Sunday, October 4, 2009
New URL
I have decided to change the name of my blog and to change its URL. My new blog is called "The Conservative Deist" and is at http://conservativedeist.blogspot.com/.
A Deistic Approach
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 man who was born from his mother's side, and so on and on.
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. 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 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. 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 heroic/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. Live like a hero. Reach for the stars, yet know that the world can never satisfy our longing for God.
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. 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 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. 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 heroic/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. Live like a hero. Reach for the stars, yet know that the world can never satisfy our longing for God.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Meditations on a Dying Mouse
Last week I was walking to that calm marsh in which I always call to You. I have known You in that clearing many times. I saw You with a flute in Your hand and Your Lover in Your arms and both of You, Mother and Father, opened each one arm for me to land blissfully within. I saw You with nails in Your wrists and arms wide open. Often I have known You there only as the Will and the Source of all suffering, carelessly chasing dandelion seeds in the breeze.
On the asphalt lay a field mouse, shaking and writhing on the hot and unforgiving surface, striving in vain to maintain its miserable condition for as long as its diseased body would allow. Knowing nothing of the inevitability of its own death, it could not know the abyss of suffering that is reserved only for us. So I scooped it into a cup that I pulled from the trash bin and set the pathetic creature into the cool grass, where I hoped it would soon know the blissful repose of nothingness.
You are mysterious to a degree that even the philosopher and the theologian can seldom understand. You are the dark unknown, the Mystery of mysteries, and I do not even know whether You care for us or whether we may be the expression of Your own horror as You look upon Yourself suffering through Your own eyes.
The world staggers along, bound to unforgiving regularities that cause occasional pleasures and ubiquitous miseries for countless living creatures that suffer from accidents, diseases, and the digestive secretions of beings who are themselves subject to these same inviolable laws. The creature fell into the arms of the Mystery that day, as did countless others. Yet whenever we humans try to perfect this world of Yours, we succeed only in driving the needle into a new vein of misery. We do everything to avoid death, but the only thing worse than death is never to die. The world can never be our salvation. Yet the world is easy to see. You are impenetrable.
Did You suffer with us at Golgotha? Did You cut Your flesh with Your own spear and hang from Yggdrasil to gain insight into it all? Did You leave Radha, Your other half, behind in the forest to lament until the tears could no longer fall so that You could know our separation? Tell me what You learned. If not today, then make me a promise to tell me someday. Can we ever know You, or can we know only Vanity?
On the asphalt lay a field mouse, shaking and writhing on the hot and unforgiving surface, striving in vain to maintain its miserable condition for as long as its diseased body would allow. Knowing nothing of the inevitability of its own death, it could not know the abyss of suffering that is reserved only for us. So I scooped it into a cup that I pulled from the trash bin and set the pathetic creature into the cool grass, where I hoped it would soon know the blissful repose of nothingness.
You are mysterious to a degree that even the philosopher and the theologian can seldom understand. You are the dark unknown, the Mystery of mysteries, and I do not even know whether You care for us or whether we may be the expression of Your own horror as You look upon Yourself suffering through Your own eyes.
The world staggers along, bound to unforgiving regularities that cause occasional pleasures and ubiquitous miseries for countless living creatures that suffer from accidents, diseases, and the digestive secretions of beings who are themselves subject to these same inviolable laws. The creature fell into the arms of the Mystery that day, as did countless others. Yet whenever we humans try to perfect this world of Yours, we succeed only in driving the needle into a new vein of misery. We do everything to avoid death, but the only thing worse than death is never to die. The world can never be our salvation. Yet the world is easy to see. You are impenetrable.
Did You suffer with us at Golgotha? Did You cut Your flesh with Your own spear and hang from Yggdrasil to gain insight into it all? Did You leave Radha, Your other half, behind in the forest to lament until the tears could no longer fall so that You could know our separation? Tell me what You learned. If not today, then make me a promise to tell me someday. Can we ever know You, or can we know only Vanity?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Global Warming
From Bjorn Lomborg, who I consider to be one of the most important thinkers of the age:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/16/al_gore_and_friends_create_climate_of_mccarthyism_97488.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/16/al_gore_and_friends_create_climate_of_mccarthyism_97488.html
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Peace and Pacifism
People tend to become quite confused about peace and pacifism. This confusion creates a lot of unnecessary conflict in the public square.
Peace is a non-warring condition. Peace can be accomplished in a great variety of ways. Pacifism is an opposition to war (or sometimes even violence) of any kind, and commits to resolving all conflicts without recourse to war. Peace is a condition, and pacifism is a position.
Being in favor of peace is not a sufficient condition for being a pacifist. I am most in favor of peace, but I believe that pacifism is a deeply flawed position.
One of the constants throughout history is the existence of a variety of destructive people, ideologies, and ideas. These lead regularly to physical conflicts between humans. When a destructive person or ideology begins killing people, it is simply a matter of fact that non-violent opposition is often ineffectual. Rama realized this in his struggle against Ravana, and Arjuna realized this in his struggle against the Kauravas. Mythology is replete with such examples, which are based on insightful generalizations about the human condition.
When evil cannot be stopped with non-violent opposition, it becomes obligatory for those on the right side of the struggle to resist the evil with violence. This violence must, of course, be tempered by rules of engagement and so on, but the violence must nevertheless occur.
Pacifism, in its purest form, is the position that violent and warlike responses are never justified in such conflicts. This position, I believe, is immoral and cannot be accepted. Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Radical Islamism are excellent examples of ideologies that have to be fought with violence or, at the very least, with the credible threat of violence.
Being a pacifist is a sufficient condition for being in favor of peace, but it is not a sufficient condition for actually contributing to peace. A pacifist may contribute to peace in some cases, and may frustrate peace in other cases. Gandhi's strategy of nonviolence was successful insofar as it was directed at the British at a particular time in history. His approach depended on circumstances and could never succeed in every conflict.
The trick, of course, is knowing when war is justified and when it is not; however, one must not permit this necessary difficulty for persuading one that therefore all war is unjustified. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. One must not always war whenever one has the chance--yet one must not refuse to consider it at all, either.
Maintaining peace in this violent world is difficult and requires constant vigilance. A highly-trained and able military must always stand at the ready at all times. There will never be a time in history when this isn't the case. I wish this weren't the case, but I realize that reality doesn't care about what I wish. Human nature does not change over time. Humans are deeply flawed and always will be. This is, perhaps, the deepest significance of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin.
I therefore maintain that a spiritual and ethical attitude toward war is: "Peace--Not Pacifism." Under the influence of Aristotle, I propose that between the vice of excess--warmongering--and the vice of deficiency--pacifism--lies the virtue of moderation--vigilance.
Peace is a non-warring condition. Peace can be accomplished in a great variety of ways. Pacifism is an opposition to war (or sometimes even violence) of any kind, and commits to resolving all conflicts without recourse to war. Peace is a condition, and pacifism is a position.
Being in favor of peace is not a sufficient condition for being a pacifist. I am most in favor of peace, but I believe that pacifism is a deeply flawed position.
One of the constants throughout history is the existence of a variety of destructive people, ideologies, and ideas. These lead regularly to physical conflicts between humans. When a destructive person or ideology begins killing people, it is simply a matter of fact that non-violent opposition is often ineffectual. Rama realized this in his struggle against Ravana, and Arjuna realized this in his struggle against the Kauravas. Mythology is replete with such examples, which are based on insightful generalizations about the human condition.
When evil cannot be stopped with non-violent opposition, it becomes obligatory for those on the right side of the struggle to resist the evil with violence. This violence must, of course, be tempered by rules of engagement and so on, but the violence must nevertheless occur.
Pacifism, in its purest form, is the position that violent and warlike responses are never justified in such conflicts. This position, I believe, is immoral and cannot be accepted. Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Radical Islamism are excellent examples of ideologies that have to be fought with violence or, at the very least, with the credible threat of violence.
Being a pacifist is a sufficient condition for being in favor of peace, but it is not a sufficient condition for actually contributing to peace. A pacifist may contribute to peace in some cases, and may frustrate peace in other cases. Gandhi's strategy of nonviolence was successful insofar as it was directed at the British at a particular time in history. His approach depended on circumstances and could never succeed in every conflict.
The trick, of course, is knowing when war is justified and when it is not; however, one must not permit this necessary difficulty for persuading one that therefore all war is unjustified. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. One must not always war whenever one has the chance--yet one must not refuse to consider it at all, either.
Maintaining peace in this violent world is difficult and requires constant vigilance. A highly-trained and able military must always stand at the ready at all times. There will never be a time in history when this isn't the case. I wish this weren't the case, but I realize that reality doesn't care about what I wish. Human nature does not change over time. Humans are deeply flawed and always will be. This is, perhaps, the deepest significance of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin.
I therefore maintain that a spiritual and ethical attitude toward war is: "Peace--Not Pacifism." Under the influence of Aristotle, I propose that between the vice of excess--warmongering--and the vice of deficiency--pacifism--lies the virtue of moderation--vigilance.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Pleasant Bhajan
Here is a particularly peaceful and delightful devotional song that I enjoy a great deal:
On Meat
Under the influence of the mythology and teaching of Hinduism, I have almost completely foregone meat. I struggle with it, but sometimes I break down and eat some meat. As a motorcyclist, I rely heavily on leather for protection. Is that contradictory? Maybe. Whatever.
In any case, here is my general attitude toward meat eating:
I do not believe that eating meat is absolutely immoral. What bothers me primarily about eating meat are the appalling conditions under which most of it is produced. If animals can be raised and slaughtered under ideal conditions, then I don't believe there is anything particularly wrong about it. Those civilizations that developed in the North relied essentially on animal slaughter in order to survive.
Because my spiritual practice relies on visualizations of a relationship with God that are based on Hindu sources, I have been seriously influenced, for spiritual reasons, to avoid meat. For me, avoiding meat is a kind of discipline that I can perform that reminds me of a relationship with the Divine. I don't, however, have the least concern about what other people eat.
When my spiritual practice is strong and consistent, I eat very little meat. If the practice weakens, I eat more meat. I do the best I can. I was raised as a carnivore. I am very amazed about how well I have done.
So my orientation to meat is principally spiritual, with a smaller ethical component. I can't give up on the leather, though, since it saved me a lot of skin a few years ago in a wipe out . . .
In any case, here is my general attitude toward meat eating:
I do not believe that eating meat is absolutely immoral. What bothers me primarily about eating meat are the appalling conditions under which most of it is produced. If animals can be raised and slaughtered under ideal conditions, then I don't believe there is anything particularly wrong about it. Those civilizations that developed in the North relied essentially on animal slaughter in order to survive.
Because my spiritual practice relies on visualizations of a relationship with God that are based on Hindu sources, I have been seriously influenced, for spiritual reasons, to avoid meat. For me, avoiding meat is a kind of discipline that I can perform that reminds me of a relationship with the Divine. I don't, however, have the least concern about what other people eat.
When my spiritual practice is strong and consistent, I eat very little meat. If the practice weakens, I eat more meat. I do the best I can. I was raised as a carnivore. I am very amazed about how well I have done.
So my orientation to meat is principally spiritual, with a smaller ethical component. I can't give up on the leather, though, since it saved me a lot of skin a few years ago in a wipe out . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
