenched into a position emotionally, the first one to realize that we were getting emotional would back down, essentially give in. That is we would deliberately 'lose' the argument, but win the relationship. This has worked for us (both) so many times. The reason this works is that the ‘back down’ diffuses the emotion, and we usually pick up the topic later, and come to an agreement when cooler heads prevail.

3 - A relationship is not 50%/50%, nor is it a give and take. It isn't about whose turn it is to the dishes, who took out the garbage last time, or who owes who what. It is a 100% commitment. It is a give and give, that is, giving for its own sake, not with an expectation of some sort of return. We give to each other because we want to, for the sheer joy of the joy we bring to the other.

4 - (I learned this one from my father-in-law) Never go to bed angry. If there is any reason for tension, talk it out. And keep talking. We have talked into the early hours, sometimes all-nighters. We have even used this in raising our children, (all adults now) and they can share stories about late nights sat around on mom & dad's bed talking it out. This led to some bleary eyes in the morning, but usually they realized that the 'fight' was pointless. They still argue from time to time. But they always make up, usually within 10 minutes.

5 - Remember the romance. Say 'I love you' every day, as many times as you can, then do something to show it. Continue dating. We still go out to dinner, a movie, a walk, flowers, breakfast in bed. She tells me that after 25 years together, she still finds me handsome, and she is still beautiful to me. We each occasionally take a day off from work, just to spend the day together.

That is what the devotion of love looks like. It isn't a feeling, and not something we 'fell' into. It is better now than it was when we started, because we are both really good at it now. It is a skill that improves with use and time. That, to me, is rational love. And we are both so happy, so calm and comfortable in our love for each other. (I read this to my wife before sending it out to make sure that I was reflecting both of our positions on this).

Cheers,

Michel

"If one accomplishes some good
though with toil,
the toil passes,
but the good remains;

if one does something dishonorable
with pleasure,
the pleasure passes,
but the dishonor remains."

--Musonius Rufus

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Consumerism and other news items

2011-08-11T12:27:00.011-05:00

I've gone too long without posting on this, but my friend Rick Heller has written an excellent article in the current issue of The Humanist magazine called, "Slowing Down the Consumer Treadmill". Rick is the editor of The New Humanism, a publication of the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University, and a facilitator of the Humanist Contemplative Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

In other news, I've decided to take my birthday as an opportunity to refocus on personal goals and begin building better habits. Along those lines, I thought it would be a good idea to talk about how 'spiritual practice' really includes all of our daily habits and a conscious effort toward self development, in all areas of our life. I recommend the practitioner keep a daily journal. Although I am a long time blogger and do a lot of writing on computer, I've found that a small traditional notepad is more accessible for this purpose. The Stoic Marcus Aurelius recommended that at the end of the day we review how the day went, what we did right, and where we need improvement. A journal can be just such a place to log these things and give us something to report to nightly.

And for my last news item, I would like to announce that early plans have begun for the founding of a new non-profit organization I will be founding called The Spiritual Naturalist Society. The mission of the Society will be to spread awareness of Spiritual Naturalism as a philosophy, encourage the further development of Spiritual Naturalist thought and practice, and educate others on the traditional wisdom and practices that inspire Spiritual Naturalism. In addition, the Society will exist to help bring Spiritual Naturalists together for mutual learning, growth, encouragement, and fellowship.

The organization will cut across traditional groups, labels, and pigeonholes. Supporters and members of the Spiritual Naturalist Society will be an eclectic group, coming from the world of science, Humanism, Buddhism, Unitarianism, even some naturalistic segments of pagan and pantheist communities. None of these areas can solely be said to comprise Spiritual Naturalism. Scientists are not always spiritual, Buddhists and Unitarians are not always naturalists, but in each of these cases many are. Humanism and Spiritual Naturalism are certainly compatible, but only a subset of Humanists feel comfortable pursuing a ‘spiritual practice’ – even in a naturalistic sense. Yet, significant numbers of people in each of these areas, and more, exist and are growing. They often have far more in common with one another than they do with others in their traditional pigeonholes – in terms of their attitudes, their value systems, priorities, even their very tone and demeanor. Therefore, a new paradigm is needed, and the SNS is designed to help further it.

Stay tuned for more updates on the development of this organization! Although it is under construction, you can go to www.SpiritualNaturalistSociety.org now to join the mailing list to get updates on our progress.

For those interested, Wikipedia has a decent article on Spiritual Naturalism.

Subscribe to The Humanist Contemplative
Share on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
On your mobile phone: text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Happy Humanist Day!

2011-06-21T11:05:00.000-05:00

June 21, 2011 - Today Humanists around the world are celebrating World Humanist Day. It is a time for Humanists to gather socially, re-focus on their commitment to Humanist principles, and help promote the philosophy as a means of positive change in the world.

Wikipedia currently describes World Humanist Day, it's history, and some of the format and activities associated with it.

There is a new site out that explains Humanism called, The Simple Guide to Humanism at www.simpleguidetohumanism.org.uk for those unfamiliar with Humanism. In honor of the day, I'd also like to include a description of Humanism here...

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

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

The Humanist Manifesto III was signed in 2003 by a long list of people, including notable figures from science, education, literature, entertainment, and other sectors. It was a successor to the first manifesto, published in 1933, and the second published in 1973. In the Humanist Manifesto III, the American Humanist Association outlined the following basic principles of Humanism:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

For a reading of these principles explained in more detail, please see the complete Humanist Manifesto III.

Humanist Institutions
Consistent with Humanism's values of Freethought and a healthy skepticism that questions dogma, there is no officially recognized 'authority' for the Humanist life stance. However, Humanist groups exist at many different scales all over the world. Perhaps the broadest organization is the International Humanist & Ethical Union (IHEU). It can best be said to represent the views of over three million Humanists in over 100 national organizations in 30 countries.

Here in the United States, the American Humanist Association (AHA) is the oldest national-level Humanist organization. Another major national organization is the Council for Secular Humanism. Both of these organizations publish magazines and have several types of programs and facilities throughout the U.S. There are many other national organizations growing all the time, such as the Institute for Humanist Studies and the Humanist Institute, for example. Here locally in Houston, the oldest and largest Humanist organization is the Humanists of Houston (HOH).

The History of Humanism
Humanism as an organized, provisional philosophy is relatively new but it is the product of several millennia of human growth and development. Hints of scientific and humanist thought can be found among the earliest nomadic tribes and civilizations. The Ideas of some of the later classical Greek philosophers, as well as the Chinese Confucians, serve to highlight areas where human-centered (as opposed to god-centered) ideas were especially prevalent.

During the Middle Ages of Western Europe, humanist philosophies, such as those of Michael Servetus and others, were violently suppressed by the dogma and political power of the church. Not until the Renaissance of the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries, with the flourishing of art, music, literature, philosophy, and exploration, would consideration of humanism be permitted.

The Enlightenment of the eighteenth century brought the development of science as philosophers finally began to openly criticize the authority of the church and engage in what became known as “free thought.” In the nineteenth century, with the challenges to religion by celebrities such as Mark Twain and Robert G. Ingersoll, the Freethought movement made it possible for the common citizen to reject faith and superstition without risk of persecution.

The twentieth century has seen remarkable influence from science, technology, and Humanist philosophy. Despite attempts of the unscrupulous to twist science to serve their ends, despite continuing local fluctuations in crime or other problems, the overall growth, prosperity, and human well-being remains unparalleled throughout history. This is a direct result of scientific thinking in the solving of human problems.

These historical foundations have led those who reject supernaturalism as a viable philosophical outlook to adopt the term Humanism to describe their non-religious life stance. In 1933 the modern Humanist philosophy was formulated in the Humanist Manifesto and several organizations have been founded around the world since then. It is with such a rich history that we strive to carry Humanism into the future.

Special thanks to Amanda Chesworth, who co-wrote this section on the history of Humanism.

Well Known Humanists
Many notable people have been humanists or humanistic thinkers:

Albert Einstein, scientist
Gene Roddenberry, producer/Star Trek creator
Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President/founding father
Whoopi Goldberg, comedian/entertainer
Carl Sagan, scientist/author
Joss Whedon, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly creator
Leonardo Da Vinci, artist/inventor
Mark Twain, author
Clara Barton, Red Cross founder
Isaac Asimov, author
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder
Confucius, philosopher
Marlon Brando, actor
Jonas Salk, physician/inventor of polio vaccine
Ted Turner, broadcaster
Gloria Steinem, feminist activist
Kurt Vonnegut, author
Philip Adams, author/filmmaker
Margaret Atwood, author/literary freedom activist
Béla Bartók, composer
Luther Burbank, scientist
Brock Chisholm, physician/World Health Org. Director
Francis Crick, scientist
John Dewey, philosopher/educator
Frederick Douglas, liberator
Albert Ellis, psychologist
Epicurus, philosopher
Philip José Farmer, author
Betty Friedan, feminist activist
Erich Fromm, psychologist
R. Buckminster Fuller, futurist/inventor
John K. Galbraith, economist
Emma Goldman, author/revolutionary
Stephen J. Gould, scientist/author
Julian Huxley, philosopher/biologist/UNESCO Director
Robert G. Ingersoll, author
Margaret Kuhn, Grey Panthers founder
Richard Leakey, anthropologist
Abraham Maslow, psychologist
John Boyd Orr, Food & Agriculture Org. first Director
Linus Pauling, scientist
A. Philip Randolf, human rights activist/union leader
Carl Rogers, psychologist
M.N. Roy, political thinker/Radical Humanism founder
Bertrand Russell, mathematician/philosopher
Andrei Sakharov, scientist/human rights activist
Michael Servetus, theologian/physician
Barbara Smoker, author/freethought activist
James Thurber, humorist
Harriet Tubman, educator
James Watson, scientist
Faye Wattleton, Planned Parenthood Director
Walt Whitman, poet
E.O. Wilson, biologist
Frank Lloyd Wright, architect

Please SUBSCRIBE to DT Strain:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Like DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Please help these churches

2011-06-15T09:45:00.000-05:00

Over at the Friendly Atheist blog, a post was just put up alerting us to the fact that Westside Church and Christian Life Center in Bend, Oregon were vandalized with phrases such as, "praise FSM". For those who don't know, that stands for "Flying Spaghetti Monster", which is a common tongue-in-cheek analogy atheists use to criticize belief in God.

That blog, many other nontheists, and myself are saying that this kind of intolerance and vandalism are not acceptable. Friendly Atheist has created a means for donating to help fund the cleanup costs for these churches, and I think that's a refreshing gesture. You can donate through that mechanism in the original post by clicking HERE.

Thanks to Roxie Deaton, President of the Humanists of Houston, for making me aware of this.

Responses on my Graham article

2011-06-14T13:51:00.008-05:00

Sagada pond. (cc) Jojo Nicdao
(jonicdao), Flickr.com.

I recently received a substantial letter of response to my article on Billy Graham and atheism, in the Houston Chronicle, from a reader named Robert. He wrote:

“It's disingenuous to write that you couldn't agree more with Billy Graham's indictment of atheism, when you know that your answers to the questions "Why am I here?" and "What happens when I die?" will be the same as an atheist's.”

Actually, it is by no means guaranteed that the answers of a Humanist will be the same as an atheist. Robert is assuming a broader meaning of ‘atheist’ than is the case, which was a big part of the point of my article. Let me illustrate with an example:

Imagine a person who believes in the supernatural, doesn’t like science or its approach, and believes themselves to be psychic or have a ‘supernatural sense’. However, their beliefs or worldview of what the spiritual realm is like (their supernatural cosmology, if you will) is quite different than a Judeo-Christian one. Let us suppose that this person believes they have astrally projected their soul throughout the planes of existence and have found there to be a great many spirit beings, but no God or gods. This person, because they lack a belief in a deity, lacks theism. Being without theism, they are an atheist. More than that, they are not merely a ‘bad example’ of an atheist. They are every bit as much as atheist as Christopher Hitches, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. Of course, such a person is a very rare kind of atheist, but an atheist nonetheless; fully fitting the complete definition of the word.

The fact that most atheists happen to value reason, evidence, and science is mere happenstance. Surely, it is the very reason they have come to their position lacking theism, but the reason one does not believe in a deity is not a part of the definition. The definition of atheist is not, “One who lacks theism because…” The mere lack of theism is sufficient to be an atheist. To further illustrate the distinction between reason and atheism, consider the opposite: a person who accepts reason and evidence as the basis for their beliefs, but who has concluded that there is empirical evidence for a God. Both of these examples illustrate just how bare-bones and minimally communicative is the term atheist alone.

Now, if an atheist values an empirical approach, then that atheist is also something else; an empiricist, or perhaps a skeptic. Certainly they needn’t consider that their moniker. All of us are many things simultaneously, but choose to go by only certain labels because those are the ones that convey the image of ourselves we wish to convey. People may refer to themselves by whatever term they wish, but that doesn’t change the definition of atheist or of skeptic, and doesn’t exclude their beliefs from corresponding with those definitions.

Robert mentioned the questions of “why am I here?” and “what happens when I die?” but did not mention the other questions of “how should I live?” and “what is right/wrong?” and “what is the meaning of life?” I suspect this may be because the range of answers for an atheist (with nothing else about their beliefs known) is even wider. Here we find that Joseph Stalin is every bit a legitimate example of an atheist as Carl Sagan, neither holding a greater claim to the term. This isn’t an insult to atheism; it is merely the reality of the simplicity of the term. Likewise, you can also have murderous stamp collectors and virtuous stamp collectors. Atheism is one position on one topic (and a topic I personally find of little relevance to the most important things about a person).

Humanism has as a part of its collection of principles a healthy skepticism, an appreciation of the scientific approach to knowledge, and so on. It also has an ethical element which is the compassion and caring for fellow human being I mentioned in my original article. Any person who subscribes to these things, the naturalistic scientific approach to knowledge and the humanistic ethics, is a Humanist (capital H) by the modern understanding of the term. Of course, some of them may not like the term, or prefer another, or may even be unaware of the term despite being a Humanist in substance.

If a person prefers to call themselves an atheist because they like the sting of the term or want to perhaps be a good example in reforming its image, that is certainly their right and I respect that. If they want to use the term because a big part of their emphasis is on the God question, or they feel it is for others and want to make that more clear than anything else about them, that too is fine. What is not fine is suggesting the term encompasses more than it does, and suggesting when we are told someone is an atheist that we can assume they value reason and/or compassion when we, in fact, do not have that information about them at all. It would almost be as if you asked someone about their values and they responded with “I like chocolate”, relying on some cultural connotation about chocolate lovers to fill in the blanks.

Another matter that has come into being lately is among many Humanist organizations which, perhaps in an effort to broaden their base, have become completely incapable of ever printing the word ‘Humanists’ without following with “and atheists”, almost as though the two terms were synonyms. They are not. Humanism is something more than mere atheism, and the differences are culturally and philosophically significant and of great importance. Humanist organizations, if no one else, should be at the forefront of promoting those important elements. Instead, what we see are many Humanist organizations following policies that make them redundant with the many worthy atheist and secular organizations which focus on church/state separation, nonbeliever rights, and religious criticism. Humanist organizations have an additional and important responsibility, which should be programs built around compassionate causes and initiatives, promoting ethical guides to happy living, and being a source of inspiration to people looking for more than mere non-belief. Understanding the important distinction between Humanism and atheism is essential to that focus.

Robert continued:

“Why would secular humanists, who read much more than the average person, want a humanist minister to tell them what to think and to officiate at naming ceremonies(?), weddings, and funerals? (Sermons do tell people what to think, don't they?) A justice of the peace can marry them and a memorial service can substitute for a funeral. And any Unitarian church can satisfy the longing for ritual.”

One would have to ask the many people who have Humanist ceremonies why they chose them for a good answer to that. Robert has already mentioned the Unitarians as a source of ritual for naturalists, and the same justification and role can be made for Humanist ministers (indeed, many Humanist ministers are involved with their local Unitarian churches, as Humanism and UU share an intimate history). However, Unitarian churches may also include those who may have supernatural beliefs, so a Humanist minister would be very much like a Unitarian, but more specifically naturalist.

The term Robert uses, “secular humanist”, refers to a specific kind of Humanist which has decidedly opted to consider Humanism a secular philosophic life stance – an alternative to religion – rather than a religion itself. However, there are also ‘religious humanists’, who have just the same rational, empirical, and naturalistic worldview, but think of ‘religion’ in broader terms and practice Humanism in a more ritualistic style. The founders of modern Humanism in 1933 were more like religious humanists, and established the first manifesto as a declaration of intent to usher in a new era for a naturalistic reason-based religion.

I do not consider myself solely in either camp. I do believe there is a viable role for ritual for the naturalist, and I also believe there are many practices, like meditation for example, which can be very helpful and do not require a supernatural element. But I’ve come to find the word ‘religion’ so imprecise that my stance is: it doesn’t matter whether we consider Humanism a religion or not, and that should be up to each individual to decide for themselves. The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), not long ago, made a declaration that they would drop all the adjectives and simply be ‘Humanists’ and I concur.

Would a “secular humanist”, as Robert put it, prefer the kinds of services Humanist ministers and other secular celebrants provide? Perhaps or perhaps not. But the meaning of the IHEU proclamation was not that secular humanists would shorten their name and subsume the entirety of the word from all Humanists. It meant that both religious and secular humanists would come together and leave it up to the individual whether they wish to call their fully naturalistic philosophy a religion and practice it in that style or not.

“The word spirituality should never be used by anyone who doesn't believe in the existence of a spirit world separate from the physical one. Giving different meanings to commonly understood words is a good way to confuse people and hinder communication with them.”

This ignores the history and origins of the term. There is a naturalistic spirituality which has nothing to do with ‘spirits’ as in supernatural entities – but has to do with ‘the spirit of things’ (i.e. the ‘spirit of the law’ or ‘school spirit’). Also defined as “the essence” of a thing (the essential things in life) or, as the original root word spiritus originally referred to; the breath. For more on this, please see the excellent page on spirituality at naturalism.org (HERE) – particularly the excellent article, Spirituality Without Faith, or the Wikipedia article on spirituality, or my own writing about spirituality at HumanistContemplative.org, such as HERE (particularly, Chapter 2 further down on the page).

On the matter of appealing to popular conception, it seems most people today when hearing the word spirituality think of it as one’s personal life practice and set of values, principles, and most special beliefs. Whether something is in the supernatural or natural realm is becoming less relevant – you know the difference between a ‘spiritual person’ and otherwise when you see them. They may or may not be religious, and may have a variety of beliefs, including naturalism and empiricism. Many believers even, are starting to have interpretations more like the ancient Stoics, who viewed all of nature as one integrated material whole. The question then becomes, 'What is in that natural universe and how do we best come to know it?' Humanists have a healthy skepticism and an empirical standard for answering that question, but they often show that a person can be spiritual without belief in the supernatural. This may be against the grain of the connotation of the word to many, but just as many people go by the word 'atheist' to help be an example against the common impression, many use the word 'spiritual' for the same reasons. Of course, some religious people and some Humanists and some atheists aren’t spiritual at all in their demeanor, attitude, or focus.

“Philosophy became anachronistic after the sciences separated from it. The humanities, which include the arts, are a holdover from a prescientific age and mostly compete with sports as entertainment. Authors of fiction can make their characters say and do anything they please, which has impeded a genuine understanding of human behavior.”

I could not disagree more with this. Science today, is a subset of philosophy and thus part of philosophy. Philosophy goes much further, however, to include the nature of language and meaning, ethics, and more. It is all philosophy, and always has been. Philosophy being ‘the love of wisdom’, anytime we ask ‘what is’ or ‘what ought to be’ we are conducting some form of philosophy. The scientists are merely that subset of philosophers tasked with the observation of the natural universe. They provide our factual basis, upon which we set the rest of our philosophy so as to ensure our prescriptives operate functionally within accurate descriptions of the world.

In fact, science itself is based on the ‘philosophy of science’ or the scientific methodology, which is a philosophic approach to knowledge. Furthermore, when we hear scientist proclaim that we need to cut carbon gasses or that we should brush our teeth, that scientist has left the realm of science and has moved into other areas of philosophy, because they have moved from description to prescription. Our methods are more sophisticated today, but we are doing the same work that Socrates did – evaluating our natural environment rationally as best as we can, and both inducing an deducing the best courses of action to ensure our goals are met.

Ultimately, for an individual, philosophy comes down to the very basis on which he or she lives – how one answers the question, ‘what is the best way to live?’ Further, what practices allow us to form habits and develop character that can move in that direction more easily? This is the central and crucial role of philosophy as life practice today, and science is one small part of that; assigned one narrow but foundational and essential role within it. Without that, one may as well use science to obliterate all life on the planet as easily as cultivate it.

Many thanks and best wishes to Robert for reading and his comments, and thanks to everyone else out there reading and commenting!

Humanist Bible review series: Concord (5/15)

2011-06-08T19:25:00.000-05:00

This is part of a series of reviews on each 'book' within the new book, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, by A.C. Grayling. Click HERE to go to the beginning of this series for more explanation.

“I declare that of all the blessings which either fortune or nature has bestowed upon me, I know none to compare with friendship.” --Concord 16:9

The book of Concord is primarily about friendship, although the breadth of the matter is covered such that one can easily see romantic as well as platonic relationships included. It appears most of the book has been inspired by, or a paraphrasing of, a treatise on friendship (Laelius de Amicitia) by Cicero. Here Laelius and Fannius carry on a dialogue on the attributes of true friendships and the importance of finding them. Concord is one of the shorter books in Grayling’s bible, but packed tightly with good material. As I read I generally try to take note of ‘quotable quotes’ and Concord has had the most so far.

Many a verse is spent illustrating the benefits and value of a true friend, and on choosing friends carefully. Concord explains how life’s experiences are made all the more meaningful when we have real friends with which to share them.

“To begin with, how can life be worth living, which lacks the repose to be found in the companionship and goodwill of a friend?” --Concord 3:4

While some may view friends as a means to some material, strategic, or social end, Concord warns against these shallow kinds of friendships. It explains that affection should be the basis of friendships rather than manipulation or utility.

“If you take away emotion, what difference remains, I do not say between a man and a beast, but between a man and a stone or a log of wood?” --Concord 8:2

On defending such affection Concord notes by asking, “Who would choose a life of the greatest wealth and abundance on condition of neither loving nor being loved by any creature?” (Concord 9:1). Concord even touches on maintaining long term friendships and the occasional need to call a friend to task for a wrongdoing:

“It is a strange paradox that people are not at all vexed at having committed a fault, but very angry at being reproved for it.” --Concord 15:15

Concord’s emphasis on the value of friendship to a rich life, as well as its appeal for affection, may seem at odds with the Stoicism-inspired teachings in the book of Wisdom. In Chapter 7, versus 13-14 of that book, we are told, “Examine appearances by the rules of reason, first and chiefly by this: whether it concerns things which are in our control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.” Of course, friendship is a two-way street, necessarily involving the choices of other people, which are beyond our control, most certainly considered so by the Stoics that inspired that portion of Wisdom.

However, in defense of Grayling’s collection as a whole, it seems that as we move through the books – from Wisdom to Parables, and now on to Concord – it should be clear we are moving beyond the bare necessities of the good life, and on toward the benefits of a fully perfected life experience that includes the luxuries in a more Epicurean than Stoic sense. It is never claimed that friendship is necessary for the good life. In fact, if there is one repeating mantra throughout Concord, it is that virtue must be sought first and foremost because, ultimately, true friendship can only take place within a framework of the good. As Laelius tells us in the very first chapter:

“But I must at the very beginning lay down this principle: that true friendship can only exist between good people.” --Concord 1:13

Thus we are advised in Chapter 16 to put virtue first when we are told, “To seek the good is the first demand we should make upon ourselves; but next to the good, and to it alone, the greatest of all things is friendship.” (Concord 16:16-17).

And so it is that Concord has fortified against advocating the kind of ‘gangster ethos’ we see between criminals and wrongdoing cohorts. In these kinds of “friendships”, the virtue of loyalty is placed above that of the good. Yet, if we understand that true friendship can only take place among those who place goodness first, then we will see that such “friends” are nothing of the kind:

“Let this, then, be laid down as the first law of friendship, that we should ask from friends, and do for friends, only what is good.” --Concord 7:1

As Concord concludes, Grayling attempts to synthesize the worthy approaches of the Stoics and the Epicureans with the following systemic prescription:

“The fair course is first to be good yourself, and then to look out for another of like character. It is between such that the stability of friendship we have been talking about can be secured; when, that is to say, those who are united by affection learn, first of all, to rule those passions which enslave others, and secondly to take delight in fair and equitable conduct, to bear each other’s burdens, never to ask each other for anything inconsistent with virtue and rectitude, and not only to serve and love but also to respect each other.” --Concord 13:5-9

The next part in this series will look at the next book of Grayling's bible, Lamentations.

Please SUBSCRIBE to follow this series:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Like DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Humanist agrees with Billy Graham on atheism

2011-05-17T11:38:00.001-05:00

Billy Graham

The well known Christian evangelist Billy Graham recently wrote an article in response to a question about atheism with the following:

“…atheism has no satisfying answer to the basic questions of life — questions like “Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? How do I know what’s right and wrong? What happens when I die?” Atheism says we are here by chance, and life has no meaning or destiny. Taken to its conclusion, atheism ends in despair.”

As a Humanist minister I couldn’t agree more. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. This, alone, isn’t the problem, but atheism if it is meant as a ‘worldview’ on its own is, as Graham says, bereft of any answers about who we are, the meaning of life, or how we should live it. I once saw an article that mentioned ‘atheist values’ yet there is no such thing. When an atheist has values, they have taken on something additional to “the lack of theism”. And, without such a guide, most people will indeed find themselves in despair at some point.

That isn’t to say that all atheists are purely and only atheists – even if that is the primary label by which some choose to identify themselves. Humanism is a life philosophy that, like Buddhism, does not include gods. Humanism also has a naturalistic view of reality, but that is not so important as its other features. These include a caring and compassion for others and the realization that making the world a better place and living ethically is intimately connected with achieving happiness in life. Such naturalistic moral philosophies predate the Christian model by centuries and have provided a meaningful basis for millions of lives throughout.

Today, as more and more people leave the ranks of the religious, many of them giving up their supernatural beliefs, I – like Graham - am concerned that many of them will end up in despair. Having a religious background, many may be largely ignorant of the basics of secular ethics or a sense of meaning within a naturalistic framework. But Graham has a different solution to the despair of nothingness. He goes on to say:

“But our hearts cry out for something more — something better and more lasting. Down inside we sense that we aren’t here by chance, nor were we made for this world alone. The reason we feel this way, the Bible says, is because God has put this conviction within us.”

The problem with this approach is that it ignores something else we cry out for by our nature, which is for things to make logical sense to us. I believe one reason for the sharp rise in atheism and agnosticism has been due to the advent of the internet. As people become more aware of the rational and logical issues facing faith-based beliefs, it is more difficult to maintain an unshakable belief in something for which there is no evidence, even if it is attractive to us. Humanism also has within it a humble approach to knowledge and claims, limiting them to what can be rationally validated and shared with others.

Through this methodology Humanism, unlike mere atheism, does tell us how we got here, by accepting the current consensus of those who have put in the hard work of studying the evidence. And, as I’ve recently reviewed in Grayling’s Humanist Bible (book of Genesis), this scientifically informed narrative can be a very beautiful and moving one. Carl Sagan has also exemplified this, with his eloquent and marvelous descriptions of nature. This natural explanation of our origins also illuminates why it is that we feel so attracted to the prospect of a permanent, unchanging, and eternal existence – as a simple manifestation of a strong instinctive urge to survive.

But as I’ve explained before, there are ways to come to terms with the impermanent and uncertain nature of our existence, rather than having to convince ourselves of something which – although it might be true if we are very lucky – we have no real solid basis to claim. Some of these methods hearken back to Buddhism again, some types of which could be considered an Eastern form of Humanism, aside from the cultural colorings and supernatural elements that may have become layered upon it in various regions. It teaches mindfulness, compassion, and learning to love and appreciate the experience of life for what it is in the moment – as an end unto itself – rather than as a means to some other end. Other methods that inspire naturalists include the rational Western ancient philosophies such as the balanced life of Epicureanism and the virtuous equanimity of Stoicism. And, of course, modern philosophy, sociology, and psychology add to the wealth of wisdom on happiness and leading a good life. In more general terms, Spiritual Naturalism (which includes some varieties of Humanism) can provide many approaches along these lines.

Thus, while mere atheism may include all kinds of lifestyles, a healthy Humanism or other variety of Spiritual Naturalism can provide a meaningful and happy life of flourishing. My hope is that both theists and atheists will more greatly appreciate the difference between Humanism and atheism.

Motherhood as roadmap to universal compassion

2011-05-04T13:41:00.002-05:00

(cc) Doug Fisher, Flickr.com

Practicing compassion for our worst enemies is advanced contemplative practice, and not something one should expect most people to be capable of without careful education. Without such teachings, many may even misinterpret such a thing as immoral, unwise, or ridiculous.

An article by Kate Shellnut recently made me think about how difficult it is to have compassion for wrongdoers. She quoted Zen blogger noting of Osama bin Laden (OBL): "It’s really hard, even for this Buddhist writing these lines and who is committed to the Bodhisattva vows, to feel much compassion for the man."

Of course, the following in no way suggests any portion of the 'share' of our compassion be diverted from victims to the likes of OBL. However, I wanted to share one method I've noticed as effective for imagining how one could have compassion even for the worst of us. This is by imagining how an otherwise normal loving mother might feel toward her child after having learned they did something horrible, or that they are, in fact, a horrible person who has done many inhuman acts.

In many ways the disgust over their behavior is even greater and sadder for the mother than for others. Even a mother, if a good person, will feel sad for victims - perhaps even more so than those who are not related to the perpetrator (even if she fully accepts that their child is responsible for their own choices). Further, that mother will still see that their child needs to be stopped to protect others, and may even see that they need to be punished or even executed. But this will be separate from their love. Thus, we see that love is distinct from its common outward symptoms (actions such as assisting, defending, protecting, etc). It is an inward disposition, and in contemplative practice we recognize the critical importance of inward disposition as a means of cultivating a character with potential to experience a flourishing life.

What heartbreak such a mother will experience, remembering their child in youth, with all the potential of the world before them, having seen their budding love and laughter. How heartbroken would they be to realize that potential had been extinguished, and how crushing would it be to know that - whatever thoughts and feelings their child had - that their experience in life was so dark that it could lead them to think such horrible actions were acceptable.

In fact, it is through our appreciation that OBL is a part of our human family that, like the mother of a murderer, we are drawn to feel even more for his victims - because we see the darkness in OBL is potentially within us, and came out of a world that we all helped to parent. Another reason the 'mother thought experiment' helps is because it is important to know how tragic is the life of evil doers, so that we might understand how incrementally poorer are our own lives when we dip into harmful behaviors.

There is a reason God is often painted in a similar family-type relationship as our father. This is how those who believe in a loving God read of his attitudes toward human beings when we are bad. Whether one believes literally in such a being or not, the description provides a road map to how we might begin to experience compassion for all beings without exception.

Once I told my own late mother that I thought our goal should be to think of all people like their mothers think of them. She, knowing better than I the power of a mother's love, said, "That seems like a pretty difficult thing to do!" Agreed, but it is the endeavor that counts, and while we might be imperfect in reaching our goal, the degree to which we achieve it yields incrementally beneficial results.

Through careful consideration of the points of view of mothers and fathers (earthly or heavenly) we might begin to see that one can be heartbroken for the tragedy that was the life of OBL, and yet how this does not imply even the slightest refraining from pursuing and punishing the wrongdoer or condoning his actions. Nor does this kind of attempt diminish one bit from the compassion we feel for the victims, and may even help to enhance it.

Please SUBSCRIBE to DT Strain:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Like DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Osama bin Laden & our humanity

2011-05-02T09:18:00.001-05:00

President Obama announces the
death of Osama bin Laden the
night of May 1, 2011.

After hearing of the death of Osama bin Laden last night, I felt I would be remiss not to say something of the occasion here. This, given that the subject of my writing is so often on ethical and philosophic matters that certainly intersect with the issues surrounding this whole event.

Since my central theme at The Humanist Contemplative is generally about personal life practices, the most relevant point here concerns the notion of taking glee in the death of another human being. At first, we might be tempted to say that Osama bin Laden excluded himself from humanity by his actions, but that logic only works within the paradigm of ethics to which I do not subscribe. If I were to see ethics as a top-down rule system whereby we must behave a certain way in order to be part of a social contract with others who also behave, then that logic might make sense - but that view of ethics is mistaken.

Rather, the reason we should be concerned about taking glee in the death of another has nothing to do with any external matter, and has nothing to do with whether or not Osama bin Laden deserves it. The reason we seek to cultivate a virtuous character, including compassion for all beings, is because it is healthy for us and suitable to our best nature. The result of such habits is greater capacity for equanimity and true happiness in life. It's not about him, it's about us.

It should be obvious to everyone that fighting will go on, and there will be many more Osama bin Ladens to come; such people are nothing new in history, and have never been uncommon. It should be even more obvious that none of the deaths caused by this person, or which happened in the long hunt for him, will be reversed. But justice is also a virtue, as is defending the innocent, and we can be thankful that he will not be leading any more acts of terrorism. We can be thankful for the bravery, commitment, and ability of those who fight and sacrifice to protect us and civilization. We can also take solace in whatever degree of consolation this event may have for the families of his victims, even if there are varied degrees to which that consolation is based upon sound philosophy.

At the very least, however, let us not slip into the temptation to revel in the death itself, hoping that he suffered just before passing, or treating the matter flippantly or humorously, or with gloating. Regardless of what our foe deserved, our revelry in such base things harms ourselves - harms our own humanity and empathy, and that will have wider effects on ourselves and our community than intended. This is why we no longer drag murderers through the streets or hang them in public exhibitions - because of the kind of people that makes us.

Let us consider the cost of this act and remember that, in war, there are no winners; always, peace is preferable. Even the most victorious wars are failures to have prevented the conditions that led to them. War always has costs that leave none of us coming out ahead. They cost us lives, fortunes, and perhaps most importantly, they cost us that version of ourselves and our lives that could have been. I've heard it claimed that Osama bin Laden caused the war in Afghanistan, but the war was our choice. We should remember that no one has the power to make our country go to war but ourselves. If that was a proper choice, and if the killing or capture of bin Laden was proper, then let us own it because it is important to remember and reflect upon what is in our control and what is not.

We can take this time to be thankful and solemn; regretful that we found ourselves killers in order to do what we believe was necessary. Times such as these are always sacred, even if the subject of them is not. If we simply refrain from wallowing in vengeful revelry then we will have done much to help ourselves, as individuals and as a people. If we want to take even more advanced steps, we can take this time to reflect on clever things we can do to make more profound changes to the world that effect the underlying conditions for terrorism and war. And, in the most challenging of empathic tasks, we can even think of the tragedy that a person wasted their gifts of leadership, status, and charisma on such harmful ends. To have orchestrated such an act as 9/11 and his other attacks, and then evaded the world for almost a decade required great skill. How much fortunate we would have been had he chosen to apply that skill toward noble causes? It is for this reason, among others, that even if his death were rightful the entire matter is a tragedy worthy of solemnity.

Here we stand over the corpse of yet another human being. Although it required brave and noble sacrifice, and although our responses may have been the best we could muster, this recurring result can be neither our best, nor the summit of our hope. We must bow our heads, return to humility and compassion, and commit ourselves again to wider solutions - we can do even better.

Please SUBSCRIBE to DT Strain:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Like DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Humanist Bible review series: Parables (4/15)

2011-05-01T12:00:00.004-05:00

This is part of a series of reviews on each 'book' within the new book, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, by A.C. Grayling. Click HERE to go to the beginning of this series for more explanation.

"The good man replied, 'For every ten words of abuse I hear from you, I will not retort one.'" --Par 1:9

While Genesis gives us a sense of awe and wonder before nature, and Wisdom provides many worthy insights, it was in the book of Parables that I first began to realize that Grayling's bible is a work I could fall in love with. The structure of this book is a tapestry of stories, many of them nestled within one another. Were I not taking notes for a review, it might be easy to have gotten lost in its layers. However, that journey is made pleasant by the charming nature of the tales.

Some of the stories are inspiring, touching, or moving; others funny - and all of them interesting and full of wisdom. The funny ones, with their anthropomorphic animal characters, are almost like watching the Looney Tunes; as when Daffy Duck gets his comeuppance thanks to his own moral shortcomings. Both cases have their roots in the likes of Aesop's Fables. Other stories have their inspiration from other works, or again showing Christian biblical reflections at times. The book's first tale of King Plousios and the beggar Penicros gives us a collection of wise precepts, but as the stories compound we move beyond mere euphemism to show through the power of myth the intimate connection between knowledge, wisdom, love, and happiness.

"The stranger said, 'In ancient Athens the philosophers thought out their best ideas walking up and down their groves; nature sobers us, and instructs us.'" --Par 13:3

Throughout Parables is a strong expression of a joy for learning, exploration, and for sharing knowledge with our fellow human beings in a fellowship of discovery. Throughout the course of several tales, these intellectual fellowships provide layers of depth to platonic friendships as well romantic, and eventually to the societal relationship. In such manner, we "carry" one another, as the stranger puts it to Charicles. But, as the timeless motto suggested, that exploration must extend to an intimate knowledge of self:

"It is well said that at the farthest point of our journeyings what we meet is ourselves..." -- Par 16:7

Along with praise of learning is another call to humility, such as Aristotle's lesson that he who says, "I do not know" has attained the half of all knowledge (Chapter 11). Other important tangents to knowledge are highlighted as well, such as the value of sincerity and patience (Ch 19, Ancient of the fig tree). Justice and charity are advised, such as in the examples of the wisdom of Judge Adasnes (Ch 8-10), the two beggars (Ch 20), and in the parable of the Chamberlain and the Goatherd (Ch 21). Integrity is also brought forth in chapter 12:

"What is the worth of mere words, if their true meanings make no difference to what a man does?" --Par 12:7

Even as we are warned about the trickery of politicians through the story of the monkey and the crocodile (Ch 17), Parables ultimately expresses a vision of seeing in our own society its best potential and daring to dream that it could be so (Ch 18).

Throughout these many stories, we come across anecdotes, allegories, and themes that are familiar to us, either in their surface form, or in important issues to which they address. Slavery is mentioned once (Par 10:18), but only as an incidental mention. One might have wished the opportunity to be used to be put it in more clear moral terms, given the common criticism of the Christian Bible on the matter. Chapter 10 is an extremely close approximation to the story of the judgment of King Solomon (Kings 3:16-28, Christian Bible). Although monarchies play central roles in many of the stories, due to the time periods that inspired them, it is clear in other stories that they exist for those in a time of democracies.

Parables' treatment of women is especially praiseworthy; advising husbands to listen to their wives (Ch 5) and in presenting women as equal participants in learning (Ch 14), travel, discovery, wisdom, and instruction (Ch 23) as well as in making their own decision in selecting their mates (Ch 7). Although homosexuality is not referenced specifically, Par 7:22 expresses that love cannot be a crime. Lastly, some familiar iconography surfaces for new purposes once again, such as in the reference of the "city on the hill" as an expression for what our society could be, and the final chapter recalling the Bodhi in which two learned sisters make a school 'under a tree'.

"...tales of wisdom, along with tales of courage and kindness, are among our best guides in life." --Par 9:1

The next part in this series will look at the next book of Grayling's bible, Concord.

NEXT PART: CONCORD

Please SUBSCRIBE to follow this series:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Like DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Humanist Bible review series: Wisdom (3/15)

2011-04-25T19:32:00.008-05:00

This is part of a series of reviews on each 'book' within the new book, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, by A.C. Grayling. Click HERE to go to the beginning of this series for more explanation.

In this review we'll look closer at the book of Wisdom. Throughout the book, threads of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and even a little Sun Tzu can be found. Strands of Socrates, Plato, and other Greek philosophies are also present, even so as to include the same phrasings, analogies, and terminologies found in these and other prominent works. Again, there are continued echoes of Christian biblical structure and themes, or alternatives to them, but this should be no surprise since the wisdom stream within Christianity was also inspired by Greek thought in certain ways and parts. As with The Good Book in general, an effort is made to summarize these thoughts into a cohesive overview. As Grayling states in the fourth chapter, "The gaining of knowledge is accumulation; the acquisition of wisdom is simplification" (Wis 4:7).

Grayling provides an ample collection of advice regarding self discipline, and the benefits of wisdom as a salve for the suffering. Taking the example of Epictetus, Grayling employs the analogy of slavery and freedom; the latter being possible through understanding of wise teachings and their implementation by our reason, kept firmly at the helm.

Equally emphasized is the importance of humility in all things; among them our approach to knowledge. In the first chapter he sets about describing the importance of admitting what we do not know:

"The wise say of things they have not heard, 'I have not heard', and of the things they have not seen, 'I have not seen'." --Wis 1:14-15

The theme of humility is continued concerning provisional beliefs, contingent upon the latest evidence. Both the Christian bible and this Humanist one have their fools, but the contrast between them paints a vivid picture of the distinction between the Humanist and Christian thought when it comes to belief. In the Christian scriptures, Psalm 14:1 says, "the fool is one who has said in his heart there is no God". But the Humanist fool is one who claims to know what they have not seen and whose beliefs are immutable. As Grayling writes, "No one came to be wise who did not know how to revise an opinion. The wise change their minds when facts and experience so demand. The fool either does not hear or does not heed" (Wis 4:12-13).

In my own work, I am in the process of constructing a naturalistic spiritual practice I call Synthophy, and in that work I draw on many of these same traditional sources of wisdom. What I call the Control Doctrine is largely inspired by the Stoics, and also something on which Grayling spends a good deal of time. He draws out the distinctions between what is in our control and what is not. One cannot help but be reminded of the Serenity Prayer, but this is no surprise since both this book of Wisdom and that Christian notion were inspired by the Stoic control doctrine. As Marcus Aurelius advised himself, we should learn to focus on what we control, and when we do, then our happiness is not contingent upon externals. As Wisdom states:

"You will be unconquerable, if you enter only into combat you can win." --Wis 12:6

Continuing with Stoic inspiration, Grayling also provides summaries of their thoughts on judgment, and how it is not things which harm us, but our judgments of them. Along with this is advice on accepting the world as it is and as it must be. In one passage reminiscent of Ecclesiastes in the Christian bible he writes:

"For there is a proper time for all things; including a proper time to grieve, and to prepare to die." --Wis 10:10

But while acceptance of what we cannot control and open mindedness are praised, we are also cautioned to stand on our rationally sound principles, without bending because of pressure from others: "[Someone wise] will teach that as a rock is not shaken by the wind, so the wise are steadfast through both blame and praise" (Wis 4:17). We are advised to accept critics with confidence: "For if anyone should propose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt but he who is deceived about it" (Wis 18:16), and to live rightly and not in a vulgar manner: "Avoid vulgar entertainments; but, if occasion calls you to them, keep alert, that you may not imperceptibly slide into vulgar manners" (Wis 17:7).

Given the many numerous categories of things which could be considered 'wisdom', Grayling must have had a challenging time compiling Wisdom without it coming of as a detached laundry list of maxims. He has organized it well and in a sensible manner, but while its advice is profound and worthy, it lacks the poetry and eloquence of the previous book of Genesis. This is due to the nature of the subject matter, surely. However, to his credit, Grayling has employed at least one strategy in holding the work together in a beautiful way. At the end of each and every chapter of Wisdom, we are asked repeatedly: "The question to be asked at the end of each day is, 'How long will you delay to be wise?'" In the final chapter, the final lesson is that we must not merely study or talk about wisdom, but apply it in our lives without hypocrisy or delay. Finally, the repeated question is answered, "And the great lesson that the end of each day teaches is that wisdom and the freedom it brings must daily be won anew." Wise words.

The next part in this series will look at the next book of Grayling's bible, Parables.

NEXT PART: PARABLES

Please SUBSCRIBE to follow this series:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Like DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Humanists must stand with Christians on religious freedom

2011-04-24T18:21:00.004-05:00

Chinese police turning people away
from planned Easter service, (c) CNN.

As a Humanist and an atheist, I have often written on the importance of church/state separation. Often I write to Humanist audiences and as a Humanist minister my subjects often involve the matter from the point of view of nontheism - in other words, the right to practice no religion. However, the separation of church and state benefits more than just the non-religious or Humanists. It also protects more than the state from the undue religious influence of one group over another. The wall of separation between church and state also protects religion from the heavy hand of the state.

Today in China, as reported in an article by CNN, the Police are moving to block Christians from worshiping and celebrating Easter. They are blocking more than 500 people from leaving their homes as part of an effort that includes disrupting a planned Easter service for Shouwang Church, one of China's largest unregistered (illegal) churches. The church reports that nearly 200 churchgoers have been arrested in the past month. The Chinese "government" detained several reporters there to obfuscate its shameful acts before the world.

When the French outlawed the wearing of religiously meaningful dress for Muslims I wrote in detail why such an approach was harmful and wrong. At the time, I was asked why I don't defend Christians the same. While Christians were not the subject of that article, the universality of the principles I outlined should have been obvious. This Humanist (and I dare say, by definition, all Humanists) is declaring support for the Christians bravely practicing their beliefs despite such oppression, not only on Easter but every day, in every place around the world where any person's right to speak and practice their beliefs is infringed upon.

Humanist Bible review series: Genesis (2/15)

2011-04-22T10:05:00.005-05:00

This is part of a series of reviews on each 'book' within the new book, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, by A.C. Grayling. Click HERE to go to the beginning of this series for more explanation.

As one might expect from the title, Grayling's book of Genesis paints a narrative of the beginning and development of the universe, earth, life, and humanity, consistent with the modern scientific understanding of a natural universe. Just as early man's experiences began, it begins with our immediate surroundings; a tree in a garden. It is here we begin to learn how to understand our world. In this book, the role of the fruit of this tree is to fall to the earth, alerting us to gravity.We are then taken beyond the garden to the whole of the earth, beyond to the cosmos to other worlds, space, time, and that part of nature that can know itself - humanity. Such is the grand sweeping scope of the first short chapter of Genesis.

The mirroring of themes to the Christian bible's garden of eve and the tree of knowledge are immediately obvious. I was surprised that Graying did not succumb to the temptation to begin the book, "In the beginning..." But here it is almost as if this bible has been pulled from a parallel universe - how the bible might have looked if the history of mankind had followed a more rational course and had been more informed of the facts.

However, Genesis also interweaves commentary on our place in that universe. This includes the birth and role of reason and praise for inquiry over 'legends'.

"Knowledge is freedom, freedom from ignorance and its offspring fear; knowledge is light an liberation." --Gen 2:11

Impressively, Genesis even lays out some of the most central elements of the scientific method. From the principle of uniformity of physics (Gen 13:6-12), to the law of conservation (Gen 5:4), to the primacy of evidence (Gen 13:13), and Genesis 13:1-3 even lays out the principle of Occam's razor.

It is clear this title serves to reference the genesis of the universe and everything in it. But it also serves as the genesis of the book's Humanist thesis, laying out the very foundations of what will follow.

Although the entire book is in a rather poetic form, in parts it veers specifically into tight rhyme. Genesis, chapters 9-10 are an especially beautiful and moving section which take us from the emergence of star systems and planets, to the rise of life and the evolution of more complex life forms.

"Nursed by warm sunlight in the primeval caves, organic life arose beneath the waves." --Gen 9:4

The entire chapter underscores the beauty and wonder of our natural universe, and praises those who inquire boldly into its secrets through the hard work of observation.

"Thus came our world and life, a natural realm, from nature born, with nature at the helm." -- Gen 10:11

The next part in this series will look at the next book of Grayling's bible, Wisdom.

NEXT PART: WISDOM

Please SUBSCRIBE to follow this series:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Join DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Humanist Bible review series: Introduction (1/15)

2011-04-22T01:53:00.006-05:00

This is the first part of a series of summaries, review, and commentary I will be publishing here on The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, by A.C. Grayling. In this recently released book, Grayling has pulled together a vast collection of wise and knowledgeable thoughts about nature, reason, life, and ethics. These have been drawn from sources throughout history, from East to West.

[CNN Review of the book]

While the book is 'secular' and has no mention of afterlives, spirits, or gods, it has nevertheless been written in the format of the Christian Bible. Grayling has said this is because the format is inviting and allows the reader to take pieces and parts from the itemized sections as needed, and because the biblical format makes it clear this book is in that same tradition of offering into our conversation, a take on our place in the cosmos and on goodness and ethics. As such, the book contains 14 'books' within:

Genesis
Wisdom
Parables
Concord
Lamentations
Consolations
Sages
Songs
Histories
Proverbs
The Lawgiver
Acts
Epistles
The Good

The poetic prose of the book is immediately obvious and quite beautiful and moving in many parts. This kind of language, what I call sacred tongue, is something I have argued for as an equally legitimate and important mode of speech for communicating essential aspects of ideas which are not possible with, or even hindered by, precise technical language. This approach conveys elements of phenomena such as feeling and the first-person experience because their metaphorical tones connect with our many varied faculties of the mind, including emotion and richer memories, and call upon our pattern recognition inclinations to help us draw parallels. As such, this kind of tone is helpful in seeing the 'big picture' and this, in turn, gives us a grander sense of the awe and wonder of the universe and of life.

"So now I too expound in song, soft-speaking, to touch with honey the rim of truth." --Gen 12:10

As such, this kind of writing is just the sort of thing that would be useful for quoting in devotionals, ceremonies, and special moments. As a Humanist minister, I'm certain it will come in handy and I plan to become very familiar with it.

To that end, I will be publishing this series one book at a time, beginning with Genesis in my next part. I will summarize what it's chapters are about, mention some especially inspiring or noteworthy quotes, and give some commentary. By the end of these 14 books, it is hoped the series may serve as a kind of guide for users of the book to better find passages on the topics they seek - especially given that Grayling did not provide notes, traditional references, or an index.

NEXT PART: GENESIS

Please SUBSCRIBE to follow this series:
RSS to The Humanist Contemplative
Join DT Strain on Facebook
Follow DT Strain on Twitter
Get new-article text notices on your mobile phone:
text "follow dtstrain" to 40404

Humanist Meditation 101 (part 3 of 3)

2011-04-16T07:53:00.003-05:00

(cc) Mitchell Joyce (HckySo), Flickr.com.

In the last two posts (begin at Part 1), I discussed the purpose of meditation, physical position, meditation aides, body scanning, and focusing. Today I will conclude with notes on going deeper, immediate after effects, and long-term effects...

Going Deeper

Even though a wandering mind and the need to correct its focus back to breathing is to be expected, it is a fact that over time you will become better able to keep your attention on your breath without any other thoughts arising and for longer periods of time between mental wanderings. This increase in ability is noticeable within sessions, but also continues from session to session if you practice meditation regularly.

With that increased ability to maintain attention, comes other effects during the time you are in a meditation session. These include: greater environmental awareness, loss of body, and consciousness detachment.

The first, and easiest to see, is greater environmental awareness. During a meditation you come to notice all of the little and subtle sounds and sensations around you – the clock ticking, birds, cars driving by, the wind, people talking in the distance, and so on. The fact of this awareness as you progress may seem contradictory since these things can be distractions which cause you to have to reset your focus back on your breath. While that is true, it is also true that before you were meditating many of these things would have gone completely unnoticed by you. The reason you notice them during your session is a sign that your mind is becoming still. Throw a pebble into a stormy ocean and its effects are lost, but in a still pond its ripple effects are significant. While the perception of these previously unnoticed things is indeed another set of thoughts to be set aside so focus can be returned to the breath, they are also a sign of progress because a still mind is one of the aims of meditation.

The second effect you may experience during a session may take some practice, perhaps over several sessions, before you start to get glimpses of it. Loss of body is, of course, a figurative description. But the general sensation will be a lack of perception of the body; it’s little aches, itches, tiny movements, etc. This will bring about a feeling of detachment from the body, but is simply the result of an extreme focus. Nevertheless, this feeling – when it happens – is a sign of improvement in your technique.

The tricky thing about loss of body, is that it is not only rare at first, but tends to be very brief. If one is consciously focused on trying to have a loss of body experience, then it is impossible, as the experience results from a lack of conceptual thinking. Once the experience happens, it often ends quickly. Usually, as soon as a person begins to notice that they are experiencing a loss of body sensation, the noticing of it causes the mind to put a label on it, and turn the experience into a mental object. The moment you think, “I’m having a loss of body experience!” you have now lost your focus. Before, you had begun to enter a state of experience without language and labels and without distinctions between things. But calling your mind to think of the loss of body experience creates a distinction between it and other experiences, and between you and your environment. Inevitably, all of the usual concepts flood back into your consciousness. The mind looks to see if the body is there and, of course, it is. Your mind begins ‘checking the mailbox’ to see if any messages (sensations) from the body have arrived – which, of course, they have.

But like everything else, the mind improves over time. With continuous practice, these experiences become more frequent, easier to enter, and last longer.

Another experience you may have during mediation might be called consciousness detachment. We, as persons, are made up of many functions and properties (aggregates) which, working together in complex relationships, yield an overall impression of ‘self’ which we think of as ‘us’. These include memory, emotions, logical ability, selection capabilities, perceptions, and more. But if we were to slowly imagine these properties peeling away, and if we were to look at them individually, there is no one property we could convincingly identify as ‘us’. We are, rather, a function of all of these activities. Another one of these aggregates is consciousness. This is not so much awareness of certain information (such as awareness of our surroundings or of the contents of our thoughts). Rather, this is the actual first-person experience of ‘likeness’ – i.e., what it is ‘like’ to be an experiencing being. One might imagine simpler animals or insects having this feeling of what it is like to be them, without the sophistication of integrated memories of any complexity. Some consciousness philosophers and neurologists call this sensation qualia.

After a person leaves behind all other sensations of body, their surroundings, and other tangible thoughts, their minds enter another state. Here they experience that consciousness in a completely detached form, without the usual accompanying thoughts, feelings, opinions, judgments, memories, labels, sensations, concerns, and other impressions. They simply ‘exist’. Here it is said one can experience the universe ‘as it really is’ bereft of our usual framing of it.

Immediate After Effects

What short-term after effects can one expect from a quality meditation session? The most basic effect is a relaxed and low-stress state, usually accompanied by a sense of patience, contentment, and pleasantness. In addition to these, the mind will be much more focused, controllable, and deliberative. If one were to watch a speaker just after, for example, it would be easier to focus on the speaker for an extended period, while all other distractions would be easily set aside. If one were to engage in some kind of mental task, they would likely be more effective at it, in a heightened state of concentration.

This ‘laser focus’ usually disperses over time. As the day’s activities carry on, the mind has to handle more things simultaneously and attention can become diffused. Certain things have a great tendency to diffuse attention quickly. One of the best examples of this is listening to, or watching, media such as music or television.

Importantly, you have a degree of choice in how quickly or slowly your attention becomes diffused, based on your intent. If you purposely begin filling your mind with a number of ruminations and concerns, you can diffuse your attention more quickly than if you try to remain mindful and in a semi-meditative-like calm after your session.

Longer Term Effects

Longer term effects are usually enhanced when meditation is combined with a solid philosophic foundation. Most of the skills developed in meditation relate to specific philosophic principles and can be used to live these principles more skillfully in life. If meditation were only about the experience during a session, and only about greater focus and stress relief, then it would not have the profound place in spiritual practice that it has had for thousands of years. The general concept of meditation is that, while it may begin as specific sessions, we eventually learn to expand meditative mindfulness into the rest of our lives, thoughts, and actions.

For instance, the first of the deeper effects mentioned earlier, still mind, is something that can be taken into our lives as we live out our day. Beyond that, the ability to notice subtle things that comes from a still mind, can alert us to disruptions and the like arising in our minds before they have the ability to consume us. It may also make us more aware of subtleties in the behavior of others, enhancing our ability to act toward them with empathy.

Having experiences of separation from our bodies and consciousness detachment can create a sensation of oneness with the universe. The ability to enter into such states can create a greater tendency to see things from more of a universal viewpoint than from the viewpoint of our shallow self centered perspective. Some neuroscientists study the physiological effects of meditation on the brain, and these studies have so far lent credence to the notion these changes are more than mere placebo effect. In meditation, we have an integrated practice-philosophy which involves active alteration of our neural architecture, along with mental habits and abilities which facilitate greater application of wisdom teachings, and greater integration of them into our natural responses.

It is in this manner that mindfulness is increased, which can then interject into our normal judgment centers, and better monitor our own thoughts and feelings about things, rather than allow them to consume us mindlessly.

Humanist Meditation 101 (part 2 of 3)

2011-04-15T10:56:00.004-05:00

(cc) Mitchell Joyce (HckySo), Flickr.com.

Last time I began description of meditation with its purpose and notes on physical position. Today I will continue with discussion of meditation aides, body scan, and focusing...

Meditation Aides

You will also need to think about how long you’re going to meditate. 15 minutes may be a good amount of time for beginners; for some 20 minutes may be ideal. You can eventually work up to 30 minutes. Some meditate longer, but if you want to establish a daily routine it is important to select something reasonable and sustainable within your schedule. You’ll need to establish a way to alert yourself when the time is up. This can be done simply with a stop watch, a kitchen timer, etc. If you are in a guided meditation the guide will alert you. There are also smartphone meditation applications that allow you to set a time and have nice relaxing chime sounds to choose from. There are also online videos available with guided meditations featuring voices, music, etc. However it is achieved, a simple chime after a designated time is probably best for beginners.

Some people light incense when meditating or performing other rituals. The olfactory sense (smell) is one of the most intimately connected senses with our memory centers. Therefore, having a special scent is a good way to shift our state of mind into one that is conducive to the focus of the ritual or practice.

With your surroundings established and your physical position selected, you are now ready to begin.

Body Scan

The first part of the process should be a mental review of your body to ensure you are actually relaxing it. Often we hold muscles tightly clenched without even realizing it. Therefore, you should take a deep long breath and let it out through your nose. Now imagine the top of your head being scanned. As the line around your head moves down over your face, your muscles in that area should relax: first the temples, forehead, brow; next your cheeks, jaw muscles, ears, neck, etc. Move the encircling line down over your neck, shoulders, down your arms to your fingers, down your back, stomach, legs, feet, and toes – relaxing each group as you go. Do not go too quickly so you may consider all areas. If you feel you need to, you can slowly return to the top of your head.

Now take one more deep breath and release your attention from your body. From here after, your breathing should not be controlled – just let yourself breath in and out automatically without trying to direct it, regardless of how fast, slow, deep, shallow, regular, or irregular that is.

Focusing

Now, keeping your eyes closed, focus your attention on your breath. There will be a temptation to control your breath or try to make it regular or deeper, but you should avoid that temptation. Simply watch your breath without directing it. The portion you should zero in on is the air moving just past the edge of your nostrils, as it moves in and out. You will hear it and feel it moving past the nostrils like a tide coming in and out. Try to focus exclusively on that experience without thinking about it in ‘words’. Also ignore any visualizations, sensations from your body, or other thoughts.

At this point, you may find it helpful to count your breaths. If you do so, as you inhale do not think anything – just focus on the inhalation. Then, as you exhale, think, “one...” You can think this word as lasting as long as the exhale, still focusing attention on the air moving out of your nostrils. As you breathe in, try to think nothing in between other than simply observing the inward breath. Breathing out, think, “two…” Go up to five and then return to one. Remember, while you are watching your breaths and counting along, you are not controlling them in any way – simply letting them happen as your body naturally reflexes to breathe.

After you exhale and count a number, if you are rested, there will probably be a few seconds before your body naturally induces the next inhalation. Because you are focused on the inhalation during it’s time, and you are counting during the exhalations, this short period may be the most tempting for your attention to wander. As you complete a counting, such as, “twooooo…”, try to let your mind simply drift off of the end of the word and remain still, thinking of nothing at all until the next inhalation arises to focus upon.

By the way, returning to 1 in the counting in a cycle is important. If you do not return in this cycle from 5 back to 1 and instead continue on to higher numbers, it will be easy for the counting to end up on ‘autopilot’ as your mind wanders off to other things. The return is the indication that you really are paying close attention to the counting. Furthermore, if you fail to remain focused on your breath, you can attempt to simply get through one whole cycle 1-5, thus making the challenge one of bite-sized chunks. Then, you can attempt another cycle – always remaining in the present.

Wandering & Correction

As you attempt meditation, your mind will inevitably wander. Things will pop into your head such as the day’s to-do items, what others around you might be doing or thinking, what the random little sounds you’re hearing might be, physical discomfort, interesting or random memories, or perhaps more concerning ruminations about various life problems. As this happens, it is important to catch yourself and return your focus exclusively to your breath. If you did not, then meditation would not be unlike daydreaming or lucid dreaming. Perhaps a nice endeavor in its own ways, but not meditation. As these things arise in your mind, simply see them as objects and set them aside, moving your focus gently back to the breath.

Despite your best efforts, your mind will do this many times, and will need to be brought back to the breath many times. Just as important as catching and directing yourself back, it is also essential that you not let this frustrate you. Remember, thinking about the fact that you’re not thinking about your breath is also ‘thinking about something other than your breath’. Instead, simply bring your attention back to your breath as though it were a solitary task – without frustration because of past needs to do so, and without aggravation because of a fear of needing to do it again in the future. As you meditate there is only the present, and in that present only the breath. Do not think of this wandering as a ‘failure to meditate’ or as an exception to meditation. The wandering, and the following corrections in focus, are all part of meditation – all is just as it should be.

Next time I will conclude this series on meditation with discussion of going deeper, immediate after effects, and long-term effects.

CONTINUE TO PART 3

Humanist Meditation 101 (part 1 of 3)

2011-04-13T19:36:00.006-05:00

(cc) Mitchell Joyce (HckySo), Flickr.com.

I recently spoke, as part of a panel on meditation and Humanism, at the American Humanist Association's annual conference. I will be providing more details on that presentation soon. However, for now I thought I'd share a little of something I'm writing on meditation basics. This explanation will take place over a few parts. Here is the first part for today:

Humanist Meditation 101

Breathing meditation is the most general kind of attention practice, and necessary in order to perform other kinds of attention practice. It will therefore tend to be the most commonly practiced and introductory of forms. However, foundational though it may be, mastering meditation requires just as much discipline and skill as mastering any other practice, so it would be a mistake to consider it necessarily easier or less advanced than other practices.

While meditators may appear to the outside observer to simply be relaxing, very specific mental exercise is taking place within. A person may seem exactly the same in two sessions but may have had a wonderful success in one session, and performed poorly in another. It is normal for beginning meditators to find meditation trying and difficult. At first, they may even wonder what the big deal is. But over time, noticeable improvement is made, and you will know it in your session as you attain deeper levels. The improvement will also manifest outside your session in the form of greater attention span, depth of attention, focus, and peace of mind. The ability to focus attention and increase awareness is what allows for greater inner and outer mindfulness – and these abilities are foundational to many other practices, as well as the overall endeavor to internalize many philosophic teachings from mere knowledge to a more intuitive level.

Purpose

The basic premise is simple: our untrained minds generally tend to bounce from topic to topic, state to state. This sort of associative jumping about is called ‘monkey mind’ by the Buddhists. It is very noticeable in children, but adults usually suffer from it as well. Even very intelligent people (sometimes especially intelligent people) will tend to ruminate over all kinds of things endlessly. This is seldom a matter of efficient ‘multitasking’. Rather, it is a sort of daydreaming that, at best, results in a lack of focus and being ‘someplace else’ than present. At worst, ruminations can be a source of great frustration and stress. In either case, mindfulness is not possible in such a state because mindfulness involves constant awareness of one’s self, one’s thoughts and feelings, one’s environment, and one’s situation in the present, both internal and external.

Meditation allows us to improve our ability to consciously direct our attention where we decide it will go, and for how long. This is done much like working out a muscle. In meditation, we select something constant upon which to focus. One of the best and oldest things to select is the breath – because no matter your circumstances, your breath is always with you as long as you are alive.

Position

First, it is important to consider your body position. Most people have seen meditators seated with legs crossed, hands either folded in the lap or upturned and resting upon the knees, and a straight posture. These traditional positions may work for many people but we are not so concerned with any one specific position. The key concern, rather, is this: you should sit in a manner that (a) allows you to breathe easily, (b) allows your body enough comfort that you can remain in that position throughout your meditation without your body becoming a distraction, and (c) is not so comfortable that it encourages you to fall asleep.

It is therefore not recommended that you meditate while lying down. Some may choose to sit in a chair, but the chair should allow your posture to be straight enough to breathe well – not slouched. Sitting up straight is one area where initial muscle discomfort will be worth the practice of learning to maintain the posture. As for legs, conditioning over time may enable you to become capable of sitting on the floor with them crossed if that is currently uncomfortable. However, that is a separate physical practice and endeavor - distinct in many ways from the practice of meditation per se. Thus, a seated meditator can become as proficient at meditation as a cross-legged meditator. Again, regardless of the position, the essential matters are that it allows good breathing, is not distracting, and will not make you fall asleep. Essentially, you should use a posture that will allow you to ‘forget about your body’ during the duration of your meditation.

People meditate with eyes open or shut, but shut is generally the preferred. Further, when shutting your eyes, it will be important to learn not to visualize various imagery (something that can be challenging at first for visual thinkers). Instead, the vision should simply be ‘switched off’, even including internal ‘mental visions’.

The mouth can be slightly open with the jaw hanging loose. A good position for the tongue can be let loose, but touching the back of the two front teeth and roof of the mouth, but this may vary for individuals. Again, the key should be relaxation and no distraction.

In the next articles I will continue with notes on body scanning, focusing, going deeper, immediate after effects, and long-term effects.

CONTINUE TO PART 2

Golden Rule Day: April 5th

2011-03-30T09:53:00.000-05:00

The Golden Rule, 1961
(c) Norman Rockwell estate

In the week leading up to it, the Charter for Compassion will be raising awareness for this worldwide celebration of the Golden Rule on Golden Rule Day, April 5, 2011. The former nun and comparative religion writer Karen Armstrong, who founded the Charter for Compassion, announced the kickoff with a video on Golden Rule Day, which you can see below. The Charter will be posting more videos on its Facebook Page in the coming week, including from Pakistan, Jordan, Canada, and Seattle in the U.S. On this page, below, I have also listed many of the examples of the Golden Rule found in religions, philosophies, and traditions from around the world and throughout history.

Please take some time in your own life this week, especially on April 5th, to consider this universal and profound principle of treating others as you would wish to be treated, consider ways in which you might become better and more consistent at living this way, and tell others about Golden Rule Day on April 5th! I will be doing this, as I believe (as Epictetus taught) that virtue and wisdom are synonymous, that (as the Dalai Lama said) if we want to be happy we should practice compassion, and (as Jesus says in the book of Luke) that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves :)

The Golden Rule and similar ideals take many forms in many faiths and cultures. Here is a sampling of various forms:

1. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:12

2. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 6:31

3. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:18

4. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mark 12:31

5. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Mark 12:33

6. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Luke 10:27

7. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:10

8. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:14

9. If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
James 2:8

10. Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.
Ancient Egyptian, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.

11. One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.
African Traditional Religions, Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria)

12. Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wise to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.
Baha’I, Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings

13. And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
Baha’I, Bahá’u’lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, 30

14. Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Buddhism, Udana-Varga 5,36

15. Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
Buddhism, Sutta Nipata 705

16. Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Confucianism, Analects 12:2

17. The essence of all religions is love, compassion, and tolerance. Kindness is my true religion. The clear proof of a person’s love of God is if that person genuinely shows love to fellow human beings.
Dalai Lama

18. Compassion is not religious business, it is human business, it is not luxury, it is essential for our own peace and mental stability, it is essential for human survival.
Dalai Lama, 1989 Nobel Peace Prize

19. If we really want happiness, we must widen the sphere of love.
Dalai Lama

20. Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."
Confucianism, Analects 15.23

21. Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.
Confucianism, Mencius VII.A.4

22. The Sage...makes the self of the people his self.
Daoism, Tao Te Ching, Ch 49

23. One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.
Hinduism, Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8

24. This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Hinduism, Mahabharata 5,1517

25. Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity.
Humanist Association of Canada

26. Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you.
British Humanist Society

27. Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.
Islam, The Prophet Muhammad, 13th of the 40 Hadiths of Nawawi

28. One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated.
Jainism, Sutrakritanga

29. What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Judaism, Talmud, Shabbat 3id

30. What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.
Hillel, Judaism, Talmud, Shabbath 31a

31. We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive.
Native Spirituality, Chief Dan George

32. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
Philosophy, Immanuel Kant, Categorical Imperative

33. Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means.
Philosophy, Immanuel Kant, Categorical Imperative

34. Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.
Philosophy, Socrates

35. I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.
Sikhism, Guru Granith Sahib, p. 1289

36. What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.
Stoicism, Epictetus

37. Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Taoism, Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

38. We affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
Unitarian Universalist First Principle

39. We affirm and promote justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
Unitarian Universalist Second Principle

40. An' it harm none, do as ye will.
The Wiccan Rede

41. That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.
Zoroastrianism, Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

42. Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.
Zoroastrianism, Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29

43. Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes.
American Proverb

44. Live and let live.
American Proverb

45. If you love something, set it free.
If it comes back, it will always be yours.
If it doesn't come back, it was never yours to begin with.
American Proverb

46. If you love it, let it grow.
American Proverb

Walking with Nature

2011-03-23T13:40:00.001-05:00

(cc) Ossi Petruska (tiltti), Flickr.com

The ancient Stoics had a concept called, 'walking in accord with Nature' which was part of a good life. This was a vast notion that included a great many interrelated thoughts. This stemmed from the fact that the Stoics viewed all of Nature as one integrated whole, including ourselves and everything about us. I've tried to summarize what general kinds of things are included in the concept below, but further investigation of exactly what is and what is not meant on each element would be needed for those interested:

"Walking with Nature" includes:

1) General knowledge and wisdom about nature (how the world works, including the ways of natural events, other people, and society) and acting in ways that are beneficial given that.

2) Understanding my own nature as a social and moral being, and acting in healthy ways consistent with that.

3) Cultivating greater consistency and ability to do #2 through mindfulness and practice.

4) Cultivating a love, wonder, awe, and appreciation for the beauty of the universe as it is and not as I would prefer it to be.

5) Acceptance that all things happen because of prior causes and every unfolds just as it is 'supposed' to.

On natural disasters & belief

2011-03-15T14:37:00.001-05:00

(cc) U.S. Pacific Fleet, Flickr.com

Like many of us, I have been moved recently by the tragedy which has taken place in Japan, and have continuing concerns for the people there. After viewing some of the incredible footage of the waves which overtook urban areas, one can only imagine such devastation. Some towns and neighborhoods have been completely wiped away and the death toll seems likely over 10,000 from last reports.

It seems to frequently be the case after these kinds of major disasters for people to talk of 'acts of God' and speculate about causes of supernatural agency. Indeed, this has been thought about by people throughout history. Ancient Greeks, for example, would attribute floods to not having paid enough tribute to Poseidon. Today, most of us now understand why earthquakes and resulting tsunamis happen. The overwhelming evidence gathered by those who have carefully studied the situation have shown it has to do with plate tectonics and stresses that build up in the earth's crust. There is apparently no mystery to the process in general, as difficult as it may be to predict it or deal with the tragic human consequences.

In pointing this out, I mean no disrespect to those who have various religious beliefs. But I think its important to communicate about how different are the worldviews of different subgroups of people. Many people with supernatural beliefs may not understand how strange it seems to many of us that there would actually be people in modern times who seriously attribute natural disasters to the actions of invisible entities like gods or other spirits. To draw a causal link between moral behavior and natural disasters seems so bizarre and incomprehensible to some of us that it truly underscores just how incredibly diverse are our two mindsets and our two pictures of the universe we occupy.

Some of the faithful similarly find it so hard to imagine not having these beliefs that they suspect the others may be denying the beliefs in word only and think we secretly believe them or at least wonder about them. Some faithful I have spoken to don't seem to fully comprehend just how completely out of the question the prospect of supernatural agency in natural disasters (or in general) is for a naturalist-minded person. They may not realize that many of us seriously, deep down, do not consider for a microsecond the idea has any legitimacy at all, finding it almost incomprehensible ourselves that someone could give it even momentary credence, much less have a committed belief in it.

This explains why, unfortunately, it is so easy for naturalists like myself to slip into insulting-sounding phrasing when addressing those beliefs. We mean to communicate just how outlandish the concept seems to us, but it often seems the only way to do so is to reference other examples which both sides may agree are equally unlikely (like the Tooth Fairy for example, since both sides are not likely to ever hesitate for a moment over whether or not she exists). While these analogies may serve the purpose of communicating the severity of disregard many naturalists have for the likelihood of particular supernatural claims, they also seem to be comparing believers to children or to stupid people, and are therefore very insulting. Or, the faithful may suspect that the naturalist is exaggerating and that they really don't have an equally deep non-suspicion of the Tooth Fairy as they do for God - which, in reference to many of us, would truly be a mistake.

Some naturalists don't care if they are insulting, or perhaps even intend to be insulting. But for those of us who really do not believe that faithful people are less intelligent and sincerely want to be respectful to all people regardless of their religion, it creates a challenging problem. How do we make sure we are adequately communicating that we really, really don't consider the possibility of "a supernatural being making earthquakes to punish us for our behavior" to be a possibility worthy of serious consideration? How do we ensure that, once we have communicated it, the other side understands just how deep the view is and how completely absent any suspicion of it being true is in our minds? How do we communicate the baffling feeling we get when we see that others sincerely believe these things, without sounding insulting or disrespectful of their beliefs?

Further, how do we communicate the fact that our dismissal of such possibilities as worthy of serious consideration is not taken with hubris or taken flippantly, but that we have arrived at our beliefs sincerely as best as we have been able to honestly assess them? So often, people on all sides tend to vilify those with differing beliefs or assume unwholesome motivations. While some people genuinely are intellectually dishonest or have malicious intent, many people with incredibly different views about the nature of our universe are equally good, sincere, intelligent, honest, and humble people and it is a shame when they fail to recognize one another.

One solution would be for naturalists to remain silent, but I think that it's important for people of different beliefs to have meaningful dialogue about them. That is an important part of us all getting along with one another, rather than building up misconceptions about one another.

The good news is that, regardless of why we all think natural disasters occur, we can nevertheless work together to help those afflicted, and that is the most important thing.

Skeptic and humanitarian reformer challenges religious establishment

2011-03-02T12:16:00.007-06:00

(cc) Sim (tassie.sim), Flickr.com

In a place where a big religious majority reigned, quite a lot of people believed what religious leaders told them, and they followed all kinds of superstitious beliefs, attributing things to divine action. They thought they had a soul that would survive death, or so they were told.

But then came a philosopher who challenged that with a strong skepticism. He told people, don’t believe something because it’s in scripture, or because your religious leaders tell you it’s true - only believe what you can verify for yourself to be true. He also told them that things didn’t happen because of divine providence, fate, or randomness, but because of cause and effect. He said all things that happened did so because of the conditions that lead to them. And he went further. He told people that they themselves were the product of these conditions and causes, their minds were the sum of many different faculties and functions, and they had no permanent self.

When people asked him, “What about the ultimate cause of existence?” or, “What about the afterlife?” he answered that those questions were not important to having a happy life, and they were not necessary to relieve their pain, worries, and suffering. He himself had tried both luxurious wealth and strict religious self denial, and none of it had delivered what it promised.

Instead, he taught them practical ways to calm themselves, focus their attention on positive things, practice moderation, be more aware of their world, be more mindful of their destructive emotions and handle them better, and develop their empathy to be more compassionate to one another. People only imperfectly practiced what he taught, and over time a lot of other ideas (some he would likely oppose) were layered on top of his views as they spread into many cultures.

Nevertheless, he did all this without ever reading Socrates or any others from his academy, without the compassionate examples of Gandhi or Jesus, without the ethics of Kant, without the rational or scientific methods discovered during the Enlightenment, and without the benefit of modern neuroscience (which is now studying his methods). That’s because he did this 2,500 years ago.

This skeptical heretic was named Siddhartha Gautama, and for his wisdom he was called the enlightened one, or ‘the Buddha’.

Prerequisites to ethical understanding

2011-01-19T15:44:00.001-06:00

Equanimity is more rare a treasure
than pleasure. (cc) Mark McQuitty
(Tingy), Flickr.com.

I've noticed it is sometimes difficult to convince some people of why ethics matters. Recently I've realized this is because there are certain realizations that must be achieved before ethics can be comprehended.

By ethics I do not mean such things as the Ten Commandments or other authoritarian rules. Those are merely extortion and have little to do with true ethics.

One of the reasons some people are incapable of understanding the nature of true ethics is because they still believe that wisdom consists of, or results in, avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. However, pain is unavoidable, and pleasure always fleeting.

Thirst for pleasure is unyielding. Any particular instance of pleasure never lasts and yet there are always new opportunities for pleasure. So pursuing pleasure is like trying to horde water flowing in a stream with your bare hands. There is nothing necessarily wrong with pleasure, but as a path to the good life it is both pointless and unnecessary as a subject of pursuit.

What we may find over time is that something else is far more important to the good life - more rare, and difficult to capture, but also more lasting once obtained - which is equanimity, contentment, or true happiness. Although pleasure may temporarily distract us from our lack of true happiness, it is quite a different thing from mere pleasure, in both its form and the manner in which we can obtain it and hold on to it.

Meanwhile, on the matter of pain, over time we may find that although it is unavoidable, we can learn how to confront it.

But in pursuing the good life, first we must abandon the notion that wisdom is about avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. Then we must understand how to cope with pain, tell the difference between happiness and pleasure, and learn that the former is the more central to a good life. Rather than 'avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure' we move to 'handling pain and pursuing long term equanimity and peace'. Only once that shift has been made is someone ready to comprehend what true ethics is about, and why they ought to be ethical.

A message inspired by Dr. King

2011-01-18T06:48:00.002-06:00

Yesterday I spent a little time viewing interviews with, and documentaries of, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his struggle against injustice and inequality. There was a particular aspect that struck me on this occasion, likely one of many which are relevant to our nation today.

In his interviews and speeches Dr. King often spoke, not only of freeing blacks, but also of freeing whites. He noted that segregation had two bad effects, in that it gave black people a false sense of inferiority and gave white people a false sense of superiority. He referred to the situation with those white supremacists as a psychological harm from which they needed to be freed, as a matter of having compassion for one's enemies. In his most famous 1963 speech, everyone remembers his use of the phrase "free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we are free at last". But more of the quote reveals who precisely the "we" pronoun refers to:

"...when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"

So everyone, whites included, will give thanks that they are free. Free from hate, free from the burden of constant struggle to maintain dominance, free from the psychological harm of evil to the mind and conscience. Dr. King fully understood and realized what Gandhi understood through the doctrine of karma and what Socrates and his students understood - that when we do evil we harm ourselves, and that the oppressor is victimized along with his victim.

This is the message our nation needs to hear as it struggles obsessively to maintain dominance over the world. Since we abandoned non-entanglement principles after World War II, our history has been one of continuous warfare. Only the names and locations have changed. Meanwhile, we have grown our military far beyond several of the next-sized militaries on the planet combined, comprising a substantial amount of our resources as we continue into debt. Further, we have divided these expenses into a different category, psychologically setting apart other expenses as "discretionary" - as if the money we choose to spend on our massive military is not at our discretion. We pretend to ourselves that these expenses and such a military is necessary to 'defend' our nation. Yet, at the same time, that military is not solely at home. Over our long period of warfare from WWII to the present, in our relentless effort to gain tactical domination over the globe, we have extended a network of permanent military bases within the territories of other sovereign nations. Yes, at their request or with their permission in most cases - but not without contention from locals and not without financial or spiritual costs to us as a people. And while we speak of military use as a 'last resort', when one maintains such a gigantic military dominance and widespread presence, the temptation to resort to it whenever a challenge arises becomes so great as to be nearly irresistible. This was made clear by our shocking and unimaginable turn of national character as we embraced a doctrine of self-initiated wars of choice.

And as we spread ourselves more and more, we make ourselves broad targets and we give ourselves much to lose. With so much to lose, and taking more hits, we feel more and more threatened rather than more safe. We fear that letting up any at all will result in our cities being bombed and our nation falling to enemy forces. We falsely believe that the proper response to feeling threatened in this way is to seek greater control. We believe if we had more control, more bases, more military might, more violations of personal liberty, that we will be more safe. Yet this only broadens our target and further inflames our adversaries. Thus we continue in a never-ending cycle of fear and power mongering; a trap of our own creation.

There is a reason some nations, even those with little or no military, are not hated and threatened by others. Yet, unfortunately, many of us cannot even see the insanity of our situation as it has become in the last decade, let alone the last six. We have become normalized to it, or forgotten our way. But Dr. King's message holds true between nations just as it does within nations. Isn't it time we began to let go of the fear to which we've become enslaved, shrug off our heavy burden of the master, and began to seek greater brotherhood with our neighbors?

Dalai Lama: non-religious people can be good too

2011-01-04T07:21:00.001-06:00

The Dalai Lama has over 1.2 million 'likers' of his Facebook page. It's probably maintained by assistants I'd guess, but it seems to be official in that it has inside information on his travels, schedule, and seems to be real messages from him.

Anyway, he wrote recently about the relationship between goodness and religious belief...

"My belief is that the various religious traditions have great potential to increase compassion, the sense of caring for one another, and the spirit of reconciliation. However, I believe that a human being, without religious faith, can be a very good person - sincere, a good heart, having a sense of concern for others - without belief in a particular religious faith."

We Humanists would agree! :)

[See also: Why this Humanist admires the Dalai Lama]

Progress vs consumerism

2011-01-03T21:30:00.001-06:00


Merry Consumas! (cc) khaybe, Flickr.com

Especially as a person gets older and they see their incomes go up while their free time goes down, it becomes more and more tempting to simply buy things for people for the holidays. With online shopping it's become even easier, and many people are now getting gift cards. Between those two, gift selection has become little more than a few clicks of a mouse and a deduction from the bank account - and it feels about as meaningless. Many people want something media-related, such as movies, music, and the like and these kinds of products are becoming more virtual and easier to obtain and transfer, making the process all the more shallow. This is not only an issue when it comes to problems with consumption, but also with the real meaning and value of a time where giving and sharing something real is important.

But this past holiday season my wife and I made some progress in our aim to make things less focused on consumerism, which I was happy about. We both gave more presents that came from things we made ourselves, and spent our own time on, rather than bought purely in stores. As an artist, I painted some pictures and my wife made baked goods.

But we still have a ways to go. We still bought several things from stores, bought online, and gave some gift cards. When asked for our wish lists by friends and family, we also asked for purchased media and other goods. So now that we're at the start of a new year, I'm looking ahead at birthdays and next winter solstice and trying to plan things out. After all, the issue has not been so much about money as it has been about the much more scarce resource: time. Therefore, it seems to me the really meaningful gifts are those that involve giving of that more precious commodity. This can take the form of making things for others, or of spending that quality time directly with them.

But how do we tell people, "No, I'm not going to give you that season of your favorite TV show you've told me you wanted"? And, when they ask us what we want, how do we tell them, "Don't get me anything you're going to simply buy"?

This year, when I gave my dad a picture I had painted of his beloved dog, he doted over it and really seemed to appreciate it far more than any gift card or store bought item I'd ever gotten him. So that answered for me the first question. Even if people tell you what they want, they'll more appreciate something they can't simply go buy themselves. As for the second question, it might help them to ask for something specific like, "I'd like to spend an afternoon with you" or "I'd like one of those scrapbooks you like to make".

Of course, time being what it is, we're likely to see less gifts exchanging hands, but I think that's ok. None of this is really about stuff we need. Oh one last thing - if you have kids, instead of asking them, "what do you want for Christmas?" how about, "What are you going to do for your friends and family for Christmas this year?"

My hope is to eventually transition to some specific sets of personal rules whereby I do not give gifts unless they are something I put time and thought into, and perhaps some other rules of thumb to make gift giving occasions more meaningful.

Charter for Compassion live webcast Thu, Nov 18th

2010-11-15T19:22:00.000-06:00

Karen Armstrong

Photo: (c) Charter for Compassion.

This Thursday, November 18, 2010, the Charter for Compassion will be celebrating it's one-year anniversary with a live webcast, taking place 10:00am CST (Houston time). Viewers will be able to see it then by visiting www.charterforcompassion.org.

When the Charter was first unveiled I reported on it, which can be read HERE. The project was initiated by former nun, author, and religious historian Karen Armstrong after winning a prize from TED for her presentation on the topic. The Charter was then developed over about a year and 9 months and involved leaders from multiple faiths and others. By 10 months into the process 150,000 people from over 180 nations had submitted suggestions for the charter and a Council of Conscience then formulated the final draft. It called for all people and ethical centers to recommit themselves to the golden rule. Since then, there have been efforts to promote it and causes which are consistent with its message.

One of my aims in my articles, essays, and occasional speaking engagements, has been to reassert the central and foundational role of compassion in Humanism so I, of course, endorse their efforts. The webcast on the 18th will include talks on compassion from Karen Armstrong, Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, Matthieu Ricard, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Chade-Meng Tan, Krista Tippett, Fred Luskin, and more.

Twellow adds Humanism category

2010-10-29T19:16:00.000-05:00

Twellow adds Humanism category.

Photo: Twellow logo (c) WebProNews.

Twellow Humanism!

In response to my request, the website Twellow (www.twellow.com), a "yellow pages" for Twitter users recently added Humanism as a sub-category to its Religion & Spirituality section. The popular website allows users looking for interesting Twitter accounts to follow to browse by topics and categories, as one would in a yellow pages telephone directory. It also has a handy feature called Twellowhood, that lets the user find people in their city.

I use Twitter to put out announcements of my new articles, as well as some other occasional notes that may be of interest to my readers. As such, I wanted to update my profile on Twellow. When selecting categories yesterday, I noticed there were many other faiths and traditions listed under the Religion & Spirituality section, but not Humanism. So I emailed them the following request:

I am writing to ask that you please add Humanism as a sub-category under Religion & Spirituality. Humanism, though a minority, is a major tradition with a long history. Humanist organizations, both local, national, and international exist all over the world. In many European nations their populations are significant. There is a Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University. Many notable figures such as scientist Carl Sagan, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, and noted writer Kurt Vonnegut are Humanists, as are many Nobel prize winners today.

Humanists outnumber some of the sub-categories you already have listed, and many are twitter users. While Humanism is non-theistic, so is Buddhism. Like Buddhism, Humanism is more than mere atheism and has specific principles.

I am a Humanist minister who writes one of many Humanist columns on Humanism for newspapers and other publications (in my case, the Houston Chronicle and Examiner) and would appreciate being able to list myself by my actual tradition.

For more information, please see:

International Humanist & Ethical Union
http://www.iheu.org/

American Humanist Association
http://www.americanhumanist.org/

Council for Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/

Humanism at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_%28life_stance%29

Thank you :)

Daniel Strain
Humanist Minister

This morning, to my surprise, Twellow responded with the following:

Hi Daniel,

I am pleased to announce that "Humanism" has been added to Twellow's 'Religion & Spirituality' category. The respective URL of this new category is provided below.

http://www.twellow.com/category_users/cat_id/3008

Please be sure to follow @twellow (http://www.twitter.com/twellow) for future category additions and updates.

Thank you for your category suggestion and also for your continued interest in Twellow!

--
Chad Sweely
Support Analyst
Twellow.com

So I went back to my profile and added myself under the new category. In the process, I discovered that currently the number of Twitter accounts falling under the Humanism category outnumber those in the categories of Baha'i, Gnostic, Hare Krishna, Hinduism, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Age, Santeria, Scientology, Taoism, and even Unitarian Universalism. There are 16 other categories outnumbered by Humanism, which are other sorts of things, such as Interfaith or Feng Shui, for example.

I have made a request long ago to MySpace to add Humanism to its list of religion choices in the drop-down menu on the Details section of a person's profile. There was no response. Yesterday I was inspired to ask MySpace again to add Humanism - and got back a similar 'we'll look into it' form letter. I guess we'll see. If you'd like to contact MySpace and join me in requesting Humanism be added, you can click here.

Christian writer: why being gay is not a sin

2010-10-26T19:11:00.001-05:00

Stacey Johnson Donovan,

(c) Stacey Johnson Donovan.

Today's post is from guest writer Stacey Johnson Donovan. Stacey writes romance novels and poetry. Her blog is, The Poetry Habit
***

Most people understand how this works, but just in case.

First off, don’t talk to me about Leviticus. Don’t even. Are you doing everything in Leviticus? Really? Every time you have your period, you go off by yourself for seven days and you don’t touch anything for fear of getting your lady cooties on it? And on the eighth day you take two pigeons or two turtles to a priest and have them sacrificed? And you don’t wear any clothes with mixed fibers…no rayon/spandex, no cotton/polyester? Your church doesn’t let any handicapped people near the altar? You think buying slaves is fine? If you believe everything in Leviticus, I think you are a terrible person, and also a very weird person. Seriously. Just shut up about Leviticus.

All right, what about the New Testament? Well, it's good to be a little knowledgeable here. When Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he had just visited an area where people were having orgies in the temples, castrating themselves in honor of Venus, and having sex with child prostitutes. In that context, his talk about people exchanging the natural for the unnatural is probably a little more specific than being gay and lesbian. As far as Corinthians goes…no one is really sure what the Greek words “malakois” and “arsenokoitai” really mean. The most likely bet is that one of them refers to married men who use child prostitutes, which is in fact disgusting.

The truth is, I take Paul’s opinion with a grain of salt anyway, because he seemed to be okay with slavery also. I don’t know anything about slavery in his time and region, and I doubt that it matched the horrors and holocausts of slavery in the Americas, but I’m sure it was wrong. Anti-abolitionists and segregationists dug up Bible verses supporting their positions, too, but in the end most people listened to their innate understanding of good and evil.

Paul was human, a product of his era and his culture. I think it’s okay to recognize that people have evolved and become more enlightened in some ways over the centuries. As far as I can tell, Jesus was kind of hoping for that.

Speaking of Jesus, let's move on to the Gospels. What does Christ Himself say about same-sex couples?

Nothing.

If it’s important, why didn’t He mention it? If you believe He’s the Son of God, and perfect, I think it would be sort of heresy to suggest He just, like, forgot. You could say they neglected to write down the anti-gay rant part of the Sermon on the Mount, but whatever, I could argue that they left out the part when he said, “Blessed are the gays, for they are God’s favorites.” And honestly, my guess would seem more in character than yours.

The most logical conclusion is that Jesus didn't care if people were gay.

What did He care about? We know his Big Rules are Love God and Love One Another. Other favorite topics include taking care of poor people and working on improving yourself instead of going around judging others. Now whether you’re a Christian or not, you are almost certainly doing a better job at these things than I am, but you’ll probably still admit that just focusing on these things is plenty of a challenge for one lifetime.

Even if a Christian can't convince herself that it's okay to be gay, she should ask herself why other sins aren't condemned with the same fervor. Why aren't judgmental people kept away from children who might pick up their bad habits? Why aren't people who aren't generous enough with their money (i.e., almost all of us) ostracized? The argument that gays aren't trying to change doesn't hold up. Are you trying to become someone who sells all her belongings and gives all her money to the poor, like Jesus suggested? Is that going to happen soon? If not, then who are you to get up in arms about this one thing? And if so, I'll buy your elliptical machine, if it's cheap.

Jesus in New York

2010-09-17T19:08:00.000-05:00

Statue of Jesus and the twin towers,

(cc) Michael Dolan, Flickr.com.

A friend recently posted on his Facebook wall about the parable of the good Samaritan. In this familiar tale, a Jewish traveler is beaten, robbed, and left for dead. Others walk by, including a priest, without helping him. Then a Samaritan (a member of an ethnoreligious group once numerous), stops and helps the Jew. Many of us take the parable as a simple story underscoring the importance of being kind to others, but its lesson is much deeper.

I have actually heard some individual Christians try to qualify the ethical dictate to 'love thy neighbor' by saying that neighbor means other Christians, or Americans, or literally those living around you. They do this in a poor attempt to reconcile the teachings of their savior with the massive military of their country, and what they see in their own lives as the practical necessity of violence in certain cases.

But the whole meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan is an answer to the question, "who is my neighbor?" It was significant that a Samaritan helped the Jew. The term 'good Samaritan' was seen as an oxymoron by Jesus' Jewish audience who would have been shocked to hear this because Jews and Samaritans disliked one another. Tensions were high and the Samaritans had desecrated Jewish temples and had even given Jesus a hostile reception. Yet, here was a Jew teaching other Jews that their neighbor was the Samaritan.

It would be as if Jesus in today's time told a story to Christians in which a Muslim was the hero, and then said: the Muslim is your neighbor, and you are to love him as you love yourself.

Such humility and nobility of character shames us all.

It's unfortunate that so many who call themselves Christians do not take seriously the greatest teachings of the one they claim to follow. It's *easy* to love the neighbor who dresses like you, goes to your church, or lends you sugar on the weekends. This was not Jesus' profound prescription.

Many Christians do try to live by Jesus' teachings, and we need more of them in the spotlight. My father would be the first to tell you he is not a 'perfect' Christian (there are none, of course, as there are no perfect people). But in a modest church in a run-down part of his small town, he decided to help the poor. He played host to the poor, the elderly, the homeless, drug addicts, prostitutes, and others simply on hard times; sharing conversation with them over coffee and a doughnut. Believe it or not, there were times he even took Jesus' example and washed their feet. He never questioned whether or not these people deserved their condition, or whether they would make use of his help to set themselves right, and he never admonished them. That was his 'program' for the poor: compassion. The rest fell into place. Many of them did begin to see a return of hope and improve their condition, and some simply enjoyed doughnuts and coffee.

In the book of Matthew, it is written that if someone tries to sue us for our tunic, we should give them our cloak as well. Peter asks Jesus if we should forgive others as many as seven times, and Jesus responds "seventy times seven" times. Point being, by the 490th time we surely would have lost count.

I am not a Christian by any common use of the term. When it comes to the unknown or the improvable, I prefer the humble approach of making claims only regarding what I can measure and prove to others. As a naturalist, I hold no supernatural beliefs, yet we all have the ability to understand truth when it is presented to us. I have found similar truths in Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Stoicism, and other philosophies; and in these lessons of Jesus there is truth. I know this by the evidence of their efficacy in my life and in the numerous examples I've seen and read in the lives of others.

While I have lost people close to me at other times, I did not lose anyone close to me in the tragedies of 9/11, or any similar attacks. But it is the right and the responsibility of everyone to support and convey wisdom when and wherever it is needed, as well as they can understand it.

Judging by his parable of the good Samaritan, it is easy to know what the Jesus of scripture would say were he to visit New York today. Not only would he say to let the Muslims build their center, but once it had been built he would tell the families of victims of 9/11 to invite those Muslims into their homes, to feed them, and perhaps even to wash their feet.

And if Jesus were to come to New York and when you had heard what he'd said, the counter-intuitive profundity of it would shock you to your core. And, if you truly loved Jesus, you would then realize how huge was the gulf between where you had come to and his teachings; and you would fall to your knees in shame.

But the best part would be what would come next. Because after you had put his teachings into practice, you would understand why he had told you to do this.

The heart of the approach found in the philosophy of Jesus, the Buddha, and others when it comes to one's enemies, is reliance on the fact that there is goodness in everyone, and certainly when you're talking about large groups of people. When others see complete sincerity and kindness, they cannot help but be transformed by it. No one wants to consider themselves "the bad guy". Jesus' teachings are wise because they recognize deeper truths about how human beings operate. They are based on a transformation of the human heart, moved by extraordinary acts of peace, courage, and compassion - especially in the face of danger and hostility.

But Jesus' philosophy is meant to be applied in full, without reservation. If you extend one hand, with the other holding a weapon 'just in case', then what would be an act of peace, humility, and sacrifice becomes an ultimatum. The message is twisted into something like, "I'll offer you peace if you behave the way I want, but if you don't then you're going to get it". This is about as far from Jesus' teachings as one can be, and as such the technique loses all its power.

Your enemy must see and know that you are trusting him. This convinces him that you believe there is good in him, and you are willing to risk yourself in order that the two of you may find it in one another. But it also shows that you believe so strongly in peace that you are willing to give your life for it if you must. Only such a risk and sacrifice has the transformative power in the heart of others - the same transformative power in the story of Jesus' sacrifice which built a faith of billions.

This is what Mohandas Gandhi understood when he forbade his followers to use violence in resisting British rule in India (something which they imperfectly followed). It was the pearl within Dr. Martin Luther King's struggle for equality which endeared him and his cause to so many. It was the Buddha's intention in teaching compassion for all beings without exception.

Thus, you have to be willing to risk - and yes, it is risk because many times an enemy's heart may not be transformed, or it may take longer to transform it than the time until more deaths occur. So many of us are willing to die for a cause - as long as we get to go down with a machine gun in our hands. But this is not the cause which Jesus assigns us. The question is, are you willing to die for his cause; for the cause of peace?

Yet, after doing as Jesus said, breaking bread with the Muslims at the center in New York, and caring for them in your home, you would realize that what he had commanded was not just about helping the Muslims. While the Muslim would leave with a fuller belly and cleaner feet, you would have gained something as well. You would have felt the deep healing such humility, kindness, and forgiveness can create. Then you would see that in the effort to transform the heart of your enemy, yours had been transformed.

_______________
Special thanks to Joe, whose post on the parable of the good Samaritan inspired this article.

To those against the Quran burning: you're doing it wrong

2010-09-08T19:00:00.006-05:00

Book burning. (cc) Michael
Bina (mrtwism), Flickr.com

As many know by now, a small church in Gainesville, Florida has gathered national attention with its plans to burn copies of the Quran this September 11th. Muslims, other Christian churches, General David Petraeus (U.S. commander of the war in Afghanistan), the U.S. Attorney General, and even the President have all been urging the church's pastor to call off the event, but their approach is misguided.

At least as far as the General, Attorney General, and the President are concerned, the argument has been that such an event will inflame public opinion, incite violence, and endanger U.S. forces. Firstly, if one was of the mindset of those in this Gainesville church, then confrontation would be expected; perhaps welcome. As for U.S. forces, part of their duty is to fight for our freedom of self expression, so from these folks' perspective, not putting on their event to lessen danger to the troops would undercut a major reason for having troops in the first place.

But worse, the real problem with this line of argument is that it is based on fear. It attempts to motivate with the fear of violent reprisals from extremists. The very endeavor of terrorism is about motivating people through fear of violence. In that regard, this approach turns the President, the General, and everyone else voicing this argument into the media services center for the terrorists. In order to terrorize a people, you must do two things: violence, and make broad threats of further violence unless compliance takes place. People who try to motivate by threatening further violence from terrorists are simply saving the terrorists time and expense on the second part of the terrorism formula. Osama doesn't need to make another video because Obama already has.

Consider that the people in this church already have a mindset based on fear - fear of islam and what it means, and this argument is only more of the same. To make matters worse, the pastor has been getting death threats, which only serve to justify his fear-based views and see himself as some kind of warrior or potential martyr. Fear should never be used as a tool, no matter how good you think your cause or purpose.

The right approach is the truth. The real reason why members of this church shouldn't burn the quran has nothing to do with fear of reprisal. Is that why you don't burn qurans? Simply because you're afriad of Muslims attacking you? If this fear didn't exist, you'd be burning Qurans? I hope not. Let me share with you why I don't burn Qurans...

I am not unaware of the fact that Islam does not equal or necessitate terrorism. I understand that most Muslims are not terrorists and do not condone terrorism.
I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. If I am offended by some Muslims' choice on where to put a mosque, or even by the terrorism of some, it doesn't justify similar behavior. My behavior is based on my values and standards; it is not to be determined or controlled by the actions of others. How I behave is about who I am, not about who they are.
I have tolerance and respect for the beliefs of others, even if I don't share those beliefs. I do this because I would want the same in return, and because I know that's the only productive way diverse people can proceed in the future.
A love for learning gives me a natural revulsion at the idea of destroying books. A respect for reason and thinking brings me to reject the notion of 'dangerous ideas and thoughts'. I believe thinking people can learn about all things, evaluate them, and come to good conclusions without censorship or banning things.
Love of my fellow human beings makes me considerate of their feelings. Even if I think they have bad ideas, I separate the ideas from the person. If I disagree with them, I will try to discuss with them in the spirit of brotherly love.

These are the reasons why we should not burn Qurans, and they are the only legitimate reasons to present. When we resort to fear based arguments, we ourselves forget those principles above. Before long, we start to believe what we're telling the people in Gainesville - that fear of reprisal is the reason for not burning books. If burning the Quran was right, then no fear of reprisal should stop the people of that church or this nation. But, alas, it isn't right, and that's the point.

The issues burdening the people of the church in Gainesville run deeper and are more broad than this one topic. They don't see that, ironically, their position at its core runs counter to these American and Christian ideals and virtues. The only road back from their dark place can be a loving and truthful one. Unfortunately, walking that road may take longer than the time until this planned event, but if we had all been promoting these positive points, perhaps some with a wider conscience at the church may have been reachable. Perhaps they still are.

No matter what happens on the 11th, let us remember that these people are burdened by their own demons, and more of the same toward them is not the way out.

_________________
Comment, Tom B:
Hatred does damage to the 'hater'. Violence invites retaliation. Fear is a very unpleasant emotion. So if one wants to be an unhappy, fearful person inviting others to hurt one, go for it. Personally, it's a lot easier to just live in an imperfect world trying to 'get a grip' on one's emotions and 'power' through 'stuff.' Oh, and courage is precisely the refusal to let fear govern one.

Comment, @nervoustwit:
Finally someone says something sensible on this subject. You're right. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. That's not just a biblical idea, any mature adult of any belief system would agree that it is a sensible way to live. The fear factor that dominates the dialogue on this subject typifies our cultural self-centeredness. Similarly, most people who object to sending troupes over-seas usually site the cost, and the risk to American lives as their main reasons.

Comment, little chair:

Thank you for reminding us about the dangers of using fear as a motivator.
It's nice to see/hear/read that some people do not enjoy inciting destructive emotions in other people, for whatever reason. Compassion and tolerance for fellow human beings is the only way to move towards peaceful... times.

Comment, DT Strain:
Thanks for the comments everyone. As for having the right to do this, I do support that right and would not agree with government interference or force from others to prevent it. But not everything we have a right to do, is right to do. And for those who say that it doesn't matter because it's just a book, or that they themselves wouldn't care whether they did it, or that Christians and Muslims 'deserve one another', I'd ask you to consider the following. It's true that it's just a pile of paper. Books are destroyed all the time, when they're old, discarded, won't sell, and so on. And, it doesn't even really matter so much whether others care what you're doing or not - not in itself. What matters is *motivation*. What will performing certain acts based on anger, hate, fear, or even apathy or disregard, do to your 'soul' (or, to your habits, inclinations, and character as a person). Actions condition us over time. What is a person like who would do things needlessly without concern for the feelings of innocent people, or who wish for those they dislike to meet horrible ends, or who justify any kind of action on the basis of the same behavior by their worst enemies? And becoming more like that kind of person - how will that affect your quality of life? When we act from pure motivation - good, loving, and pure motivation, we cultivate a character that is more capable of enjoying a deeper and more genuine joy.

An evolutionary benefit to theism?

2010-08-31T18:57:00.000-05:00

Does belief in God help our survival?
Photo: Altered from photo
(cc) Brent Danley, Flickr.com

Yesterday, NPR published an article on its program, All Things Considered, called, "Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous?". Here, psychologist and atheist Jesse Bering conducted some tests of three groups of childred. Each were given a game to play involving landing a ball in a very difficult position, and then believed themselves to be left unattended, but with an exception in the second and third group. In the third group someone sat and watched them, and in the second group, an empty chair was left. The children were told an invisible woman was watching them. Cheating was high in the unwatched group, and lower in the other two groups (which were about equal). Bering hypothesized that such beliefs had an evolutionary advantage because they encouraged us to behave and cooperate better. I have two main problems with Bering's endeavor here, and both relate to my belief he's trying to explain why something came to be, that I don't really think even 'came to be' in the first place[1].

The first problem I see with Bering's hypothesis regards how typical a judging-God is in human culture. I don't think this "overseeing judging God" is as common as Bering seems to think it is. First of all, consider that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions, sharing close inspiration from one another, and them having been influenced by the Zoroastrianism of Persia before that (in terms of god/s and the universe seen through a lens of Good/Evil). Many other traditions of the supernatural do not feature gods in those roles, such as the Greek gods, whose follies may have provided lessons on 'what not to do', and who may have had desires and actions against mortals, but who rarely served as moral guides themselves. Other supernatural views involve things like spirit guides and great mothers, such as with Native Americans, or karma and cycles of rebirth rather than gods, as with many Eastern views. Here too, the referee-god doesn't hold.

So, although Abrahamic religions grew to have great numbers and influence, their nucleus began in one small geographic region and relatively short span of time. It is therefore not a good indication of 'overall human nature' regarding belief. Like the Good/Evil dichotomy, the puritanism, and the "our way or the highway" exclusionary traits of Abrahamic religions, the God-judge may be another aspect that has been over-magnified by the happenstance of Western guns, germs, and steel, along with the fortuitous marketing made possible by being on the good side of a major world Emperor at the right time. This often leads people into imagining the peculiarities of the Abrahamic stream to be more indicative of the human religious norm than they really are. In fact, there's good reason to believe that many traits of some of our largest religions are anomalies of the human religious impulse.

The second problem is that supernaturalism is not as common as Bering and many others think. In fact, it may be only one of a few examples, coming about as late as the 2nd Century C.E. We hear and read about a lot of things in ancient philosophy and traditions and automatically interpret them in 'supernatural' terms today, but this was often not the case. Rather, ancient peoples were theorizing about how their One, holistic Natural universe operated. Their notion of souls and entities, and even the gods were often naturalistic. It may not have been until Jesus' failure to return from the dead that early Christians began to conceive of a supernatural realm separate from the natural, as an explanation of what was meant by the Kingdom of God. Today, with our modern Christian-colored glasses, when we look back and read many of the concepts before that time, we tend to cast them in a supernatural context when that wasn't the original conception.

But, alas, the essential question remains as to whether or not people can be good without direct oversight, or the belief of direct oversight. We know for a fact this is possible anecdotally, so it's a question of degrees and proportions. Rather than comparison with undisciplined children, I would like to see the cheating behavior of groups of believers compared with groups of people who had been trained in enlightened ethical principles that go beyond direct punishment/reward, which is the lowest level of ethical education. Consider psychologist Barry Schwartz's criticism of incentive based systems in a talk last year at TED on our Loss of Wisdom, where he said, "...excessive reliance on incentives demoralizes professional activity". The same is true throughout all morality.

There's no question that this kind of advanced ethical education requires more societal energy than enforcement through incentive based dogma; but then, it is also more reliable and stable than good behavior based on faith. In other words, you get what you pay for.

__________________
Many thanks to Rick Bamford for making me aware of this article, and thanks to Nate Custer for drawing my attention to Barry Schwartz's talk!

Notes
[1] I also had a minor quibble with Bering's comment, "I've always said that I don't believe in God, but I don't really believe in atheists either... Everybody experiences the illusion that God — or some type of supernatural agent — is watching them or is concerned about what they do in their sort of private everyday moral lives." I think again, Bering has made a larger claim than he can support. I have never had this feeling, even momentarily, since becoming an atheist. But I admit I have a considerable degree of philosophical underpinning to my natural worldview, which many atheists who merely lack theism do not have. Such occasional suspicions would not be surprising for them.

The Humanist Contemplative Blog

Top 10 signs of good spirituality

This Saturday: Secular Ethics & Ancient Philosophy

Top 10 DT Strain articles of 2011

Thirst - poem by DT Strain

New article for naturalists looking beyond meditation

Happy Bodhi Day

Local practice groups in new year

Occupy Forgiveness: Spiritual Activism

An alternative to Black Friday

Changing course on consumerism

Does faith in God differ from dogma & morality?

What is 'personhood' for the naturalist?

Wisdom is justified, true happiness

Images of God and mental health

Beware pseudoscience in the guise of spirituality

Journaling and spiritual practice

Should the word "sin" be part of our political vocabulary?

Humanist Charities needs help amidst cholera in Haiti

How we view Nature and control

Exploring Humanism and Paganism with B.T. Newberg

Speaking about Humanism

It's all philosophy

New book on Naturalistic Buddhism

DT Strain talks Buddhism on Open Air Atheist podcast

Even naturalists don't stay in the grave

The Devotion of Love

Consumerism and other news items

Happy Humanist Day!

Please help these churches

Responses on my Graham article

Humanist Bible review series: Concord (5/15)

Humanist agrees with Billy Graham on atheism

Motherhood as roadmap to universal compassion

Osama bin Laden & our humanity

Humanist Bible review series: Parables (4/15)

Humanist Bible review series: Wisdom (3/15)

Humanists must stand with Christians on religious freedom

Humanist Bible review series: Genesis (2/15)

Humanist Bible review series: Introduction (1/15)

Humanist Meditation 101 (part 3 of 3)

Humanist Meditation 101 (part 2 of 3)

Humanist Meditation 101 (part 1 of 3)

Golden Rule Day: April 5th

Walking with Nature

On natural disasters & belief

Skeptic and humanitarian reformer challenges religious establishment

Prerequisites to ethical understanding

A message inspired by Dr. King

Dalai Lama: non-religious people can be good too

Progress vs consumerism

Top 10 posts of 2010

Charter for Compassion live webcast Thu, Nov 18th

Twellow adds Humanism category

Christian writer: why being gay is not a sin

Jesus in New York

To those against the Quran burning: you're doing it wrong

An evolutionary benefit to theism?