About Me
- Prisms of Light
- This blog is an accompaniment to the feature documentary, which is due to be completed in February 2011.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
Friday, 8 October 2010
The Brahma Kumaris
We were on the road again. Leaving the fresh mountain air, we descended South into the furnace of pre-monsoon heat.
With Uttrakashi behind us, I was able to reflect on some of the experiences I had there. One that stayed with me was my first day there, when I was propositioned by a celibate monk.! After being told that he he wished to marry me and take me to live in a cave with him, I started dressing like a monk.
There are so many things that I love about India, but there is one thing that I hate: the attitude of the average Indian man to Western women. What they know of Western culture is what they see in Western media. Beautiful girls dancing in skimpy clothing is the norm for us here, but in the context of India's conservatism it looks like porn. Uneducated people presume these images are of indicative of Western culture, and that Western women are okay with being being touched and fondled. Therefore, we're fair game.
Disguising myself as a monk was, ironically, a sexual liberation. The orange trousers, orange T-shirt, and orange shawl that covered my shoulders and hair were like an protective field. I suddenly felt free.
This journey was our longest and most taxing so far. We got rickety government buses from Pilot Baba's ashram to Uttrakashi, Uttrakashi to Rishikesh, Rishikesh to Delhi, Delhi to Jaipur. From Jaipur we got a taxi to Mount Abu, which involved driving through the desert state of Rajasthan. The whole trip took 48 hours. 
On the rocky road from the Himalayas we grew accustomed to the sound of people throwing up over the side of the bus. We carried the equipment in our laps to absorb the shock, our legs went numb, and we mastered the art of sleeping sitting upright with no feeling below the waist. We were awed by the majesty of the mountains, and the wistful beauty of the desert.
We stopped at Dabbas (Indian road side restaurants) , and ate Indian food for breakfast. Local kids would come on board the buses trying to sell water, soft drinks or crisps. During one of our stops, a ticket inspector grabbed one of the little boys, and shoved him out of the bus while it was moving. The boy tumbled onto the road, and his crisps exploded and mingled with the red dust. Our taxi driver was legally blind, and Dipesh had to read the road signs for him, while Raj had to resist his urge to jump behind the wheel every time we had a close call with death. In India you're always on the edge of civilisation.
We stopped at Dabbas (Indian road side restaurants) , and ate Indian food for breakfast. Local kids would come on board the buses trying to sell water, soft drinks or crisps. During one of our stops, a ticket inspector grabbed one of the little boys, and shoved him out of the bus while it was moving. The boy tumbled onto the road, and his crisps exploded and mingled with the red dust. Our taxi driver was legally blind, and Dipesh had to read the road signs for him, while Raj had to resist his urge to jump behind the wheel every time we had a close call with death. In India you're always on the edge of civilisation.The peace and cleanliness of the Brahma Kumaris headquarters at Mount Abu was a safe haven for us after the journey, and I quickly shed my orange robes and replaced them with white.
You see, the Brahma Kumaris have a couple of rules. No sex, no alcohol, no drugs, no smoking. You must be vegetarian, you must wear white, you must take a shower every morning, you must get up at 3.30am to mediate. Those who live at the complex full-time have to take a shower every time they empty their bowels. (I shit you not!)
Their goal is to purify the self and become Angels. Once December 21st 2012 hits, they believe modern civilisation will end, and be replaced by a Golden Era on Earth. The majority of the 6 billion inhabitant on Earth will die, but those who have attained a sufficient level of purity will survive and become Deities.
It was interesting that neither myself nor Raj were phased by this place, but then again, this wasn't my first time at the BK. We came here in 2009, to research, and that time I had a pretty violent inner-reaction against it. I objected to the teachings, fought with several of the teachers, and even took up smoking on the balcony. I wasn't trying to rebel, but I felt so repressed and restricted that I needed to do something to know that I was free.
So a year had passed, and I obeyed their rules, and didn't argue. I still didn't agree with their vision of life, but I was prepared to hear them out and not judge. Had I changed, or had I simply become accustomed?
Since becoming interested in spirituality, I have always preached the philosophy of "not-knowing", but it was in a Bill Maher "Religulous" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/) kind of way. (ie. I said I didn't know, but I secretly thought I did). It was at the BK that I really opened my mind to the possibility that I don't know what's going on in this Universe.
This happened because of one Westerner living there: a German called Golo.
Golo made the point that I can't judge God or spirituality unless I actually mediate, because it's through mediation that God is experienced directly. So I mediated with them, and something weird happened. As I was meditating, the BK symbol floated into my mind's eye. It was around this time, that me, Raj and Dipesh started talking about joining the BK.!
In my defense, I was attracted to the idea of having free places to stay all over the world (you're not charged for anything when you stay at a Brahma Kumaris centre, and they have centres in more than 60 countries, including one in New York, U.S.A), but needless to say, we hadnt fully thought it through fully. Raj was the voice of reason, saying that we should see how we felt when we left.
And as soon as we got out of the complex we realised what had almost happened! It was at this point that I realised the power of being in an environment where so many people were visualising the same thing. It gets inside you. And then it becomes validated for you - I had seen the symbol float into my vision when I mediated, and this could be taken as a kind of proof that this was the path to Truth.
It makes me wonder how much we are all products of our environment. Every day we pass through environments which send out specific messages, which filter into our subconscious. (Advertising is a prime example of this).
Are our beliefs ever the truth, or are we simply processing information in accordance with how we have been programmed?
Their goal is to purify the self and become Angels. Once December 21st 2012 hits, they believe modern civilisation will end, and be replaced by a Golden Era on Earth. The majority of the 6 billion inhabitant on Earth will die, but those who have attained a sufficient level of purity will survive and become Deities.
The rules and the philosophy combined create an environment which is like something out of a James Bond film. The complex is completely self-sufficient, and run on solar energy, and everyone floats around wearing white, and being peaceful. Everywhere you look, there are pictures of deceased spiritual teachers, a red glowing light, and a symbol which represents the point of light of God.
It was interesting that neither myself nor Raj were phased by this place, but then again, this wasn't my first time at the BK. We came here in 2009, to research, and that time I had a pretty violent inner-reaction against it. I objected to the teachings, fought with several of the teachers, and even took up smoking on the balcony. I wasn't trying to rebel, but I felt so repressed and restricted that I needed to do something to know that I was free.
So a year had passed, and I obeyed their rules, and didn't argue. I still didn't agree with their vision of life, but I was prepared to hear them out and not judge. Had I changed, or had I simply become accustomed?
Since becoming interested in spirituality, I have always preached the philosophy of "not-knowing", but it was in a Bill Maher "Religulous" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/) kind of way. (ie. I said I didn't know, but I secretly thought I did). It was at the BK that I really opened my mind to the possibility that I don't know what's going on in this Universe.
This happened because of one Westerner living there: a German called Golo.
Golo made the point that I can't judge God or spirituality unless I actually mediate, because it's through mediation that God is experienced directly. So I mediated with them, and something weird happened. As I was meditating, the BK symbol floated into my mind's eye. It was around this time, that me, Raj and Dipesh started talking about joining the BK.!In my defense, I was attracted to the idea of having free places to stay all over the world (you're not charged for anything when you stay at a Brahma Kumaris centre, and they have centres in more than 60 countries, including one in New York, U.S.A), but needless to say, we hadnt fully thought it through fully. Raj was the voice of reason, saying that we should see how we felt when we left.
And as soon as we got out of the complex we realised what had almost happened! It was at this point that I realised the power of being in an environment where so many people were visualising the same thing. It gets inside you. And then it becomes validated for you - I had seen the symbol float into my vision when I mediated, and this could be taken as a kind of proof that this was the path to Truth.
It makes me wonder how much we are all products of our environment. Every day we pass through environments which send out specific messages, which filter into our subconscious. (Advertising is a prime example of this).
Are our beliefs ever the truth, or are we simply processing information in accordance with how we have been programmed?Monday, 27 September 2010
Facebook responses Part II
As soon as I figure out why people haven't been able to comment on this blog hopefully we can get a discussion going here! Til then, more comments from my pals:
Luan McKenna tried responding on the blog but it didn't work...
I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to respond to this before I left on my trip to northern and western Australia, and then I put it on the long finger. I certainly hadn’t forgotten about it tho...ugh. Quite the contrary in fact.
Firstly I would like to endorse a very important point you make, and I’m glad we agree on this fundamental: “ Love each other and to hell with the rest. Now, how can that be "wrong"?” I’m quoting you there but you added the quotations on the word wrong. I can only assume that is a reference to our difference of opinion over there being some things that are right or wrong. You have stated that you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong. Indulge me in the hypothetical for a moment and imagine someone very close to you has been murdered. A culprit is apprehended and charged. Would you want that person to be tried in court and convicted with a life sentence based on an accumulation of evidence? I don’t know anyone who would say no to that question so I assume you would say yes. If you do say yes then you are casting a judgement over someone’s actions and using reason to see justice (for want of a better word) carried out.
All of us believe in evidence in our lives but some of us chose to abandon it at certain points. In the case of conventional monotheism an axiomatic belief system is employed. This requires no evidence to back up beliefs or points of view. The truth of the holy book is a fact no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. The book is true and if the evidence contradicts it then it is the evidence that must be dismissed. This is the fundamental difference between atheism and theism. I believe not because I read a holy book but because I have studied the evidence. I would like to stress this point as I find it tedious answering to the charge of being as fundamental as religious people. I know exactly what it would take for me to change my mind and that would be evidence. You mentioned some of Newton’s theories have been disproven. That is exactly what I am trying to illustrate. I don’t claim to have all the answers, far from it, and even the things we do know are being advanced, disproved or augmented constantly, based on new learnings and developments. Incidentally that is why I found your comment – “I think Atheism is just the ego in overdrive. "If I can't understand it, it must be stupid." – particularly perplexing. If I can’t understand something I try to understand it. If part of the explanation for understanding it requires me to take a leap of faith and believe a child was born of a virgin or that dead people rose or that I can’t answer a phone on a Saturday all because we are told by an ancient holy book, then I will have grave insurmountable difficulty in accepting it. If on the other hand you explain something based on an accumulation of evidence then I will find it much easier to accept. Dawkins gives an example of a professor he had at Oxford in the zoology department. For years this man believed and taught that the golgi apparatus was not real (some sort cell feature that I don’t for a minute pretend to understand).One day they had a guest lecturer from America who came in and provided compelling evidence that the golgi apparatus does in fact exist. At the end of the lecture the Oxford professor strode to the front of the hall shook the guest by the hand and said something like “I wish to thank you, I have been wrong all these years.” He abandoned a long held belief because of contradictory evidence. Whether the story is true or not is irrelevant it’s the principal of it that matters. Can you imagine a religious person doing this?
Another equally baffling statement you made was - “Faith is not an expression of certitude... it is the humility of not knowing, and keeping going.” – If this is the case then why do creationists believe humans lived with dinosaurs? They are trying to fit evidence around their archaic belief. As always with people of faith, if the evidence disagrees with the holy book then it must be the evidence that is disregarded. I may be a little harsh on that statement as it only sounds so ludicrous to me when applied to conventional orthodox monotheism. If viewed in a less specific more spiritual way then I would not find it so bizarre. But then it would appear to essentially be hope, which along with love and reason are probably my pillars of existence.
Speaking of love thanks for the well wishes on my love life, however sardonic. An interesting theory I heard before is that love (between a man and a woman) could be a by product of pro creation. It creates a more positive, constructive and productive environment in which to raise offspring. I don’t endorse the theory altogether but it is an interesting thought. There is plenty we don’t know yet about emotions. Either way I don’t claim to be able to fully explain what love is, but if it is a feeling that is of benefit and does not adversely affect others then I’m all for it. I have much time for the utilitarian libertarian views of John Stuart Mill in this regard.
That’s probably enough for now but it is such a vast topic and I hope to be able to chat over a beer with Yola holding a camera in the background sometime somewhere!
Peadar ClancySorry Y-fronts, looks like your copying and pasting again...
"Wrong" is in quotation marks because I believe it to be a man-made construct which is subject to changing with the men who construct it. Indulging your hypothetical even further,... imagine that this murder was committed in Rome, 2000 years ago, and the person very close to me was a slave. In those circumstances, the action of destroying a piece of property maybe met with a penalty of compensation, but would certainly not be viewed as "wrong" as we would view it now. So, I don't trust value judgements in this regard, but do my best (and fail, often) not to collapse morality with ethics or integrity.
Certainly, I want Law to be conducted on the basis of reason. I think analogising civil law to practices of faith falls down when you consider that one is developed in order to allow the workings of a practical society and the other is fundamentally spiritual development.
When I hear talk about the "truth of the holy book", it just sounds to me like the beginnings of a black vs white debate. I really don't consider there to be any one Truth to such works. I am not interested in such debates. As I stated before, these instructions come by way of mythology, and to paraphrase a brilliant teacher I listen to occasionally/... (Father Richard Rohr, I recommend him wholeheartedly, insightful, and not exactly a friend of institutionalised religious practises, Martin Lutherish, I suppose, in his recognition of the abuses of the Church)..."They great thing about myths is that they are always true, and sometimes...it really happened."
Let me try and explain what I mean about Atheism and Egoism. I think the refusal to humbly accept that there are some things that are beyond the comprehension of the human mind is, essentially, childish. I think the "Age of Reason" could just as easily have been called "The Age of Arrogance". For instance, and Luan, I hope you understand I mean no personal offence, but will speak frankly, the idea that you might tell me about the "truth of the holy book" just strikes me as silly and conceited. How long does any one in any religious order spend reaching "enlightenment" or an ultimate understanding? A lifetime. And I suspect, there is always going to be an incompleteness in any such pursuit.
Can I imagine a religious person admitting to being wrong in matters of faith? I don't need to really, Christ being lectured by the gentile woman for not sharing his message with non-jewish folk springs to mind. There is the central figure of a faith holding his hands up and saying "shit-balls lads, sorry about that one..." I would however, find it surprising for the Vatican to begin highlighting this particular passage, or, for that matter, the Beatitudes, as it would erode their power base. You see, not being able to imagine somebody religious actually admitting error...well, it makes me wonder how many truly religious people you know. And trust me, catechism is not religion.
Creationism. I am not a creationist. Direct your questions on this subject to creationists. Their definition of faith, it seems, is very different to mine. Because I happen to entertain the idea of a spiritual reason for being does not mean I have to defend the beliefs of others who happen to believe differently to you. I shouldn't have to. One thing I will say about Catholicism - it acknowledges the right of others to believe in what they will (please note I did not say "Roman Catholicism) and, as I may have said before, I wonder at times, why is it my atheist pals have such a problem with me believing in something different. My creed, at least, allows for the creeds of others. But there, I catch myself making a moral judgement. Yet, certainly, in the area of ethics, a society where people do not allow for the beliefs of others simply will not work.
"As always with people of faith..." Don't you see the gross generalisation here? Isn't this statement indicative of an extremist view? Hence the comparisons drawn with fundamentalist Christians. You are a fundamentalist atheist, but a fundamentalist nevertheless. Fundamentalists label things as other and batter them with righteousness. And if that bothers you, then I urge you to examine why, because that which is not a part of us, will never trouble us.
Hope, to my mind, is a different beast from Faith. Hope is inactive. Faith is not.
I very much like beer.
Thanks for taking the time, and stimulating the response.
Luan McKenna I accept your point about my gross generalisation. I should have been more specific as it was people who follow Christianity, Islam or Judaism I was mainly referring to in that case. I was talking about how their holy books, however allegor...ically intended, supercede things that can be proved - in their minds. That is why I gave the example of the Creationists.
I know you are not a Creationist, but I am not arguing against your beliefs as you appear to think throughout our discourse. I am arguing against conventional religion. I am not here to say there is no God. It is possible there is. For me there is not enough evidence to back such a belief but I'm certainly not dismissing the possibility. I am also not dismissing spirituality, far from it.
Similarly I wasn't telling you about the "truth of the holy book". I don't really know how you drew that conclusion and I'm sorry if that's how it seemed to you. My intention was, as I have just stated, to illustrate how followers of the Old and New Testaments, and the Koran give their books precedence over evidence that contradicts them.
I know plenty of religious people and it is disappointing to hear you suggest otherwise. While away on my travels last month myself and my sister (she is a Christian) had a great dinner with with a Catholic priest in a place called Broome. He is a highly intelligent person and I had a very enlightening 4 hour religious discussion with him. It was very refreshing to hear well thought out views from a young (well he's about 40) smart priest.
You say "Fundamentalists label things as other and batter them with righteousness." Is this not what you are doing? If you substitute the word righteousness for reason then I will be happy to accept your accusation. Did you not like the Dawkins story I gave to illustrate the difference between fundamentalists and people who believe in reason? If you still call me a fundamentalist after that then we obviously have very different ways of thinking.
You say you don't want religion or spirituality to be based on reason. What do you want them to be based on? Herein lies the difference in our points of view I think as you are arguing for a different way of thinking when it comes to these issues, one not based on reason.
Yolanda Barker Scientific theories are constantly evolving, and who knows, maybe one day they will be able to conclusively prove or disprove that there is a God. Maybe for now we could just keep an open mind. Personally, after a long time of questioning (14 years) I've come to the conclusion that I just don't know! And that's actually pretty liberating. Love. xx
Luan McKenna tried responding on the blog but it didn't work...
I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance to respond to this before I left on my trip to northern and western Australia, and then I put it on the long finger. I certainly hadn’t forgotten about it tho...ugh. Quite the contrary in fact.
Firstly I would like to endorse a very important point you make, and I’m glad we agree on this fundamental: “ Love each other and to hell with the rest. Now, how can that be "wrong"?” I’m quoting you there but you added the quotations on the word wrong. I can only assume that is a reference to our difference of opinion over there being some things that are right or wrong. You have stated that you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong. Indulge me in the hypothetical for a moment and imagine someone very close to you has been murdered. A culprit is apprehended and charged. Would you want that person to be tried in court and convicted with a life sentence based on an accumulation of evidence? I don’t know anyone who would say no to that question so I assume you would say yes. If you do say yes then you are casting a judgement over someone’s actions and using reason to see justice (for want of a better word) carried out.
All of us believe in evidence in our lives but some of us chose to abandon it at certain points. In the case of conventional monotheism an axiomatic belief system is employed. This requires no evidence to back up beliefs or points of view. The truth of the holy book is a fact no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. The book is true and if the evidence contradicts it then it is the evidence that must be dismissed. This is the fundamental difference between atheism and theism. I believe not because I read a holy book but because I have studied the evidence. I would like to stress this point as I find it tedious answering to the charge of being as fundamental as religious people. I know exactly what it would take for me to change my mind and that would be evidence. You mentioned some of Newton’s theories have been disproven. That is exactly what I am trying to illustrate. I don’t claim to have all the answers, far from it, and even the things we do know are being advanced, disproved or augmented constantly, based on new learnings and developments. Incidentally that is why I found your comment – “I think Atheism is just the ego in overdrive. "If I can't understand it, it must be stupid." – particularly perplexing. If I can’t understand something I try to understand it. If part of the explanation for understanding it requires me to take a leap of faith and believe a child was born of a virgin or that dead people rose or that I can’t answer a phone on a Saturday all because we are told by an ancient holy book, then I will have grave insurmountable difficulty in accepting it. If on the other hand you explain something based on an accumulation of evidence then I will find it much easier to accept. Dawkins gives an example of a professor he had at Oxford in the zoology department. For years this man believed and taught that the golgi apparatus was not real (some sort cell feature that I don’t for a minute pretend to understand).One day they had a guest lecturer from America who came in and provided compelling evidence that the golgi apparatus does in fact exist. At the end of the lecture the Oxford professor strode to the front of the hall shook the guest by the hand and said something like “I wish to thank you, I have been wrong all these years.” He abandoned a long held belief because of contradictory evidence. Whether the story is true or not is irrelevant it’s the principal of it that matters. Can you imagine a religious person doing this?
Another equally baffling statement you made was - “Faith is not an expression of certitude... it is the humility of not knowing, and keeping going.” – If this is the case then why do creationists believe humans lived with dinosaurs? They are trying to fit evidence around their archaic belief. As always with people of faith, if the evidence disagrees with the holy book then it must be the evidence that is disregarded. I may be a little harsh on that statement as it only sounds so ludicrous to me when applied to conventional orthodox monotheism. If viewed in a less specific more spiritual way then I would not find it so bizarre. But then it would appear to essentially be hope, which along with love and reason are probably my pillars of existence.
Speaking of love thanks for the well wishes on my love life, however sardonic. An interesting theory I heard before is that love (between a man and a woman) could be a by product of pro creation. It creates a more positive, constructive and productive environment in which to raise offspring. I don’t endorse the theory altogether but it is an interesting thought. There is plenty we don’t know yet about emotions. Either way I don’t claim to be able to fully explain what love is, but if it is a feeling that is of benefit and does not adversely affect others then I’m all for it. I have much time for the utilitarian libertarian views of John Stuart Mill in this regard.
That’s probably enough for now but it is such a vast topic and I hope to be able to chat over a beer with Yola holding a camera in the background sometime somewhere!
Peadar ClancySorry Y-fronts, looks like your copying and pasting again...
"Wrong" is in quotation marks because I believe it to be a man-made construct which is subject to changing with the men who construct it. Indulging your hypothetical even further,... imagine that this murder was committed in Rome, 2000 years ago, and the person very close to me was a slave. In those circumstances, the action of destroying a piece of property maybe met with a penalty of compensation, but would certainly not be viewed as "wrong" as we would view it now. So, I don't trust value judgements in this regard, but do my best (and fail, often) not to collapse morality with ethics or integrity.
Certainly, I want Law to be conducted on the basis of reason. I think analogising civil law to practices of faith falls down when you consider that one is developed in order to allow the workings of a practical society and the other is fundamentally spiritual development.
When I hear talk about the "truth of the holy book", it just sounds to me like the beginnings of a black vs white debate. I really don't consider there to be any one Truth to such works. I am not interested in such debates. As I stated before, these instructions come by way of mythology, and to paraphrase a brilliant teacher I listen to occasionally/... (Father Richard Rohr, I recommend him wholeheartedly, insightful, and not exactly a friend of institutionalised religious practises, Martin Lutherish, I suppose, in his recognition of the abuses of the Church)..."They great thing about myths is that they are always true, and sometimes...it really happened."
Let me try and explain what I mean about Atheism and Egoism. I think the refusal to humbly accept that there are some things that are beyond the comprehension of the human mind is, essentially, childish. I think the "Age of Reason" could just as easily have been called "The Age of Arrogance". For instance, and Luan, I hope you understand I mean no personal offence, but will speak frankly, the idea that you might tell me about the "truth of the holy book" just strikes me as silly and conceited. How long does any one in any religious order spend reaching "enlightenment" or an ultimate understanding? A lifetime. And I suspect, there is always going to be an incompleteness in any such pursuit.
Can I imagine a religious person admitting to being wrong in matters of faith? I don't need to really, Christ being lectured by the gentile woman for not sharing his message with non-jewish folk springs to mind. There is the central figure of a faith holding his hands up and saying "shit-balls lads, sorry about that one..." I would however, find it surprising for the Vatican to begin highlighting this particular passage, or, for that matter, the Beatitudes, as it would erode their power base. You see, not being able to imagine somebody religious actually admitting error...well, it makes me wonder how many truly religious people you know. And trust me, catechism is not religion.
Creationism. I am not a creationist. Direct your questions on this subject to creationists. Their definition of faith, it seems, is very different to mine. Because I happen to entertain the idea of a spiritual reason for being does not mean I have to defend the beliefs of others who happen to believe differently to you. I shouldn't have to. One thing I will say about Catholicism - it acknowledges the right of others to believe in what they will (please note I did not say "Roman Catholicism) and, as I may have said before, I wonder at times, why is it my atheist pals have such a problem with me believing in something different. My creed, at least, allows for the creeds of others. But there, I catch myself making a moral judgement. Yet, certainly, in the area of ethics, a society where people do not allow for the beliefs of others simply will not work.
"As always with people of faith..." Don't you see the gross generalisation here? Isn't this statement indicative of an extremist view? Hence the comparisons drawn with fundamentalist Christians. You are a fundamentalist atheist, but a fundamentalist nevertheless. Fundamentalists label things as other and batter them with righteousness. And if that bothers you, then I urge you to examine why, because that which is not a part of us, will never trouble us.
Hope, to my mind, is a different beast from Faith. Hope is inactive. Faith is not.
I very much like beer.
Thanks for taking the time, and stimulating the response.
Luan McKenna I accept your point about my gross generalisation. I should have been more specific as it was people who follow Christianity, Islam or Judaism I was mainly referring to in that case. I was talking about how their holy books, however allegor...ically intended, supercede things that can be proved - in their minds. That is why I gave the example of the Creationists.
I know you are not a Creationist, but I am not arguing against your beliefs as you appear to think throughout our discourse. I am arguing against conventional religion. I am not here to say there is no God. It is possible there is. For me there is not enough evidence to back such a belief but I'm certainly not dismissing the possibility. I am also not dismissing spirituality, far from it.
Similarly I wasn't telling you about the "truth of the holy book". I don't really know how you drew that conclusion and I'm sorry if that's how it seemed to you. My intention was, as I have just stated, to illustrate how followers of the Old and New Testaments, and the Koran give their books precedence over evidence that contradicts them.
I know plenty of religious people and it is disappointing to hear you suggest otherwise. While away on my travels last month myself and my sister (she is a Christian) had a great dinner with with a Catholic priest in a place called Broome. He is a highly intelligent person and I had a very enlightening 4 hour religious discussion with him. It was very refreshing to hear well thought out views from a young (well he's about 40) smart priest.
You say "Fundamentalists label things as other and batter them with righteousness." Is this not what you are doing? If you substitute the word righteousness for reason then I will be happy to accept your accusation. Did you not like the Dawkins story I gave to illustrate the difference between fundamentalists and people who believe in reason? If you still call me a fundamentalist after that then we obviously have very different ways of thinking.
You say you don't want religion or spirituality to be based on reason. What do you want them to be based on? Herein lies the difference in our points of view I think as you are arguing for a different way of thinking when it comes to these issues, one not based on reason.
Yolanda Barker Scientific theories are constantly evolving, and who knows, maybe one day they will be able to conclusively prove or disprove that there is a God. Maybe for now we could just keep an open mind. Personally, after a long time of questioning (14 years) I've come to the conclusion that I just don't know! And that's actually pretty liberating. Love. xx
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Apparently, in polite conversation you should never talk about politics, sex, or religion...
After posting the last blog entry on my personal Facebook page, a great debate unfolded on the comments thread. My friends agreed to let me repost here.
If a blog entry can generate this, I'm wondering what the film will do! Enjoy.
Peadar Clancy To my mind, there is no disparity of thought there. It's a pretty prevalent theme in what little research I've done down the road of spirituality - The Kingdom is within. It is not divinity to which we ought aspire, but humanity.
Yolanda Barker Well said peads, as always. What if some people DO aspire to divinity though? Is it wrong?
Luan McKenna Aspiring to a divinity is wrong. Anything that encourages you to follow blindly and have faith for the sake of faith is an endorsement of ignorance. It is also a useful mechanism for manipulative people to exploit more vulnerable people.
"Wh...at's wrong with letting people believe in fairy tales if it makes them happy?"
Bridging gaps of understanding with blind faith / ignorance is regressive and extremely harmful as it also assumes self righteousness - again based on a superstition - which causes division between people based on different forms of faith in the unprovable. This frequently creates hostility between people who assume their faith to be right and all others to be wrong. This results in in inter faith friction and more disconcertingly a contempt for science and reason when it disagrees with their fictional doctrine.
Your mate Peader is right there should be no disparity of thought. It's fine to learn from other people and even adopt their ways if they are reasonable and beneficial to all. However, following somebody blindly whether it be Charles Manson, Jesus Christ, Muhammod or the tooth fairy is dangerous and a subjugation to ignorance.
The quest for continued understanding of the world around us is what motivates humanists to fill the gaps of understanding that remain. These gaps may never be fully filled but they have reduced considerably over the course of time courtesy of Darwin, Newton, Da Vinci etc
Peadar Clancy Wrong implies morality. Morality morphs. Nothing is wrong. Nothing is right. Just is. Faith buy its nature is blind. It is not some all shining light that will give you the answers. It is the will to take a step out into the darkness, ...not knowing where your foot will fall but taking it all the same. I think. Faith has been perverted. It is a by word for head in sand ostrich manoeuvres or some kind of magic word. I dont think faith is meant to be a bridge to understanding. I dont really know what it is, but I dont think its that.
Yolanda Barker What;s the difference between people blindly following a guru (who states that their goal is for you to find your inner guru), and people blindly adhering to the social norms that have been put in place for us by governments (who imply we're not fit to make our own decisions)?
Luan McKenna Wrong for me implies something that does not have a rational basis. If you are happy to call anything that is based on superstition, other than wrong, then we will have some distance between what we think.
Believing in Santa is wrong because... it is made up. To call it otherwise is stupid. The same applies for the tooth fairy. The same also applies to monotheistic religions because their fundamental belief relies on the imagination and has no rational qualification.
You can talk all day about there being no right and wrong but some things that are based on the ludicicrous are wrong. Hitler was wrong - it is a real concept. Maybe he had a set of beliefs that he probably laid out in Mein Kempf that adhered to a certain logic but ultimately it was wrong. Some things are wrong. To think otherwise is an obfuscation of the truth.
I still cannot understand why we give religion such a sanctamonious place in our mind. If something is made up or based on an irrational superstitious belief then it should not be given any credence. To think otherwise is an endorsement and advocation of the irrational.
So, although it does sound arrogant to call anything right or wrong, to accept irrational superstitious fictional beliefs as right and to give them mainstream influential status as anything other than ridiculous is plainly wrong to me.
Mark Optic "Heaven is a place on Earth"
the great philosopher.. Belinda Carlisle (ok she didn't write it, but she preached it well!!)
Luan McKenna that's one of my favourite songs! "it Ain't Necessarily so" is another that combines funky soul with an valuable life message too. Music with meaning, oh yeah...
Peadar Clancy Luan, the liberal and the conservative are marked out not by the beliefs that they hold, but how they hold them. What I cannot abide about organised religion is the steadfast refusal to see but one side of an argument. The absolute suret...y and certitude of righteousness and the opinion that those who do not hold the same beliefs ought to be pitied. So many confirmed atheists with whom I happily share my life have the very same problem. Yet they consider me "stupid" because for some reason, I just don't agree with them. You see, mainstream Atheism fights organised religion in precisely the same way that organised religion operates - hence you become what you fight.
The subject we are discussing is vast. So vast that if I let myself really think of its infinitude, I quake inwardly. It is truly imponderable, and yet, we ponder. You are citing examples from the history of humanity and you are citing them subjectively. In the great scheme of the Universe, I think what humans decide are "right" and "wrong" has no more significance than which direction a colony of ants decides to go in search of food.
Everything is made up. This is made up. Words are assigned to things and we all agree on them and therefore they stand. But were we all to agree that a chair ought to be called a bed, then a chair would be a bed and another name found for a chair. Rationale. Reason. Great, vaunted reason. "The reasonable man adapts to the world around him. The unreasonable man adapts the world to him. Therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men." Shaw, I think, though I'm not really much of a fan, I will quote him for my purposes.
Incidentally, to refer to a person's faith as "superstition" shows an utter lack of respect for the other perspective of the argument you are disputng. How an earth do you think you can come to a synthesis of thesis and antithesis in this regard? The dualistic thinking of our educational systems and western philosophy leads down a very limited road and invariably leads to antagonism. I highly recommend coming at an argument entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong. That may you might learn something. This recommendation comes from my own personal experience of always being "right" and how very much it cost me in the end. That said, noone can really learn from another's experience. Be as right as you want, but how terribly boring it is to absolutely certain.
I suppose in this arena you have the likes of Fry, Dawkins and my beloved and respected Feynman on your side. With me sit Cash, Cave and Cohen. I chose that company purely for myself and because it works for me to live and breathe this way. I am sure you did the same yourself. I can happily handle the fact that others don't think the same way as I do. You might try the same.
You raise a few interesting points Peadar.
“mainstream Atheism fights organised religion in precisely the same way that organised religion operates - hence you become what you fight” - This is a very common argument. I simply can’t see the ...logic in it though. I can see how you think that both sides are vehemently fighting their corner without ever agreeing with the other side. But because it is logic atheists are using and not stories made up thousands of years ago how can you say they are fighting in precisely the same way? If new evidence was to emerge tomorrow that terminally undermined the theory of evolution or it was proved that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun then I would accept it. Religious people on the other hand refuse to believe in anything that contradicts their archaic doctrine. They refuse to accept anything that disagrees with their held beliefs.
It is precisely for this reason that it is religious people who are absolutely certain. Science, much like it’s most revolutionary theory, evolves. There is no certainty only an accumulation of evidence that can prove or help us understand certain aspects of the world around us. I completely agree with you on this point that it would be terribly boring to be absolutely certain the whole time. It also implies a righteousness that you alluded to before. Atheists believe that what we know is constantly evolving so there are no absolutes. Challenging accepted truths is exactly what leads to progress in every aspect of life from philosophy to physics to politics.
Religious people credit their superstitions as revelations or doctrinal truths and refuse to accept anything that contradicts them. I call them superstitions, as a superstition is, as I understand it, a belief in spite of evidence or without evidence. Seeing as there is no evidence to prove that Moses parted the Red Sea, or Jesus walked on water or that Mary was a virgin or that she was ascended to heaven in body and flesh, they are therefore beliefs held in spite of evidence or without it. Not every argument has to find a compromise, middle ground or synthesis. In fact that is a preposterous maxim. If a Creationist is arguing that the world is 6,000 years old and a scientist argues it is closer to 6 billion, should they agree to a compromise? Even though the Creationist is basing their argument on a scientific subject – the age of the world in this case – in fictional stories or allegories. Where as the scientist is basing theirs on accumulated knowledge of things like fossils and cosmology. Are you happy to accept then that there is some credence in what Creationists believe – that man lived with dinosaurs for example – because as you have already said there is no such thing as right and wrong?
You may have a point that our dualistic educational system and the adversarial nature of debate and discussion in our society leads down a very limited road and is very antagonistic. What I see as much more dangerous is a society that is happy to accept fabricated mono theistic beliefs that attack science & reason, are hostile to self questioning and are violent towards those who hold different beliefs.
I love learning new things, challenging long held views and discovering new ways to think about things but I’ll never do this based on superstitions or allegories from thousands of years ago - not unless they agree with reason and can be beneficial to all. In fact I only just recently changed my religious views from deist to atheist after discussions, reading and thinking based on reason.
I’m delighted to accept the company you put me with. Are Cash, Cave & Cohen all singers? Johnny, Nick & Leonard?
Peadar Clancy The logic is this: The belief is not important. How you hold the belief is. In your argument, you generalise and pontificate. Now, you are saying that your basis is sound in reason and logic. Ok. That's more than alright with me. But if... I choose to disagree, which I do, I am made stupid. I am labelled other and ridiculed. Is this not exactly what those in organised religion have done over the centuries? Labelled something as "other" and attempted to silence it?
Ghandi wrote a little better about than I can, (thus far) I'd direct you there for further research. But do you not see the inherent irony in saying that "..it is religious people who are absolutely certain..."? Isn't that an expression of certainty? You know, I am what you might call religious, probably more on the spiritual side than the practical one, as I am not fully on side with the whole organised attempt (it's gone awfully pear-shaped as far as I can see) and I can tell you now I am anywhere but certain. Furthermore, nor are the writers and philosphers and poets whom I admire and look to for guidance. Faith is not an expression of certitude, it is in fact, almost the opposite. It is the humility of not knowing, and keeping going.
As far as the fabrication of monotheistic beliefs, well, this society is not responsible for that either. I direct you to ancient egypt and I am sorry for not being at my own computer now (I am in napoli - you'd like the shrines to Diego here - and can't fish out the document I have) and Ahenhatem.
As for creationists, well, I really don't mind what they believe. Me, I don't think it makes much sense, but here's the thing, it doesn't bother me. My creed allows for the creeds of others. With any Atheist I have encountered before, I cannot say the same for them.
As for evidence, well, scientist that you are you ought to know by now that the theory comes first and the proof later. To me science and religion are in pursuit of the same goal - some kind of truth and I believe that in the years to come, if the proper work is done on both sides, they will marry. (No, not you scientlogists, back in your box) And for the record, if people blindly following rules unquestioningly, that are "wrong" I suggest you have a look at the findings of Mickelson Morely experiment at the end of the 19th century which disproved an awful lot of what Newton had to say, and yet, our world still depends on them almost utterly. Isn't that annoying? All this incorrect physics being taught in our schools?
A superstition is a local phenomenon. Faith is global. I have made a small study of mythology (this includes the testaments, which I am happy to consider mythology) in my time and my findings show me that pretty much every culture has independently established a belief system that resonates with the others at the most basic levels. It just takes a man to fuck it up, which is what has happened. Religion is not responsible for the state of our societies. We are. The things we all so vehemently disagree with that the Church has dictated, abortion, pre-marital sex, contraception, homosexuality, well, you won't find a mention of that in the gospels, but the gospels are not and have not been preached as they were intended as they plainly state that we really have no need of the church. "Where two or more are gathered.." That's it. But power and its maintenance will not let this be, so we have the corruption of a very simple message of love, which in the end, is the basis of all these myths and faiths we are discussing. Love each other and to hell with the rest. Now, how can that be "wrong"?
Please tell me where these attacks on "science and reason" have come from the spiritual texts which have been left to us. If I pick up a stick and use it to smack you across the head, is the stick responsible for your concussion? So, some jerks found something powerful and turned it into a big stick. Blame the jerks, not the object employed.
For me, there are more things on heaven and earth that are understood in my philosophy. I have no interest in a "god" - its the word I have been given to use but I am not describing some dude with a long white beard here, you see, we were never even given a name to use, the closest being "Yahweh" but that was devised because it is the only word of its like in Hebrew that requires breathing in and out as you pronounce it, which I think is kinda cool, I digress. I have no interest in a god that the human mind can understand, which is really why I think Atheism is just the ego in overdrive. "If I can't understand it, it must be stupid."
Finally, if you insist on making everything agree with reason, then good luck with your love-life. ;)
Cheers for the conversation dude, and any other people I have bored who had the patience to read through my disjointed, Italian coffee and ice-cream fuelled masturbatory descent into my poorly formed and not nearly outly enough thought out attempts to explain a self I still have really no idea about. That'd be me.
Vaya con dios, muchachos. :P
P.
Peadar Clancy Oh, yeah, and those guys are singers by trade, but prophets by soul. Great, great poets. I love Feynman, admire Fry but Dawkins can swing.
Mark Optic "As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
...That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."
- said the great (tongue firmly in cheek) philosopher D.Rumsfeld
incidentally there was links made to Werner Erhard as source of inspiration of this utterance.. but much discussion of such seems to have been erased from the internets.
http://lgattruth.blogspot.com/2007/09/donald-rumsfeld-werner-erhard-disciple.html
anyway.. i've enjoyed reading this thread and all i can say is that "i don't know" and i'm glad that i don't. a firm belief that something does not exist is a belief all the same. we are evolving always and much of what we take for granted as "true" is proven "false" over time. but what is proof?
there is much we are still learning about the brian and (dare i say it), the universe within...
see Psi-Theory, EEG et al...
we are all living in our own reality tunnels to some degree, much of this is learned behaviours, developed over generations and with this comes a lot of righteousness and ignorance. if things don't fit into our reality tunnels we reject them without really giving them much thought.
what i do see as dangerous though is reliance on a perceived afterlife to fix things... (we are here now and should make the best of it and ensure that generations after us have the opportunity to do the same...) this builds feelings of powerlessness in this life which leads to the seizing of power by church and state and corporation.... enslaving us.
my views are humanist but i have an open mind... too much so? ... maybe!
If a blog entry can generate this, I'm wondering what the film will do! Enjoy.
Peadar Clancy To my mind, there is no disparity of thought there. It's a pretty prevalent theme in what little research I've done down the road of spirituality - The Kingdom is within. It is not divinity to which we ought aspire, but humanity.
Yolanda Barker Well said peads, as always. What if some people DO aspire to divinity though? Is it wrong?
Luan McKenna Aspiring to a divinity is wrong. Anything that encourages you to follow blindly and have faith for the sake of faith is an endorsement of ignorance. It is also a useful mechanism for manipulative people to exploit more vulnerable people.
"Wh...at's wrong with letting people believe in fairy tales if it makes them happy?"
Bridging gaps of understanding with blind faith / ignorance is regressive and extremely harmful as it also assumes self righteousness - again based on a superstition - which causes division between people based on different forms of faith in the unprovable. This frequently creates hostility between people who assume their faith to be right and all others to be wrong. This results in in inter faith friction and more disconcertingly a contempt for science and reason when it disagrees with their fictional doctrine.
Your mate Peader is right there should be no disparity of thought. It's fine to learn from other people and even adopt their ways if they are reasonable and beneficial to all. However, following somebody blindly whether it be Charles Manson, Jesus Christ, Muhammod or the tooth fairy is dangerous and a subjugation to ignorance.
The quest for continued understanding of the world around us is what motivates humanists to fill the gaps of understanding that remain. These gaps may never be fully filled but they have reduced considerably over the course of time courtesy of Darwin, Newton, Da Vinci etc
Peadar Clancy Wrong implies morality. Morality morphs. Nothing is wrong. Nothing is right. Just is. Faith buy its nature is blind. It is not some all shining light that will give you the answers. It is the will to take a step out into the darkness, ...not knowing where your foot will fall but taking it all the same. I think. Faith has been perverted. It is a by word for head in sand ostrich manoeuvres or some kind of magic word. I dont think faith is meant to be a bridge to understanding. I dont really know what it is, but I dont think its that.
Yolanda Barker What;s the difference between people blindly following a guru (who states that their goal is for you to find your inner guru), and people blindly adhering to the social norms that have been put in place for us by governments (who imply we're not fit to make our own decisions)?
Luan McKenna Wrong for me implies something that does not have a rational basis. If you are happy to call anything that is based on superstition, other than wrong, then we will have some distance between what we think.
Believing in Santa is wrong because... it is made up. To call it otherwise is stupid. The same applies for the tooth fairy. The same also applies to monotheistic religions because their fundamental belief relies on the imagination and has no rational qualification.
You can talk all day about there being no right and wrong but some things that are based on the ludicicrous are wrong. Hitler was wrong - it is a real concept. Maybe he had a set of beliefs that he probably laid out in Mein Kempf that adhered to a certain logic but ultimately it was wrong. Some things are wrong. To think otherwise is an obfuscation of the truth.
I still cannot understand why we give religion such a sanctamonious place in our mind. If something is made up or based on an irrational superstitious belief then it should not be given any credence. To think otherwise is an endorsement and advocation of the irrational.
So, although it does sound arrogant to call anything right or wrong, to accept irrational superstitious fictional beliefs as right and to give them mainstream influential status as anything other than ridiculous is plainly wrong to me.
Mark Optic "Heaven is a place on Earth"
the great philosopher.. Belinda Carlisle (ok she didn't write it, but she preached it well!!)
Luan McKenna that's one of my favourite songs! "it Ain't Necessarily so" is another that combines funky soul with an valuable life message too. Music with meaning, oh yeah...
Peadar Clancy Luan, the liberal and the conservative are marked out not by the beliefs that they hold, but how they hold them. What I cannot abide about organised religion is the steadfast refusal to see but one side of an argument. The absolute suret...y and certitude of righteousness and the opinion that those who do not hold the same beliefs ought to be pitied. So many confirmed atheists with whom I happily share my life have the very same problem. Yet they consider me "stupid" because for some reason, I just don't agree with them. You see, mainstream Atheism fights organised religion in precisely the same way that organised religion operates - hence you become what you fight.
The subject we are discussing is vast. So vast that if I let myself really think of its infinitude, I quake inwardly. It is truly imponderable, and yet, we ponder. You are citing examples from the history of humanity and you are citing them subjectively. In the great scheme of the Universe, I think what humans decide are "right" and "wrong" has no more significance than which direction a colony of ants decides to go in search of food.
Everything is made up. This is made up. Words are assigned to things and we all agree on them and therefore they stand. But were we all to agree that a chair ought to be called a bed, then a chair would be a bed and another name found for a chair. Rationale. Reason. Great, vaunted reason. "The reasonable man adapts to the world around him. The unreasonable man adapts the world to him. Therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men." Shaw, I think, though I'm not really much of a fan, I will quote him for my purposes.
Incidentally, to refer to a person's faith as "superstition" shows an utter lack of respect for the other perspective of the argument you are disputng. How an earth do you think you can come to a synthesis of thesis and antithesis in this regard? The dualistic thinking of our educational systems and western philosophy leads down a very limited road and invariably leads to antagonism. I highly recommend coming at an argument entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong. That may you might learn something. This recommendation comes from my own personal experience of always being "right" and how very much it cost me in the end. That said, noone can really learn from another's experience. Be as right as you want, but how terribly boring it is to absolutely certain.
I suppose in this arena you have the likes of Fry, Dawkins and my beloved and respected Feynman on your side. With me sit Cash, Cave and Cohen. I chose that company purely for myself and because it works for me to live and breathe this way. I am sure you did the same yourself. I can happily handle the fact that others don't think the same way as I do. You might try the same.
You raise a few interesting points Peadar.
“mainstream Atheism fights organised religion in precisely the same way that organised religion operates - hence you become what you fight” - This is a very common argument. I simply can’t see the ...logic in it though. I can see how you think that both sides are vehemently fighting their corner without ever agreeing with the other side. But because it is logic atheists are using and not stories made up thousands of years ago how can you say they are fighting in precisely the same way? If new evidence was to emerge tomorrow that terminally undermined the theory of evolution or it was proved that the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun then I would accept it. Religious people on the other hand refuse to believe in anything that contradicts their archaic doctrine. They refuse to accept anything that disagrees with their held beliefs.
It is precisely for this reason that it is religious people who are absolutely certain. Science, much like it’s most revolutionary theory, evolves. There is no certainty only an accumulation of evidence that can prove or help us understand certain aspects of the world around us. I completely agree with you on this point that it would be terribly boring to be absolutely certain the whole time. It also implies a righteousness that you alluded to before. Atheists believe that what we know is constantly evolving so there are no absolutes. Challenging accepted truths is exactly what leads to progress in every aspect of life from philosophy to physics to politics.
Religious people credit their superstitions as revelations or doctrinal truths and refuse to accept anything that contradicts them. I call them superstitions, as a superstition is, as I understand it, a belief in spite of evidence or without evidence. Seeing as there is no evidence to prove that Moses parted the Red Sea, or Jesus walked on water or that Mary was a virgin or that she was ascended to heaven in body and flesh, they are therefore beliefs held in spite of evidence or without it. Not every argument has to find a compromise, middle ground or synthesis. In fact that is a preposterous maxim. If a Creationist is arguing that the world is 6,000 years old and a scientist argues it is closer to 6 billion, should they agree to a compromise? Even though the Creationist is basing their argument on a scientific subject – the age of the world in this case – in fictional stories or allegories. Where as the scientist is basing theirs on accumulated knowledge of things like fossils and cosmology. Are you happy to accept then that there is some credence in what Creationists believe – that man lived with dinosaurs for example – because as you have already said there is no such thing as right and wrong?
You may have a point that our dualistic educational system and the adversarial nature of debate and discussion in our society leads down a very limited road and is very antagonistic. What I see as much more dangerous is a society that is happy to accept fabricated mono theistic beliefs that attack science & reason, are hostile to self questioning and are violent towards those who hold different beliefs.
I love learning new things, challenging long held views and discovering new ways to think about things but I’ll never do this based on superstitions or allegories from thousands of years ago - not unless they agree with reason and can be beneficial to all. In fact I only just recently changed my religious views from deist to atheist after discussions, reading and thinking based on reason.
I’m delighted to accept the company you put me with. Are Cash, Cave & Cohen all singers? Johnny, Nick & Leonard?
Peadar Clancy The logic is this: The belief is not important. How you hold the belief is. In your argument, you generalise and pontificate. Now, you are saying that your basis is sound in reason and logic. Ok. That's more than alright with me. But if... I choose to disagree, which I do, I am made stupid. I am labelled other and ridiculed. Is this not exactly what those in organised religion have done over the centuries? Labelled something as "other" and attempted to silence it?
Ghandi wrote a little better about than I can, (thus far) I'd direct you there for further research. But do you not see the inherent irony in saying that "..it is religious people who are absolutely certain..."? Isn't that an expression of certainty? You know, I am what you might call religious, probably more on the spiritual side than the practical one, as I am not fully on side with the whole organised attempt (it's gone awfully pear-shaped as far as I can see) and I can tell you now I am anywhere but certain. Furthermore, nor are the writers and philosphers and poets whom I admire and look to for guidance. Faith is not an expression of certitude, it is in fact, almost the opposite. It is the humility of not knowing, and keeping going.
As far as the fabrication of monotheistic beliefs, well, this society is not responsible for that either. I direct you to ancient egypt and I am sorry for not being at my own computer now (I am in napoli - you'd like the shrines to Diego here - and can't fish out the document I have) and Ahenhatem.
As for creationists, well, I really don't mind what they believe. Me, I don't think it makes much sense, but here's the thing, it doesn't bother me. My creed allows for the creeds of others. With any Atheist I have encountered before, I cannot say the same for them.
As for evidence, well, scientist that you are you ought to know by now that the theory comes first and the proof later. To me science and religion are in pursuit of the same goal - some kind of truth and I believe that in the years to come, if the proper work is done on both sides, they will marry. (No, not you scientlogists, back in your box) And for the record, if people blindly following rules unquestioningly, that are "wrong" I suggest you have a look at the findings of Mickelson Morely experiment at the end of the 19th century which disproved an awful lot of what Newton had to say, and yet, our world still depends on them almost utterly. Isn't that annoying? All this incorrect physics being taught in our schools?
A superstition is a local phenomenon. Faith is global. I have made a small study of mythology (this includes the testaments, which I am happy to consider mythology) in my time and my findings show me that pretty much every culture has independently established a belief system that resonates with the others at the most basic levels. It just takes a man to fuck it up, which is what has happened. Religion is not responsible for the state of our societies. We are. The things we all so vehemently disagree with that the Church has dictated, abortion, pre-marital sex, contraception, homosexuality, well, you won't find a mention of that in the gospels, but the gospels are not and have not been preached as they were intended as they plainly state that we really have no need of the church. "Where two or more are gathered.." That's it. But power and its maintenance will not let this be, so we have the corruption of a very simple message of love, which in the end, is the basis of all these myths and faiths we are discussing. Love each other and to hell with the rest. Now, how can that be "wrong"?
Please tell me where these attacks on "science and reason" have come from the spiritual texts which have been left to us. If I pick up a stick and use it to smack you across the head, is the stick responsible for your concussion? So, some jerks found something powerful and turned it into a big stick. Blame the jerks, not the object employed.
For me, there are more things on heaven and earth that are understood in my philosophy. I have no interest in a "god" - its the word I have been given to use but I am not describing some dude with a long white beard here, you see, we were never even given a name to use, the closest being "Yahweh" but that was devised because it is the only word of its like in Hebrew that requires breathing in and out as you pronounce it, which I think is kinda cool, I digress. I have no interest in a god that the human mind can understand, which is really why I think Atheism is just the ego in overdrive. "If I can't understand it, it must be stupid."
Finally, if you insist on making everything agree with reason, then good luck with your love-life. ;)
Cheers for the conversation dude, and any other people I have bored who had the patience to read through my disjointed, Italian coffee and ice-cream fuelled masturbatory descent into my poorly formed and not nearly outly enough thought out attempts to explain a self I still have really no idea about. That'd be me.
Vaya con dios, muchachos. :P
P.
Peadar Clancy Oh, yeah, and those guys are singers by trade, but prophets by soul. Great, great poets. I love Feynman, admire Fry but Dawkins can swing.
Mark Optic "As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
...That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."
- said the great (tongue firmly in cheek) philosopher D.Rumsfeld
incidentally there was links made to Werner Erhard as source of inspiration of this utterance.. but much discussion of such seems to have been erased from the internets.
http://lgattruth.blogspot.
anyway.. i've enjoyed reading this thread and all i can say is that "i don't know" and i'm glad that i don't. a firm belief that something does not exist is a belief all the same. we are evolving always and much of what we take for granted as "true" is proven "false" over time. but what is proof?
there is much we are still learning about the brian and (dare i say it), the universe within...
see Psi-Theory, EEG et al...
we are all living in our own reality tunnels to some degree, much of this is learned behaviours, developed over generations and with this comes a lot of righteousness and ignorance. if things don't fit into our reality tunnels we reject them without really giving them much thought.
what i do see as dangerous though is reliance on a perceived afterlife to fix things... (we are here now and should make the best of it and ensure that generations after us have the opportunity to do the same...) this builds feelings of powerlessness in this life which leads to the seizing of power by church and state and corporation.... enslaving us.
my views are humanist but i have an open mind... too much so? ... maybe!
Monday, 17 May 2010
PILOT BABA
Going to Uttrakashi was one of those moments where we threw our itinerary in the bin, and took a leap of faith.
The Kumbha Mela has similarities with a political rally. Posters advertise the many gurus that are in attendance, and these guys have stalls where people can come and meet them, hear them speak, get an idea of their teachings. I could be wrong, but I think ultimately their goal is to recruit followers.
We were filming at the stall of a guru called Pilot Baba, and while there I took a soundbite from an Australian female monk called Sunny. It transpired that Sunny was a former top model, who turned away from her highflying life when she discovered God.
We left after interviewing Pilot Baba, and I thought that was it. But after digesting the Kumbha Mela a little bit, and discussing things with my guru (Raj), I decided that there was a story worth pursuing.
So we embarked on a 24 hour journey to beautiful Uttrakashi, where Pilot Baba's ashram is.
The accommodation was basic... very basic! If you were coming for a spiritual pampering, this was not the place for it. The buildings were old, and the paint was peeling. Most of the surfaces were black with flies. There were stacks of rotting potatoes everywhere (a big help to the fly situation) and the food that we got twice a day was curry with... potatoes. This was occasionally peppered with gourmet pebbles.
All this said, the location made up for it. From our room we could see the Himalayas, the forest, and the roaring Ganga. A million dollar view.
The iconography on the walls, and the dilapidated environment didn't sit well with me. But over the course of the week I started to understand what was going on here.
The accommodation was a step towards asceticism: the renunciation of the material world. I met a Russian man in his late thirties, who lived in a tin hut on the banks of the Ganga. He built it himself, and had a bedroom, a living room/kitchen, and a garden (a patch of ground where he grew vegetables). He didn't want to be filmed, but I spent two evenings with him, drinking chai and talking about life and spirituality.
It's clear that some people operate on a different level to the average person who works 9 to 5, and wants a family and a house. They feel a connection to God that made them want to devote their lives to their spiritual journey. This guy, Sunny, and some other disciples I spoke to (who were mainly from Russia and the Ukraine), believe that the best way to do this is with the guidance of a guru (teacher). The guru is a bridge to the divine.
According to Sunny, this is the most intimate relationship two people can cultivate, because the guru enters your mind and teaches you telepathically. It requires complete surrender, and complete trust.
Over the course of several days, Sunny showed us around the ashram, and explained Pilot Baba's philosophy and powers (his 'power' is his ability to submerge himself under water or ice for days, and then resurface, alive). We took a trip to one of the most spiritual places in India - Gangotri: the source of the river Ganga. Sunny told us about her own complicated life as a top model, and how she unexpectedly found God at the lowest ebb of her life. After some years, she came to India and found a guru. She was with him until his death, and for the last year she's been with Pilot Baba and is "spiritually in love with him".
Apparently every true guru's goal is to connect their followers with their own inner guru. But until that point, they must follow the word of the guru without question. The Pilot Baba followers I met were intelligent and articulate. They admitted that they were following blindly, and yet they weren't blind.
But I still struggle with the idea of surrendering yourself to another person as a way towards God. Followers may tell me that's my ego refusing to believe that someone else may know better. How to resolve this disparity in thought?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)