Fists in the Wind

Devotional Deism

2011-10-03T19:25:00.000-07:00

A most common idea is that the God of deism is distant and uncaring, or that He is even completely impersonal.

A deist can certainly have these views. Nothing in deism says he can't. I propose a different understanding--that of a deeply personal and accessible God who nevertheless does not interfere with the workings of the creation. Pursuing a policy of non-intervention is compatible with being personal.

If God is the Grand Architect and Designer of the universe and all of the fundamental constants that give rise to life and make its maintenance possible, then it is, at the very least, a live option that this creation was the result of an intention. Yet impersonal beings cannot have intentions. That God is personal is a live option.

Approach that possibility with Devotional Deism. Here are some claims to which Devotional Deism is committed:

1. There is a Divine Intelligence behind the universe. We call it "God."

2. God is a personal being who is enriched through personal relationships with His creatures.

3. God desires to enter into deep and profound religious/spiritual relations with his creatures.

4. God is owed our devotion by virtue of His station and status.

5. We have a duty to honor, worship, remember, and pray to God on a regular basis--daily, if possible.

6. We don't gain spiritual insight through superstition, tarot cards, astrology, divination, or anything that happens in Sedona. God is a God of science and reason. God is a skeptic. God prefers that we learn science in order to know His will, and learning about science is itself a religious activity. Experience it as such.

7. We discover God's nature and will through careful study of the creation, which is God's true revelation that is accessible to all of us and not just to the bearded billy goats who claim that God was talking directly to them.

8. This material life is only one chapter in our great journey to get ever closer to God--a journey that continues after this material life ends.

Devotional Deism is about a deep and sincere piety. It is about doing something, rather than just thinking something.

God is the foundation of rightness and goodness, as well as the foundation of the world that surrounds us. Improve yourself morally. Think noble thoughts. Pursue noble endeavors. If you are honest with yourself, you know full well what you are doing that is harming your spiritual well being. God wants you to overcome these weaknesses so that you can get closer to Him.

In this post, you will see a suggestion that I made to encourage devotional sentiments within a deist context and using distinctly deist language. Try it out. If it doesn't work, come up with something that does. But come up with something! Develop a ritualistic behavior that is intended solely for God. Ritual helps to maintain your practice, and devoting it specifically to God will infuse it with transcendental meaning.

Deism should not be about a lazy sentimentalism. Devote yourself and commit yourself to fulfilling your potentiality as a companion of God. Every day you should be able to point to something specific that you did that brought you closer to God that day. Perhaps you did something that morality demanded of you. Maybe you meditated on God or offered a prayer of gratitude to Him. You may have offered him a small gift. It doesn't have to be something huge, but it should be something.

You are building your spiritual muscle mass a little bit every day. Just because some nutty religious people do crazy things does in no way mean that you shouldn't pursue this goal. Deism is about carefully retaining the baby when the bath water has been poured out.

Feel free to share your ideas or experiences on this post. I would love to benefit from your thoughts! Until then, keep God in mind at all times and actualize your spiritual and religious potential. Your are not alone. There are many of us out there who are just like you, and part of knowing God is to know us and to communicate with us.

Many blessings on your journey, my friend!

Deist Mantra

2011-01-12T22:57:00.000-08:00

I have experimented quite deeply with Hindu devotional practices, and I have also experimented with Christian (Catholic) and heathen rituals. I have benefited tremendously from ritualistic practice that is oriented toward the Divine, yet my intellect seems to insist on deism, which does not have an established set of rituals.

Many deists have no need of ritualistic behavior, but I do, and I think that ritualistic behavior can have tremendous benefits. Muslims do salat, Catholics chant the rosary, Hindus chant mantras. These practices give us the opportunity to set aside and devote some time to unwavering focus on the Creator.

If you are a deist, then you believe that there is a God, a Creator, a Divine Architect. You need to have a relationship with your Creator.

Deists are like a herd of cats, but if you need ritual, consider what I have come up with. Maybe it will give you some ideas.

While learning from my Hindu friends, I discovered that repetitive chanting was incredibly calming. I would frequently chant a thirty-two syllable mantra 108 times. Hindus often use beads like these, called japa mala, to keep count of their chanting.

I have endeavored to create a "Deist Mantra," which emphasizes the beliefs of deism and shares the same number of syllables. Chanting it a minimum of one round per day will devote ten to fifteen minutes of time solely to the Creator. No matter how stressful your day is, no matter how shrill the politics get, no matter what, you have time with the Source of your very being, which allows you to reflect on what really matters.

If you devote at least ten minutes per day solely to the contemplation of God, you will experience an improved mood, a greater peace, and a stronger commitment to decent and moral behavior.

Calming music, incense, and candlelight are conducive to deep devotion. God is not cold and distant. God simply practices non-intervention. Non-intervention can be the most loving thing that we can receive. Orient your heart deeply to God who, in His wisdom, makes truth accessible to your rational soul. Engage in activities that nurture devotional sentiments. Chant, pray, or meditate.

I choose to chant because, as the Hindus point out, it employs all five senses. Taste is served by speaking the chant, smell by incense, sound by the chant and music, touch by the beads, and sight by the candlelight and mental visualization.

Here is the text of my Deist Mantra:

"Dear God,
Unmoved Mover,
Cause of all causes,
Creator of the universe,
Lord of all that is,
I honor and praise you this day."

God is the source of morality, and we cannot get closer to God without behaving decently. After the chanting, whether it be one or more rounds, I am in a calm and reflective mood. To focus on God's moral expectations, I think about the things I did that day (or the day previous, depending on whether it is morning or evening). I think about one admirable thing I did that day and commit to doing such things again. I then think about one regrettable thing I did and commit to avoiding such behavior in the future.

Then it is time to face the day knowing that you did something to enrich your life and to come just one little step closer to the very Source of your being. That little step is truly something grand.

Facebook Page

2010-12-11T22:19:00.000-08:00

If you are a deist who is conservative, libertarian, or conservatarian, please consider joining this group on Facebook. It could be a great place to communicate with like-minded folks!

Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?

2010-11-17T21:49:00.001-08:00

Tonight on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, from 7:00-8:30 p.m., I attended the "Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?" debate at Grand Canyon University at 33rd Avenue and Camelback in Phoenix, Arizona. Grand Canyon University is a Christian institution. The debaters where Dinesh D'Souza, a Christian and influential political conservative who grew up in India, and Michael Shermer, a well-known skeptic and the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine.

In this essay, I will summarize what I found to be the most significant points made by both presenters; afterwards, I will present a few personal reactions.

D'Souza presented first. Although he intended to defend religion generally, he intentionally focused primarily on Christianity. He stated that the secular values that we take for granted in the modern world actually have their foundation in Christianity; in particular, the notion that compassion should be central to our dealings in the world is deeply connected to Christianity. He noted that Aristotle does not emphasize compassion in his list of virtues, and even treats pity with some ambivalence. Even Thomas Jefferson, that most secular of our founders, still appealed to "our Creator" as the source and foundation of our rights. The anti-slavery movement was critically linked to Christianity. He also emphasized the countless millions of people killed by explicitly atheist regimes in the twentieth century as evidence for the idea that, without some kind of religious check, atheism itself can be a dangerous thing if it becomes too widespread and influential.

For D'Souza, atheists tend to argue from the dysfunctions within Islam to the dysfunctions of religion in general, which D'Souza does not think is helpful or fair.

He wrapped up his case by pointing to the general benefits to humans of being religious. He spells out these benefits in more detail in his closing statement, which I will summarize below.

Shermer made his presentation next. He pointed out that he was once an evangelical Christian who became an evangelical atheist who then generally mellowed out. He argued that the Bible endorses slavery, and emphasized verses in Leviticus that we would find repugnant in today's world, including death for adultery and for being a disobedient child. He stated that he can't understand why God would be concerned about our private sex acts. He stated that Islam will need an Enlightenment of its own, without which Enlightenment both Judaism and Christianity would be in much worse shape, and which Enlightenment was the product of secular influences rather than religious ones.

He emphasized the progress on slavery, among other moral issues, was a function of oppressed people being fed up with their conditions rather than with any religious motivations on anyone's part.

He wrapped up by advising the audience members to wear an "atheist cap" for just one full day and to notice how nothing bad will happen and how their moral behavior will not deteriorate.

D'Souza responded by arguing that progress on slavery and other moral issues always required more than merely that the oppressed people stood up against their oppressors--the progress required the assistance of religiously motivated people to assist the oppressed. Christianity, in particular, played a decisive role in many of these cases.

He claimed that Christians read the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament, which makes sense of why Christians are under no obligation to follow the literal words of the Old Testament verses that Shermer highlighted.

D'Souza argued that the way we judge religions and the documents they use is, only in part but in fact in part, a function of what the followers of those religions and texts actually do.

He further claimed that the atheist cap, if worn long enough that it "soaks through" will be very destructive to societies in general.

Shermer responded by asking whether people in the audience would begin behaving differently if they found out that there is no God. If the answer is yes, then their character would be shallow. Religions fail to stop war, and Shermer pointed out many examples to illustrate this including Ireland, Israel, Iran, and Iraq. He also pointed out that studies show that non-religious doctors help disadvantaged people more than religious doctors do.

Questions from the audience followed, which lasted for about a half hour. A few highlights:

Shermer believes that ethics are founded in evolutionary history, and defends "evolutionary ethics." Personal note: Shermer's use of words like "freeloaders" is evidence to me that the theory of ethics he prefers is probably Social Contract Theory, which uses such words as technical terms.

D'Souza said that the Ten Commandments is a codification of the knowledge we glean from the "impartial spectator" who operates within us as a kind of conscience. For him, ethics is all about preventing much behavior that evolutionary competition influences us to perform and, as a result, ethics cannot be explained solely in terms of evolution insofar as it often serves to work against Darwinian purposes. Conscience does not compel our behavior--it is, in fact, the voice of God within us and its purpose is to influence rather than to compel.

D'Souza said in this period that the hypothesis of theism is the best explanation for there being a universe at all and for there being a universe with the characteristics that it has. He conceded to Shermer that there is no full-on proof for God's existence, but that their are serious considerations in theism's favor.

Later D'Souza and Shermer argued about Marxism, with D'Souza maintaining that it is not, in fact, a religion and with Shermer claiming that it is. Shermer claimed this to make the case the mass murder of communist regimes was actually religiously motivated and not the result of atheism itself.

Shermer gave a final statement and emphasized that religion is not necessary for a moral life, nor is it necessary for moral progress. He concluded by saying that we should treat each other as we would wish to be treated.

D'Souza summarized four benefits of religion generally. They were: First, religion gives us a sense of meaning and purpose to life, and atheism leaves us in despair in a cold and uncaring universe. Second, religion serves the invaluable function of transmitting morality to future generations, which is something that no other institution can do nearly so well. Third, religion helps us to experience a sense of the sublime in daily life. Although such experiences can be had in other ways, religion gives us the ability to experience the sublime regularly and systematically. Fourth, religion gives us consolation and peace in the face of our inevitable death.

Generally, I have a profound and deep respect for both of these speakers, and I believe that both of them made a number of great points, and that both of them made some errors here and there.

I now briefly lay out what I thought were the strengths and weaknesses of each speaker.

First comes D'Souza. For me, D'Souza's historical case is speculative and contentious. I tend to have a higher opinion of pre-Christian pagan and heathen ethics than D'Souza does, and I think that those ethical systems have the tools to justify an anti-slavery movement, even if the people were not fully aware of the application of those principles to that purpose at that time. In the same way that Christians took time to apply Christian principles to fight slavery, so the case may have been similar in the case of pagan ethics. In other words, had the heathen faith of Europeans survived the encounter with Christianity in any way similar to the way in which Hinduism survived its encounter with Islam, heathen Europeans may well have developed an anti-slavery movement from their own resources. So was Christianity essential to such developments? I would say that the answer is at least not an obvious "yes."

D'Souza's strength, for me, was definitely his closing statement in which he laid out the benefits of religion in general. I would have to say that I fully agree with every one of the benefits he stated. When I was a hardcore atheist, I would not have agreed, but I have reacted to these considerations over the years and they have had a major effect on me and have essentially changed my thinking about religion.

Shermer's major weakness for me was that he was not able to show how objective moral codes can find a basis in mere evolution. Pointing out that non-religious people are more moral, even if true, is irrelevant to the question of the basis of ethical obligations. He mentioned evolutionary ethics, but he didn't have time to develop it very much, in all fairness to him. Just mark me down as someone who cannot, for the life of him, understand how absolute moral obligations can be grounded in matter and energy.

Shermer's strength was to point out that, yes, in fact, even the Bible has some nasty stuff in it. I'm very happy that Christians and Jews no longer take much of Leviticus seriously, but if God really revealed some of those laws to us, then we've got a problem. I don't want to be mean to anybody, but there is some messed up stuff in parts of the Bible and we just have to make our peace with the fact.

I hope you enjoyed my summary of the debate. I tried to be as fair as possible. Maybe I'll see you at the next one!

Trends in the Academy

2010-10-06T23:04:00.000-07:00

Over the years I have seen trends come and go in higher education. I was inspired to muse on this after reading this.

As an undergraduate in the early nineties, "feminism" was all the rage. Playboy came onto campus at the U of MN and the University Young Women (UYW) went nuts. Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin had just left our campus after having taught their students to be feminist activists, protesting outside of pornography shops in Minneapolis.

Now, feminism has little influence (except for the Larry Summers debacle.)

Feminism lost its credibility because it became bitter, humorless, dogmatic, intolerant, and boring. Female students nowadays are far more likely to distance themselves from what feminism has become than to identify with it. Based on what I saw twenty years ago, I can only see this as a positive development.

While in graduate school in the mid-nineties at the University of Illinois at Chicago, I noticed the currency of the idea that minorities could not be racist, since they are not in control of the mechanisms of power. This idiosyncratic understanding of racism didn't impress me whatsoever, however, because I had seen vicious racism by blacks against Asians when I was a bus driver in the Twin Cities some years before. If that didn't qualify as racism, then we should strike the word from the dictionary.

This idea had a lot of currency on campuses for a while, but it lacks credibility even among most academics these days--and that's saying a lot.

The early 2000's brought us an obsession with "diversity", by which is meant diversity of skin colors, religions, and sexual orientations, but by no means is meant diversity of political views. Hostility toward conservative and libertarian ideas in colleges and universities is often palpable in spite of any commitment to "diversity". I'm not saying that there is always such hostility, but I noticed it even when I was solidly on the left.

Diversity is losing its influence these days, I think primarily because of the above reason, but also because it is becoming boring. So many college courses--especially in the liberal arts, of course--are often little more than predictable variations on a theme.

The new kid on the block is "sustainability", which currently has tremendous momentum. "Sustainability" sounds awesome, of course, but I can't help but wonder what is really going on here. I like sustaining all kinds of things, but I can sense strong political agendas lurking below the surface. I predict with confidence that sustainability will be replaced by something else in a few years after it becomes predictable and boring, as most politically motivated innovations on campus eventually do.

And so it goes. Academics love to think that they will save the world through their intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom. They love to train their students out of the views that they received from their reactionary parents.

Personally, I have no faith in academics to save the world (what would such a thing mean?). They are hopelessly human, yet loathe to admit it. Everyday working people quite often show greater wisdom than the greatest professors. Sometimes I hear things that are so patently insane that I think that only someone who has gone to graduate school could ever believe them.

And so I say something here that a professor should never, ever say: I don't want to save the world! I wish only to strive to maintain the semblance of order that the world constantly threatens. What we have is fragile. Attempts to erect Utopia are doomed to fail. The world mocks every attempt at Utopia and punishes us severely for our naiveté.

The world is singularly unimpressed by our intentions. Results are what matter, and the world is stingy.

After sustainability, what will be the next trend among academics? I don't know, but I do know that it will carry the hallmarks of those that came before-- it will become predictable, dogmatic, quixotic, intolerant, humorless, and boring.

Glitter and the Empty Hollow

2010-08-14T20:14:00.000-07:00

I went to Las Vegas this week and was amazed and dazzled by the incredible creativity and talent that has gone into creating it. It is a brilliant and fascinating place.

I'm sure that many people get a deep sense of the vanity of things while they are there. Ubiquitous offers for lifeless female affection litter the sidewalks. The promise of easy money leads to empty wallets and empty souls.

I spent time in the Titanic exhibit in the Luxor and marinated in the finality of it all. Every survivor of that disaster has now met his inevitable death.

I love Las Vegas for its genius. There is nothing uniquely vain about it. It is simply a window into the hollowness of things in general. The world has its beauty, but it cannot satisfy our needs. We need something further.

Las Vegas was wonderfully apolitical in the sense that people are there to get away from political issues. I saw no politically-charged "cause" shirts while there. Thank goodness. I weary of it.

Coming home after avoiding the news quickly brought all of the negativity of our ephemeral and hostile world back into my consciousness. Politics in our country and in the world is becoming increasingly unpleasant. But politics has always been unpleasant. Indeed, I am an unexceptional part of this process. Am I all those evil things that conservatives are constantly accused of being? I used to get angry about these accusations. I have heard them so often that now I grow bored of them. Am I racist? Anti-science? Bigoted? I need a vacation. Oh, crap. I just finished it.

Would that we could know what all of this is supposed to mean. So many think they are so sure. I totally understand the motivation for that.

Those without this certainty say that it's the journey, not the destination. That's adorable. But what does one do when he despairs of finding the destination? I suppose one ought to gather his reserves and continue to plow on in the hope that even the mere outlines of a destination will feed his soul, if he can just glimpse them.

And so I look forward to returning to Las Vegas and spending time in the Titanic once again. Perhaps God can be found in there, suffering with us, calling to us in the empty hollow with the hope of a beautiful unknown something toward which we constantly strive.

To Taste the Sugar, Not To Be It

2010-08-01T15:54:00.000-07:00

"Can water quaff itself?
Can trees taste of the fruit they bear?
He who worships God must stand distinct from Him,
So only shall he know the joyful love of God;
For if he say that God and he are one,
That joy, that love, shall vanish instantly away.
Pray no more for utter oneness with God:
Where were the beauty if jewel and setting were one?
The heat and the shade are two,
If not, where were the comfort of shade?
Mother and child are two,
If not, where were the love?
When after being sundered, they meet,
What joy do they feel, the mother and child!
Where were joy, if the two were one?
Pray, then, no more for utter oneness with God." —Tukaram

Finding a Goddess in Hawaii

2010-07-28T22:39:00.000-07:00

Last week I spent a week in the jungles of Puna, Hawaii, with my friends Steve and Jahnava Bohlert. Puna is on the southeast corner of the Big Island, and is subject to almost daily rainfall.

What made the trip notable for me was that I was separated from most of the modern technology that unceasingly buzzes in our brains. My cell phone worked only in town. I didn’t bring a computer. My hosts had a television, but used it only to watch movies.

This gave me the rare and treasured opportunity to permit my mind to return to a more natural state and rhythm. I went to bed when the sun went down and I woke up when the sun came up. I paid no attention whatever to the news of the day. I discovered to my delight that the world continues perfectly well without my being plugged into it at all times.

The island feels like a living beast, and it is no wonder that worship of the Goddess Pele continues to this day. The island breathes and grumbles. The Mother’s lava creates while it catastrophically destroys. The island is a Goddess.

The stars in Hawaii are brighter even than in Phoenix. The mind returns to its origins and celebrates the raw product of an inscrutable, dangerous, beautiful, awe-inspiring Creator.

In Hawaii I imagined the Divine in a feminine guise, much as the beautiful Pele emerges from the mouth of a volcano. Creation reminds me of the womb, and Hawaii brings us to the womb of creation itself.

But this Mother of Hawaii can be cruel, too. The creation is slow and runs on its own time, but its destruction is as complete as anything I have ever seen.

The world is complex and confusing. In Hawaii, with my good friends Steve and Jahnava, I got to experience the divine complexity at a deep and enriching level. The Divine Play is like a love affair in a paradisiacal jungle. Danger lurks around every corner, and fantastic risks are taken for the sake of the embrace of the Lover. The risk results in the greatest of rewards--the union of active and passive that creates universes.

I humble myself before the generative force of the volcano, of She Who Captures God‘s Heart. May You fill the emptiness with Life.

On Discussing Islam

2010-07-28T21:58:00.000-07:00

Islam is emerging as perhaps the most important social and intellectual (certainly religious) issue for the world. Many people find discussion of this topic frustrating. This frustration is a significant, modern-day phenomenon that I believe deserves a name. I will here call it "Islam Fatigue" (IF).

In my treatment of IF I do not, by any means, necessarily endorse all of its sentiments, but I believe that I have identified something which, if properly understood, is an important factor in countless discussions about Islam for a great many people.

IF is a complex, ever-growing phenomenon that seems to encompass a number of sentiments. Included in IF are the following factors that I perceive to be operating in the minds of those who suffer from IF:

(a) "The Surfeit": The sense that Islam and related subjects are demanding too much of our attention right now and are dominating too much discourse, and that this state of affairs promises only to become much worse before it gets better. It is becoming increasingly difficult to be indifferent to and to ignore Islam in an ever increasing number of areas including physical space, intellectual space, moral space, political space, and religious space. Many people are simply becoming "tired of" Islam and wish to focus on other things.

(b) "Death by a Thousand Qualifications": The sense that any discussion about Islam and related subjects demands an endless series of tedious, mandatory qualifiers every time they are discussed and that if the qualifiers are not used, one will generally not be given the benefit of the doubt in their absence. Additionally, there is the sense that in the presence of all of the necessary qualifiers, Islam becomes impossible to define and therefore impossible to discuss.

(c) "The Bigot": The sense that, by criticizing Islam, the Quran, Muhammad, or Islamic behavior through history, one will be seen by a significant amount of people thereby as a religious bigot.

(d) "The Transformation": The sense that Islam, on the basis of its growth and increasing influence, will cause a fundamental change in the way the world works in the future. There is some unease among non-Muslims about this possibility; indeed, there is unease among some Muslims, as well.

(e) "Jurisprudence": The worry that Shariah may be essential, or at least extremely important, to Islam in general, with the corresponding worry that a widespread separation of mosque and state may be awesomely difficult or even impossible to achieve in Islam.

(f) "The Double Standard": The sense that, especially in contrast with Christianity, Islam benefits from a large number of double standards that make reasoned and profitable discussion frustratingly difficult.

(g) "Knowledge is Acceptance": The sense that there is a ubiquitous, unquestioned assumption that learning more about Islam is a guarantee that one will cease finding it problematic. This assumption leads to the reflexive response to criticism of Islam that the critic, by virtue of his critical attitude, is deficient in knowledge; however, the general principle that negative attitudes toward religions and ideologies is necessarily the product of ignorance is a principle that is false since counterexamples are readily available.

I think that some combination of these factors goes some way to explaining the frustration that many people often express when discussing Islam and related subjects. They are so powerful, in fact, that they lead people to make the conscious decision not to discuss these topics at all for fear of some kind of negative repercussions.

I hope that the twenty-first century will turn out to be a great century for the development of Islam into new and modern forms. Energetic and vibrant discussion and debate should contribute to meaningful and beneficial developments in the religion.

Paul McCartney

2010-06-24T22:18:00.000-07:00

Paul McCartney says:

"Some people don't believe in climate warming - like those who don't believe there was a Holocaust."

Ok, Paul.

Review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's _Infidel_

2010-05-25T22:07:00.000-07:00

In this essay, I will briefly summarize the general contents of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s 2007 book Infidel and then offer some of my reactions to the book.

The book is divided into two parts. The first part, “My Childhood”, describes Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s life in a variety of countries, including Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Saudi Arabia. She talks about her frequently absent yet loving father, her embittered but protective mother, her often annoying brother, and her free-spirited yet troubled sister. She describes the clan system of Somalia in great detail, and the cultural mores and expectations of Muslims generally and Somalians particularly.

She goes on to describe her life of constant moving and varied cultural environments. Through these many moves she picked up a variety of languages. She describes the horrifying details of the circumcision of all of the children at a very young age. A man cut off her and her sister’s clitori with a scissors when they were five and four years old. Ayaan’s recovery was agonizing, and her sister’s recovery was unspeakably painful. Ayaan believes that the experience did permanent damage to her sister’s view of the world. Her sister, Haweya, will die after a miscarriage many years later after having gone insane.

The second part is called “My Freedom.” Ayaan escaped an arranged marriage by going to Holland and applying for refugee status. As she studied Enlightenment and Western philosophy and political thought, her mind moved ever further away from Islamic teachings about God, our relationship to God, and the relationship between mosque and state. She eventually became an atheist. She later became a prominent politician in Holland after having earned a degree in political science.

In 2004, she wrote the script for a controversial short movie called “Submission.” The famous Dutch provocateur Theo van Gogh directed the film. Ayaan warned him that such a critical statement of Islam would lead to murder attempts. Van Gogh refused any protection and was murdered in broad daylight by Mohammed Bouyeri in November of 2004. Ayaan went into deep hiding and eventually moved to the United States, where she works for the American Enterprise Institute. She still lives under armed protection to this day.

This book was very long and incredibly deep, so I will here mention just a few of my reactions to this book.

The book gives the reader a deep sense of Somalian culture and its clan-based social system. Ali contrasts the Islam of Somalia with the Islam of Saudi Arabia in helpful and informative ways. She gives the reader an amazing insight into the categories through which these cultures perceive the world. With half her life firmly rooted in Islamic Africa, and the other half firmly rooted in the post-Enlightenment West, Ali is in a unique and powerful position to offer this information in a way that the Westerner can understand.

I was moved to tears by the story of Ali’s sister, Haweya. The account of her circumcision and the tension she felt between her obligations as a Muslim woman and her all-too-human failings cannot fail to cripple any reader. Look into her eyes in the photo insert after you have read the book. You will be standing on the edge of eternity.

I see in this book the work of someone who may be remembered in history as the most influential and important feminist of the twenty-first century. Although some in the feminist movement have recognized Ali’s revolutionary power, too many Western feminists either ignore her or even cast aspersions upon her. Ali exposes the weaknesses of Western feminism, which has long ignored the plight and suffering of women in much of the Islamic world. If women in the Christian world—especially in the United States—had to endure what the women Ali describes have to endure, the feminist establishment would be filled with the kind of righteous energy that once drew enlightened souls to its causes. Western feminism lost that energy long ago. Ali now carries that energy into the new century.

Even those who may disagree with some of her views can never question her integrity, sincerity, and importance. She is a woman who rose from the most modest of upbringings to become a woman who is willing to risk her life (she will never be able to live without protection) for the sake of the emancipation of women and men from dangerous and outdated ideas about sex, about women, about homosexuals, and about unbelievers. I believe that there is a real possibility that she may help to start a kind of Reformation in the Islamic world, which would ultimately benefit all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

The book is rather long and took me a while to finish. Perhaps there were too many details in there for many; I, however, was so invested in every detail that the length wasn’t a problem. I advise you to spend some time with this woman. Her knowledge is broad and her wisdom is deep. She is a jewel from Somalia for all of us.

And I pray that Haweya has found her peace. The world failed this precious woman.

2010-05-11T23:07:00.000-07:00

I remember being in college when Andres Serrano, with partial funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, created "Piss Christ", which was a picture of Jesus soaking in Serrano's own urine. I remember so many people defending Serrano against the uptight Christians. I even remember them defending the NEA for the partial funding.

More recently, Marilyn Manson burns Bibles on stage during live performances. Oh, that brave Mr. Manson. Burning a Bible. How edgy. How boring.

There was some controversy when Alexis Marquette posed as a gay Krishna on the cover of Genre Magazine back in 2000. I doubt, however, that Arquette concerns himself very frequently with the possibility of being killed by a Hindu.

The television comedy South Park has, as is well known, ridicules a wide variety of religions, including Scientology and Mormonism. They have shown Jesus defecating on an American flag, and have also shown Buddha sniffing a line of cocaine.

I support the absolute right of all of these people to ridicule religion all that they want. I don't think the government should fund any of it, but I do believe in this fundamental principle: The right to ridicule religious beliefs absolutely trumps the so-called "right" not to have one's religious beliefs ridiculed.

"But it's wrong to mock deeply held religious beliefs!"

First, even if one assumed it were wrong, that would not be a sufficient reason for not having a right to do it.

Second, sometimes certain points can only be made through ridicule. Ridicule serves an important function in the free marketplace of ideas. This makes it not only not wrong to mock religious beliefs--it suggests that mocking religious beliefs plays an important role in the human quest for knowledge and may therefore be seen even as morally obligatory in many cases.

Third, that a belief is "deeply held" has no bearing on its worth. I have many deeply held beliefs. Many of them are stupid. Welcome to my world. Welcome to the world of liberty and freedom.

And so now we have the vision of a hunted man who drew an offensive picture of Muhammad.

What he drew is offensive to many. Ok. I am offended every day by something or other. I am infuriated by disrespect of the American flag, for instance. I do not kill those who do it. I do not threaten those who do it. I do not attack those who do it. I criticize them. I dispute with them. I tell them that what they do is wrong. I believe they have a right to do it.

Back to blasphemy:

Someone tried to kill a fellow cartoonist of Lars Vilks, Kurt Westergaard, with an axe.

A cell containing the American Jihad Jane plotted to assassinate Westergaard.

And now Vilks himself has just been physically attacked at a speech he was giving for freedom of speech.

The year is 2010. The place is the West. You may be offended by the delicious liberty that we all enjoy here together, yet the right to ridicule religious beliefs absolutely trumps the so-called "right" not to have one's religious beliefs ridiculed.

Indifference

2010-05-07T21:41:00.001-07:00

Earth, your indifference is staggering, and also humbling. Were we to live in outside in the desert just to be nearer to you, you would send a swarm of pests to consume us. Indeed, our bodies fight off your attacks at every moment and one day must finally succumb. Were we to recycle every item we ever used, you would neither notice nor care. Yet we love to think you care, and that you approve of us.

Tempe Tax-Day Tea Party 2010

2010-04-15T21:22:00.000-07:00

Today, Thursday, April 15, 2010, I attended the Tea Party Rally at Diablo Stadium in Tempe, Arizona. The event started at 6 p.m., but I left early to beat the crowds. I saw enough there to get some impressions.

There were, of course, a number of speakers from a wide variety of backgrounds, including a talk-show host, politicians, and local organizers. Here is the list of speakers.

I will organize this brief essay by first referencing those things about which I felt positive, and then those things about which I felt negative.

First I would like to point out those things that I liked. First, I noticed a number of bikers, which I always enjoy. Second, there was a strong emphasis on low taxation and limited government, which is always a winner. Third, the emcee, an "African-American" or, as he put it, an "American with African heritage", James T. Harris, was funny, clever, entertaining, and inspiring. Fourth, I got to meet a couple of politicians, including J. D. Hayworth himself, whose physically monstrous size surprised me. Fifth, and finally, I enjoyed the amazing and fascinating diversity (age and race) of people, which is something I have consistently seen at similar rallies in spite of so many reports to the contrary. Permit me to be a little salty and say that, based on my not insignificant experience, the claim that the Tea Party phenomenon is driven by racism is, at best, a clearly ideologically-driven exaggeration based on the most fringe elements. It is simply not true. I offer myself to the universe for judgment.

I was disappointed in a number of things, however. First, I was approached by a patriotic riders group, which is good as far as it goes, and bikers have a strong tendency to be conservative in any case; however, this group was too far right for me. Specifically, they expressed great disappointment in Sarah Palin for endorsing John McCain instead of J. D. Hayworth. They said that she had abandoned her principles. I, in contrast with that, think highly of Palin for her endorsement of McCain, because I think it shows character and loyalty on her part. Although I disagree with McCain on some things, I think that a great variety of things matter in politics. This gave me the sense that they were too ideologically driven for me. Frankly, I'm glad that Palin pissed them off. Good for you, Sarah! Fists in the Wind, Sister! One of their members even suggested to me that she liked McCain only a little better than Jane Fonda! "Good Lord", I thought. It was time to move on.

The second thing that disappointed me was that the speakers, including the excellent Mr. Harris, emphasized religion--specifically Christianity--far too much. I am fond of Christianity, and I respect its contribution to the United States, but I am not a Christian. At least four of the speakers I saw referenced Christianity in a way that struck me as too exclusive. Additionally, many people associated with the Tea Party movement are totally secular, such as the libertarians and objectivists. Tonight's speakers emphasized Christianity to such an extent that it came off borderline aggressive to me. This is unacceptable. This movement should be inclusive enough to make clear that anyone from any religious background is welcome.

Third, the John Birch Society had a table set up. I never saw anyone milling around it, but they were there. Enough said.

Fourth, one of the speakers, who represented KFYI radio, made a joke about Obama's birth certificate. I have no patience for this stuff. It is poison. I think the audience reaction was mixed about this. Ideological purity is leading some people to get carried away.

I have been to a number of similar rallies, and this one had more of an edge than the others. Since it was out of the norm, I will keep an eye on how things develop.

So yes, I am conservative and feel generally comfortable at such rallies, but yes, I am angry about edged humor, ideological purity, and lack of focus.

I have many friends who are liberal and progressive politically, and I love them with all of my heart. I never forget that even at a rally. The other people there shouldn't forget that, either! That, of course, goes for progressive rallies, as well. Hopelessly human, we are all.

The Incompleteness of Maya

2010-04-06T15:01:00.000-07:00

Sages have said that the world in which we now live cannot fully satisfy the longing of the human heart. If there is a God (or at least a beneficent Supreme), then perhaps we are supposed to learn this over time in order that we seek the Source of our Being. If there is no beneficent Supreme, then it is a distressing thing to learn. Yet the world is under no obligation to satisfy our desires, and so we wonder.

McCain Rally

2010-03-27T11:42:00.001-07:00

Today, March 27, 2010, I attended the McCain for Senate Rally at Dobson High School in Mesa. What follows is a brief description of the event followed by my own impressions.

The event was scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. I arrived at about 8 a.m. and discovered that I was much too late to get a seat. It was standing room only, but so it goes.

Starting at about 8:20 a.m., a variety of local politicians spoke to the crowd. These included the Mayor of Mesa Scott Smith, Congressmen John Shadegg and Jeff Flake, and the Principal of Dobson Senior High Matthew Gehrman, himself a graduate of the school.

Their talk ended at 8:55, and then Cindy McCain spoke to a very enthusiastic crowd. She introduced Sarah Palin, who spoke to an electrified crowd for about twenty minutes. Two men in the crowd interrupted her, and she dealt with them ably, giving the distinct impression that she is accustomed to and prepared for such interruptions. Then John McCain spoke for about twenty minutes, with the event ending at about 10:10 a.m.

Palin' and McCain's themes centered primarily on the importance of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with an alternative plan that would emphasize tort reform. They also emphasized McCain's opposition to earmarks and pork barrel spending.

I could tell that there were a few conservatives there who were still undecided between McCain and J. D. Hayworth, but McCain's military service carried tremendous weight with conservatives generally. I would estimate that a full third (or even more) of the men present were current or former military. There was a huge contingent of men displaying all of their military badges and honors.

The other factor that carried much weight with conservatives was Sarah Palin's endorsement.

Now some impressions. First, I was struck by the racial diversity. I keep hearing about all of these racists that are supposed to be gravitating to Palin and the Obama opposition, and while I am sure there are racists around, I must stress that this "vibe" was not at all present. There were many Hispanics, some African-Americans, and some American Indians there. I was standing next to a man of Japanese descent. Having been to the tax protest on April 15th, 2009, and having been at the Palin rally today, I must conclude that the meme about racism contains some amount of exaggeration and spin.

Second, I was struck by the age of the people. While there were many young and middle-aged people, there was a very large contingent of older people. I enjoyed this. It had the feel of one generation offering something to the next. The proud patriotism of the older generation filled me with great joy and a sense of nostalgia. John McCain is flesh-and-blood patriotism, and the sacrifices he made for us move me to the core.

Third, I must emphasize the power of Sarah Palin's presence. This woman has the X factor and she has it in the marrow of her bones. She comes to the podium with an electricity and magnetism that cannot fail to move her audience. When I consider the obvious fact that most everyone there was already an admirer of her, I believe that an honest observer cannot deny that her appeal is like a force of nature. She is an amazing public speaker. She dealt with the disruptions professionally and deftly. Sarah Palin has earned and deserves her place in conservatism. I am sorry if that offends anybody, but it is an objective fact. I have seen it with my eyes. John McCain benefits tremendously from her endorsement.

In conclusion, I am delighted to have attended McCain's rally. I have never been involved in politics in an active way in the past, and it is really fun to be a part of the process. It is fun to meet new and interesting people who want to be involved in the future of the country. There is an energy there that infuses one's spirit with new enthusiasm and a sense of purpose. This general principle applies regardless of one's political orientation, so I encourage you to get out there and meet new people and explore the political space of this, the great United States of America.

Tea Parties and Conservatism

2010-02-07T11:48:00.000-08:00

I believe that there are noble and critically important ideas within the Tea Party Movement (TPM), but that they are mixed in with a lot of dangerous and destructive ideas. This is not unique to the TPM, since this phenomenon always occurs with populist movements.

What I take to be the essential and important ideas are as follows:

First: The Big Picture--The State, in general, should be minimal in size and serve a minimum of functions, the most important of which are law enforcement, national defense, and enforcement of contracts. There should be a strong sense of independence and diversity within the confines of the larger government in the form of the independence of individual states within the State.

Second: Specific Critique--The U.S. government is already far too large and needs to be reduced in size. It is already taxing us far too much and is spending obscene amounts of money. The federal government has too much authority over the operation of the states.

Third: Attitudinal Orientation--There is a deep mistrust of the State in general. There is a strong preference for local solutions insofar as corruption becomes ever more likely the higher one climbs the governmental ladder. More trust is placed in the results of the decisions of millions of everyday people than in the results of the decisions of a few elite experts.

What I take to be cluttering the message and potentially destructive are as follows:

First: Anti-Immigration Tendencies--Too many TPM activists want to close off immigration too severely. Although illegal immigration can be socially chaotic and costly, legal immigration is vital to any healthy society. I emphasize the importance of orderly and rational legal immigration. Although many TPM activists would agree with me, their voices need thoroughly to defeat general anti-immigration sentiments.

Second: Conspiracy Mongering--Although not, in the least, unique to the TPM, vulnerability to conspiracy theories hurts the credibility of the movement and its message. In particular, I am seeing far, far too much emphasis in the TPM about Obama's birth certificate. Additionally, the exaggerations surrounding the global warming panic of recent decades are not the result of conspiracies, as many TPM activists would argue, but rather of a whole host of reasons that need not have anything to do with conscious, deceptive motives.

Third: Hyper-Partisanship--We are experiencing an especially polarizing time in American politics. I understand that--I feel it, too. It is nevertheless critical to play fair, and to avoid language and actions that will be regretted by all thoughtful people in the future.

Then again, there is little here happening that is unique to us, now and in this place. Every generation in the past and in the future will go through these things, and countless insignificant turds will be writing similar blog posts about similar issues until the last red dwarf turns black.

Do-Gooders Diss Display in Deutschland

2010-01-25T16:01:00.000-08:00

The Harley Days events for 2010 and 2011 have been canceled by the Hamburg Senate in Germany. From the original article: "Ein Grund dafür soll sein, das Hamburg zur Umwelthauptstadt 2011 ernannt wurde, dann würde eine Veranstaltung wie die HH-Days nicht in das Gesamtbild passen."

Roughly translated, this says that a reason for this is that Hamburg was named a key environmentally-friendly city for 2011, so an event like Harley Days doesn't fit into that picture.

This event had been planned long in advance and countless hotel rooms were already booked.

This stuff is starting to leave the realm of annoying and into that of scary.

First and less important, this actually demonizes something (motorcycles) that we have been encouraged to see as environmentally friendly. Does Mother Earth cry if I go on a ride on my motorcycle solely for the sake of basking in Her beauty? If the ride has no other purpose than my personal pleasure? Am I making Her too warm?

My primary worry about this kind of event is that I see it as a trend, rather than as an isolated incident. Environmentalism long ago left the realm of commonsense measures to conserve and protect our natural surroundings and became an ersatz-religion. That's fine as far as it goes. There are all kinds of religious beliefs out there.

The problem here is that, like so many ideologies that we have seen, it presumes to be deny its religious origins and to base itself entirely on science. Then it was embraced by politicos as a vehicle to enact change on an immense scale using the power of the State in the form of governments and the United Nations.

Now environmentalism has become corrupted by political interests. Statists use it constantly as a pretext for controlling the behavior of normal citizens, who are forced to act in accordance with the corrupted idealism of the politicos.

So now we see this absolutely offensive and ridiculous ban on a Harley-Davidson rally in Hamburg under these green pretexts.

I love nature and I see God when I look into beautiful natural scenes, but this movement is running off of the rails. The global warming movement is nurturing the totalitarian temptation.

I recommend reading Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom to see clearly how well-meaning idealism can lead us to dark places.

I’m not saying that we are there, but I see this powerful urge to compel people to live in certain ways by fiat. It disturbs me profoundly, and I wish I didn’t see it. It would be easier. I love both nature and the environment, but I am tired of do-gooders who have taken it upon themselves to play Jesus in all his glory.

Thank God I live in Arizona, where I will always ride free with my fists in the wind. Liberty lives in the desert! Ride!

Humor and Partisanship

2010-01-23T09:28:00.000-08:00

I believe that the following is true in many contexts, but especially in the religious and the political: If you lose your sense of humor, you better get it back.

Consider religion. If you cannot withstand jokes and humor about your religious beliefs, then you are permitting religion's dark side to control you. If you respond to such humor in a violent way, then you are positively dangerous.

Jews have an amazing sense of humor about their religion. Not only do they tolerate jokes about it, but they make fun of it themselves all the time. In my experience, Mormons tend to do fairly well with humor directed at them, although this may be a function of the fact that they simply must do this, considering what a common target they tend to be. In this spirit, I can appreciate a good joke about my own spiritual meanderings in good humor. Once I can't, I'll know that I'm doing something very wrong.

Consider politics. I like to watch a variety of political shows. I was thinking about the best known of them. On the right, they are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. On the left, they are Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann.

Of these six, the one who always looks like he's smelling a fart is Keith Olbermann. This is why I cannot stand to watch him. He has no genuine sense of humor. What humor he has is bitter and angry.

Lest you suspect me of partisanship, let me point out how much I enjoy watching Rachel Maddow. Although I disagree with her about 96% of the time, I enjoy her immensely. She is funny, snarky, aware, alert, and thought provoking. Bravo to her.

Chris Matthews is not much for humor, but he does not come off as bitter and angry. I also enjoy watching him.

Of the conservatives, I enjoy O'Reilly the most. He has a genuine sense of humor and is not (in spite of what his critics say) overly partisan. Those who don't watch him regularly would be amazed about how often he breaks with the right-wing line. He tends to talk too much when he has guests, which can drive me nuts sometimes.

Then there is the infamous Glenn Beck. I apologize to his haters, but I often find the guy hilarious. His brain fires in such random ways that the spectacle can bust a gut. Everyone, even his supporters, knows that he can be a bit odd in the head, so I take him with a grain of salt.

Sean Hannity is my least favorite of these, and that's because I think that he doesn't have enough of a sense of humor. He smiles a lot and whatnot, but he is so unrelentingly partisan that he never surprises me. I like to be surprised every once in a while. His jokes almost always have a partisan edge--way too much "I told you so" kind of stuff. The strongest part of his show is the Great American Panel, which frequently contains interesting people from a variety of perspectives.

So laugh a little bit! Be willing to put up with a little ridicule of your beliefs every once in a while! It really is possible for people of radically different perspectives actually to like one another and to be good friends, but only if they both have a good sense of humor!

The Myth I Heard at the Fire

2010-01-22T14:00:00.000-08:00

It had grown late around the fire and under the piercing stars. Then the Elder said, "We must ask the philosopher to leave us now, for I must now speak words that he would not allow." The philosopher understood and left without protest. He knew he would be asked to return soon enough, but he knew well what we had to do.

We were excited to hear what he intended to tell us, and what he told us electrified every part of our bodies.

"What I am to tell you is a myth--just a myth . . ." he said.

"Before everything came to be, there was the Absolute, and It reflected on Itself. 'I will to know. I will to love. I will to BE. I AM. I cannot fail to BE.'

"Then the Absolute did something that amazes the scholars even to this day. It became a pair--Man and Woman. When their eyes locked, they knew why they were and who they were. They were inconceivably and simultaneously one and different.

"Her gaze captured his transcendental form. He had strong arms, a broad chest, and ferocious eyes. He returned her gaze. Her eyes were flame. Her raiment gleamed of a thousand suns. She was smeared with fragrant oils.

"He said, 'I am He Who Attracts All. I am strong. I will protect you with these arms. I will never leave your side.'

"She said, 'I am She Who Capture's God's Heart. I am sweet. I will comfort you with these arms. My head will never leave your chest. Together we will shatter the nothingness with the fruit of our love.'

"He said, 'My arms are strong, but your sidelong glance is stronger.'

"And the nothingness trembled in fear and anticipation of the universes that they would create.

"They said, 'We will expand ourselves into Time and Place, in order that we may always love each other. We will be both that and this in inconceivable and simultaneous oneness and difference. We will experience endless pastimes. But our love cannot be contained! Others must join us. Let it be.'

"He Who Attracts All and She Who Captures God's Heart knew love, yet they also knew lust. They had lust for love, for life, for knowledge. The ecstasy of their union ripped through the nothing and penetrated the void with everything that we know, and much that we do not know.

"And now, to this day, the Divine Couple call to us.

"When we struggle to survive, we feel the exhilaration of the Will to Be.

"When we learn something new, we feel the exhilaration of the Will to Know.

"And, best of all, when we look into our lover's eyes, we feel the exhilaration of the Will to Love that created the entire universe, and which never ceases to call us Home."

I left that night in a state of euphoria; yet surely, the Elder must be mad. The philosopher will be returning soon. Tonight I will look into the stars, and into the eyes of Woman. I will wonder about what lies behind all of the veils that confound us. The Elder never told us why we must be cursed by these veils, or by all of this suffering. Perhaps we are in no position to know. But his myth gives me a certain lightness. Perhaps there is some kind of truth in the tale of this madman . . .

A Few Thoughts on Teaching

2010-01-19T15:06:00.000-08:00

If you are a teacher, you have an obligation to conduct yourself professionally in the classroom. For me, the following are crucial to teaching well and being respected by students.

First, I go through the trouble to memorize the first and last names of every student by matching their names to their faces. This can mean memorizing the names of up to 150 students per semester. As much trouble as it is, it produces great benefits. Students respect you for knowing their names, they don't mess around with you as much, and it earns you credibility.

Second, I tell the students explicitly of how aware I am of the diversity of their views, and that I will be presenting a variety of views in as competent a manner as possible. I always tell them that I am well aware that there are very religious and anti-religious people in the room, and that there are very liberal and very conservative people in the room. I then tell them that I will teach them from a perspective that is informed by that knowledge. This approach stands in contrast with pushing a hard ideological line with students, which will often frustrate even those students who share the teacher's ideological leanings. Teaching ethics or religion courses offers many opportunities for fairness. Any time that I offer a view that I, as an ethical professional, know to be more a function of my opinion than of any objective consensus in the field, I alert my students of that fact and tell them what an opponent would say in response to me.

Third, I permit highly controversial discussions about politically incorrect issues in my class as long as nobody resorts to personal attacks. It is perfectly possible to keep the peace in such situations, as long as one has a little practice and experience. The first few times can easily get out of a teacher's control, but we owe it to the students to permit them to discuss emotionally-charged issues freely and openly.

Fourth, I teach so that the students are not entirely sure of my views on any of the controversial subjects of the class. If they have any suspicions, it is my goal that those students would say that this teacher taught in a way that was never disrespectful or marginalizing.

Fifth, if I want the students to write an argument or defend a position, I permit them to defend any side of any position they please, even those that I find abhorrent, such as that 9/11 was an inside job. We must never permit ourselves to grade on the basis of the student's opinion, but rather on how well the student goes about defending that position.

None of this is incompatible with having passionate opinions about issues outside of the classroom. Teachers have every right to blog, to organize, and to act in behalf of any cause they like. It is important that they can switch gears and enter the sacred space of the classroom with the appropriate reverence. Students will never hold your views against you, even if they disagree with you outside of the classroom, if you have made clear to them your respect for the space that you share with them.

In light of all of this, I would like to recommend to you that you support the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is a group that keeps an eye on us professors in order to make sure that we don't force our baggage onto our students.

Maverick Philosopher on Freud and Illusion

2010-01-14T21:43:00.001-08:00

My friend, Bill Vallicella, has just posted this about Freud, in which he skillfully draws distinctions between error, illusion, and delusion.

The question is, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that humans believe in God on the basis of wish fulfillment, would that serve as evidence against God's existence?

Deism and Some Alternatives

2010-01-11T18:02:00.000-08:00

The Conservative Deist has become confused. What is deism exactly? How does it relate to the other isms? Should he continue to call himself a deist, a panentheist, a theist, or should he just give up on the project altogether? Now the Conservative Deist will stop referring to himself in the third person and start thinking about this.

Let’s begin with the all-time cheesy beginning--consult the dictionary!

The online Oxford Dictionary defines deism as “belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.”

Theism is “belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.”

Pantheism is “the belief that God can be identified with the universe, or that the universe is a manifestation of God.”

Panentheism is (according to fact-archive.com) "the view that God is immanent within all Creation and that the universe is part of God or that God is the animating force behind the universe. Unlike pantheism, panentheism does not mean that the universe is synonymous with God. Instead, it maintains that there is more to God than the material universe. In panentheism, God maintains a transcendent character, and is viewed as both the creator and the original source of universal morality."

All of this gets confusing, but perhaps we can untangle this just a bit. The definition of “theism” is here pretty broad, but I tend to accept the implication from the Oxford definition that theists tend almost always to affirm the existence of God’s intervention into the universe in the form of miracles. This is exactly what deism denies. Pantheism doesn’t have any miracles in it, in the sense that God’s manifestation as the universe itself suggests that the universal law-like regularities that we observe can be counted on to remain constant, being as they are a kind of expression of God himself. Panentheism is compatible with either view, since God is something over and above the universe.

I bring all of this up because I have run into some cognitive dissonance with two of my most cherished interlocutors. My favorite spiritual thinker, Steve Bohlert, prefers to use the term “panentheism” in his work, and especially in the book that I recently reviewed. My philosopher friend, Bill Vallicella, explores deism in his article “Concurrentism or Occasionalism?” with results that have also caused me pause. I consider thus the following:

Steve Bohlert emphasizes the bhakti tradition that develops through Chaitanya, Bhaktivinoda Thakur, and Lalita Prasad Thakur. The strength of panentheism here is that God becomes accessible in everything that surrounds us and yet, because God is more than merely the universe itself, worlds of experience and reality are potentially available as possibilities for the upward surge of the soul. We can have personal relationships with God both in this world and in another world entirely.

Bill Vallicella, in his trenchant article, contrasts deism with other views (conservationism, concurrentism, and occasionalism) for the sake of exploring different theories about how God and causation relate to each other. In the article, he writes that deism affirms that “God is an initiating but not a sustaining cause: he created the universe or the initial segment thereof in principio but ever thereafter it has managed to exist on its own. On this minimalist view, God is (I) one cause among many, and (ii) a cause not involved either directly or indirectly in the causality of other causes.” Since I tend to view God as being constantly related to causality and the existence of things and their interactions, the deistic view here seems to thin for me.

I find myself tending toward the panentheist understanding. So now I consider the motivations that have led me to use “deism.”

I have isolated two motivations--one philosophical, one cultural. The philosophical motivation is that I don’t believe in the existence of literal miracles in the physical, space-time world in which we reside. Deism is the only position that makes that position clear and unambiguous. The cultural motivation is that deism is associated with the great American patriots like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison who were able to fashion our great system at least partially under the influence of deism.

Panentheism is perfectly compatible with the view that God does not perform miracles; I, however, wish to make it clear that whereas I am willing and able to believe in God, I am not particularly interested in miraculous accounts or in New Age phenomena. This is best expressed by “deism.“ Yet I am willing to believe that there is another level of reality in which the most astounding and amazing things are possible, including knowledge of God made accessible to our souls, which is otherwise unthinkable. This is better expressed by “panentheism”, especially since deists usually deny, or are generally dismissive of, the idea of life after death in another sphere of reality.

Yet I am willing to think that God “tugs” our imaginations in some way. Perhaps religious experiences and visions have something to do with this. Perhaps some of the best religious books are also influenced by the Divine. It is in this sense that I am happy to entertain the possibility of miracles, if “miracles” is here the correct word.

At the end of this essay I feel that I feel happiest with a panentheism that has a deistic cast. I now think that I may, at least for a while, alter the name of my blog . . .

Murtis and Anthropomorphism

2010-01-10T14:33:00.000-08:00

Lately I have been thinking about the issue of anthropomorphizing God. To anthropomorphize something is to ascribe a human form or attributes to something. I have also been thinking about murtis and their use. In many religious traditions--most notable Hinduism--murtis are used to focus the devotee on God. A murti is a physical embodiment of a divinity that one may use on an altar or in a temple. “Murti” means “embodiment”, and whereas the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) frown on this practice, Hindus (and many Buddhists, particularly among the Mahayana) consider it essential. “Murti” is usually translated into English as “idol”, but Hindus often reject that translation as having too many negative connotations and being too embedded in the Abrahamic context to do justice to the concept. They therefore prefer to use “murti” even in English.

I have been influenced by so many traditions and thoughts, and I strive to be systematic in my theology in spite of the wild diversity of my influences. The God of the philosophers is the God that, in my opinion, has the most intellectually respectable description. He (male pronoun for convention’s sake here) is all powerful, all knowing, supremely good, supremely free, and does not possess a physical body. This kind of understanding of God is perfectly compatible with my deism. For most theists (those who believe in the existence of this God), God performs great miracles. The details of these miracles depend on one’s religious tradition. As a deist, I do not have any positive belief in any miracle stories, not because I believe that God could not or would not perform them, but only because I cannot commit to their empirical reality, for reasons having primarily to do with Hume.

The God of the philosophers is, in a very real sense, unknowable. When we say, for instance, that God creates, we don’t necessarily mean exactly what we would mean were we to say that a man creates. God is on a different plane from ours, and talk of God often cannot translate perfectly.

Yet a concept of a God that is too unknowable lacks much ability to encourage devotional sentiments. The God of the deist, in particular, strikes many as being too abstract and too “distant” to encourage profound emotion. Many people do not need emotion in their spiritual/religious practice, yet it would seem that many do.

Judaism and Islam maintain that God never takes human form. This is why they both flatly reject the Christian notion of the Incarnation, which is the idea that God took human form in Jesus. Many people, obviously, feel deeply connected to this God (YHWH or Allah). YHWH and Allah strike me as too abstract for a close connection, not to mention that they often do things in their respective texts that leave me reeling from confusion and fear.

Christianity and Hinduism both have the following strength for people in my position: They both affirm that God takes human form and that we can therefore relate to God in this form. For Christians, God did this in only one instance. For Hindus, God does this all the time. Buddhists do not have a God in their theological system, and this is the reason that I will pass over Buddhism in my ruminations.

I do not personally believe that God has ever taken any physical form among us; however, my devotional sentiments evaporate without some degree of anthropomorphism of God. Humans have anthropomorphized God in countless ways throughout history, and many of these efforts speak to deep-seated human needs. For example, Jesus speaks to our feeling of sinfulness and our need for God to see us righteous. Radha and Krishna illuminate the universe as an expression of the ecstatic play (the lila) of two beautiful lovers. Thor was the hammer of righteousness, always willing to do battle for good over evil. Frigga was the All-Mother, in knowledge of her husband Odin’s secrets and governing like a wise and restrained matron. Man is so multifaceted and complex that it is no wonder that he personified so many of these aspects of his reality.

Hindu theologians often discuss the five moods in which a devotee can approach God. These are the rasa of a sublime peace in the face of God’s greatness (shanta rasa), serving God in a subordinate position (dasya rasa), being God’s personal friend (sakhya rasa), being God’s parent (vatsalya rasa), and being God’s lover (madhurya rasa). The great theologian Bhaktivinoda Thakur argued that each of these moods is served, in some way, by some religious tradition or another. For example, the Vedas of Hinduism serve shanta, the Ramayana, Muhammad, and Moses serve dasya. The warrior Arjuna, from the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, serves sakhya. Jesus serves vatsalya (presumably through emphasis on Mary). The Indian saint Chaitanya, along with the Purana texts known as the Shrimad Bhagavatam, serve madhurya, which is considered the sweetest by Bhaktivinoda.

When philosophers and theologians talk about God, they often use what is called the “method of analogy.” This means that they use words in relation to God in ways analogous to, but not exactly the same as, they way we use such words when talking about humans. This method, as one can imagine, is often criticized, but it is not my intention to defend this method right now so much as to use it as a possible foundation for the use of murtis in devotion. Bhaktivinoda himself discusses three kinds of ways that language can be related to the divine lila: It can serve as a facsimile of spiritual reality (praticchaya). It can serve as an indicator that points to something indescribable (nidarshana). Finally, it can serve as an example of something (udaharana). In spite of all this, however, language can never illuminate the ultimate nature of God’s being.

One might see a murti as an analogy of some kind. Consider the form of Jesus in modest clothing, or that of Mary holding the infant. Consider Krishna in his yellow silk holding his flute, and Radha embracing him in her full regalia. The Hindu makes eye contact (darshan) with the murti, and sees into the eyes of God. Every element of clothing and every physical detail on the murti contains significance. Seeing God in a murti is a kind of anthropomorphism (one which is, by the way, considered an unpardonable sin in some other traditions). Hindus believe that God literally takes and has taken these forms on earth.

I propose a middle position. I knowingly anthropomorphize God in the murti as a form of physical method of analogy in order to develop, maintain, and strengthen devotion to the Divine. I do not believe that God has ever taken such a form on earth, but I believe that meditation on a suitable murti can not only serve devotion, but also serve to keep the Divine always on one’s mind with a concomitant improvement in one’s daily moral behavior and in one‘s attitude toward life and the world. The details of the murti can serve as praticchaya, nidarshana, and udaharana. This emphasis on intimate devotion (which Hindus call “bhakti”) is the reason why I call my approach “deistic intimism.”

So is it a sin to meditate on the Divine in the form of a murti? Are murtis at all necessary? Are they necessary only to a few? Can a deist do it in good conscience? Is it disrespectful for a deist to appropriate powerful symbols from other religions into his practice? Does murti worship encourage superstition? So many questions. I would love your ideas.

Review of _Going Rogue: An American Life_ by Sarah Palin

2009-12-28T18:55:00.001-08:00

Sarah Palin immediately engenders strong emotions in most people. Here I offer an assessment of her new book that will be informative to both lovers and haters.

General Layout: The majority of Going Rogue (GR) is a chronological account of Palin’s life from childhood to the present and focuses on the following historical periods: Growing up (from childhood to marriage and children) with an emphasis on Alaska’s unique characteristics (physical, political, historical) and their influence on her development, serving as city council member and mayor of Wasilla, serving as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, serving as Governor of Alaska, running for Vice-President of the United States, and the aftermath of the campaign. Palin then describes her general political orientation.

Significant Sections: I believe that the most interesting and significant sections in GR are: Her descriptions of the complexities of being a governor and dealing with powerful oil companies, her account of the nuts and bolts behind the scenes of a presidential campaign, her account of the brutal realities of being a high-profile politician, and her statement of her political orientation. Other sections in the book help to flesh out her story in great detail and will be of interest to her fans, but will not greatly profit non-fans. Chapters Four, Five, and Six are therefore the most significant.

Personal Observations: I address my observations specifically to two different groups--those who dislike her or are undecided about her, and those who admire her.

Regarding the first group, I would argue that this book should be strong evidence that Sarah Palin is a highly competent executive who has accomplished extraordinary things. She brought down deeply entrenched and corrupt Republicans. She forced the hands of oil companies to fulfill contractual obligations. She rejected and reversed many of the perks of her office. She survived a brutal, sustained political assault. None of this means that the first group needs to like her or agree with her about anything. It is only to say that Sarah Palin is a serious and competent woman. For the libertarians in this group, I respect your suspicion about Palin’s ideology, and while it is true that she is deeply religious and does not believe in macroevolution, I believe that the book will give the impression that Palin’s principal concern is not to enforce morality by means of the state, but rather to reduce the size of the state to leave room for social norms to serve their function. Libertarians, by the way, will find nothing to fault in Palin’s views of economics.

Regarding the second group, I would argue that this book will most certainly give you a deeper confidence in Sarah Palin’s confidence and determination. You are aware of how tough the campaign was, and now you know that, not only did she survive it, but she has come out stronger than ever. Her values are solidly grounded in theory. I was delighted to see that she referenced Thomas Sowell’s _A Conflict of Visions_, which I read in June. She knows the difference between the “constrained” and “unconstrained” visions that Sowell explicates, and falls firmly on the constrained side, as do I. Even though I am not traditionally religious and I do believe in macroevolution, I believe that Sarah Palin’s faith is a positive factor in her life and I am absolutely convinced that she withstood the brutality of the campaign far more ably precisely as a result of her faith. Although not myself a Christian, I believe that Sarah Palin represents many Christian values quite well and I find her faith quite moving.

Final Thoughts: Palin’s book, I think, deserves its popularity. I found it a bit long, but the details of the campaign were absolutely riveting. For anyone interested in American politics, this book is a must-read (at least the chapters I mentioned). Sarah Palin will always appeal very strongly to many Americans on the basis of her folksy background, her traditional values, her resilience, her patriotism, and her fortitude. I believe that any honest person must recognize that we have met and come to know two amazing people during the 2008 campaign: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Both the right and the left simply must admit the power and importance of these two people.

I love the political diversity in the country because from its creative tension and destruction beautiful things have arisen. That is why Palin will continue to play an essential role in American politics being, as she is, clearly the most vibrant exponent of one of the essential streams of American political philosophy.

Review of _Universalist Radha-Krishnaism_ by Steve Bohlert

2009-12-26T20:15:00.001-08:00

Brief Synopsis:

Universalist Radha-Krishnaism is the first attempt to articulate a “progressive” or “modernist” form of Vaishnava Hinduism. Drawing upon the resources of theological trends in Western scholarship, Steve Bohlert offers a synthesis of Eastern and Western thought that makes the heart of Radha-Krishna devotion fully accessible to Westerners who have no Indian background. This book fills a void and does it well. I anticipate that this book will emerge as a crucial impetus to further developments in this field.

Comprehensive Review:

In this review, I will first summarize the ideas in the text, then I will evaluate them from my own perspective.

Context of the Project: In Hinduism, there is a highly influential and popular devotional orientation that focuses on Krishna and his lover Radha as the supreme form of God. This branch of Hinduism became exceptionally popular in India in the wake of the life of Chaitanya, who flourished around 1500 A.D. This form of Vaishnavism has become fairly well known in the West since the sixties; in fact, George Harrison of the Beatles converted to it. It has been characterized by a fairly uncompromising fundamentalism, by which I mean that it is essentially committed to the literal truth of the often fantastic mythology that is associated with Hinduism. Some examples that confront one early on include the idea that Krishna as a child held a massive hill above his head with his finger to protect people from Indra‘s hailstones, that Krishna lived with 16,000 wives simultaneously, that Krishna was conceived without a sex act, and so on.

Many people, often Westerners but not exclusively, have been deeply attracted to the theology that accompanies Vaishnavism. They are attracted to its rituals, aesthetics, mythology, language, music, enthusiasm, and optimism. It “speaks” to them, but they find so much emphasis on fundamentalism that they eventually abandon this path. They also discover that Indian norms and customs are so strongly fastened to the path that they feel culturally disconnected. Bohlert caters to this target audience by foregoing the complicated and often tedious terminology that often attends such literature and instead opts for exclusively English terms at the most comprehensive level of complexity.

Steve Bohlert has been through all of this, and the depth of his experience shows. His credentials in this arena are beyond impressive. This book is a systematic attempt to offer a spiritual/religious system called “Universalist Radha-Krishnaism” (URK) that does the following things, among others: sketches the history of Chaitanya Vaishnavism (CV), interprets Vaishnava mythology in a non-literalist way, asserts and defends the fundamentals of the CV conception of divinity, sketches the relation of divinity to the universe, asserts the necessity of communication between science and religion, and offers practical advice on how to put the theology into daily practice. Bohlert’s approach is grounded in the work and practice of the well-respected theologian Bhaktivinoda Thakur, and of Bhaktivinoda’s son, Lalita Prasad Thakur.

Summary of URK: The basic metaphysical view of divinity of URK is as follows: Bohlert’s view is explicitly “panentheistic”, which means that God exists, is greater than the universe, and completely interpenetrates and includes the universe.

There is a hint of deism here, as when he writes that “[. . .] God-dess does not suspend [natural laws] to perform miracles [. . .]” (25), but he views God as far more personal and accessible than deists typically do, as when he writes “God-dess remains intimately involved with creation and creatures, rather than the distant High God who sets creation in motion and now lets it work according to natural laws with no further involvement” (82). He asserts that God urges us to seek a loving relationship, so connection and contact are always available to creatures. Personally, I think the phrase "deistic intimism" might work here, referring to a non-intervening God who is nevertheless available to us in intimately personal ways.

Along the lines of Plotinus, Bohlert states that the universe itself is an expression of God’s ever-expanding love, which is always seeking to love more and more. The universe is the means by which God satisfies this desire. Bohlert also leans heavily on classical Platonic metaphysics, as when he writes, “The material universe exists as a temporary modification of the spiritual world” (103). His view also has a strong metaphysical idealist orientation (that incidentally reminds me of Berkeley’s idealism): “God-dess’ energy forms everything, and nothing exists separate from God-dess. Therefore, everything is ultimately spiritual” (104).

Bohlert sees God not as lacking any gender so much as being both genders fully, as when he writes, “God-dess exists as male and female counterparts [. . .]” (25). This explains his use of “God-dess”, which emphasizes the two poles of divinity. These poles are personified as Radha the female and Krishna the male. All people participate more or less in one or the other, but we all need both to be complete. God is therefore “God-dess”, the “Divine Couple”, and “Radha-Krishna.” We therefore have a kind of a unity in diversity, which characterizes much of Indian thought. Bohlert prefers “both-and” thinking to either-or and neither-nor.

Bohlert also strongly endorses the classical Chaitanya view that God has three levels of manifestation. Each level is progressively higher and includes the previous. The first is Undifferentiated Oneness (Brahman), the next is Cosmic Consciousness (Paramatma), and the final is the Supreme Lord (the Divine Couple, Radha-Krishna).

Because God-dess doesn’t perform physical miracles, we cannot take scriptural stories and mythologies literally. They are symbols, metaphors, and allegories that point to higher realities. Bohlert believes in “progressive revelation”, which is the idea that God-dess never ceases to prompt new religious visions and imaginings in us as we continue to explore this creation.

Reincarnation is real for Bohlert, but he does not feel the need to speculate about its exact nature. The essential idea is that souls develop through cycles and steps to attain the direct presence of God-dess. The goal of URK, and Vaishnavism in general, is not to become “one” with the whole (as in the case of Advaita schools of Hinduism, or as in the case of Buddhism), but rather to enjoy a kind of individuality in which one experiences the bliss of service to the Divine Couple in their love play, which is ultimately indescribable but which can be approached through mythologies, especially those of the famous Hindu text called the Bhagavata Purana. However, Bohlert feels free to adapt these ancient stories in the light of modernity in order to make them more accessible to different cultures and generations. He does this by re-imagining certain elements of the pastime narratives in ways that remove them from the ossification that is caused by limiting them to certain times, places, and cultures.

URK is “universalist”, which is the idea that all legitimate religions can serve as vehicles for the advancement of the soul. Different people have different needs and so on, and God-dess makes Him/Herself accessible in a variety of different ways.

Bohlert advocates some traditional Vaishnava practices so that people can keep God-dess in mind at all times. These include chanting and visualization techniques. In Chapter Nine, he briefly summarizes the daily activities of Radha and Krishna so that the devotee can play a role in the Divine Play. Bohlert explicitly rejects the asceticism that often characterizes Radha-Krishna devotion. The world is good--it should be enjoyed without craving and attachment, while giving due consideration to those around us. He writes, “God-dess [. . .] may ask us, at the time of death, why we did not enjoy life more” (25).

Personal Reflections: I have studied the world’s religions with a great deal of seriousness, and have experimented with many of them to one extent or other. I have a very deep history with atheism, and then was deeply affected by Christianity, Vaishnavist Hinduism, and the ancient European heathen religions now known as Asatru. There is no wonder that these systems of thought have persevered for so long and have meant so much to so many people--they all say powerful things and speak to powerful needs.

I have come to see a relationship with Divinity as essential in my life, and have found the narratives of the pastimes between Radha and Krishna to be the most powerful metaphor for the Divine love that is available in the world‘s religious literature. I understand that others may disagree and may find other metaphors more powerful, and that’s totally cool with me.

Steve Bohlert’s systematic theology is a much-needed attempt to fill a deep void in religious thought. I know that it will speak powerfully to many people who find this view of God to be compelling, but who, under the influence of modernity, cannot view mythology as literal descriptions of physical reality. His URK system also has the benefit of focus--too many progressively religious people (“spiritual--not religious”) follow what I would call the “smorgasbord” approach, which has the devotee tasting from every dish but lacking the focus to eat an entire plate. This approach then becomes an ill-defined sense of “feeling good about the universe”, but lacks many of the gifts that focused religion can bring. Bohlert’s system has a focus and specific rituals that have a pedigree in the world’s oldest religion.

Bohlert’s theology is a novel revisioning of venerable theistic traditions. Although he uses terminology, like “God-dess”, that might distract some, his theology is based in all kinds of classical theological and philosophical works. Most of his notions of the Divine are perfectly plausible to almost any religious tradition.

More controversial is his universalism, which is absent in most orthodox Christian and Islamic theology. The idea the God works through a variety of religions can be accepted in only a most attenuated form by a Christian or a Muslim, both of which will tend to believe that everlasting punishment attends those who willingly refuse the correct path. That’s fine with me, as long as everyone understands that some differences in religious thinking are essential and cannot be reconciled. He writes, “[. . .] no one with a particular spiritual belief should go to other countries and preach that what their teachers taught is superior to all other teachings” (115). Generally, Christians and Muslims will see things differently, and, in all fairness to Steve Bohlert, I think that his beliefs are certainly superior to a fairly wide range of dangerous religious beliefs in the world that I‘ve come across. Bohlert’s modesty is nevertheless admirable.

Bohlert, in a perfectly legitimate manner that is common with many other universalists, expects and hopes that a commitment to a progressive theology will bear fruit in a progressive political orientation. Oddly for me, I am as conservative politically as I am progressive theologically (which is why my brief flirtation with the Unitarian Universalist church didn‘t last long). In any case, for the overwhelming majority of those who would seek this book, this will not be a problem at all. Exhibiting love of God in one’s life should be a goal of anybody who takes God seriously, and I sincerely admire the author for his passion. I hope God will respect our noble intentions, even if we end up wrong!

This book is, within the context of devotees of Radha and Krishna, no mere curiosity. It is, in fact, a groundbreaking book. Many already in the movement will be attracted to this approach, and perhaps many who feel the tension between fundamentalism and modernity will find this book to be nothing short of a God-dess-send. I find that one of the greatest strengths of his approach is to elevate the truly religious and spiritual above the superstitious.

Bohlert offers a comprehensive theology in his book that combines classical Indian theology with modern philosophical developments. It will be interesting to see how his thought will progress from here. I eagerly anticipate those developments! This book is simply essential reading for anyone in its target audience.

There is a great deal in Bohlert’s book that I have not mentioned, so if you are interested in this project, you will benefit greatly from reading the entire thing.

Palin Signing

2009-12-02T17:32:00.001-08:00

I recently attended a Sarah Palin book signing. Palin has a powerful presence and possesses that X factor that cannot be denied.

I'm not necessarily Mister "Palin 2012" guy, but I have tremendous respect for her. Her most important role is that of a life, a meaning, a symbol. She represents and embodies powerful ideas. She is a powerful, independent woman who rose from humble circumstances to achieve greatness. She lives her values and honors tradition. She is a warrior, she could live off of the land during the Zombie Apocalypse, and she embodies the spirit of those who went West in search of adventure.

After the signing, she walked right past me with Trig in her arms. She chose against abortion to give birth to this child, and seeing Trig in that safe place was an inspiring affirmation of life and the sacredness of children.

So many people hate this woman with so much passion that one must suspect that she is doing something very right.

May God bless you, your family, and your children. We conservatives have high expectations for you, Sarah Palin!

Brief Review of _A World Full of Gods_ by John Michael Greer

2009-10-30T17:34:00.000-07:00

I have never seen a philosophical case for classical polytheism (CP) until I read this book. This is evidence of the complete dearth in the philosophical literature about this approach to the world and the divine. One could argue that CP is one of the most popular approaches to the universe that has ever existed, particularly when one considers the many religions that have embraced it, such as those of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Northern Europeans.

Classical polytheism is to be distinguished from neo-Platonic polytheism (PP) in that CP, unlike PP, does not claim that all of the gods are simply different forms or faces of one God or divine being; rather, for CP, the gods are separate and distinct from each other. In addition, there is no omnipotent God under whose authority the Gods and Goddesses operate.

The book seems to take a threefold approach. The first strategy is to show that classical monotheism (CM) is no better served by the classical arguments for God's existence than CP is--the arguments support CP at least as well as CM, and even sometimes better (as in the case of the teleological argument). The second strategy is to show that the classical atheistic arguments (such as the argument from evil) are more of a problem for CM than for CP. The third strategy is to suggest that CP is a better explanation for the diversity of religious experience than is CM or naturalism.

Regarding the first strategy, I believe that Greer's treatment of the theistic arguments is generally uneven. Some of the critiques are not entirely persuasive, but he often makes perceptive points. I won't get into the details of it all here. It would become tedious!

Regarding the second strategy, I generally agree with Greer. I think that the theist could respond successfully to some of Greer's claims about the argument from evil's force against theism, but his general point remains safe.

Regarding the third strategy, I find this to be the special contribution of his book. I am delighted to see that Greer does not fall into the common yet confused view that all of the religions are "saying the same thing." In fact, his bold recognition of the incompatibilities of the religious experiences in different religions inspires him to suggest that there really are many Gods and Goddesses, and that they are communing with humans in different ways. There is not one mountain with many paths to the top--there are many mountains. He even goes so far as to say that there may be different afterlives for different people.

The idea is that CP is the best explanation for the diversity of religious experience. I think this idea is worth some serious thought and this is the most interesting thing that Greer does. I believe that philosophers of religion should discuss this idea with some rigor. I'm not here to say whether he is right or not, but I would maintain that there are other explanations that are good enough that they could disqualify CP as the only reasonable explanation. For instance, CM could claim that some people are deluded by Satan or an evil force. Naturalism could claim that it is all self-fulfilling prophecy. CM could have an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in its explanation in addition to the idea of being misguided by a malevolent force. Perhaps the diversity can be explained by having contact with angels or metaphysical beings who are servants of the one God. I can't say which one one must accept. I encourage a discussion about all of the possibilities.

Greer goes on to give an excellent discussion about CP and its attitudes about a variety of issues including ethics, religious practice, and spirituality. This book has given me insight into CP that I never had prior to reading this book, and this discussion is well worth your time if you have any interest in religions that emphasize CP strongly (as opposed to PP) such as Druidism and Asatru.

I tend toward deism. I believe that God does not interfere with the operations of the world in which we live, but I am open to the idea that God communicates with us in subtle ways. I tend toward the idea that humans sometimes get peeks into the other side of things, and that they tend to interpret the little bits that they see in terms of their own categories of thinking. I also believe that many people are insane, hallucinating, or self deluded. Perhaps religious experience involves all of these factors and more. I don't, however, feel compelled to think that I must postulate a multiplicity of Gods and Goddesses to explain these phenomena. Nevertheless, I find Greer's approach novel and worth considering even if it is ultimately rejected.

Thank you, Mr. Greer, for opening up a fruitful and interesting discussion in the philosophy of religion.

Politics

2009-10-27T17:47:00.000-07:00

A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to liberalism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to conservatism.

Blasphemy

2009-10-20T16:02:00.000-07:00

Here is an opinion worth reading:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html

The free marketplace of ideas is a brutal place. Once in, be expected to be criticized, evaluated, judged, ridiculed, mocked, and embarrassed.

I am willing to be mocked for my ideas. I am an adult. That's what adults do.

No religious idea on earth has some kind of a right not to be criticized or mocked. That includes ideas from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and deism.

Islamic countries have laws to prevent blasphemy against Islam. We in the West shouldn't have blasphemy laws about any religion. Not even Christianity enjoys this privilege in this most Christian of countries. Why should any other religion?

Freedom of thought and speech is far more important than religious sensibilities, yet I continue to be amazed about how much the Left is willing to compromise on this fundamental issue except in the case of Christianity, which is continually abused with glee and abandon by the all-of-a-sudden-respectful-of-solemnly-held-religious-beliefs-as-long-as-they're-not-Christian Left.

Global Warming as Religion

2009-10-10T15:21:00.000-07:00

Take a look at this story from the BBC entitled "What Happened to Global Warming?":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

I don't know, for a fact, that global warming is not happening, although I grow increasingly skeptical all the time. One thing I can say, however, is that Global Warmism (hereafter "GW") serves as an ersatz-religion for many people in the world today, particularly among the world's Left. In this essay I will use the term "Global Warmists" to refer to those people who are particularly passionate activists in the movement to sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions by man in order to prevent worldwide catastrophe.

I am not a member of any religion, but I do believe one thing--if you need to worship something greater than yourself, then you should worship the Creator rather than the creation.

GW has a number of features that strike me as somewhat religious in character. It seems to have some analogs to Christianity (and other religions, especially Christianity's fellow Abrahamics).

Whereas Christianity has a God, GW has Earth/Nature/Gaia. One sins in Christianity by disobeying God, and one sins in GW by having a carbon footprint.

In Christianity, we are all born with a flaw--the tendency to sin and disobey God. In GW, we are all born with a flaw--the tendency to impact the environment in some way or other.

In Catholicism, one can confess one's sins and perform the appropriate penance. In GW, one can pay for carbon offsets.

Christianity is a religion of prophets such as Moses, Abraham, and Jacob. GW is a religion of prophets like Al Gore and Barack Obama. The GW prophets speak with the authority of Mother Earth and ask us to obey. Sometimes they demand that we do and use the authority the State to force us to, much as the Church once did.

They both look forward to a transformation of the world. In Christianity, this blessed condition cannot happen in the here and now. In GW, this blessed condition can happen in the here and now, provided that we can force greedy humans to permit it.

Both are, in some ultimate sense, faith based and not falsifiable. They both make claims that cannot be disconfirmed in the believers' minds by any empirical evidence; indeed, sometimes their faith is actually strengthened by counterevidence.

Both have a tendency to engender a great deal of passion and missionary fervor in their believers. Many believers are tempted to be highly judgmental of nonbelievers. The only difference is that Global Warmists are far more conspicuously preachy and annoying than Christians these days. They also demonize their opponents with a great deal of religious fervor.

Religions have often had a tendency to punish blasphemy and marginalize blasphemers. Christianity has done this in the past, Islam does it today, and GW does it currently with enthusiasm.

Religious people often believe that people who criticize their beliefs are motivated to attack God and are thereby evil. Global Warmists often believe that people who criticize their beliefs are motivated to attack Mother Earth and are thereby evil.

Christianity has a terrible place of punishment in the afterlife for those who merit a stay there. Oh, how GW must wish that it had this!

Christians have an evil one named Satan. Global Warmists have an evil one named Man.

2009-10-04T17:26:00.001-07:00

I recently changed my blog name and URL. To see some older blogs, please visit http://spiritualconservative.blogspot.com/.

A Conservative Deistic Approach

2009-10-04T17:16:00.000-07:00

I have spent a great deal of time studying religion and philosophy. I have spent years attending religious services of a variety of religions, especially those of Hinduism. I have found myself completely unable to believe in the reality of any miracles, whether they be of a man raised from the dead, a man who received the Quran from Allah, a man who lifted Govardhana Hill above his head, a boy who was born from his mother's side, and so on and on. I also have no commitments about an afterlife, a judgment, reincarnation, or anything else of that nature.

I also cannot believe that God's existence can be proven by means of philosophical argument. I also don't believe that it can be disproven, either.

So what do I do? I believe in God because I need to. Yet I don't believe in a God who performs miracles or suspends the natural order.

So what do I need? A practice that enables me to develop a relationship with God. But how to do that completely outside of venerable and sophisticated religious traditions?

I decided to take a look at my psychology. I can't feel tender feelings for an abstraction, so I visualize God to myself using Hindu imagery. I focus on the embrace of Radha and Krishna and chant their names, since that is the only religious practice I have performed that serves my religious needs so well.

Yet I am not a Hindu. I am a deist. I wear cow leather, especially for my motorcycling needs. I rarely, but sometimes, eat chicken or fish. I am not Indian, nor do I feel any pressure whatsoever to become Indian. I keep my name and my culture. I love my country of the United States and feel very close to my American heritage. I appreciate Christianity for everything it has made possible here. I am a conservative/libertarian right winger. I can't fit in with any group entirely.

I expect nothing from God. I never perform prayer to ask for any favors. I only chant powerful names that humans have given God. A name is so much more intimate than a title. I hope that it deepens my relationship with the God that I need so much.

From Christianity I learned about God's boundless compassion. From secular humanism I learned about strict standards of evidence and avoiding superstition. From Asatru I learned about the heathen European warrior ethic and the Nine Noble Virtues. From Hinduism I learned about God's tender love affair with the creation. So now what am I supposed to do? Approach the Mystery with humility and love. Try to live like a hero. Reach for the stars, yet know that this world can never satisfy our longing for God.