Monday, September 28, 2009

Waking Life - The Nature of Existance



           This is a short clip from the brilliant film "Waking Life" by Richard Linklater. This deep existential clip compares our lives to dreams by asking whether we are really awake, or are we really just asleep in life's waiting room. This metaphor of 'life's waiting room' suggests that our life on earth may just be a pretense to our next spiritual stage.
           Living life with the infinite possibility we experience in our dreams allows us to encounter obstacles with confidence and optimism. Comparing life to a dream we did not get paid for, suggests that we need to take life with ease, and love every day, rather than having a cluttered mind of worry and anxiety.

The best awakenings start with pleasant dreams.

*Special thanks to Phil for recommending this film

Friday, September 25, 2009

Fine Line Between The Buddha and The Beggar



We've all heard the line, "there's a fine line between genius and insanity". This fine line between opposites can also be applied to the a Buddhist vs a vagrant beggar. 

Take this scenario:

A Buddhist and a beggar are walking down a path and the beggar asks the Buddhist what he is trying to achieve.
"I aim to live my life in the now, for thats what the Buddhist tradition teaches." replies the Buddhist.
To which the beggar quickly responds; "Why do you need Buddhism?  I can teach you how to do that!"

The art of living in the present moment is fundamental to  the Buddhist way of life. Meditation is one of the practices that trains the mind to rid itself of thought so that the present moment can be experienced to the fullest. When woody Allan said, "80% of life is just showing up", he was on to something. Showing up to the present moment allows us to escape mechanical mindsets that keep us from experiencing fullness in life.

As a retreatist from mainstream expectations, the vagrant beggar lives in the present moment. Perhaps the beggar is drug addicted and simply looking for a fix. Upon getting that fix, the beggar feels every sensation. Warmth coming up through the veins, a liquid orgasm engulfs the body; consciousness zoomed in on the present. The anxiety laden world appears robotic in what's really just a game after-all. Some players in this game simply prefer to sit out and watch.

The Buddha knows this game well since he's seen it been played may times: always through the powerful consciousness of the present.

*Special thanks to Phil for ideas on this concept 

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Allan Wattes "Atheist Spirituality"



This is a must see video from Alan Watts.

Contemplating Artificial Consciousness




Are we able to go beyond artificial intelligence and actually create synthetic consciousness? Can we create a robot that has subjective experience, and is aware of its own existence?

This question boils down to the whole mind/brain debate. Are we the product of purely deterministic laws of physics, in which case our brain is certainly amenable to simulation, or is the experience of consciousness that we seem to be able to perceive, that is, the act of knowing we are thinking, an impossibility for even the most complex of artificial intelligence systems? It is true that much of our brain function could be simulated by a machine, however what about the fact that we are aware that our brain is processing information. This ability seems very difficult to understand and I have been struggling to realize how it is even possible. However, it is still possible that this "consciousness" feeling is also itself an illusion brought about by chemical stimulus and interactions of neurons within the brain all that are simple deterministic processes.

The illusion of free thought has been discussed in great length by the classic philosophers, and it really opens up questions about free-will, responsibility, and personal identity. It is certain that a large breakthrough in either artificial intelligence or neuroscience could answer this question once and for all. Currently AI is a very long way off ever getting to the level of artificial consciousness. However, there is a tonne of research on topics dealing with re-creating the functionality of certain parts of the brain we take for granted. Sight, Recognition, Speech, are some of the complicated aspects that humans perform without second thought.

If you subscribe wholeheartedly to the laws of physics and accept the sort of materialistic science view of the world, then you must conclude that the brain is simply a complex computing device and therefore your own mind is completely beyond your actual control, which is scary. Even with the magic of quantum physics being brought to the forefront of scientific research, all it adds is a probabilistic element to the fundamental behavior of the universe. So, you're either a machine completely deterministic or some sort of randomized macro-entity; either way is not that great.

My conclusion with this difficult topic would be to take a dualist stance and say that consciousness is not a physical object and can not be created artificially, but rather, the soul equals consciousness. If this is taken to be true, one must now question where the soul came about in evolution.

*Special thanks to Ian for the insightful thoughts on this subject  

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The Great Atheist Misconception

Atheism: a lack of belief in a deity

The biggest reason - outside the bible belt - why atheists are not accepted is due to ignorance of its definition. Atheists do not necessary follow the belief of nihilists, naturalists, or humanists in terms of their worldview. Also, atheism should not be confused with anti-theism which holds strong critical opinions against theism (belief in a god). Rather, atheism is a simple umbrella term which all of these things may fall under; a preceding clause of these belief systems.

Atheism is NOT a belief claiming God does not exist. Atheistic, like the word amoral, simply means the lack of. Therefore being an atheist is having a lack of belief unless you personally take the stance that there is no god and therefore the burden of proof goes to you. Defending this stance would be near impossible since you would now hold the same burden of proof theists hold by claiming there is a God. When answering the question of yes or no to weather one believes in a god the answer must always be a shade of gray since there is no black and white. The key distinction is that one may claim weather or not they believe in a god, but may never claim absolutely that there is or is not a god.

I take a strong agnostic dualist stance. Strong agnosticism states that we can not know whether there is a God. This stance is atheistic in a sense that there is a lack of belief in a deity. This is the point where definitions and symbols start to fall apart, since I believe god is all. With this pantheistic view I challenge the traditional definition of God as a deity. Pantheism states that the word God is used to symbolize everything within and outside the universe.

Spirituality is the illogical. It is separate from the physical objective reality we live in. We can not know a spiritual reality since our brains are physical substance.

Perhaps the word God needs to represent something more than just a supernatural being. If an alternate reality outside our logic exists, there is really no point in trying to logically define God.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

God; the reflection of humanity


I come across many people who feel God created man in his image and who never considered that he may actually be created in ours. I will never get into the debate on whether God exists because I feel it is missing the point. I know no more than you, and you know no more than me whether there is a creator behind the universe. Everyone is entitled to their own personal belief (emphasizing the word personal). A problem only comes about when people say their God has specific characteristics and wants us to follow his perfect carefully laid out rules. Even worse, these 'divine morals' usually make their way into politics and encourage the subjugation of out-groups. This is clearly seen in protests by religious groups against gay marriage.

The fact that Gods from various religions have different morals tells us that it is society creating their God in order to suit value system of their own cultural context. Weather inspired by spirituality or maliciously calculated, humans create their god in a human image.

Religious moralizing of a culture is a reflection of what that culture holds valuable or sacred. We are socialized by our families, education, and religious affiliations; but the issue appears when this socialization becomes an iron cage of hollow morals. In some Islamic sects, deviating from certain religious beliefs can be punishable by death. This puts the person at a position to conform out of fear and defend their morals by appealing to authority. I like to call this eggshell moral syndrome.

Morals without attached personal meaning are like an eggshell without the whites and yolk: empty and fragile. When this type of person breaks away from the authority of their parents, or begin to question the objectivity of their religion, their moral compass loses its magnetic poles. Their moral captivity prevents them from developing meaningful moral beliefs.

Being encouraged to critically analyze our cultural value system is essential. It is necessary to take what is personally valued and attach meaning to it. Living a life of purpose and meaning consists of more than a simple appeal to authority.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Atheists Void of Spiritual Beliefs?

"Whilst atheism tends to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims and the existence of an actual 'spirit', for some atheists being "Spiritual" can be defined as nurturing thoughts, emotions, words and actions that are in harmony with the idea that the entire universe is, in some way, connected; even if only by the mysterious flow of cause and effect at every scale." [quote from Wikipedia]

When many people hear the word 'atheist' they begin to cringe with disgust. The word has taken on such a negative connotation that it is almost impossible to use the term in a conversation without getting a negative reaction filled with misconceptions, emotional angst, and devotion to a specific stance. The word 'atheist' has become a blanket term that covers everything from being cold and godless, to being a hedonist with no sense of purpose. With that said, I want to clarify that the word means lack of a belief in a specific deity. That's it. No lack of morals, no soulless void, and best of all: no devil worship.

Today I came across someone who claims they do not believe in atheists. Ironically, I was shocked at such a lack of belief! How can you deny that someone does not believe in something?! As crazy as this claim may sound, I shortly realized why this person took such a stance: They were wrong in their definition of atheism. They had followed up the remark saying:

"I don't believe in atheists because I feel everyone is looking for something in their lives ... everyone is looking for greater propose or something similar."

Quick to point out this error in perceived atheist living, I went on to show that it is important to distinguish between atheists and persons who do not have any religious or spiritual belief; I would call the latter the common modern day drifter who has little or no spiritual opinion and is unconcerned with such topics.

If I said Buddhism is an atheistic religion, I don't suspect I'd hear too many complaints since it is an explicitly objective fact. Although Buddhists are not concerned with the existence of a god, they are highly spiritual and live by a strong ethical code. In pointing out this simple fact I was confronted by a wall of ignorance:

"I don't think it's fair to say Buddhists are atheists. They are spiritual and believe in a greater purpose ... and don't they worship the Buddha?"

This is where I feel like giving up. Aside from the improper definition, the Buddha is not a god! He's similar to a non-mystical Jesus who laid out a certain way of life based on his experiences.


The problem is in the negative connotation of the perceived definition of the word 'atheist'. Living a fulfilling spiritual life does not necessarily need to include a deity. This lack of belief in a god does not prohibit one from contemplating the nature of the universe and creating their own spiritual meaning. Spirituality is a personal endeavor that should be sacred. Although, there will always be those who will still feel the need to shove their god in your face.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

No Good Without God?




Some misled persons believe that there is no good without god. They take it as far as to say that 'bad' is only the absence of god which leaves us with the question: If he is omnipresent then why is everything not always good? But lets make an exception and say say hes slacking a bit and somehow manages to leave a few places out of his almighty goodness. Wouldn't this make you question the goodness of god? Would a manager in charge of a company knowingly allow its members to suffer from the greatest hardships known to man, while on the job of course, when the manager has full capability of preventing it? Wouldn't we call this manager neglectful, cruel, and inhumane?

Now maybe this is an unfair comparison because he IS god and therefore does not work in the realm of human terms and definitions. Maybe good in god's terms does not have the same definition. Opening this Pandora's box would be a great mistake allowing the unraveling of every religious teaching. Following this logic heaven could mean hell for all we know.

This fundamental spiritual mistake in believing there is no good without a god makes it imposable to consider any religion without a god a 'good' religion. Buddhists are an example of an atheistic religion that would be considered void of goodness.

My solution to all this ethnocentric, close minded, garbage is to state the obvious: no one really knows the true nature of god and should therefore stop acting like they do. Spiritual belief is personal and should not be used to judge what others choose to believe. Really, Shouldn't morality be a little more than just worshiping a deity or otherwise going to hell?

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Spirituality's Religious Baggage

Religion has been a strong negative influence throughout history as well as today. Religion as an institution is corrupt, deceitful, and a counter productive. The positive aspects that do exist in religion should be stripped from the baggage of traditional values or moral stances that are irrelevant in the modern world. In essence, religion would be deinstitutionalized and be replaced as being a personal spiritual worldview.

Spiritual belief on a personal level has served as a comfort to many people facing death or the grieving of a loved one. Since no one can know what happens to us after death, it is comforting to have a spiritual belief.

Although much harm has come from strong religious conviction, almost all people who are religious do not have ill intent. They believe they are doing the right thing and want to make the world a better place. This intent is useful if directed at things that produce positive outcomes (such as certain charities), but often this intent is misdirected and inflicts harm. The Roman Catholic church illustrates this in its denouncing of the use of birth control and contraceptives. The view that intercourse is a means for reproduction within marriage is worthy of respect. This view only becomes a problem when it it pushed upon people who do not share such opinions.

The act of going to church is useful in that it allows for a sense of community. This sense of community and interaction can be a very positive experience to many people, but is likely limited since you are mainly interacting with people who have similar worldviews to yours. This type of homogeneous group can be dangerous because perpetuates beliefs that won't likely be challenged by opposing viewpoints.

Overall, religion may have a brutal past from being closed minded, moralistic, and segregating. Just as we evolved as a species, I hope religion can do the same. The zeitgeist has shifted; it is no secret that spirituality has too much religious baggage.

Friday, September 18, 2009

The evolution of Ideas


Religion often resists evolution/ criticism, and serves a cultural bubble of outdated beliefs and ideologies. The appeal to divine authority allows this institution to avoid any criticism in justifying its actions that are unjust or unfit for modern society. The purpose of the blog is to debunk the common idea that religion and spirituality are inseparable. I will propose ideas on living a spiritual life without having to appeal to a theistic God. The spiritual life does not remove us from the world but leads us deeper into it. I hope you enjoy my evolving commentary on this path of discovery. 


The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. --  Marcel Proust