Archive for May, 2009

May 24th, 2009

In Praise of Silence

Andrew Sullivan’s column for The Atlantic Magazine, The Daily Dish, is well worth reading whether you agree with him or not. He’s thoughtful, intelligent and insightful. As a conservative gay Catholic he often writes columns I vehemently disagree with and columns I agree with wholeheartedly. Today’s article happens to be one with which I completely agree, though that might be because it was written by Lane Wallace who is temporarily helping write Andrew’s column while he’s on a short break. I’m kidding, if there were no byline it would be easy to think  Andrew wrote the piece.

In our modern world of in-store music, cell phones, MP3 players, computers and televisions we hardly have a moment of silence in our daily life. Our brains are being constantly bombarded with input without a free moment to assimilate it.

One practice common to religion that can be incredibly useful to anyone is meditation or contemplation. We all need some time, every day, to enjoy true silence. We need to be able to think without interruption. We require silence to hear our inner voice, our own thoughts. Without a chance to listen to our own thoughts we are only able to process the input from outside, thoughts and impressions not our own.silence

…But what concerns me as much or more about incessant connection through Twitter, texting, Facebook, Crackberrys, and yes, even 24/7 instant news … is that all those technologies enhance an already bad inclination humans (and especially Americans) have. And that is: an overweening desire to be distracted from being alone in silence … or having to come to terms with whatever we might find there, if we slowed down enough to let it catch us.

Twitter, Facebook and cell phones didn’t create this desire or problem. I’ve known people all my life who turned the television on as soon as they woke up in the morning and left it on until they went to bed at night, just to insure there was never complete silence in the house. All that the new connectivity, on-line virtual game options, and instant messaging do is make it easier to avoid the awful specter of silent, alone time. And yet … just try to imagine Henry David Thoreau writing his masterpiece about Walden Pond while twittering, texting, and watching CNN.
But among the many things that life has taught me over the years is that my first thought isn’t always my best thought. And that truly understanding anything … an issue, an event, or even the emotions swirling around within myself … requires not just time, but enough space, solitude, and silence to allow some clear tones to emerge from the noise.

On one level, people have understood the power and importance of silence for a long time. It’s why we go to the woods, or the ocean, or up on mountainsides to renew ourselves. And why we take up meditation, or spend time in quiet cathedrals. But even the most majestic mountainside loses a large piece of its power to inspire if it has to compete with a cell phone, text reply, or other efforts to stay connected elsewhere at the same time. Or even to record the moment, instead of simply being in it.
Where there’s a will there’s a way, of course. Which is what makes me suspect that at least part of the constant connectivity movement and technology stems from an inherent desire, within many of us, to have all that distraction. We are not, as a species, hard-wired for solitude. We’re social animals, made to exist in tribes and packs.
And yet … there’s a unique kind of strength that comes from simply sitting in companionship with yourself and listening for what your heart or the world might tell you. Or allowing thoughts or events to percolate slowly against counter-thoughts, opinions, or trends. My best ideas don’t occur to me when I’m feverishly involved in churning out words. They come when I give my mind permission to listen instead of talk. To just be for a while. Undistracted. Undisturbed. And sometimes not even consciously focused on the problem at hand.
(Read Lane’s full column)
May 18th, 2009

We are not as unique as we like to think

It would be unfair to say that only the religious consider humans to be a unique creation. I know a few non-religious writers and speakers who consider our larger and more complex brain as evidence that mankind has somehow evolved beyond other animals. They believe that our consciousness and our propensity for abstract thought puts us above, or at least separate to some degree, from other animals.

Humans used to be thought of as occupying an existential space between animals and gods. Clearly our bodies display our affinity to animals, while our minds possess intellectual and moral capacities seemingly beyond the reach of physical objects. This even led some to identify us with either animals (we are mammals) or gods (we are immortal, immaterial souls). (Source-Philosophy Now)

As our understanding of the brain’s inner workings increases, we are just beginning to suspect that in our egocentric view of our place in the animal kingdom we have given ourselves too much credit and other animals too little.

Cleo, my significant other

Cleo, my significant other

For centuries, humans have imagined they are the only animals with morals. But humans are not alone in the moral arena, a new breed of behavior experts says.

Dogs are full of natural goodness and have rich emotional lives, said animal behaviorist Marc Bekoff, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

A dog’s code of ethics is on display daily in parks, backyards and family rooms.

“We’re not trying to elevate animals,” Bekoff said. “We’re not trying to reduce humans. We’re not saying we’re better or worse or the same. We’re saying we’re not alone in having a nuanced moral system.”

Bekoff, co-author of “Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals,” spent thousands of hours observing coyotes, wolves and dogs. He analyzed videotapes frame by frame. The work convinced him these animals possess empathy and compassion, the emotions upon which moral sense is built.

While much the same can be said of monkeys, wolves, elephants, dolphins, whales and other social animals, dogs are special cases; they share in human lives, he said.

“Dogs know they are dependent. They learn to read us,” Bekoff said. “Dogs develop this great sense of trust. We’re tightly linked, and there is something spiritual about that unity.”

“I’m convinced many animals can distinguish right from wrong,” Bekoff said.

He said looking for the roots of morality in animals is a difficult scientific undertaking. It begins with looking for emotions central to morality, such as empathy: understanding of another’s situation, feelings and motives.

In humans, emotions are centered in specific brain structures and are affected by chemicals called neurotransmitters. Mammals possess the same brain structures, affected by the same chemicals as humans.

“Dogs apparently laugh,” Page said. The same brain structures show the same activity in laughing humans and in dogs that are enjoying themselves. A dog’s laugh is a rhythmic pant.

To prevent any misunderstanding, a dog will signal to another dog that the imminent jostling, nipping and chasing are “just play” rather than aggression, he said.

The game is initiated with the “play bow.” A dog, wolf or coyote will crouch on its forelimbs while keeping its rear upright.

Any hard-biting cheats find themselves excluded from games.

“Dogs are thinking animals,” Bekoff said. “They seek the outcomes they want. They avoid the ones they don’t. They solve problems. They have expectations. They have hopes.”

Critics skeptical about some research trends in animal thinking, emotion and morality downplay the evidence as often anecdotal and anthropomorphic, that is attributing human motivation or characteristics to animals.

Bekoff countered that thousands of anecdotes equal data. And anthropomorphism, he said, is a misleading label for what is a shared evolutionary history.

Humans and dogs share most of their genes and a great deal of physiology and behavior. Bekoff sees that shared heritage extending into the spiritual realm. (Source-Seattle Times)

Our belief that we are somehow separate from and superior to nature has been one of the worst attitudes humanity has ever entertained. It has caused us to defile the only planet in the accessable universe upon which we can survive. It blinds us to the beauty and true spirituality of nature. Through ignorance and egotistic presumption we have crowned ourselves kings of the planet.

We don’t deserve that crown. We don’t need the crown, either.

We need to train ourselves, convince ourselves, free ourselves to realize we are but parts of the whole. We are not worth more than other lifeforms, we are not worth less. All life is but a part of the nature of the planet. You are not more important to the universe than your dog, nor are you any less important than your dog. You both have unique and complimentary roles to play in the natural order. Perhaps the most uncomfortable reality is that neither of you mean very much to the universe. Humanity, indeed all life on this planet, is a minute percentage of the matter in the universe. In the overall scheme of things, we are less noticeable to the rest of reality than the dust mites in your pillow.

It’s OK to not be the center of the universe. It’s a good thing to understand our place in nature while at the same time using the advantages nature has endowed upon us with humility and a sense of responsibility.

This is another dangerous lie we’ve let ourselves believe to be true; because we were put here by a “higher power” who created everything and is ultimately responsible for everything, we are not responsible for our own existence. It’s all someone else’s doing. We are but bit parts in the war between good and evil personified as gods and devils. We have abdicated responsibility and lived like frat boys on Spring break. Those who grew up following Buddhism and Taoism better understand our place in the universe.

We cannot escape the outcome of our folly. The effects of our presense here are coming back to bite us. Yet we are advancing in our knowledge of how to live more responsibly, and more people around the planet are starting to do what they can to reduce their impact on the Earth. Perhaps mankind will eventually learn to live in harmony with the rest of nature globally.

Cleo has let me know that I’ve been ignoring her for too long and she requires my attention. And I need hers. Time to slide the keyboard away.

May 13th, 2009

Pantheism-sexed up atheism or another guise of humanism?

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism – the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists – is the only one that passes the muster of the world’s most militant atheist.

So what’s the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that’s typical of atheism.

However, Pantheism goes further, and adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement. (Source of all quotes)

Prior to reading this, I confess my perception of pantheism was very different. Based almost solely on my interpretation of “pan” as meaning broad or all encompassing, and theism as god belief, I heard “pantheism” and thought “a group who believes all gods exist”.

Since I have no reason to suppose that a description put together by those who espouse these attitudes is inaccurate, I will accept that the above fairly describes the positions of a pantheist.

By those standards, I could be a pantheist. But why should I? Does “pantheist” better sum up my attitudes toward life, death and the universe than the group with which I currently identify, humanists?humanism

Where the author draws a distinction between atheism and pantheism (“Pantheism goes further, and adds to atheism an embracing, positive and reverential feeling about our lives on planet Earth, our place in Nature and the wider Universe, and uses nature as our basis for dealing with stress, grief and bereavement“), they fail to draw a clear distinction between humanism and pantheism.

As far as atheism is concerned, the last sentence in the following paragraph struck a chord.

If you are looking for atheist groups or freethought groups or brights groups and email lists, and if you would like ones that do a lot more than just attack religion, then you may well find World Pantheism the place you were looking for.

I agree that the worst part about using the term “atheist” is that it’s such a negative and limited concept. It’s the description of one among many “dis-beliefs” I have. It’s vague and potentially inaccurate. It’s not descriptive of the positive beliefs I hold. There does seem to be an emphasis on attacking religion in the word “atheist” that doesn’t accurately reflect my position on theism.

So I prefer to describe myself as a humanist. I believe in humans, I appreciate humanity and am learning every day about our place on this planet. That, to me, is what “spirituality” is all about.

I don’t see what pantheism has to offer that can’t be embraced under the banner of humanism. It does have a negative aspect to its name that humanism doesn’t. Those who are no better informed than I was about what pantheism stands for will, as I did, suspect that it’s some form of theism. Humanists may frequently be considered atheists, which isn’t always accurate but is in my case, so I don’t mind that association. I perceive pantheism as a bit too vague a name (though not in the same way as “atheist”) and potentially misleading.

Any pantheists out there want to correct my perceptions?