For the last couple of years, I’ve been involved in the virtual world of Second Life. For the most part, this has been a rewarding experience. Although I have over time become more aware of some of the flaws. It’s been a disheartening thing, seeing a platform that I believe has real potential being held back by these flaws. Happily, the creators of Second Life under the guidance of Rod Humble are working to make the technology more accessible and easier to use, which is excellent news, and have plans to drive the world forward.

I see Second Life being used by numerous artists and other creatives. People the world over are able to tour art galleries and view works of sculpture. Further to this, Second Life makes art exhibits happen that are just not possible anywhere else. Concerts can be held and DJs can play virtual sets. I’ve listened to artists from across the world performing live from their own homes, so I know first hand that there is a live music scene in Second Life. All of this is available to you, as long as you have an internet connection. Remote location, or physical disability need present no obstacle to fulfilling Second Life.

Of course, my more usual field of comment is agnosticism, religion and spirituality. This area is most certainly catered for in Second Life. In my early days, I found a region called “Bodhi” which was well constructed and hid snippets of Dharma in gems around the landscape. Bodhi is now gone, to the best of my knowledge, but there are plenty of other places. The Skeptical Buddhists Sangha and Kannonji are just two such places with discussion and talks. Consulting the inworld search yields many more.  The odds are, if you enter your faith or lack thereof into Second Life search, it will be there.

In addition to this, there are many centres of learning, not just focussing on inworld skills but things of use outside of Second Life. You can also find support groups inworld for any number of things, and I find myself reflecting that if Second Life saves even one person through these groups. Or when it enables people to grow and reach nearer their potential through these classes, then it’s all been well worth it

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.

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.

You know, I didn’t think I’d ever write this but I really must applaud the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Yes, I know what you’re thinking, “Who are you and what have you done with the real Richard?”

I may not agree with some of the content of the religion he espouses, but I must applaud his recent article in the New Statesman.  But not for the reason you think.  I am neither pro nor anti cuts, but rather I take a middle ground that regards the cuts as a tragic nessecity.  From my point of view, to be pro or anti cuts, well, you may as well be pro or anti gravity.  The state machinery has enlarged beyond the means of the country to support it, it really is that simple.  The government blames everything on the New Labour years, but the responsibility for what happens from now is theirs and I’m hearing buck passing.  As for the left themselves, I hear a lot of reactionary shouting but what could (or would) they do that was any different?

My concerns are similar those of Rowan Williams, things feel stuck.  There is nobody who seems to be able to articulate a clear vision, those in charge just seem to be bumbling through.  There seems to be nothing orchestrated to protect the most vulnerable, but also where cuts fall they are likely to fall in the wrong places as middle managers seek (perhaps, understandably) to protect their own positions.  It seems that the axe is falling, but in the wrong places.  Further to this, I humbly suggest that what’s needed is a pair of Bonsai shears not a woodcutter’s axe.

Finally, it seems that the Archbishop himself has come under attack for involving himself in politics.  Those who attack him should really take a clearer look at things.  Our politics has been shaped, from it’s earliest days by religion.  The values espoused by a faith, its morality and its ethics have a very direct and fundamental bearing on the local politicians and some of our greatest political figures were influcenced by their faith.  The political opposition seems tongue tied and an awful lot that needs to be said was not being said; our politicians don’t want to face a few very unpleasant home truths.  I suspect, neither do the rest of us, but that’s a post for another time.  At a time like this it does need somebody who isn’t enmeshed in party politics and special interests to speak up, somebody exactly like Rowan Williams.

I was in Second Life the other evening when I came across an entry in the destination guide;  a small memorial to those who died, falsely accused of withcraft, in the town of Salem.   I must admit to having found the time to pause there and reflect as I read the names on the stone plaques around the central square.  This small area is part of a much larger pagan themed sim, click on any of the thumbnails here to get a screenshot of the memorial area itself.  If you have a Second Life client installed, you can click the following link to teleport directly there: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Primrose/170/218/88

For those who don’t know, Salem is a town in the US state of Massachusetts, whose name was given to an infamous series of Witchcraft trials in 1692 and 1693.  The trials didn’t just take place in Salem, but the two best known trials did.

26 people were tried for witchcraft and executed in these two trials alone and considering some of the “proofs” of being a witch, they really didn’t stand a chance.  Consider that simply expressing doubts about the trials was enough to put you in danger!

Salem is infamous, but it’s by no means the only place that witch trial happened.  Europe had it’s own infamy and here in the UK, we didn’t escape.  Many people died at the hands of Witch Hunters and the Pendle Witch Trials[1] in 1612 are part of English history.  In truth nobody knows the exact death toll, but it is certainly horrific.

As I intimated above, the witch craze was international and in Europe the Catholic Church produced the “Malleus Maleficarum” or “The Hammer of Witches”, which basically said that if you were accused then you were a witch and detailed many torture methods. There was no right of the defendant, no opportunity to confront accusers and torture was considered an “infallible method” of determining guilt. [2]  The whole thing was a scam and innocent people were framed left right and centre, often people would name others just to get the torturers to stop.  When being hanged, one English witch hunter confessed to having sent over 220 women to their deaths![3]  In one small town in Germany there were 24 public burnings with an average of 4-6 victims each in one year. [4]

For me, seeing a place such as this was a stark reminder of why we must rally to fight superstition and ignorance, it was these things that were the breeding grounds that this horror arose from.   This is why scientific education and the promotion of critical thought and the teaching of the scientific method itself are so important.

—

References

1 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendle_witches

Source – “The Demon Haunted World” – Carl Sagan – ISBN 0-7472-5156-8

2 – page 113.

3 – page 114.

4 – page 116.

Yesterday I wrote about my take on Religion and our illusions.  I took what might have seemed an anti religious stance, but there has to be balance, tonight I will throw my counter punch.  Let’s see if I can land it.

One of the things about illusions, is our confidence in them.  We believe that they are the truth, the whole truth and we don’t realise otherwise.  Often, we don’t want to.  You may think I am aiming at the religious, but not so, I am aiming this one towards dogmatic Atheism and something called “Scientism”.

Dogmatic Atheism, I define this as the belief that no worldview other than the strictly secular could have any validity.  I have seen this with the New Atheists, some of whom really seem to be off on an intellectual power trip; they reminded me of people kicking apart a dolls house.

Scientism is, at least in my view, closely related to this but not quite the same thing.  Scientific fundamentalists will try to tell you that everything is explained, bar a little filling in of the edges.  You don’t need to look any further than this, we’re right, trust us.  Hmm, sorry that sounds little like “don’t think, believe the dogma”.

As an aside, I used the word “belief”, how shocking.  The interesting part of this is that aversion.  Hey, not all of our illusion are nice, we can recoil away from them as well grasp towards them!  Let me clarify my use of the term “belief”, dictionary.com give this definition, and I use the first one:

1. Something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. Confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
4. A religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

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.

Today, I read the news that a gay couple have won a court case against the proprietors of a hotel. The proprietors are a devout Christian couple who denied them a room for the night after they had previously booked it.  The whole thing has been covered to death in the UK media, so I will simply refer you to the media coverage for the in depth details, Google News is your friend.

This really does seem to have been portrayed as a victory for Gay Rights legislation against religious doctrine, but I’d like to suggest a different take.  My take on this comes from a secular humanist perspective, and I should point out that this is in fact a case where secular law delivered a rebuke to a faith based morality.

This is something that I perceive as a sign of the times, and it was inevitable with the tensions in certain areas between secular law and religious doctrine.  I have to admit this walking this line is going to be difficult as both parties are standing up for something they believe in passionately, but I consider that ultimately the rule of secular law will eclipse religious objection; it has to for our society to work.  There have been claims that Christians are a persecuted group, that their rights are infringed.  I imagine we would hear the same from any religious group.  My response is : “No, you’re just being asked to abide by the same laws everyone else is”.

Really a short one today.  I have a couple of notes saved for some posts, but I really haven’t been properly in the zone at all with my writing and projects for some time now.

So I’ll simply take this chance to wish everyone reading this my best wishes for the season and to share something that (I hope) will make you smile.