Buddhism for Skeptics of Religion

I’m not a Buddhist. I subscribe to no traditional religion (though as I argue here, like everyone else I am religious). I am an agnostic atheist who values secularism, science, reason, mindfulness, and the pursuit of individual and collective wisdom and wellness. As an expression of these values, I would like to highlight key aspects of Buddhist philosophy and practice that I believe can be palatable, useful and positively enriching for even the most ardent skeptic.

Concepts to be addressed:

• Monism
• Atheism
• Impermanence, Emptiness and Dependent Origination
• No Self (or No Soul)
• Attachment as source of Suffering; Letting Go as source of Freedom
• Pursuing Wisdom, not Happiness
• Mindfulness as a path to Wisdom and Wellness
• Reincarnation and Rebirth
• Karma

Kicking Addictions: Commentary on What It Takes and What Helps

A few weeks ago, Daniel Fincke did a post on what it takes to  kick an addiction such as alcoholism. Factors considered include self-discipline, humility, support and substitutions (i.e., replacements to fill the life-space previously filled by the addictive substance). Based on education and experience gained via an undergrad degree in Psychology, years of practicing and studying mindfulness meditation and related philosophy, a Masters degree in Occupational Therapy, and an outpatient mental health placement in which one of the focuses is on assisting people in managing addictions (e.g., smoking, alcohol, marijuana, hard drugs, impulsive spending, self-destructive sexual promiscuity), I would like to offer additional perspective on the issue of what it takes and what can help in kicking addictions. Concepts to be addressed include:

• Reasonable goal setting;
• Commitment and discipline;
• Tolerance for lapses;
• Support;
• Substitutions, Distractions and Strategies; and
• Mindfulness and insight into the nature of one’s emotions and thought.

Mental Health Risks For Political Activists

We’ve heard of mental health risks for trauma victims, models, high-performance athletes, people in the public eye, soldiers, executives, people living in poverty, and many other social demographics. As a political activist who studies and works in healthcare, is currently on a placement in a mental health unit, and has had personal struggles with mental health issues linked to depression, anxiety and emotion regulation, I have come to believe that political activists may represent another identifiable group at elevated risk for a series of  mental health issues.

Homeopathy Under Fire in the US, UK, Italy, Israel and Australia

Skeptic North, a well-written Canadian team blog advocating for science, skepticism and rationalism, has been a great source of information on the ongoing scientific, intellectual and moral train-wreck that is homeopathy. I have a bit of a warm spot for this blog, as it was formed in part by concurrent and later-coming members of Canadian skeptic organizations that I have been a member of in the past, and continue to endorse to this day (e.g., the University of Toronto Secular Alliance; Centre for Inquiry Canada). And though I’ve never met her, Skeptic North-er Kim Hebert and I have a fair bit in common – we’re both Canadian Occupational Therapists whom have been independently concerned about the “feel good” post-modernist “science-isn’t-the-only-truth” type thinking that often pervades the public healthcare and healthcare education systems. Each of us have experienced strong pressure within our Master’s of Science in Occupational Therapy professional graduate programs to “respect” homeopathy. Quite frankly, if I was respecting homeopathy while knowing what it was, I’d hardly be a Master of Science.

Anyhow, the most recent posting in Skeptic North’s ongoing coverage of homeopathy’s trials and tribulations (e.g., the tribulations resulting from one failed clinical trial after another) is a listing of embarrassing and potentially expensive legal suits that various homeopathic education and product outfits are currently ensnared in in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Israel and Australia.

When they lose their cases, maybe they can try to pay off the settlements with bags and suitcases that previously contained money…

RELATED POSTS:

Tomorrow’s Dinner: Homeopathic Chicken Stirfry

Talking to political adversaries: Tips on reaching across the aisle

Reaching Across or Reaching Around?

With corrupted campaign finance and limited oversight and regulation over the intersections among government agencies (e.g., The White House and The Pentagon) and between government and private industry, big finance and media, one could easily argue that genuine ideological debate in America has taken a backseat to public-to-private reach-arounds masquerading as Republican-Democratic reaches across the aisle.

If the Republican and Democratic parties were mixed drinks, they would be glasses of corporatism with small shots of ideology.

Of course, whether the bartender was George Bush, Barack Obama, John Boehner, or Harry Reid, the patron would be led to believe that they had just bought a straight triple of their ideology of choice; likewise, they would be told that the reason that the other drink tastes so bad is because it is a straight triple of that other, yucky ideology. And almost none of the Senators, Congressmen and women and members of the mainstream media who would be the alcohol regulators at the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in this metaphor would call any of these bartenders out on this, as they’ve been at the bar drinking for free since lunch time. They are typically too drunk and too hooked on the free drinks to do anything but uphold the lie. This often leads to the trusting patrons of The Establishment being unnecessarily divided. While Republican drinkers and Democratic drinkers do have different palates, they are often mislead into believing that the corporatist solvent in the other Party’s drink is the ideological shot, or solute.

Often times, it would appear that members of each drinking group don’t mind the qualities of the other group’s shot as much as they think; they’re just confusing it with the flat, tainted corporate coke that it has been deeply diluted in.

How do we get past this? Just drink shots.

Tomorrow’s Dinner: Homeopathic Chicken Stirfry

As a busy single individual I like to limit my cooking to once or twice a week, each time cooking enough food for several days. Five days ago I made five days worth of delicious chicken stirfry. After finishing off my final serving, all of the chicken and lovingly cut fresh vegetables are gone. However, about a serving’s worth of rice remains. What to do with this rice? Have it as a snack or throw it out? Then it hit me!

HOMEOPATHIC CHICKEN DINNER!

Winning!

Think about it. Homeopathic is clearly a load of anti-reality nonsense burgeoning and eminently valid field of evidence-based healthcare. After all, the Ontario Ministry of Health wouldn’t be setting up a homeopathic regulatory board – The College of Homeopaths of Ontario – if homeopathy is nonsense, right? I mean, what’s the point in regulating nonsense? I suppose it could promote safety. But in terms of maximizing effectiveness, it’s not like doing something nonsensical “the right way” (“Bill, you’re not succussing it right! You shake up and down first, then side to side!”) is gonna make it less nonsensical. Am I right? Similarly, I wouldn’t have gotten brow-beaten by my Masters of Occupational Therapy professor for being a black-and-white thinker for criticizing an idea that had a leg to stand on, right? Exactly. So anyhow, homeopathy=good.

Homeopathy contends that water maintains memory of all that had ever been dissolved in it. Similar to how water as a solvent is the base (i.e., foundation) for solutes, rice is the base of many meals. So maybe if water will remember a solute that has been completely and decisively diluted out of it (which, by the way, makes everything we drink a homeopathic solution – I wonder how many times I’ve drank homeopathic dinosaur urine…. but I digress…) my rice will remember the chicken that was in it the day before. And even if that argument doesn’t hold up, the rice is more than half water! Bulletproof.

Look how much money this will save me, too! No wonder the agricultural and farming industries don’t want us to know about homeopathic chicken dinners….

If anyone knows the conversion rate of memory proteins to actual proteins, feel free to enlighten me in the comment section below.

Why Japanese Healthcare is More Efficient Than Canadian and US Healthcare

A recently published report by the Conference Board of Canada, a not-for-profit economics and policy research organization, indicates that Canadians are spending more on their healthcare and getting less than most advanced nations. Canada spend more annually per capita on healthcare – $4100/person, or 10% of GDP – than all but three advanced nations, but ranked 10th according to the Conference Board’s quality of medicine metrics. By comparison, Japan spent only $2,729 per capita annually while ranking first in life expectancy and infant mortality rates. The United States healthcare system, on the other hand, performed abysmally. While the US spends astronomically more per capita on healthcare than any other nation – $7,500 annually – the Conference Board rated the quality of American healthcare to be among the worst in the 17-country study.

Why are the Japanese paying so much less to receive so much more?