Religion isn’t true, like science, but it is appealing

This is how I like to "worship" these days: at the altar of science, with an Oregon craft beer, fries, and a hempburger at hand. Such is possible here in Salem every third Thursday, when Gilgamesh Brewing holds its Science Night at the brewpub.  I don't drink beer very often. But, man, Gilgamesh's Hopscotch (on the right) really rocks. Beer has come a long way from the not-so-good old days of Budweieser and Schlitz, which my high school friends and I would consume with regularity even though it tasted like shit. The Hopscotch I drank last night was like fine…

Subjective sensations don’t make souls, just people

The title of this post comes from a passage I liked a lot in Adam Gopnik's terrific New Yorker piece, Bigger Than Phil: When did faith start to fade? “Cosmically, I seem to be of two minds,” John Updike wrote, a decade ago. “The power of materialist science to explain everything—from the behavior of the galaxies to that of molecules, atoms, and their sub-microscopic components—seems to be inarguable and the principal glory of the modern mind. "On the other hand, the reality of subjective sensations, desires, and—may we even say—illusions composes the basic substance of our existence, and religion alone,…

Free will debate continues: Harris crushes Dennett

I don't believe in free will. There are good reasons for why I feel this way. And given the conditions of the universe at every instant during my lifetime, which encompasses those reasons, it isn't possible for me to believe or feel about free will in any way other than the way I do now.  That's why I don't believe in free will: I understand that I'm part of a whole, as Einstein put it, called "universe."  As I blogged about a few weeks ago, philosopher Daniel Dennett took some shots at Sam Harris, author of the excellent "Free Will."…

Give me one good reason to believe in God

Come on, religious believers. I'm asking. No, begging. What is One Good Reason I should believe in God? (I'm  capitalizing those three words to show how serious I am about wanting to know.) Believe me, I've considered all the reasons for believing. Including, for many years, not needing any reason at all except faith. That was good enough for me back then. Not now. I love reality too much to keep on believing in God. I doubt whether anyone can come up with a new One Good Reason that makes any more sense than the reasons that have been debated,…

Subjective spiritual experiences can be studied objectively

Someone has a vision of God. Or feels one with the universe. Or has a near-death experience that gives them a glimpse of heaven. Or comes to know that Jesus loves her. What should we make of such experiences? They are undeniably subjective. Yet so is everything that we humans experience as conscious beings. I have no direct access to the consciousness of any other person, nor does anyone else have access to mine. There are two extreme answers to the question I posed. One is to make subjectivity unquestionable. If somebody says "I've seen God!" no one else has…

Ecstatic feelings can be caused by epilepsy

We are a physical brain. This is virtually certain. But even without the supernatural, mysteries abound within our cranium. 

Here's an article from New Scientist (January 25, 2014) called "Fits of Rapture." The title page said:

Why do bliss and ecstasy sometimes accompany epileptic seizures? The answer might shed light on religious awakenings, joy, and the sense of self, says Anil Ananthaswamy. 

I'll share some excerpts, along with the whole piece in a continuation to this post.

As Picard cajoled her patients to speak up about their ecstatic seizures, she found that their sensations could be characterised using three broad categories of feelings (Epilepsy & Behaviour, vol 16, p 539). The first was heightened self-awareness. For example, a 53-year-old female teacher told Picard: "During the seizure it is as if I were very, very conscious, more aware, and the sensations, everything seems bigger, overwhelming me."

The second was a sense of physical well-being. A 37-year-old man described it as "a sensation of velvet, as if I were sheltered from anything negative". The third was intense positive emotions, best articulated by a 64-year-old woman: "The immense joy that fills me is above physical sensations. It is a feeling of total presence, an absolute integration of myself, a feeling of unbelievable harmony of my whole body and myself with life, with the world, with the 'All'," she said.

…It is uncanny how these feelings of serenity, heightened awareness and a slowing of time also underpin apparent religious experiences. Have mystics over the ages been having ecstatic seizures? Picard's patients could see why some might attribute religious meaning to their seizures. "Some of my patients told me that although they are agnostic, they could understand that after such a seizure you can have faith, belief, because it has some spiritual meaning," she says.

It’s ghosts all the way down

One reason I subscribe to New Scientist magazine is the letters. They're always intelligent, often wonderfully thought-provoking.  Here's one from the January 4-10, 2014 issue called "Haunting Thought." From Rick Bradford I suspect the discomfort that most people feel at the notion that they are "just" their physical brain is due to an insufficient respect for matter (30 November, p. 30). Physicists know that matter isn't the lumpen stuff we usually take it for. The closer you look at matter the more it dissolves before your eyes. Mass, the quantification of stuff, is actually the field energy generated by the…

“Buddhist Biology” book paradoxically embraces free will

This happens to me a lot, in my now-churchless frame of mind. I'll buy a book that seems to be in my sweet spot: scientific, yet also philosophical, with just enough of a spiritual-but-not-religious tone.  Like Goldilocks, not too much, not too little. Just right. I don't mean to sound like a crotchety literary perfectionist. I realize that the reason I like to read books is because they're written by people who aren't me. I enjoy reading stuff I don't agree with. So long as I can understand the author's reasons for saying what he or she does. With "Buddhist…

True “religion” — becoming one with nature, not God

For many years, about thirty-five, I believed in pursuing a supernatural sort of oneness. Even wrote a book about how a Neoplatonist Greek philosopher, Plotinus, taught it was possible to Return to the One. That One was viewed as the ultimate source of this physical world, through creative intermediaries. Yet returning to what could loosely be called "God" required transcending materiality and leaving behind sensory awarenesses. I still consider that such might be possible. Heck, anything is possible. But not everything is probable.  These days I'm much more focused on becoming one with nature. Or more accurately, realizing that I'm…

I’m loving True Detective’s existential anti-religious honesty

HBO"s True Detective features Detectives Rustin Cohle (Matthew McConaughey) and Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson). It's a cop show like no other. My wife and I are loving it. It's gritty and bleak, yet so marvelously acted and philosophically intriguing, we eagerly look forward to new episodes.  Rustin Cohle breaks new ground for broadcast television. I've never heard a major TV show character speak about religion and the meaninglessness of existence in such an honest, philosophically-sophisticated way.  Here's an example from the episode we watched a few days ago. Cohle and Hart are following up a lead in their investigation of…

Brilliant arguments in favor of “no free will”

I've got no problem with a scientifically and logically defensible conclusion: neither I, nor anyone else, has free will.  (Of course, I had no choice but to write that sentence.) The whole existentialist and religious thing -- most early existentialists were Christians -- puts way too much undeserved pressure on us to choose the right thing to do. Maybe this made some sense when little was known about the brain, biology, genetics, systems theory, ecology, and such.  But now it is clear that reality is a web of interdependencies, interelationships, cause and effect linkages. Demonstrable evidence for a non-material free-floating…

“Let It Go.” Great song. Great lyrics. Inspiring.

Almost 65 million people have watched the "Let It Go" song-scene from the animated movie Frozen. I came late to the You Tube party. I'm sure glad I did. Found the video inspiring and uplifting, even though I didn't understand all of the lyrics. I suggest reading them before you watch the video, which I'll share after the lyrics. The snow glows white on the mountain tonight,not a footprint to be seen.A kingdom of isolation and it looks like I'm the queen.The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside. Couldn't keep it in, Heaven knows I tried.Don't let them…

Spirituality should be based on reality

Since I bought it, my go-to book for reading prior to my morning meditation/quiet time has been David Barash's "Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom Meets Modern Western Science."  My previous posts about the book are here and here.  For me, it's a home run in the spirituality without supernaturalism ballpark. In the same genre of Stephen Bachelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs," yet more satisfying in certain ways, being based on solid science. Albeit with a healthy dose of modern secular Buddhism viewpoints. The core of Barash's book, which I've almost finished, is that three principles underly Buddhism in all of its…

Einstein talks about “spirit.” But not in a religious sense.

Can you be spiritual without being religious? Can you be spiritual and also scientific? Of course. It depends on what is meant by spirit.  A Google search produced this definition: 1. The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul. 2. Those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period. Obviously the first definition -- the non-physical part of a person, soul -- implies a religious sensibility. Or at least, a supernatural one. …

A time for mindfulness, a time for mind wandering

Balance. Not going to extremes. Yin and yang. Goldilocks' (and Buddha's) middle way. A New York Times essay, "Breathing In vs. Spacing Out," applies this to mindfulness and paying attention. There's a time to do this, and a time to let the mind scatter to the far corners of the cosmos. Or at least, to daydream about what we'll do when we win the lottery. But one of the most surprising findings of recent mindfulness studies is that it could have unwanted side effects. Raising roadblocks to the mind’s peregrinations could, after all, prevent the very sort of mental vacations…

Not-self a teaching of Buddhism, not Hinduism

It is extremely simplistic to speak of "Eastern" religions as if they all are much the same. Actually, they aren't. For example, in some regards Hinduism is closer to Christian theology than to Buddhist teachings. Case in point: not-self. Buddhists call this anatman.  The doctrine of anatman (or anatta in Pali) is one of the central teachings of Buddhism. According to this doctrine, there is no "self" in the sense of a permanent, integral, autonomous being within an individual existence. What we think of as our self, our personality and ego, are temporary creations of the skandhas. Hinduism also uses this term. But…

Buddhism without supernaturalism leaves reality

For me, giving up religious addiction isn't done "cold turkey," all at once. It's a gradual process. I discarded the most ridiculous notions early on, but afterwards I find myself letting go of faith-based beliefs bit by bit.

Buddhism and Taoism are examples of this. 

I've given away quite a few of my books in these genres that I couldn't bear to read any more. Even Zen books. Just because spirituality comes in an "Eastern" guise doesn't mean it is free of the dogmatism and supernaturalism that infects Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 

So now I'm only able to enjoy Buddhist and Taoist writings that make scientific sense. Or at least aren't opposed to a rational, experiential understanding of everyday reality.

Which explains why I've started reading "Buddhist Biology: Ancient Eastern Wisdom meets Modern Western Science." I read a review of David Barash's book in New Scientist. 

(In case the review disappears from the New Scientist web site, I'll include it as a continuation to this post.)

Here's some excerpts from the first chapter that I resonate with.

Full disclosure: I have been a practicing biologist for more than four decades and an aspiring Buddhist (or "Buddhist sympathizer") for about as long, but I am definitely more the former than the latter. I have no religious "faith," if faith is taken to mean belief without evidence. 

Indeed, I have a powerful distrust of organized religion and a deep aversion to anything — anything — that smacks of the supernatural. Give me the natural, the real, the material, every time.

…I am a Buddhist atheist, a phrase that may seem contradictory but that has legitimacy not only in my case, but as a description of many others, of whom the former Buddhist monk and current scholar and author Stephen Bachelor is best-known.

…By contrast, it is hard to imagine a Muslim or Christian atheist, since the terms are oxymoronic: they contradict each other.

…a "Christian" who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus would seem not only a poor Christian but no Christian at all. Interestingly, Jewish atheists are comparatively abundant, probably because unlike Islam and Christianity, whose followers are defined as those who espouse the tenets of their religion, Jews are defined as much by their ethnicity as their religious beliefs. There are also many "Jew-Boos," people who identify both as Jewish and as Buddhist.

…High on the list of Buddhist absurdities are the phenomenon of iddhi, supernatural events that are supposed to be generated by extremely skillful and committed meditation. They appear often in Buddhist texts and I don't believe a word of them.

…The traditional Buddhist cosmology is, however, very specific, and more than a little weird, with the world composed of thirty-one levels. 

…A final example in which I (and many other Buddhist sympathizers) part company with traditional Buddhist beliefs concerns the doctrine of reincarnation…. For those of us interested in reconciling Buddhism with science in general and biology in particular, traditional reincarnation remains a pronounced and irreconcilable outlier.

…the present book will likely trouble those otherwise gentle Buddhist souls who so revere Tenzin Gyatso that they append to his name the honorific "HH," His Holiness. "The Dalai Lama" is okay with me, since that is how this particular gentleman is widely known, but even though I greatly admire him for his kindness as well as his wisdom, I cannot swallow the notion that he is any holier than thou, or me, or Charles Darwin, or anyone else. Either we are all holy (whatever that means), or no one is.

…I hold to the position that Buddhism in its most useful, user-friendly, and indeed meaningful form is not in fact a religion in the standard Western sense of the term. Rather, it is a perspective, a philosophical tradition of inquiry and wisdom, a way of looking at the world that is often perverted into a kind of "sky-god" faith complete with other nonsensical rigamarole, but, in its more genuine form, is anything but that.

Here's the New Scientist review:

Science isn’t separate from the rest of human rationality

Sam Harris has written a terrific response to this year's Edge question: "What scientific idea is ready for retirement?"  He proposes that we discard the notion that science is only something that physicists, biologists, chemists, and other obviously science'y types do. Rather... We must abandon the idea that science is distinct from the rest of human rationality. When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically. And when you’re not, you’re not.   I don't want to quote much more of the piece, because you really should read the whole thing. It isn't…

Religious believers, what if you’re wrong?

I"ve mused about this subject before, including in "You're religious, but are you right?" and "Anti-Pascal's wager bets on life." The question is: what if religious believers are wrong about God, afterlife, ultimate reality? Usually the consequences of being wrong are thrown in the face of atheists and infidels. You'll spend eternity in hell if you're wrong! So you should believe. Running the risk of sacrificing eternal joy for transient earthly pleasure is stupid. Well, not really.  It comes down to probabilities. As I've noted before, the existence or non-existence of God isn't a 50-50 proposition. Virtually all of the demonstrable…

Beautiful thoughts: why teacher David Menasche isn’t afraid to die

Wow. What a moving story. David Menasche's "Why I'm not afraid of dying." When I saw the title mentioned in a tweet, I will confess that my first thought was, "Oh, please, don't let the reason be I know that God loves me and I'll be going to heaven. Thankfully, it wasn't. Menasche is a teacher with apparently incurable brain cancer. Here's some of what he says in his piece. The cancer had finally succeeded in taking me out of the classroom, but I wasn't ready to let it take me out of the game. I wasn't afraid to die.…