The Spiritual Conservative

New URL

2009-10-04T17:23:00.001-07:00

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

2009-10-04T16:32:00.002-07:00

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.

Meditations on a Dying Mouse

2009-08-28T21:55:00.002-07:00

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?

Global Warming

2009-07-17T15:51:00.002-07:00

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

Peace and Pacifism

2009-07-12T21:26:00.003-07:00

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.

Pleasant Bhajan

2009-07-07T23:49:00.001-07:00

Here is a particularly peaceful and delightful devotional song that I enjoy a great deal:

On Meat

2009-07-07T11:12:00.002-07:00

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 . . .

Al Gore

2009-07-07T10:18:00.008-07:00

This kind of hyperbole is one of the reasons, I suspect, that skepticism about the global warming movement continues to grow unabated:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece

As a philosopher, I understand that just because a person is totally over the top does not mean that there is or is not a problem with global warming. I am skeptical about global warming for a variety of independent reasons. The reason that this news item disturbs me is that it shows that this movement is showing signs of extremism. This extremism could have consequences, I believe, that would be worse than a degree or two of extra warmth. Skeptics become "deniers." They become "enemies of the environment." They become "traitors to the Earth." This demonization of skeptics shows that the movement has acquired quasi-religious characteristics that are inappropriate for a truly spiritual orientation toward the planet.

If there is a God, then the universe--including the Earth--is God's creation. Even if God interpenetrates everything, one should never worship the Creation as the Creator. Respect the Creation, but don't worship it. Earth is not conscious, it does not have a brain, it does not feel pain, it has no thoughts. Earth does not think any more than the moon does. I believe that most (though not all) people have a religious impulse, and when they lose faith in God they pick up a faith somewhere else. Earth serves as an ersatz God for many people in 2009.

I wonder what the ideal temperature is, in any case, for Earth. It has changed millions of times already. Who are we to decide what the temperature is supposed to be? Is that hubris? Is there such a thing as "the temperature that the Earth is supposed to be"? If plants could talk, they would say, "Turn up the temperature, please. We would also appreciate more humidity and carbon dioxide levels. It makes it easier for us to breathe."

Earth is always in flux, as are the animals and plants on its surface. They always struggle to keep up with the planet's changes.

What if the planet "decides" (there is that anthropomorphism again!), without our input or influence, that it should start getting cooler. Will we try to stop it? Should we? Is a temperature change bad in itself? Or is it bad only when humans have something to do with it? If the planet were warming all on its own right now, would that be ok since we have nothing to do with it? Or would we be obligated to stop it? And, if we did stop it, would it then be immoral because humans had artificially prevented a "natural" warming that Earth was trying to do without our input?

When plants first made the scene on earth countless millions of years ago, they changed the climate radically. When animals started breathing the poisonous oxygen in the air, they changed it again. Plants and animals are not environmentalists. They don't care about "ecological balance." They do the absolute best they can with what they have and they would take over the world if they could. They can't--but that doesn't mean that they don't because they are "good" or "virtuous." My brother always tells me that he is a rock activist--rocks have suffered from the impositions of life for billions of years.

All of this shows that we should have a common-sense attitude to keeping our living environment clean and healthy, but that, as in everything in life, we must balance that attitude with considerations from other quarters, as well. Spirituality requires taking the Earth into account, but it also requires taking human thriving into account since, if there is a God, humans are in a unique position to relate to that God. Without humans, the divine purpose would be frustrated. Humans are, in fact, special, and we have needs. Someday we will colonize other planets. Like every other species of life, we reach upward and outward and go as far as we can until natural limitations impose themselves on us like they impose themselves on everything else. We can never ruin the universe; rather, it is fated to ruin us.

That last bit sounded a bit too Schopenhauerian . . .

Reflections on an Asatru Discussion

2009-07-04T21:13:00.004-07:00

I recently met with and had an extended theological discussion with a member of the Asatruar. "Asatruar" refers to the community of those who follow the religion of Asatru, which is a reconstruction of the ancient, pre-Christian, polytheistic religion of the people of Europe. It is to be contrasted with Wicca and Neo-Paganism, which do not emphasize the strong warrior ethic of Asatru. Interestingly, there is mistrust between the groups. The Neo-Pagans consider the Asatruar to be too martial, and the Asatruar consider the Neo-Pagans to be pretenders.

The Asatruar believe in a plurality of gods including Odin, Frigga, Thor, Sif, Frey, Freya, Loki, and so on. As many of these gods and goddesses have become comic book characters, the Asatruar face some quick ridicule. As the religion is deliberately oriented on Europe, it is often accused of racism, which is a charge that lacks all foundation for most Asatruar.

In any case, interesting theological ideas emerged from speaking with this avowed polytheist. Their idea is that the Gods of Europe are real, supernatural entities who look out after the European people and their descendants. The Gods are busy, but try to help as much as they can. They are often embroiled in feuds, fights, and tasks. Thor is the God that is most active in the world, and Frigga is the Goddess who has the most personal compassion for all living things.

While a few of the Asatruar believe that the Gods and Goddesses of Europe are the only ones and that the gods of other religions are fictional, most Asatruar believe that there really are other pantheons of supernatural beings who serve as the protectors of other groups, as well. Krishna, Shiva, YHWH, Allah, Allah's daughters (as they existed for the Arab pagans), Anubis, and Thoth all really exist. They are not merely alternative names for Odin and Thor. All of these beings have a reciprocal relationship with humans in the sense that their ability to fulfill their functions depend greatly on our degree of belief in and service to them. For them, the idea that YHWH or Allah is the only God is a kind of power-grab--it is to take a patron deity and to pretend that he is the only deity when there are, in fact, many other deities.

Gods can be born and they can die. According to the Norse lore, Odin was himself born and will die after the great battle of Ragnarok. Even Thor will die. What happens after that is speculation.

When I asked what the source was for all of these beings, the answer was Yggdrasil, the great Tree that interpenetrates all of the nine levels of existence. Yggdrasil is not a person, so the ultimate source of the entire play is impersonal.

Their "meta-theology" is novel in the sense that most people, when informed of the belief of people in this great variety of gods, will either deny the existence of all of them except for one (monotheism), or will deny the existence of all of them (atheism). They could also, of course, be noncommittal (agnosticism). There are some other choices, as well.

Unlike Hinduism (and Neo-Paganism), which often sees the many devas and demigods as being different faces of one common divinity, Asatru consciously rejects this option. They maintain the distinct identity of all of the Gods.

Philosophically, the obvious reaction is to invoke Occam's Razor, and to say that, since one God can fulfill all the explanatory functions of a multitude of them, there is simply no need to postulate their existence; indeed, the Asatru universe strikes me as very crowded. Hume himself, in his Dialogues, used the prima facie absurdity of polytheism to serve in his critique of the teleological argument for (mono)theism.

Also, if everything is to be explained in terms of something impersonal (such as Yggdrasil), is there a need to postulate this plethora of deities? It seems that there can be no philosophical reason to be obligated ever to postulate them. Perhaps the appeal of the movement is based on other considerations, such as connecting to ancient traditions that they feel were abruptly and unjustly broken by the coming of Christianity.

It was a very interesting conversation!

On Vision and Politics

2009-07-04T16:44:00.004-07:00

I have recently read Thomas Sowell's amazing book A Conflict of Visions. The basic idea was very interesting: In order for us to navigate through the bewildering and complicated maze of issues, ideas, and policies that assail us every day, we need something called a "vision." Visions are highly abstract notions that we have about the natures of humanity and causality, and they remain unexamined and hidden to most of us. They serve to guide us through a life so complex that it would otherwise paralyze us. They explain why different political orientations tend to line up so consistently on certain issues, even if the issues are logically independent of each other.

The two visions that he describes are the "Constrained Vision" (CV) and the "Unconstrained Vision" (UV). According to CV, humans are seriously limited in both their intellectual and moral capacities; as a result, the best political and economic systems can only minimize harm in a difficult world. Instead of trying to change humans, which can't happen, CV attempts to maintain tradition systems that have slowly evolved over countless generations that channel our flaws and foibles into the most positive direction possible. It maintains that Man, in his natural state, is profoundly and inherently flawed. CV lends credibility to unarticulated traditional practices, religion, cultural mores, and free markets to mitigate the unpleasantness of life. They would rather guide society through countless small decisions of everyday people rather than guide it through the enlightened policies of intellectual elites.

According to UV, there is no real limit to the intellectual and moral capacities of humans; as a result, it strives to change humans by using articulated plans to encourage those capacities. It maintains that educated and enlightened people should have the ability to guide society in accordance with their insights. They tend to believe that Man, in his natural state, is good and virtuous, and that we should remove barriers to the full expression of that goodness. They have more sympathy with guided economies and government programs that are administered by the most educated among us.

I believe it is easy to see the orientations of conservatives and liberals in these visions.

When speaking of this material world in which we live, I consider myself quite comfortable in the CV camp. I believe that this is a profoundly flawed world in spite of its joys, and I believe that this fact is inherent to the world. I believe that Man is also profoundly--and inherently--flawed. If there is another "world"--and my spiritual practice rests essentially on this possibility--then it is my deepest faith that that world corresponds to the UV vision. On earth I will vote conservative, in Heaven I will vote liberal . . .

Reasoning and Belief in God

2009-07-04T16:20:00.003-07:00

I have studied the analytic philosophy of religion for many years, and earned my Ph.D. doing it. I used to think that it was just a matter of who had the better arguments. I have come to disagree with this statement.

As humans, a reasoned defense of our theism or atheism (or whatever else) seems to be primarily a matter of what I would call "orientation." We "lean" in one direction or the other because of our upbringing, culture, and natural dispositions. Later, we try our hardest to justify this orientation.

If one approaches God's existence from one side or the other and then puts his best efforts into defending that side with the aid of reason, he will find himself sufficiently persuaded to believe as he does on the basis of that reason. Have you ever known anyone who changed his or her mind solely on the basis of the "arguments"?

I think that approaching God, rather than being a matter of pure reason, should also be a matter of experimentation. Approach God in some way that has always fascinated you and just give it a try. Do you feel that it is making you a better person? Is it contributing to your enjoyment of life? Are you having experiences of joy that are new or novel during your practice?

There is no sense in abandoning your practice if it is producing fruits. I have a caveat, however: Always know that your experiment can never fully confirm the hypothesis of theism. Your experiences may lend support to your belief, but can never guarantee it. I wish it were otherwise, but I don't believe it is. Therefore, you should always be humble and understand that there are other people who have had qualitatively similar experiences to yours in the context of worldviews that are incompatible with yours. Take the doctrines--that place where these incompatibilities are most prevalent--with a grain of salt. Emphasize the experience. There is no true knowledge that doesn't arise in experience.

Many believers in every religion will, when pushed into a corner, concede that the mass of doctrines that flow from their churches, temples, or mosques can reasonably be doubted, yet the most fervent of their believing comrades will insist that these doctrines cannot be doubted or else the faith is a waste of time. Is that really so? I believe that religion provides things for people that are completely independent of doctrine.

An intimate relationship with the Ultimate is, in my opinion, the most valuable thing that a religion or spiritual system can offer. Encourage that relationship, whether your Ultimate is personal or impersonal.

Reaction to Palin's Leaving as Governor

2009-07-04T16:04:00.005-07:00

I have been a great admirer of Sarah Palin for a long time. I have admired her strength in the face of withering and hateful attacks, her independence, her energy, her compassion for children, her strength, and her patience. I do not necessarily agree with everything she believes, but that is the case with anybody. As Dennis Prager says, "If you want to vote only for someone with whom you have no disagreements, then you will have to run for office yourself."

It is therefore very sad for me to see that she is stepping down from her position as governor of Alaska. Her speech was disorganized and rambling. I understand that she has been through the political meat grinder so long that it would have broken much stronger women. Perhaps there is a scandal brewing. Who knows? She is unbearably busy--she serves as governor, she flies all over the lower forty-eight states, and she is raising a beautiful family. Most of us would shudder at this level of responsibility.

I believe this may well hurt her political career, although anything seems to have become possible in politics. I have no doubt that she will discover what it is that she needs to do in life to maximize her potential and her gifts. I hope her faith keeps her going in this maelstrom. In the meantime, I hope that she continues to inspire girls to do their best, no matter how humble or pedestrian their backgrounds may be. And I hope she continues to inspire us to strive to live righteous lives, and to take abortion at least a little more seriously than we do.