This is a response to:

Atheism is also a doctrine.

Show me where you pointed the microscope to investigate whether or not God exists and then I’ll call your point-of-view rational and scientific. Until then, atheism is a set of beliefs just like any other religion.  So instructing in the doctrine/principle/ideology of atheism would equally fit the definition you gave for “indoctrinate”.

The reason you won’t find “unindoctrinate” in any dictionaries is precisely because there’s no such thing. Indoctrinate has no antonym because everyone has a their beliefs and ideologies. They can’t be removed, only swapped one for another.

Also, just because you use a handy term to label some collection of beliefs (eg Christianity, Atheism, Nationalism, Otaku, etc) doesn’t mean that YOUR Atheist/Otaku/etc. beliefs are the same as someone else’s Atheist/Otaku/etc. beliefs. Not all Seventh-Day Adventists are the same, let alone Christians or “religious” people.  You could make a much stronger argument if you would investigate a little bit before publishing questions that make you seem  entirely uneducated about your subject matter.

Do the religious think lying or any misrepresentation of facts is not a sin if it is used to promote their religion? Does the end justify the means? Is it possible for anyone to justify lying to bring someone into a cult that supposedly dislikes lying?

Seriously, that’s ridiculous.  What sense does it even make to ask this on your blog?  If you have questions, just walk out the door and ask a few people what they think about it.  Or better yet, go to the scholastic sources within religious traditions and talk to someone with a religious education.  Research before you publish. Otherwise you’re just imagining (and propagandizing) unflattering things about the intellects and moral character of other people.

A response to:

We need to know what the original word is in Hebrew, because the translation “dominion” in English doesn’t make clear to us what it implies humans should do.   I certainly don’t see any basis for your attempt to interpret “dominion” as “right to abuse”.  I think the work is probably more properly translated as “caretaker” (lets look it up? somebody help?).

I know that in the Islamic tradition, there’s a similar notion, but the expression is explicit that it means “caretaker,” so that humans have responsibilities toward animals, and animals have rights and can’t be abused, overburdened, or killed without cause.  Even when killing animals for meat, it has to be done in a very particular sanitary and painless way (by hand, leaving no room for the machine errors that leave 1 in 5 machine-slaughtered animals alive and badly injured).

If you have misunderstood the meaning of the verse, you may actually be in agreement with the sentiment being expressed, and accidentally making a baseless and unjust accusation.   And if you get a reputation for making weak or uninformed accusations, you would no longer be an effective communicator.   Just call up a local church or synagogue and ask to speak to someone with a proper religious education about the matter. Or email a professor who teaches classes on bible studies or Judaism. Get an answer to this, so that this issue of whether or not “God grants the right to abuse animals” can be settled and we can move on to other topics.  I would greatly appreciate if you would post their comments or your own in reply below.

Finding out the truth is better than risking mistakenly making false allegations.

This is what I think about alcohol:

Just because one person CAN control their drinking (etc) does not mean that their society can do the same.  As far as I know, no society on earth has collectively demonstrated an ability to avoid EXTREMELY terrible problems related directly to alcohol consumption.  Violence, deadly health problems, tragic accidents and personal regrets are the price a society pays for enjoying those jolly nights at the bar.  Based on what objective system of valuation will we judge whether or not its worth it?

The one who controls himself while drinking is not individually responsible for those who can’t, but if you know these problems WILL OCCUR due to the part you collectively play in promoting alcohol consumption, you have played your part in constructing a situation within your society which causes trouble and death to some of its members, not to mention the potential good we could do during free time spent sober!   Alcohol:  “the opiate of the masses”.

Please do: Discourage drinking alcohol. Make yourself an example.  If you encourage 5 friends to stop drinking (and put their time and money to some more useful purpose or alternate sport) those five might do the same for others.  Deaths could be prevented.  You can still kick that crutch of intoxication and have fun without alcohol!

How to do it? NOT with legislation.  Prohibition only creates more trouble.  The people who fight for freedom of choice are also fighting for what’s right.  Instead, just discourage drinking socially.  Point out that people really do sound and act stupid when they’re drunk, and if you’re mindful of the larger situation, that stupidity isn’t funny.  Remind them that the risk (societal) outweighs the reward (individual). This is something that we, collectively as a society, should choose on its own merits.

I didn’t stop drinking immediately when I learned that my religion prohibits it.  Now that I’ve spent more time thinking about it, I realized that there was  reason behind that prohibition, and it wasn’t by any means urged arbitrarily.  Would there have been any harm in accepting THAT prohibition on ‘blind faith’ if I didn’t want to take the time to think through the reasons behind it?  Still, Muslims are urged (actually “required”) to reflect on the Qur’an, using the mind to improve our understanding instead of leaving things to ‘blind faith’.

<They ask you about intoxicants and gambling. Say: “In them is great harm, and a benefit for the people; but their harm is greater than their benefit.”…> (Qur’an 2:219)

If a simple (perhaps religiously based) urging does not convince you that there is reason to quit drinking, and a brief discussion like mine here is still not enough, then go look more deeply into this issue for yourself.  Reflect on the violence that occurs in ANY society and in ANY religious context, which is aggravated by alcohol abuse.  Is it something you want to contribute to, however small your part?

____

Incidentally, I don’t look down on people who drink!  Maybe you’ve heard my argument and just don’t feel the way I do.  I’m sure you’re a good person who has good intentions, and you’re probably doing a lot of good in the world.  Nobody’s perfect, and we can’t all fight for every good cause anyway.

If you end up feeling the reason behind my argument, your behavior will reflect your understanding.  And if you don’t feel the reason in my argument, how can you be blamed for doing things according to what YOU think is right?  That’s the best any of us can do.

And for those who may have wondered why I dont enjoy joking about alcohol or being around it:  it’s probably because different images come to my mind in connection to it than the images that come to yours.   FYI.

A response to “Tough Questions: “Can God do evil?”  [link]

Tough Questions: “Can God do evil?”

First of all, supposing that a human is a better judge of morality than the One who created humans along with the rest of the universe has its problems.  Furthermore, our notions of right and wrong are based upon what we consider convenient to our lifestyles. Eg. Dying is bad for business; killing people makes their relatives upset.  One of the most common claims that accompany belief in a God is belief in a Hereafter.  If we suddenly discovered that killing people really, measurably, undeniably sends them to a never-ending Candy Mountain (~CANDY MOUNTAIN, CHARLIE!~) then that bit of added knowledge would change our moral code.  So human notions of morality are based on limited knowledge and can easily be changed, whereas Divine knowledge of morality is based on the non-limited knowledge of the One who designed the entire universe to begin with. Really, God would know better about these things than we do. We just don’t have enough information (outside of Divine Revelation, of course) to make an informed judgment on our own.

Tough questions are questions that atheists can ask in the course of a conversation or debate with a theist that quickly lead to some interesting conclusions. The following question can be very effective: Can God do evil? To a theist, there are only two possible answers to this questions, and each one leads to interesting conclusions.

A third possible reply would be, “how do you suppose you have absolute knowledge of what ‘evil’ is?”

The theist answer: No, He cannot do evil. For a theist to say that God cannot do evil is actually quite a strong claim. First of all, it says that God is limited in His options and is helpless to choose to do anything but “the good”.

Also, in religions that include notions of predestination, God has full knowledge of the entirety of Creation from before its origination, and creates the entire thing from beginning to end (God being independent of time and space, having created both.) Such a God does not make choices as events unfold, but predestined every detail, including all the things we find pleasant and all the things we find unpleasant.

Essentially, if God never has to make a moral choice, He ceases to be a moral agent.

According to Islamic creed as written by Imam Al-Tahawi, God doesn’t make choices, doesn’t change in any way. Even to the point that God was “The Creator” independently of having created the universe (“before” creating it).

Theists are very seldom comfortable with the idea of their omnipotent God being powerless in any meaningful way.  A dropped rock falls to the ground without choice; how much praise is due the rock for falling correctly? Theists are even less comfortable with there being no basis for praising God’s moral character — if He could not have done otherwise.

God isn’t a person, so doesn’t have a personality or character. It would make as much sense to ask whether or not Life should be praised when “Life has been kind to you”.

One way that a theist may try to dig out of this conundrum is to argue that whatever God does is the definition of Good. So He is unlimited in whatever He does, He’s just limited in what the things He does are called.

Before there was a Universe, time or space, what sense does it make to talk about “actions”, let alone whether they are “good or evil, right or wrong”?  Actions can only be considered right or wrong within a system.  But God created the system, whereas people were made within the system and informed about the nature (rules) of that system by God.

If the theist wants to go this route, then he has to admit that for God there is no difference between a moral and immoral action.

God doesn’t do actions. God built the set and wrote the script, created the actors and knows the epilogue.  Morality simply isn’t a question here.

This means that God created an absolutely arbitrary set of rules for people to follow. If this situation described reality, a theist would obey God because He is a capricious

can’t be capricious if you don’t change.

tyrant

a judgment about the fairness of the ruler, on what knowledge-basis can this judgment be made…?

setting down arbitrary rules

creating the game and the game-pieces. If we had created the game and ourselves, then we would have the right to make the rules.

— not because God is praiseworthy or the rules uncover some basic moral truth.

But disclosing the rules to the game-pieces was awfully nice; telling them how to win and letting the pieces choose for themselves whether or not to heed good advice.

The theist answer: Yes, He can do evil. When the response hits upon this one, the answer you get is usually, “All right, whatever, God can do evil, He just never does. He perfectly chooses to never sin.”

Many religious people would be confused by your treatment of  ’sin’ as something that can be discussed in relation to anything other than people. What exactly did the author have in mind? God committing adultery with another God’s wife?  You might really enjoy a respectful conversation about this with someone who has had a thorough religious education.

As soon as the theist mentions that God has the capability to do evil, he’s in a lot of trouble. The question now becomes one of epistemology: how does this theist gain the knowledge that God never does anything wrong? Does God tell the theist that He’s never done wrong? If God had done wrong in the past, what’s to stop Him from lying now?

This question would be very relevant to polytheistic religions.  Zeus was very tricky, slept around, and probably misled people, even being called a cruel god sometimes.  But this doesn’t make sense in the monotheistic meaning of God.  Maybe gods are big powerful sky people, but God is not a person.

If the person you are arguing with is a Christian, you can ask pointedly about God’s alleged past actions. A favorite verse to bring up is: 1 Samuel 15:2-3 (NRSV) Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” Not only can God do evil, He admits to doing evil in this verse itself!

Mr Lawyer…? Did the defendant voice an admission of any kind? When the movie director orders half the cast killed off in the final act, has the director done evil?  I call that being a good director, making a good movie.  And actors also have their after-party when the film is done, except actors that are jerks IRL who didn’t get invited.

When I bring up this verse, both theists and atheists mistake the point that I hope to bring out with it. My claim: It is immoral to command people to kill women, children and infants.

The larger claim implicit here is that meeting death is ‘bad’ and therefore causing someone to meet death is ‘wrong/evil’. Whereas this ignores the religious claim that there will be 100% fair retribution which the person himself will agree is fair, occurring sometime after death.

I will allow a lot to pass if I think that I have an ultimate point that cannot be worked around. For example, does God have the right to take away human life?

God doesn’t ‘take life away’, but rather created it, put it into motion, still owns it and in fact is still taking care of it.  I’m not sure God can be said to have ‘given’ anyone those human lives, let alone that he ‘takes them away’.

It’s arguable, but I’ll grant that He does for the sake of argument. Were the Amelekites despicable people who should be wiped out?

The religious claim here includes a Hereafter. They weren’t wiped out or destroyed, merely moved to another place where they will be dealt with fairly. God created some lifespan for them, but was under no obligation to make that allotted lifespan longer.

Doubtful, but I’ll grant that they were for the sake of argument. Why? Because I will just nail the point to the ground: If anything is immoral, commanding a person to kick down doors and kill children and infants with a sword is immoral.

Is it still immoral in movies to ‘kill’ actors? The Creator of the universe, like the creator of a movie or novel (~like that novel you’ve been workin’ on… eh? eh?~) has a degree of reality infinitely higher than that attributable to the created thing.  The author is infinitely more real than the character in her book.  At the time of writing, all the good and bad things that happen to the characters are just part of the story, not subject to moral judgment. What makes a character loveable is how he conducts himself in tough circumstances.

If the theist has conceded that God can do evil, and that God has ordered His followers to kill

Religiously, death can be viewed as a transition to a more real place, like waking up from a dream.

children and infants, this seems to screamingly beg for the question, “Hasn’t God actually done evil?” Eventually, the theist may answer that he would worship God no matter how much evil God appears to have done. Consider the possibility that the theist started out worshiping Satan instead of God by accident.

What exactly is meant by ‘worship’, and how can it be accidentally misdirected? If someone says “I worship God,” what exactly does that mean that they DO? Is it ‘I bow down at the thought of God’, or ‘I express loving-devotion towards God’, or what? Here you talk as if worship is like tossing a Frisbee and someone can swoop in and snatch it mid-flight…

By the theist’s own admission, there is absolutely nothing that Satan could do that was evil enough for him to admit his mistake. Quite a sobering thought.

Summary: The Islamic creed of Imam Al-Tahawi includes belief in complete predestination, that pleasant and unpleasant fortune is all from God, and that the wisdom behind the reasons is entirely beyond human comprehension, but that it is reconciled with total fairness in the end.

After the Dalai Lama’s recent visit to UCSB, I started thinking about how odd it is that Americans seem by-and-large content to refer to him simply as “His Holiness.”

These people that call him by this vague and yet exalted title; are they Buddhists?

I think something interesting must be happening in the American religious sphere when a majority Christian population feels naturally inclined towards such honorary treatment of a religious figure from another tradition, while Christian clergy are generally not so formally addressed.

Could it be that His Holiness represents the non-dogmatic pure spirituality that Westerners seem more and more to be seeking?  In which case, is it really Buddhism that is of interest?  Or is it a uniquely misinformed Western perception of what Buddhism is all about?  To what extent are we projecting onto His Holiness those feelings and sensibilities that we desire from a sprititual leader?

Make no mistake, HHDL is awesome.  We hang out.  (I’m the fourth head to the left of His Adorableness).

UCSB Buddhist studies and Tibetan language students meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama

The notion of the modern political nation-state is relatively new. In the not-so-distant past, “nation” was a word that described a large community of people huddled together within a geographical area with somewhat fuzzy borders.  The thing that defined the community as a group was often an ethnic, cultural, or religious identity that carried significant meaning for a majority of the population.  Western colonial powers were largely responsible for the establishment of the modern political boundaries between “nations” in several parts of the world, recognizing  ethnically- and religiously-self-identifying groups as being politically separate from their neighbors.  The theory behind this method was that administrators of a largely homogeneous group would be better able to represent and fulfill the desires and needs of the people with fewer disagreements.

According to a modern, politically-correct, and fully enlightened understanding of the world, (sarcasm intended) it has become distasteful to acknowledge differences based upon notions of ethnicity or religion due to a belief that distinctions often include undercurrents of judgmentalism.  after all, it was only within the last 30 years that we in the United States finally made it clear that “separate” is inherently not “equal.”  However, the truth of this statement lies in the need to recognize the equal rights of all individuals, and the fact that all people deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and fairness.  It does not imply that distinguishing between coherent groups, whatever interest those groups may unite themselves around, is entirely without value.  For example, Californians may have different desires and opinions than Georgians, so there is some benefit in governing the two states separately, for the benefit of their people.  Italy is different from France, and Catholics have different opinions from Protestants.

We run into troubles when we divide groups for unclear reasons, and also when we fail to divide groups when the reasons for division are clear.  The Kurds were overlooked in the Middle East was carved up into separate countries, and are now the largest ethnic group in the world that is not represented by a political nation of their own.   Concerns have been raised in European countries about what the future identity of the country will be if the “immigrant” populations eventually come to outnumber members of the European ethnic group around which the nation formed.

In the Middle East, Israel frequently receives criticism for policies designed to maintain a Jewish majority in the political state of Israel.  Even before tackling a controversial negotiations over the geo-political borders of Israel and the treatment of Palestinians, the policies of the state of Israel concerned with defining eligibility of its citizenry based upon ethnic-religious identity are decried as racist by high-profile characters such as Ahmedinejad, who argue that using state policies to set limits upon citizens based upon their religious or ethnic identity is passé, to put it lightly.

The question is, as we continue to draw lines between different peoples, while simultaneously uniting them in larger organizations such as the EU, the UN, and even the USA, when will we consider it acceptable to divide people based on ethnicity or religion, and when will we find it unacceptable?  Do the Kurds deserve to be given a land of their own in the way that Israel was created to provide a land for Jews?  Or will we argue that setting aside a place only for a certain group of people is wrong, and to do away with the exclusivity maintained in places like the Vatican and Mecca?

In my opinion, the notion of “Freedom of Assembly” in the US Bill of Rights demonstrates a belief that people should be able to group themselves according to any desired unifying principle or concept, including ethnic or religious identity.  If this is the case, then any significantly large group that considers themselves to be especially coherent should be recognized as a political entity.  If that group also happens to significantly occupy a specific geographical region, then there is good reason to draw borders and treat them as a modern self-governing political nation-state.  Minority rights in any place should be protected, and human rights should be universally guaranteed.

We are all equally humans, and variety is the spice of life.

Having grown up as one of four children in my family, then spending 7+ years living with multiple roommates during college, I have developed a strong (if not healthy) habit of messing with people.

Every once in a while, when I’m not really thinking about what I’m doing, I accidentally turn my talents against the innocent.

And so it was one day that I was in RadioShack looking for an audio cable, with that mischievous instinct took hold of me. It was a very small RadioShack, with a circular counter in the center of the store and just enough room around the counter for a couple of aisles. Two employees, one an older male and the other a younger female, looked bored as they stood behind the counter.

As soon as I walked through the door, the gentleman asked, “can I help you find anything?”

“I’m looking for a audio line-in cable, if you have any,” I said.

“Yeah, I think we can find one of those, if you’ll just follow me over here to the far wall…”

I tilted my head and adopted my most patronizing tone. “Oh, come on,” I said. “It’s not that far…”

And the poor innocent victim hung his head a little bit, as one does after hearing a particularly bad joke, and trudged over towards the wall to help me find the cable, as the other employee stifled a giggle and turned away.

Karl Marx promoted the idea that religion was essentially irrational, unnecessary, and often a means of social control harmful to people. These ideas were generally transmitted along with the rest of his economic and political ideology. So those people, groups, and nations who were influenced by Karl Marx’s theories on economics and politics generally also accepted his opinions about the nature of religion. There was interest in communism and revolution, new world powers and struggle against the old world powers, especially the Western capitalist systems.

Social inequality in the U.S. economic system led many to become interested in Marxist theories, and with these theories they also received his view of religion as oppressive, especially if it is an organized religious institution (which for most Americans is epitomized by the medieval Catholic Church in Europe). In the United States there was already a culture of mistrust towards Catholicism, even since colonial times. This made it easy to demonize the Church as well as other institutions (The Man, the System, the Government, etc.) as social and economic oppressors of the people. (As per Marx).

Three key situations that developed together during the counterculture movements of the 1960s influenced the future of Buddhism: Hippies, immigration reform, and the ‘scientization’ of psychology into neuroscience.

Timothy Leary began popularizing ideas relating to drug use and particularly altered states of consciousness, saying “tune in, turn on, and drop out.” The idea became popular that there was a hidden level of reality that was more real and true than the everyday world. When this was combined with the general distaste with which the counterculture viewed institutions, “spirituality” became popular, while “religion” came to have a more negative connotation.

This time period also saw significant immigration reform in the United States. The Chinese exclusion act of 1882 was repealed in 1943, but immigration from other countries was still limited according to the proportion in the U.S. population of people from those countries according to the census taken in 1920. In 1965, an act was passed to end the system of using these national origin quotas. At this point the U.S. began permitting a higher proportion of immigration from Asian countries. This led to increased exposure of Americans to Eastern religions, particularly Buddhism, and the hippie interest in altered states of consciousness caused Buddhism to be met with open arms.

Psychologists at universities in the United States also welcomed practitioners of Eastern religions, because, like the study of psychedelics, they provided a means to study changes in consciousness at a time when “consciousness” itself was emerging as a scientifically acceptable term. By focusing more on processes of testing and measurement, psychology was moving out of social studies, and into the hard sciences. This soon led to experiments involving drugs in the laboratory, monks or yogis in the laboratory, and monks or yogis on drugs in the laboratory.

Eastern religions were viewed as an escape from the dogmatic Church and hellfire-Christianity. They were also perceived as a well developed source of information on altered consciousness. Becoming a follower of one of these Eastern religions was a way to rebel against conservative Western Christian parents and the establishment in general. (The oppressors, as the influence of Marx’s ideas continued to evolve).

Buddhism, Zen in particular, as well as various schools of yoga seemed to be just what the doctor ordered. D.T. Suzuki, Sokei-an Sasaki, and Alan Watts were largely influential in forming the presentation of Zen in America. The hippie and baby boomer search for a non-dogmatic spirituality acted as a “demand-pull” religious market. Aspects of Eastern religions that satisfied this desire were propagated, while other aspects of the religion that did not accord with the demands of the market received little to no mention. Dogmatic claims to exclusivity were also distasteful during this time, and so, like Santa Claus in the movie “Miracle on 34th St.” proponents of these religions ended up marketing themselves more effectively precisely by marketing themselves less exclusively.

Within Eastern religions, doctrines concerning Hells were omitted or even denied, as was mention of institutionalism in their history. A New-Age Buddhism became the popular impression of Buddhism as a whole. This New-Age, secular humanist, science-of-mind Buddhism became the Buddhism of America. Retaining a touch of orientalist exoticism only added to its appeal.

Since that time, New-Age Buddhism has also been adopted back in the East for several reasons. Western pilgrims seeking the Buddhism that they know have created a demand for it in countries perceived as Buddhism’s source. Meanwhile, influential Buddhists in Asian countries who have been exposed to a Western education and Western culture have also come to believe some of the same Western New-Age beliefs about what Buddhism is and should be. And sometimes, providing the Buddhism that is in demand is seen as a method to encourage Westerners to learn the dharma (Buddhist teachings) more thoroughly.

Occasionally, more thorough study resulted in disillusion. Discovering that schools of Buddhism also teach about Hells and have conservative dogmatic approaches to social conduct was a disappointment for seekers who had rejected Western religions for containing precisely the same (oppressive – Marx) features.

The possibility is considered of generating a new Buddhism without these features. Eastern robes on a Westerner still convey some orientalist exotic charm and bring attention to the teachings. However, promoting this Americanized form of Buddhism without distinguishing it clearly from Buddhism-in-general reinforces the popular American beliefs about what Buddhism is all about.

This is not by any means the only reason that Americans become interested in Buddhism, but this does cause Buddhism to gain popularity among Westerners seeking an escape from Western dogmatic religions.

And so the cycle continues.

]]> http://brendannewlon1fiction.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/how-karl-marx-changed-and-popularized-buddhism/feed/ 0 brendannewlon http://brendannewlon1fiction.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/beyond-belief/ http://brendannewlon1fiction.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/beyond-belief/#comments Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:13:33 +0000 brendannewlon http://brendannewlon1fiction.wordpress.com/?p=81 ]]>

Exploring the relationship between atheists and believers

Conflicts and mutual complaints.

Recently I’ve been browsing some atheist blogs (eg) on the inter-webs, and I was surprised with what I found. There seems to be a culture of mutual complaint between “religious” people and “atheists”. If I understand the general gist of the arguments, it seems that both sides are under the impression that some feature of the other’s viewpoint is potentially dangerous, or at least does not promote harmony and goodness in the world.  “Believers” complain that those godless atheists, bereft of morals, will eventually undermine all that is good in the world. On the other hand, atheists are exasperated by the pandemic of irrationality that seems to grip the minds of whole generations of otherwise sensible people. Failure to exercise the faculty of reason, atheists often claim, leads those misguided communities to fight violently over something that no one can prove anyway.

Even though there’s a lot of talk about, just within these topics, I was surprised that the debate seemed to concern itself only with the matter of “belief”. Belief, to be sure, is an important feature of religion, but not necessarily the most important one.

I started wondering if belief is the only point of contention between atheists and religious people, so I want to talk a little bit here about some of the non-belief-related aspects of religion to find out what kind of responses would be given by proponents of each side.

Matters of lifestyle, both secular and religious

Ethics

For one thing, I see no evidence to support an argument that ethics is necessarily rooted in belief, although it is clearly a vital aspect of many religions. The fact is that widely divergent cultures, as well as religious and nonreligious traditions, have established a similar understanding of ethics despite maintaining different beliefs proves that belief is not the foundation of ethics. The most important point to make about ethics, as it relates to our topic, is that atheists do not reject ethics by rejecting religious belief. And on the other hand, believers do not abandon ethics for the sake of following their beliefs.

Care for others, charity, humanitarianism

Ethics generally deal with proper modes of interaction between individuals. We should not kill each other or steal from each other, etc. Beyond the things that we should not do, a sense of social ethics also urges us to do certain things. We should care for the sick, feed the hungry, and generally engage our community in ways that promote peace, justice, and happiness. This sentiment is fully accessible to atheists, despite the fact that it is also frequently articulated as the primary message of many religious traditions.

There is something admirable and efficient about the religious approach to charity. First, a group of people gathers with some regularity for the sake of communal religious activity. Moral stories may be recounted, ethical virtues are extolled, and a certain amount of social pressure is levied upon each individual by every other as the charity basket is passed around. For some people, inspiring a spirit of love and compassion arouses in them the desire to give. For others it is a matter of duty, where giving charity merits reward and failure to do so deserves punishment. In that case, believing in a higher power capable of carrying out that justice may provide the necessary encouragement. In the end, those in need receive some help. While there is nothing that prevents religious or nonreligious people from giving charity, I admire the fact that many religious traditions have systematized a means of encouraging people regularly to do so.

Maintenance & Meditation

Another major feature of religion that is not necessarily based on belief is ritual. By ritual I don’t mean something out of an Indiana Jones movie, with people wearing tea cozies on their heads and strapping a goat to an altar. I’m talking about ritual as the activities of religion. For example, a type of ritual common to many religious traditions is periodic meditation. Muslims pause five times a day to ground themselves and reconnect with spiritual feelings and ideals, while a Buddhist might spend time in silent contemplation to develop a mentality of compassion. The fact that this sort of frequent return to mindfulness contribute to the health and happiness of the individual is not dependent on any belief.

Fasting, dietary laws, and the daily observance of other religious technicalities are all systems that provide opportunities for this kind of mindfulness. Dietary laws, such as abstaining from a certain food, transform the mundane activity of eating into a sacred reminder to be aware of the religion (including all the positive things included in the religion such as ethics, mindfulness, a feeling of peace or connection to a greater whole). Rather than being prone to eating on autopilot, attention must be given to the meal in order to assure that the dietary laws are being followed. Mindfulness and giving greater attention to daily activities is a source of happiness, according to religious traditions and psychologists alike.

How to appreciate each other

There is much more to religion than simply belief. While belief is certainly an important and often colorful aspect that differentiates one religion from another, it really is not the point of religion as such. So far, there is no universally accepted proof for or against the existence of God or any other spiritual reality. Some people believe that a spiritual reality exists, and other people believe that a spiritual reality does not exist. Both of these viewpoints are beliefs, and neither can be adequately justified in any universally convincing way.

So for now, it should simply be remembered that, generally speaking, we all want to be and to do good in the world. Religious belief can provide reason and encouragement for being good, but so can atheist secular humanism.

If the matter of belief were not given so much attention as a point of debate between religious believers and atheists, these two groups might acknowledge that they have many more similarities than differences. Ethics, charity, meditation and mindfulness are all vital aspects of religion, but one doesn’t have to be religious to engage in them.

I find myself wondering about the possible development of an atheist church:

“Now that it is generally accepted among doctors and scientists that regular meditation reduces stress and stress-related illness, while simultaneously reducing tendencies toward violence and aggression and promoting a sense of happiness and well-being, shouldn’t we practice regular meditation? Now that we are living in a rational atheist community, shouldn’t we get together from time to time for the sake of maintaining a supportive society? When we have our community gatherings, wouldn’t that be an ideal time to encourage each other to give charity for the sake of helping those members of our community in greater need?”

Rational considerations might very well lead atheism to develop into something that looks very much like other religions.

I was leaving a comment to this article, and then realized that I might as well post my comment on my own site.  And this isn’t by far the first comment-turned-post that you’ll find here…

The original post:  http://www.stateofprotest.com/blog/2008/12/15/being-religious-is-like-eating-sand/

_________________________________________

It seems like you’re more against unsupported belief (“taking things on faith”), rather than all of religion.

There are all kinds of aspects of “religion” that don’t rely at all on believing or not believing in doctrine. Some of those aspects can be positive, some can be negative, just like in any other human enterprise.  People who think something can be gained through conflict over beliefs aren’t helping anyone.  People who present their econo-political struggles in religious terms are also not helping people to understand religion.

Religion, as an idea, can refer to so many different things, not just matters of belief.  Ethics can be presented or preserved religiously. Societies can create a structure for themselves and modes of interaction that promote friendly relationships. Meditation has been shown to have all kinds of benefits, regardless of whether you’re a meditating Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Humanist, etc.  The fact that the activity is religious for some people doesn’t change the fact that it has benefits.  And although it is a religious practice (for those who do it religiously), it doesn’t have to rely on any unsupportable beliefs or dogma.

Beliefs, in themselves, aren’t hurting anyone. Whether or not a person finds the same “meaning” (or lack thereof) in the universe that you find doesn’t change anything. “Believers” and “Atheists” alike can be good people, happy people, and can do their part to make the world a better place for everyone.  They can both also cause trouble for others just like anyone else.

As for the beliefs themselves, it’s just as hard to prove a belief that there is a soul as to prove that there isn’t. If there is a “spiritual” reality, we might not be able to detect it with scientific instruments. But not seeing something doesn’t constitute proof that it doesn’t exist.  Ignoring accounts of people who claim to have had firsthand contact with some other form of reality would be an irrational handicap to our pursuit of knowledge. If investigation isn’t possible, the best we can do is to say “I don’t know for sure… but I’ve heard X and I’ve heard Y.”

You can believe as much or as little as you want, and still live a good and happy life, in peaceful coexistence with others.

***

In reply to Noumenon, who commented:
“To al the religious: stop eating the sand and help the homeless instead.”

You might be interested in how many aid organizations are founded and funded by religious groups. Most religions give particular attention to helping the needy. Religious people don’t necessarily have to sit around all day at home mumbling to a magic sky daddy. Just like non-religious people, they want to help out if they can.  And the added bonus is that once a week or so, they might attend a social function in which they’re urged to donate to charitable causes.  Someone might even pass around a collection box. The social pressure and religious justification to donate are combined with the immanent opportunity to give cash.  And, always hoping that the charity organization is efficient, the needy are the ones who receive the benefit.