religion

As an atheist with antennae tuned to unfounded claims about religion, and as a resident of "the East" sensitive to silly claims about "Western thought" and "Eastern thought", I had to reply to the following email letter received by The Atheist Experience from a visitor to their Facebook page. I'm humbly taking the liberty of reposting the letter here:

Don’t know if you guys know much about Eastern thought. Here is what I posted about your show on Facebook:

An interesting discussion. The two hosts are quite reasonable and logical. However, they assume Western ways of looking at religion and epistemology. For instance, the lady basically says, “Well, if there is a God, what sort of thing is this God, what category does it belong to?” But in the Orient, God is not seen as a thing belonging in a category, but universal awareness, underlying your and my awareness, and prior to all categories. Awareness can not see itself and put itself in an observed category and analyze itself.

The fellow on the other hand says “What evidence do you have for the existence of God?” But he sees this evidence as consisting of abstract facts. An enlightened oriental would say “Your question of how I know I am enlightened is like asking me to doubt that my hand I hold in front of me is mine.My knowledge is direct, not abstract or logical.” He has directly and experientially transcended the idea that awareness is limited to a supposed separate self.

Thanks for your consideration.

The Atheist Experience posted a short and nicely to-the-point reply; please give it a read (and if you're not regularly watching or listening to their show, start doing so immediately!). For the record, here's the reply I left on the comments, addressed to the good folks at The Atheist Experience:

Atheist Experience,

What a clueless letter you received. Its author is simply playing the “deepities” card: “Oh, you’re just not grasping the profoundness of my pet beliefs.”

More concretely, the doofus is engaging in the old “but that’s not my concept of God” sleight-of-tongue. It’s a demand that the skeptic somehow address every conceivable concept of God-blather in any response; otherwise, the believer will just skip to some other concept and shout “This is my God over here; you’re attacking a straw man over there.” However, I’ve been listening to The Atheist Experience for years, and am confident that if you good folks “assume Western ways of looking at religion and epistemology” in some discussion, it’s because you’re responding to specific claims that fall under that heading. The writer should not expect you to do otherwise.

More humorous is the sheer cheesiness of the letter. The writer comes across as having picked up his knowledge of “Eastern thought” from comic books or Hollywood. I’ve lived the majority of my life in “the Orient”, and can assure you that there is no blanket “Eastern thought” or universal “Eastern ways of looking at religion and epistemology” or singular “Oriental” view of God(s). Each of these comes in the vast multiplicity of forms that you would expect from literally billions of individuals. (I love the scripted response that the writer hands to “an enlightened Oriental”. That label is just precious!)

But while I would have rambled on about the above points in a response, you nail the most important point. The God concept that the writer presents may have been tangential to whatever claims you folks were addressing, but now that s/he’s brought up that concept, which I’m sure does exist in some form among many people, it can be addressed. Whether those people are many or few, and whether the concept is “Eastern” or “Western”, is irrelevant. What matters is precisely what you replied: Why would anyone believe this God concept?

“God is not a thing belonging in a category, but universal awareness, underlying your and my awareness, and prior to all categories.” All right. It sure has that “enlightened” deepity ring to it, but is it true? Alas, the writer is silent on that. Perhaps s/he’s out requesting clarification from “an enlightened Oriental”.

And that's that. Believers, saying "it's Eastern, so it's all on a deeper plane and you just don't get it" is no better than the common "um, quantum physics, and therefore magic healing crystals". True, one unfamiliar with some particular school of philosophy needs to tread carefully (and probably needs to learn much) before meaningfully critiqueing it – but nothing gets to escape the simple, universal criticism of "so where's the evidence for that?".

Seriously, that one trumps everything.

Alaska Airlines removing prayer cards from meal trays after 30 years as complaints increase

Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

UK government bans creationist schools

Fourth pastor arrested in one week on child sex charges in Polk County

Hot on the heels of yesterday's look at supporters of secular public education (and just as Richard Dawkins makes another trenchant plea to end special government support for "faith schools"), here's a roster of vocal notables who oppose a separation of religious indoctrination and public schools.

Surely this half-dozen would have no problem agreeing on whose religion to teach, what prayers to lead the class in, and which beliefs to instill. Why, I can't foresee disputes over such little details among the God-fearing proponents of public prayer, can you?

(Click to enlarge)

Know anyone confused about who's for and who's against secular public education? Send 'em an image!

Here's a twist on the images I've been posting comparing the proponents and opponents of separation of church and state. A related – and equally crucial – topic is whether public schooling should stay secular, with religious education a matter of personal freedom in the home, the church, the mosque, and so on. Or should government, through the public school system, dip its hands into the matter of religion?

A lot of voices would disagree with that latter proposition – even voices as notably connected to religious belief as John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and George W Bush. (If Bush's clear-as-day support for secular public schools gives American "conservative Christians" pause, great!)

(Click to enlarge)

Next up: The team opposed to secular public education. It's quite a collection of characters...

A slight twist from the previous installments: quotes not from individuals, but from national Constitutions. Click to enlarge

(So, Iraq. How's the theocracy thing working out for you?)

Next time: Something even more different.

You know religion is in trouble when even its leaders suggest we take a step back from it.

Tibetan Buddhism may not be a widespread faith, but its 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso is a globally known and influential religious figure. Said to be the reincarnation of his predecessors, the Dalai Lama was discovered through mystical omens and visions, was confirmed through "proofs" of his reincarnation, and was raised in a monastery. He conducts Buddhist rites, partakes in esoteric meditation practices, and hobnobs with popes, bishops, preachers, and gurus of all sorts. You can't get much more "religious figure" than that.

The Dalai Lama is also an author, and is working on a new book: Beyond Religion (out on Dec 6, 2011). Huh? Is this a warning of the dark immoral abyss awaiting those who venture beyond faith and dogma? No; according to the Dalai Lama, what lies beyond religion is secular morality – and the ethics we humans need to pursue.

The Huffington Post prints an excerpt from Beyond Religion. Huffpo may not be a name you associate with reliable reporting, but unless there's been some big screw-up, the text comes from "His Holiness" himself. The content is by no means religious bashing (unless you're one of the hyper-coddled believers who see anything less than fawning Jesus-praising as religion bashing), yet it suggests that religion is just another human system that can work for good or for bad, that the fact of multiple conflicting religions makes belief unfit as a universal basis for ethics, and that the creation of universal ethics need not depend on religion. Or as the Dalai Lama says:

What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.

Wow. Now let's see if we can get some popes, imams, evangelists, and the like to board that train, and some real progress may lie ahead for humanity.

Twenty Years After 'Darwin on Trial', Intelligent Design is Dead