Category Archives: Religion - Page 3

A Moment of Pause

Posted by on April 27, 2011 No comments

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

salem-01For 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,salem-02 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 salem-03confessed 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.

The World in Our Heads: The Counter Punch.

Posted by on April 7, 2011 4 comments

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.

“But.. But I don’t believe, I’m an Atheist!”  Well, a belief is an opinion or a conviction, this is regardless of the source be it science or religion.  A conviction that the Earth is round, based on empirical evidence is still a belief, the belief is not the source.  But enough of that, back on topic.
The concern I have about Scientism and dogmatic Atheism is that they seem to refuse to acknowledge our fallibility, our limits.  Science is a great method for discovering the truth, but we can only be so certain.  Each generation of Scientists seeks to increase that certainty, but this is within the limitations of our minds and available technology.  We must not be overconfident, Human brain is a great thing, but it has upper limits; we must bear that in mind lest we get cocky.
Let me try to illuminate what I mean.  We remember Einstein, because he proved Newton wrong.  Newton’s laws were thought to be the last word, and they are indeed very accurate, in fact we can still calculate the orbits of satellites using them.  Einstein showed that once you get up near lightspeed they break down.  Einstein came up with a better description of how things work, we remember him for superceding Newton.  If I were a scientific fundamentalist, I’d be a bit worried by that because it means that I might one day have to explain why I wasn’t quite as right as I thought I was.  Very embarassing.
I think it’s very important to remember that Science is a humble interrogation of the universe.  Let me end with a fitional quote I have used before, but that I have always found apt:

 

“I heard once of an American who so defined faith, “that faculty which enables us to believe things which we know to be untrue.” For one, I follow that man. He meant that we shall have an open mind, and not let a 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.”
- Professor Abraham Van Helsing (taken from the novel Dracula, by Bram Stoker)

The Worlds in Our Heads

Posted by on April 6, 2011 1 comment

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.

Signs of the Times

Posted by on January 19, 2011 2 comments

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”.

Season’s Greetings

Posted by on December 25, 2010 1 comment

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.

Defended to the Death

Posted by on October 29, 2010 No comments

I’m away this weekend, and for a change I got the train.  I’m writing this on my phone while waiting for trains and while travelling, so if it seems a little disjointed then I apologise as I’m unused to writing on this device.

I love driving my car and the freedom it brings and would normally use it for a journey like this.  I decided to use the train as I think that this is the way things will go in terms of long distance travel, with walkable cities and metro services among the local options.  Besides, it’s different and trying something new is good.  I’d like to muse further on this as the English countryside whizzes by.

I was thinking of my visit to the Buddhist temple in Birmingham the other week and between that and this, plus an encounter with a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses earlier this week, it started me mulling faith and the way we live.

We tend, in my opinion, to live and believe in the groove of our habits.  These habits don’t change much and we will defend them vigorously.  For an example, consider the future of the car.  Everything that can be done to assure the future of happy motoring is being done.  For my part, I think that in the long term there is nothing else to do but prepare for a carless future, but we will see.  There are always unexpected surprises.

So it is with our mental habits, not just of faith but of thought and behavior.  We defend these habits from the things that would change them without considering that the change might be just what’s needed!  Unless we allow our habits of thought and behavior to change and to evolve, then we will be defending them to their stagnation and the death of our hopes for future personal growth.

Why I am an Agnostic

Posted by on September 21, 2010 No comments

When the Pope left the UK yesterday, our Prime Minister said that he’d given us something to think about.  I agree, for me, the visit has caused me to reflect on my Buddhist flavoured Agnosticism.  I’ve spent quite some time and word count exploring why I’m not a Theist.  But, why am I not an Atheist, why Agnostic?

I have read the various arguments to and fro between Theists and Atheists, Evolutionists and Creationists.  I’ve seen seen lots of pointless name calling, misquoting and other tactics and I’ve started to think it all reeks a little of the school playground.  Everyone is so sure that they know for sure what’s right, so willing to shout about it, so unwilling to accept that they might be wrong. But once you dig into that conceptual certainty, it runs out pretty quickly.

How do I know this?  For my answer, I invite you to try this meditation I learned in Second Life, this is something you probably think you know pretty well.  You might need a mirror for this.

Sit, relax. Look at your face in the mirror, or visualise it.  Ask the question “Who is this?”  Once you answer, keep the answer in mind and, of that answer, ask again “Who is this?”  Usually the answers run out fairly quickly, in the meditation group I was part of, we either went in circles or ran out of answers quickly.  Don’t question aggressively, be gentle.  This is an enquiry, not an interrogation.

In Buddhism, this meditation reminds us of the fiction of the self.  As soon as you try to grasp it, it slips away.  But you could just as easily hold a concept or object in your mind.

This would bring you to the chief reason for my agnosticism, the limits of the human knowledge.  We like to ignore this and pretend anything is knowable, but that just isn’t the case, we are limited beings.  Frankly, there is enough written in the Tao Te Ching to suggest Agnosticism and I have touched on the Buddhist case for this previously.

I’m not the only one to accept this, and I’ll finish my thoughts so far on this with a quote from Thomas Henry Huxley, the man who coined the term “Agnostic”.

“I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori  difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter…

It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions…

That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth.”

I’ll revisit a couple of things I said here in more detail another time.