I was considering this after writing my recent post on my views about God. I remember that in his book “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins has a chapter on “The Poverty of Agnosticism”. He takes aim at Agnosticism and tries to demolish it as a valid position, I think he goes too far and that we need to look again.

Agnosticism is more than a simple “I don’t know”, when come at from the point of Buddhism that “I don’t know” gains a vitality and an urgency that is easy to miss. It’s not a wishy washy form of indecision, but a potent statement of humility acknowledging honestly our uncertainty in a world of constantly changing phenomena and events. When everything we try to grasp is constantly shifting and changing, how can we stand on a firm bed of knowledge? When we draw on the Dharma, we rediscover our Agnosticism from the knowledge that all the things we know are just mental constructs of a changing reality, not reality itself. They’re imperfect maps to a shifting and impermanent territory.

It’s easy to say that things are proven and settled, but consider the discovery of Continental Drift. The discoverer, Alfred Wegener, had to overcome the disbelief of his peers; in part due to the fact that some of their supporting theories were plain wrong and also because he wasn’t a Geologist. In fact, even though it was discovered in 1912, it wasn’t accepted until the 1960s. [1] They thought they knew, they were unable to see that they might be wrong, that’s part of my point

In the realm of belief and faith, things are always being interpreted differently by different people and groups. This isn’t limited to one faith, it has caused some fairly awful rows in the past and has even caused sub-sects and new faiths to bud off from existing religions. The differences can extend to every area of doctrine, from the nature of the divine through to . Now, this stuff was being argued over when the Buddha walked the Earth 2600 years ago. It’s not been resolved since then, to be honest, my feeling is that it’s not going to be. This looks like another area where people are refusing to admit that they just don’t know.

The solutions, I feel, is based on an honest acknowledgement of our limitations. The idea that some things may be beyond the ability of the Human mind to grasp is anathema to many, but it may well be more truthful than we’d like to admit. As the Masai wisdom says “One head cannot contain all knowledge”. In the light of all of this, how can our position be anything other then to step away from this constant bickering and engage with the mysteries of the world with an honest “I don’t know”?

[1] The Science of Discworld, page 128-129.

I had a conversation in the car tonight, it got me to thinking and and I have had this at the back of my mind for a while.  It actually ties in, in a way to my punch / counterpunch posts back in April and I’d like to extend the theme of those posts as I write tonight.  I said in April that we are too quick to assume a little knowledge, and then let that knowledge think itself the entire world, when this isn’t often the case.  To push this point a little more I want to directly consider the existence of God, which I’ve always tried to avoid commenting on before.

The existence of God is something that has been debated for thousands of years.  They were debating it when the Buddha walked the Earth, and frankly it’s not been solved since then.  This tells me that we’re talking about something that, let’s face it is likely unanswerable by mankind.  Now, this is going to be something that a lot of people on both sides of the religious fence are going to shout loudly about.  But the point stands, we just don’t know.

It’s said that you can’t prove a negative, this is true.  If I state that there is no God, then I am saying that I have examined every inch of the universe and found no God.  This is impossible; so, the thinking goes, we must look at probabilities.  But this in itself exposes a flaw, all of our judgements about the existence of a creator are based on our arrogant assumption that we understand the nature of that creator!  How exactly are we so sure of this?  I’ve criticised holy books at length before and will refer the reader to my articles and archive for that, but this also extends to Science; what makes you think that a divine presence in the universe would even be something we could comprehend?  Whether we choose to admit it or not, we are limited, flawed creatures.  Who is to say we would even recognise God if we saw it?

This is where I think Taoism has it right, the Dao is beyond our understanding and has no plan, design or preference.  We cannot grasp it with our intellect as we are limited and it, by it’s nature, encompasses the things that are both within our grasp and outside our grasp.  Whenever we try for a God or Gods, we just wind up with ourselves, writ large.  But if there is something out there, then my money is on it being something like the Dao, and not just being out there, but in here as well.

Well, it’s been an interesting week.  We’ve had the ongoing story of the occupy protests, which are being very well covered in alternative media.  I recommend monitoring Twitter for this sort of news, you tend to get things that the mainstream media either omit or are simply slow with.

In addition to this we’ve had the drama in Greece and Italy, it could be said that both countries have had their democratic governments undermined by EU interference and I can’t see that ending well.  President Sarkozky was challenged on this by a reporter from the BBC and didn’t give anything like a satisfactory answer.  I think that there is a definite moral hazard involved here, never mind the fact that the Euro is probably beyond saving in its current form.  It’s taken the political class till now to realise what the markets have known all along, as Mark Twain famously said “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt”.

So in light of all of the above it’s easy to get very bearish in sentiment.  The easiest way to counter this sentiment is not to take it too seriously, I have a running joke with a friend that I’m “putting on my bear suit” whenever I read that sort of content.  But too much of it really does taint the mind and as a Buddhist I have to be mindful and observe my own thought processes.

This is where our mindfulness meditation comes in, I’ve found that the effect of this practise spills over into everyday life.  You become more able to observe your thought processes and to catch yourself thinking things, or taking a partial view.  Through this, I’ve come to realise that things aren’t as bad as they might seem at first glance.

Yes, we face challenges, but there are no doubt opportunities in these times.  I hold the hope that the coming threats to the banking system will see the rise of a new culture of mutuals and credit unions, something to return some of the financial power to our communities.  I see the threats to the notion of globalism as an opportunity to localise, to use our local shops and services.  So this isn’t a disaster, just another chapter in our story, and depending on your point of view it might not be that much of a disaster after all.

I may even have to pack away my bear suit!

I started reading “Confession of a Buddhist Atheist” by Stephen Batchelor the other day.  It’s an excellent read so far, and I am starting to see things of interest.  Especially as his questioning, skeptical frame of mind seems similar to my own views.

I find it interesting that Zen Buddhist thought should be considered heretical and outlawed in Tibet.  I find it fascinating that a Buddhist sect should hold belief in spirits and the supernatural, even though the Buddha’s stance was skeptical.

I have recently starting visiting a local New Kadampa centre in order to try to find out more about them.  All of the other local Buddhist centres are much further away or are just difficult to approach.  The New Kadampa approach is Tibetan in origin, with some supernatural elements and this leads me to a few thoughts.

I think that the heresy (or otherwise) of the various approaches to Buddhism is up to the individual, not a priesthood.  After all, we were warned about arguments from authority by a certain someone!  The question of the supernatural and gods is simply one for an agnostic skepticism, after all where is the evidence?  You can’t just state that the world is a certain way, then expect everyone to accept it without proof.  Buddhists are supposed to be critics and skeptics, so let’s criticise!

What I can see developing, what I see a need for, is a very Western style of secular Buddhism.  The existing traditions have much to offer and draw on, but they’re very much a product of their culture and times.  I look forward to seeing what the west produces.

This is where I realise, with some shamefaced embarassment, how long it’s been since my last post.

I have spent some time over the last few weeks, discussing things with fellow secularists and some Jehovah’s Witnesses we have the acquaintance of.  The discussions are relating to God, Creationism and Evolution; the usual, in other words.  I do try to keep things as polite and civil as I can, I try to make my points gently and without causing offence.  But I do begin to understand why many secular people get frustrated when dealing with true believers, so I’d like to open the can of worms here; at least part of the way.

I write from the perspective of a Secular Buddhist, and my understanding is this.  Our problems stem from the fact we do not see clearly. We clutch after things we believe are solid and permanent without realising that they are changing and impermanent, our illusions blind us to the basic impermanence of the world and also of ourselves.  This is why you’ll sometimes hear Buddhists referred to as believing the world is an illusion, that’s because the world most of us inhabit is; it’s an illusion that exists only in our minds.  The trouble starts when we respond to this illusion as if it were concrete reality, then we start storing up trouble for the future (think Karma).  There’s a lot more I could say, but I’ll save it for another time.  Believe it or not, I’ve expressed the above to an Anglican and a Jehovah’s Witness and both have agreed with the sentiment that responding to our illusions as if they were real is nothing but trouble.  I can’t imagine that either would agree with what I have to say next.

When expressing ideas to believers, I’ve found that no matter how well you put things or how you back things up with proof, there is a wall.  You can get so far, then you’re up against faith and you can get no further.  From what I can see, the whole position of ‘supernatural’ religions would seem to be exactly the problem I describe in my last paragraph; they have their beliefs from their book and regardless of the evidence will stick to those beliefs with varying degrees of rigidity.

The level of intellectual evasion can be quite breathtaking at times.  I’ve seen false dichotomies and strawman arguments presented confidently as fact in articles sourced from around the Internet and thought “Why?”, “Why distort things like this, when it undermines everything you’re trying to do?”  I can understand defending a cherished belief, I can genuinely empathise, but if you can’t defend it honestly then why is it worth defending at all?

But it’s when I see believers taking these things and accepting them as accurate logic without a peep, not even a murmur; when I start to realise how many people are doing this, and not bringing even a shred of critical thought to bear on these things, it’s then that I start to get a glimpse of the sheer enormity of what the Buddha meant.

I’ve been a party to a few conversations at work regarding Atheism and Religion.  I’ve also been fortunate enough to speak to some Muslims and Sikhs, so I have a little perspective now on those faiths.  We have quite a mix of faiths (or lack of faith) at work, though I am the only Buddhist there.  There are a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses there and some are very militant and will not even read an email that might cause them to question their faith (I know this through read receipts).  What interests me is the constant drive they, and other faiths, have for converts.

My thoughts recently, especially as I have been making secular arguments in a number of areas, have been really more towards the ethics of conversion.  When does proselytizing and converting someone become wrong?  Yes, I appreciate that a given Atheist or Agnostic might have lots of answers and ammunition to fire.  The same it true for a door knocking Theist, but at what point does it become unethical to fire it, no matter how right you think you are?

I was pondering my own secular arguments, as a Buddhist I feel I can make secular agnostic arguments quite comfortably, as I find that Buddhism is a very agnostic thing at its root.  But I must also make the effort to observe the first precept, “I undertake to refrain from harming living beings”.  It’s not just physical harm, but emotional and mental hurt as well.  This left me wondering if was there a point at which I would have to tactfully remain silent.

Let me give an example of what I was pondering.  What happens when someones faith is all that is allowing them to cope with a personal tragedy?  Yes we may discuss things, but once I learn this is it right for me to continue arguing when I know it will cause suffering?  Does there come a time when, because of the high ethical cost, it’s not worth winning or being proved right?

On reflection, I think at this point I would have to try to suggest that we simply agree to disagree and simply respect one another’s views.

I invested in an Amazon Kindle a few weeks ago, it’s certainly been a good choice and I have rediscovered the pleasure of reading through it.  It allows me to carry a large library of books with me, and the screen is every bit as good as they claim it to be.  I can recommend the Free Software ebook manager called “Calibre” for use with it, as it allows easy conversion of ebooks between all sorts of formats.  It also allows the downloading of RSS feeds and will collate these feeds into a book for you.  I consider this to be a killer feature, absolutely brilliant!

I’ve started reading my feeds on the Kindle and have discovered that it makes reading them much easier than on a computer screen.  I pondered why, aside from the better Kindle screen, this should be.  Then I realised that it’s the fact that the Kindle does one thing, and one thing only, it reads books.  As someone who owns a smartphone with various communications options on it and has numerous little programs that can chime in and demand attention on his PC, I have been finding it very difficult to focus.  Not only to read but to write and to create.

This chimed in with something that the tutor said at the Buddhist Vihara last week; the necessity of withdrawal, of shutting out the world and getting some time and space to focus.  We withdraw to create a place that is sacred and spiritual and that is peaceful, that is not of the everyday world.  Yet, what is the place we go when we read; when we really engage with a good book, is that place entirely of this world?  I realised that this is why Kindle makes it easier to read, there are no interruptions and no possibility of such things.  If I read on my phone, I can be texted, IMed, Facebook messaged, emailed, or (looks shocked) …. phoned!  Throw in all the little toy apps that you can get and what chance is there of any peace?

It seems to me that these things take the control of our time away from us, it seems that we are interrupted at a whim and a response is demanded there and then.  But where is the control in that?  There are our devices, our tools, yet we seem to jump to their tune.  This makes time away even more vital than it ever has been and it it makes me question whether all of the advances in our communications abilities are necessarily for the better.

As a self confessed geek, this is a strange place to be it seems.  Am I taking an anti technology stance here?  No.  I am advocating a measure of moderation and also a realization that we don’t need to be plugged in all the time.  I started reading my news and my blogs on a daily ebook rather than as they come in, and if anything it improved matters.  By taking these things and making a specific time and place for them, it seems to unchoke everything else.

I’m not too sure about the title of this one, but I really can’t think of a better one.

On Sunday evening, I was at a Buddhist Dharma talk at the Kannoji Sim in Second Life.  The speaker was a Zen monk, and our subject was virtual worlds and the Sangha.  It’s an interesting subject and it allows me to touch on something that I have been saying privately for some time.  I really do believe that Second Life has a great deal to offer people who want to reach out and investigate things before approaching them in the physical world.

Attending a virtual Buddhist meeting, as I did, is a perfect example.  I’ve been attending these meetings for some time now and have participated in more than one such group in Second Life, I have to say it has been a rewarding experience.  These groups give you a way to easily connect with like minded individuals from across the globe and can lead towards taking the steps toward such groups in the real world.

It could be said that you can do this via forums and IRC, but I believe that the extra capabilities of the Second Life platform add a great deal to this experience and strengthen it beyond the other mediums.  The talk was given using voice, and at one point over 20 avatars were present, in addition to text chat and a voice connection the speaker could have used slides on an inworld board or could have used inworld video if required.

I have seen the use of inworld slides and video and they are every bit as effective as in the real world, the 3d world of Second Life adds something to their use that I don’t get from Youtube, Flickr or other software.

It does sometimes seem, what with one issue or another, that Second Life isn’t worth the effort or is going downhill.  I beg to differ, Second Life allows these things to be done comparatively safely and with minimal cost and effort.  For those of us who are housebound, or simply without enough time to make a real world trip, I think that groups like this in Second Life do plenty of good and make Second Life and other such systems (e.g. OpenSim) well worth the time and effort.

I’ve very briefly mentioned my disillusionment with Skepticism before, but I found a quote with re-reading Dracula that I think expresses part of how I feel about the whole thing.

“He meant that we shall have an open mind, and not let the little bit of truth check the rush of the big truth, like a small rock does a railway truck.  We get the small truth first.  Good! We keep him, and we value him, but all the same we must not let him think himself all the truth in the universe.” (Van Helsing speaking to Dr Seward)

I also see this as a warning not to hold an idea in contempt prior to investigating it.  I am beginning to suspect that Skepticism may be used to either inflate the ego or as a form of faith.  In any event, I personally feel that it can be an impediment to seeing.  I said last time that we often see our prejudices and thoughts about the world, not the world itself.  I should added that we can often see our skepticism instead of the world.  But I’m not the only one whose thought wandered in this direction:

“It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible.  When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them.” – Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

On that note I’ll log off as it is rather late here!

I’m going to try going back to stream of consciousness for a while.  It’s how I started writing many moons ago and my recent experiments with scheduled posts didn’t feel right.  Besides, the writing style didn’t feel like me anymore.

I dug into the depths of my CD collection tonight and put a few things on that I haven’t heard for quite some time, having all my physical CDs as mp3s in Rhythmbox makes this sort of thing very easy.  We all have CDs like this, things that we think we’re too cool to listen to anymore, and  it’s that sort of thing that I’d like to chat about tonight.

What is it about some of our older music that makes it uncool for us to listen to it?  Something in the arrangement, or the musicianship maybe?  Is the CD cover tacky, or do the lyrics grate?  I’m wagering it’s none of the above, after all, there are no doubt fans of the band who will happily listen to it all with no complaints, so maybe the problem is closer to home.  Not in the CD player, or the ears, but smack between the ears.  The problem is in our minds.

One of the things that was said to me on Sunday at the Peace Pagoda was that we make our own suffering.  This is very true and results in us missing out on a lot of things, as we react to our own illusions and preconceptions about the world rather than the world itself.  This brings me back to the music, why is that some music is uncool to listen to?  Maybe because our preconceptions, our grasping at the desire to be seen to be cool and up to date, drag us away from things we previously enjoyed?  Maybe they prevent us from finding things that we would enjoy, maybe they get between us and actually seeing and living?  After all, why should a rap artist (for example) not enjoy classical music, there’s no rule anywhere, but I wonder how many would admit it if they did.

That’s my guess anyway, what do you think?