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

Read more of this post

Atheists are Differently Religious – and No, Atheism is not the/a Religion

A main focus of this blog is to consider and compare different political and ethical philosophies so as to promote better understanding of one’s own worldview and those of others. I frequently focus on progressivism/liberalism and libertarian conservativism, arguing that these incompletely overlapping moral/political philosophies each have their own internal logic and validity, but that when viewed from the perspective of the other, each is libel to look stupid and/or even evil.

Close to a year ago, I posted Atheists are Religious. Here I re-post it with modifications. In this article, I argue that while lack of a belief in this or that God is not itself a religion, any value system that an atheist may hold is ultimately ungrounded in any sort of empiricism. Rather, these and all value systems rely on circular self-validation and assumptions and assertions that are themselves unscientific. As I will argue below, this doesn’t make them wrong or deserving of dismissal; it just means that subscribers cannot claim that their values are rooted in nothing but reason and logic. Reason and logic, in these value systems, are applied based on unempirical values, which can be conceived of as faith claims about an implied moral/existential reality. Read more of this post

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. Read more of this post

Where do Observant Jews and Conservative Christians get their Morals, Theologically Speaking?

Bill Maher pointed out the irony of American Right Wing Christianity when he said that if Jesus were a Presidential candidate, the Christian Right would NEVER elect him because he’s a long-haired, sandal-wearing liberal hippie Jew. The issue of how a Conservative Christianity that demonizes nearly all government social programming directed at helping the less affluent, sick, disabled, elderly and so on, could have evolved has perplexed many.

Some on the American Christian Right have attempted to argue that Jesus was not a socialist or even remotely liberal. The honesty-impaired crew over at Conservapedia have even taken it upon themselves to literally begin re-writing the Bible, claiming that previous translations have packed it full of liberal spin. Of course, the Conservapedia answer to this alleged problem is not to create a balanced Bible, but to create a Conservative Bible – hence the name of the project, the Conservative Bible Project.

Daniel Florien, ex-Christian turned atheist, recently posted some of the more liberal, socialist New Testament passages on his blog, Unreasonable Faith. Here are a few of them:

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 2: 44, 45

13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.
14 You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Luke 14:13, 14

If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Matthew 19:21

24 You cannot serve both God and Money.

Matthew 6:24.

In addition to these quotes are Jesus’ famous endorsements of forgiveness, compassion and acceptance, rather than grudge-holding, retribution-seeking and judging (e.g., Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; judge not lest ye be judged; turn the other cheek).

When you look at these sorts of quotes, it is perplexing to fathom how Conservative Christians could see themselves in Christ and how they could appreciate let alone revere him. How do they square their widespread antipathy for government assistance programs and homosexuality with these iconic passages? Now, it’s true that the Bible may well be the most cherry-picked, quote-mined text of all time. Given this,

Are there New Testament passages that Conservative Christians can interpret as endorsing their political values?

We’ve all seen Conservative Christians site verses from the Old Testament, perhaps none more so than Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.”). Indeed, the more grim, authoritarian theme of the Old Testament appears – to me, at least – to jive far better with modern day American Conservative values of respect for authority, tradition, corporal punishment, capital punishment, and thoroughly retributive justice. The New Testament, judging by mainstream cultural folklore, sounds to be far more liberal, socialist, egalitarian, compassionate, and forgiving. Am I wrong? I’ll admit that I’ve only read parts of the Old Testament and none of the New, so my question is not rhetorical. What exactly is the Right taking from the New Testament?

What About Jewish Moral Theology?

The Old Testament is often viewed as hellishly harsh and unforgiving. If a country today were to use it as a strict policy guide, said country would rightly be considered to be a stunningly cruel, vicious, totalitarian state. Many Christians today, in my limited experience, seem to downplay the moral significance of the Old Testament, pointing to the New Testament as the relevant Christian moral framework. Accepting this, I can’t help but ask:

Where is the warmer, more humane side of Jewish Theology?

For Christianity, it’s the New Testament. The New Testament gives license to Christians to move past authoritarian barbarism toward less judgmental forgiveness and acceptance. Where does that come in within Judaism? Where is the feel good part of Jewish Moral Theology? It’s got to be in there somewhere. Is it burried within the OT, or in a sister scripture? I don’t for a minute buy that people get their morals from scripture. But there are plenty of people who do. So from this perspective,

Where do observant Jews get their morals?

 

Share your views and knowledge in the Comment section!

Endorsing Justin Trottier, Green Party of Ontario Candidate, Parkdale-High Park

I am proud to throw my out-of-riding support behind Justin Trottier, Green Party of Ontario, who is seeking to represent the Parkdale – High Park riding. Justin Trottier is a principled and active advocate for science, reason, freedom of and from religion, nontheism, free speech, gay rights, and environmental responsibility.

I have had the pleasure of getting to know Justin during my time as a supporter of the various secular, science, reason, nontheist, humanist advocacy organizations that he has played leading roles in. Justin has been at the crest of the wave of Canadian science, reason, atheist and secular activism for, by my estimation, about 6-7 years now. He began by starting up the Toronto Secular Alliance, which simply exploded due to what was clearly perceived by a segment of the Canadian population to be a much welcomed voice. In collaboration with the US-based  Center For Inquiry, TSA morphed into a combination of the Freethought Association of Canada and Centre For Inquiry Ontario, Justin heading both. These organizations played leading roles in seeing affiliated groups popping up on university and college campuses across the nation, and city centres in Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver, operating under the new umbrella organization, Centre for Inquiry Canada, which (unsurprisingly) has been led by Mr. Trottier.

While many atheists, agnostics, humanists, rationalists, science enthusiasts and environmentalists might easily gravitate toward Trottier, his position at the forefront of the national atheist movement may be seen a strong turn-off to others. If you are a devout conservative religionist in the Parkdale-High Park riding, there may not be much I could say to you that would bring you around to considering Trottier. However, Trottier has a lot to offer religious folk in general.

His commitment to secularism – i.e., the separation of religion from politics, such that governments can neither favour nor disfavour one religion or some religions over others, or religion over non-religion – is a commitment to ensuring a level playing field to people of all religious and belief communities. It says that, no matter what you believe, you will be treated equally under Canadian law and policy. It means that in the court room, the same laws apply to all Canadians. In the political chambers, it means that all faith and non-faith-based policy initiatives are vetted in the same way. In public education, it means subjecting ideas championed by any establishment to the same peer-reviewed processing as all other ideas before they are considered for public curriculum inclusion. It means not treating, for example, Muslims or Muslim ideas as if they deserve less than others and not treating, for example, Catholics and Catholic ideas as if they deserve  more. Relatedly, both the Green Party of Ontario and a multi-faith/nonfaith coalition, the One School System Network (ONESSN), co-led by Trottier have been at the forefront of political efforts in Ontario to discontinue public funding of Catholic elementary and secondary schools, an uneconomical privilege that is available to no other religious or other community group. While some proponents of the status quo have argued that this is an anti-Catholic or anti-religious movement, nothing could be further from the truth. It is about leveling the playing field and bringing Canadians together, not dividing them by religious affiliation.

While secularism has become somewhat of a loaded word, it is something that just about all Canadians can get behind. It is freedom of and freedom from religion, which enables each of us to practice this or that religion or no religion as we like without being pressured or favoured one way or another by our public institutions.

As an advocate of free thought and an educated citizenry, Trottier has favoured introduction of public school courses on religion and belief that teach students, in a neutral fashion, about different schools of religious and nonreligious belief and value systems. As a free speech advocate, he has actively supported the free speech rights of people with markedly different politics than himself, including York University pro-life/anti-abortion activists and well-known North American conservative figures Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, when they were under investigation for speaking out against radical Islam in The Western Standard and MacLeans magazine, respectively. Trottier has also been an active supporter of LGBT equality. Yet more examples of Trottier working to level playing fields.

As an advocate of science and science-based policy, Trottier is precisely the kind of person we need in political office when it comes to addressing the growing challenges we face in healthcare, energy and environmental policy. Trottier is a man with the principle and scientific acumen to skillfully advocate for evidence-based policy.

As a person whom has had the privilege to get to know Justin Trottier the person, and not just Justin Trottier the emerging public figure, I can attest to his good character. When I first met Justin, he had already attained some public attention, but not really much. It was after I began getting to know him that he started to regularly appear on television, in newspapers, and at the forefront of a movement that had gone from being University of Toronto and downtown Toronto centred to being a well-known national cultural voice. Throughout this time, as far as I can tell, he’s still the same Justin. The same earnest, friendly, driven, passionate, and infinitely curious guy I first met in 2007.

If you are in the Parkdale – High Park riding or know someone that is, I encourage you/them to consider Justin Trottier, a grassroots champion of equality, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, science, reason, and so many of the values that make Canada one of the most admired and most progressive nations in the world.

Best of luck, Justin.

UPDATE:

Progressive Proselytizing has posted several good articles, unsurprisingly from a progressive perspective, on the candidates in the Parkdale – High Park riding.

Support Justin on Facebook by LIKING his candidacy page!

How much do you notice the politics of your fellow city dwellers?

In a few months I will be moving to California for my first job as an Occupational Therapist. During my job search a key factor I considered was the political leanings of cities. As a politically oriented progressive atheist I applied to positions in Vancouver, Victoria, Seattle, Portland, Eugene, San Francisco, LA, Anaheim, San Diego (yes, I know that SD is relatively conservative, but still California), Hawaii, Halifax, Toronto, and various other locations in Ontario, Canada. By contrast, I did not apply to any postings in Texas, Alabama, Florida, or Utah, and only applied to a couple in Alberta. Liberal bias much? Much too much. And I’d do it again.

Here’s what’s interesting. I currently live in London, Ontario, a city which I’ve heard referred to as “ultra conservative” (at least by Ontario standards) on several occasions. I’ve never really felt like I live in a conservative city. There was one time when I went to an Ann Coulter speaking event in London and was pretty stunned by how many far-right conservatives came out. But by the same token, I’m sure that if Michael Moore had come to town, I’d have been surrounded by Lefties. The Coulter event was the only time that I’ve ever felt like I was in a conservative space.

On the other hand, I have been living in London as a graduate student. Liberalism tends to run high in universities. Furthermore, the occupational therapy field can be argued to be left-of-centre at its core. These have no doubt been key factors in affecting the degree to which I perceive myself to be living in a conservative city.

Another factor that has significantly affected my experience is that being a strong atheist progressive, the people I hang out with have tended to be secular and left-of-centre. I have progressive religious friends, but I don’t know that I have any conservative friends. Unless a person lives in an incredibly polarized place, they will probably have a disproportionate number of friends of similar moral/political opinions (including relative indifference) to themselves. What is more, when I have interacted with people of significantly differing social/political/religious opinions, these differences often do not come up in conversation. A few days ago I spoke with a Christian Conservative. The subjects of our conversation: Charlie Sheen, winning, hot sauce and restaurants. It was delightful. All of this has got me thinking:

How much do the political views of a populace leak into day-to-day life?
If you live in a liberal city or town, to what degree does it feel liberal? The same for conservative cities and towns.

The world ended yesterday

Or not. Nothing happened. What a shock. No quakes, no Rapture, no nothing. The closest we came were some day-early Victoria Day fireworks in Canada and some American atheist jokesters laying full clothing outfits out on the street and sending off helium-filled inflatable plastic bodies into the sky.

On this site, a non-scientific poll was run last week soliciting people’s predictions on how Harold Camping, the now twice-failed Doomsday Prophet, and his believers would respond when nothing happened. Out of a very modest total of 47 votes, 49% of voters predicted that believers would claim that due to the strong display of faith put up by their small group, God in his infinite mercy decided to spare the world of sinners – for now  (this was the response of a 1950s Doomsday Cult, studied by Psychologist Leon Festinger et al; Festinger is most well-known for developing the concept of Cognitive Dissonance); 34% of respondents predicted that believers would frantically avoid talking about the issue; 8.5% believed that Camping would, as he did in 1994, claim that he had made a mathematical error (“Oops, forgot to carry the zero. Was off by 1000 years. Come back next millenium.”); 6% of respondents predicted that believers would simply admit to having been wrong and state that they’ll have to re-think some things about what they believe; and 2% (or 1 voter) predicted that believers would take their own lives.

Some believers have already spoken on how they felt after the time of reckoning came and went. One indicated that while he had had his doubts during the big lead-up to nothing, he suppressed his skepticism because he believed in God; he also simply wanted it to be true. Rationality and intellectual honesty fail.

It’ll be interesting to see how other believers respond to being shown that they were unequivocally wrong and that the rest of the world that scoffed at them were unequivocally right. Hopefully none of them have done anything drastic – e.g., self-Rapturing. There’s no question that many of them are feeling pretty down right now. Hopefully they get the emotional support they’ll need, and that not too many people that are close to them will rub their noses in this (though, for the broader community, they clearly brought the coverage on themselves – they begged for the attention, making themselves and their claims more than fair game).

As of the time of this posting, Harold Camping and his follower’s banner website WeCanKnow.Com remains up, without any updates, and it’s Judgment Day ticker has been at 0 days, 0 hours for over a day now. Tacoma, Washington atheist association spoof site, WeCantKnow.Com‘s “Countdown to Backpedaling” ticker is now over one day into the predicted backpedaling period.

In Defense of Abortion

In this month’s Canadian federal election, abortion was not an issue. However, whenever election time roles around in North America, the issue of abortion tends to garner at least a little bit more conversation than normal, even if it is not a specific policy issue. Social conservatives will want to elect politicians who may one day make it a policy issue again, if and when they get enough people in office to be able to make an effective policy run. Pro-choice citizens, on the other hand, are made nervous by the prospect of that happening, and thus are libel to remain slightly weary even when the leader of the conservative party clearly states that he has no interest in bringing abortion back to the table, as Canadian Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper has done. Given that the Harper’s new term will see the appointment of multiple new Canadian Supreme Court justices, some may be wondering if abortion could be the subject of further political discussion some time down the road.

In this post I will argue on behalf of the legality of abortion. I will consider the issues from the stance of the unborn fetus, the parents, and society. In addition to considering the issue from a qualitative experiential perspective, I will also reflect on the notion of the fundamental right to life and freedom from unprovoked harm from others. Lastly, I will consider the issue of abortion in the case of rape. I will not, however, consider abortion from the perspective of religion. While I am perfectly willing to consider moral arguments from religious texts, I will not give the arguments any special priority simply because they came from the Bible, the Qur’an, or some other religious text. Read more of this post

Less than a week until nothing out of the ordinary happens. Poll: How will Rapturites react?

It is no longer news that a small group of devout American Christians are eagerly awaiting this coming Saturday, May 21st, which they believe will see the Rapture of all spiritually and morally upstanding Christians into Heaven, leaving the rest of us behind. As described on their website, WeCanKnow.Com, this group also believes that on October 21st, their omnibenevolent God will destroy the World.

In other news, to my friends back in Ajax, Ontario: I’ll be home this weekend. Let me know if you want to do something, as I’ve got no real plans, aside from touching up my resume as I work to kick-start my fledgling career, which I don’t expect to be thwarted by any major cosmic events.

Bush’s Book: A Book on True Crimes

In the video below, Dave Koller talks about a new movement that he has taken part in, wherein participants take it upon themselves to move copies of George W. Bush’s new book on his presidency to the True Crimes section of the bookstore.

This brings to mind a practice of some “militant” atheists of moving copies of religious texts such as the Bible to the library or bookstore’s Fiction section…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.