Response to Dean

This is in response to a post on Dean's blog, where he responded to some comments I made about organized religion. The original post can be found here, and his reply to my comments here. This is not meant to be any kind of war of of beliefs, we just both see things differently. I wish to understand his view and make mine more clear at the same time. His comments are in italic with my responses underneath.

"Well, I don’t recall ever saying anything about being “spiritual” being weaker than being religious. What I argued was that to claim a vague sort of spirituality unbounded by the strictures of traditional religion places the self in a position of ultimate authority making one’s “spirituality” little more than narcissistic self-congratulation."

Yes I think that the self is the ultimate authority, as we are each living our own lives and will experience the results of the choices we make. I don't see the self as an individual entity but really a "collective" self encompassing all beings. Beyond the physical level we are all connected and this unified self can become the ultimate authority. We can get closer to this source, making what our "self" desires more into alightnment with what benefits everybody. Science is proving that there is no separation between us and our environment as well, the observed is not independent of the observer.

"Brian seems okay with the notion that the self, rather than the deities of any of the various traditional religions, should occupy this place of authority. Brian believes that even morality is subject to the whims of the self. Read his blog. It’s obvious."

I don't disagree with this. Where we may differ is on what we consider the "self" to be, as I stated above. Are there individual selves or is there unity underneath what we perceive to be separate individual people? As our awareness grows, I believe we become more and more in touch with the oneness of us all, and our actions will change as a result of it. So instead of harming those around us, one who is more aware will choose not to because he knows that he is only harming himself and does not think such actions will create anything worthwhile , not because he believes it to be morally wrong. Those who choose harmful actions are less "evolved" you can say, and think it is possible to be hurting somebody other than themselves without it affecting them. If we hurt the environment our health suffers, if we say hurtful words we suffer mentally/emotionally afterwards...I think it is all cause and effect, not punishment for our actions. I prefer to avoid certain actions because I see them as harmful to myself and others, not because I think they are inherently "wrong". Likewise, I don't want somebody to be nice to me because they think it is "right", but because they truly want to be.

"In the second sentence of this first paragraph Brian engages in a little overt proselytizing for his position when he claims that those who allow the self to pick what it finds most appealing from various religious traditions have chosen a life that requires greater strength than do the lives undertaken by the pitiful schlubs who hold to traditional faiths. It appears Brian has not considered the possibility that living out the demands of a traditional faith requires enormous effort."

"I wonder what Brian would say to someone who asserted that a long process of “thinking for himself” had led to the conclusion that in order to live a life of moral and intellectual honesty one cannot simply “decide for yourself what is right” but must deal with the various religious traditions as whole, integrated systems of thought that cannot be broken apart, shuffled together and reassembled according to the dictates of the fickle self."

I don't argue that living a religious life does not take effort. My belief is that the process of self-discovery itself, where one decides what they believe to be true or false, requires more effort when you make decisions on an issue by issue basis. Organized religion has already put together a system for one to adhere to. Instead of deciding that you believe in this or I believe in that, you decide to believe in "Christianity" or "Islam" which then has a belief system in place for you. And if the beliefs of a specific religion happen to be beliefs that you have come to agree with through a process of deciding for yourself what feels right, then it is the same process as the non-religious path. The only difference is that the conclusions you came to happen to be neatly organized from one source instead of many.

I also do not see what is wrong with breaking apart integrated systems of thought. Without this, all we have left at our disposal are the ideas that have already been created, which severely limits the progress we can make. Think about social issues and environmental issues. If we were to be limited to what has currently been put forth in these areas then the world would remain a very dysfunctional place. Why does religion and spirituality have to be any different? Why can't we continue to evolve, come up with new ideas, and put them together in different ways?

"As Brian sees it there are only two ways a person comes to adhere to traditional religious belief, he chooses what most appeals to him or he mindlessly acceptswhat has been given to him by others. There is a third option Brian leavesunconsidered. He seems not to notice the fact that many people adhere to their religion because they believe its claims are true, that they have investigated the reliability of its tenets and been satisfied.

For Brian, truth is a quality determined solely by the individual will. From his perspective we “make it up as we go along.” If you believe it, it’s true, Brian reasons. Of course,this principle applies to every claim except the claim that we don’t, in fact, make it up as we go along."

I think this is where this is some confusion between us. My idea of what "appeals to me" is what you would describe as the 3rd option. I don't see these as two separate ways. If one comes to believe in a specific religion after being satisfied with its claims, then I believe that is the same process as one who integrates ideas from many different sources after being satisfied by their validity. In a book I read recently by the Dalai Lama, he insisted that Buddhists need to change some of their beliefs as a result of certain scientific discoveries that have contradicted them. I think this shows that it is possible to have a certain faith and still be open to knowledge that comes from outside of it. Take for example the supposed discovery of Jesus' tomb. I am not saying it is real or not, but I know some Christians who will deny it's validity without even giving it a second thought. Why? If this was my faith I would want to look into it and see if maybe I was wrong. Again I'm not arguing for the reality of this discovery, just my observation that some people will refuse to give new information a chance before rejecting it.

And yes, I do believe right and wrong to be created as we go along. I think right and wrong are valid concepts when looking at the results we wish to achieve by a certain action. I consider going to work "right" because it provides me with money that I need. I consider cutting my wrists "bad" because I do not wish to die, not because it is immoral. I don't think right and wrong is are moral concepts for which we will be judged if we violate certain rules.

"Why should Brian hope he doesn’t sound judgmental? Surely, he does not believe being judgmental is wrong. He’s already on the record declaring nothing is right or wrong. Nevertheless, I suspect Brian does indeed believe being judgmental is morally wrong in spite of the way holding this belief is a flat contradiction of his claim that the categories right and wrong don’t exist. My guess is that Brian believes his acts of judgment are morally neutral or positive, but when a traditional Christian engages in a similar act of judgment, that person is guilty of “judgmentalism”, a great evil in Brian’s book, no doubt.

By claiming he hopes he doesn’t sound judgmental, Brian clearly hopes to move forward with the pronouncement of his judgment of me and my ideas while insulating himself from the possibility that he could himself could be engaging in “judgmentalism.” "

I do not wish to sound judgmental if being judgmental is not my intention. It has nothing to do with morality. If my intention were to be judgmental, then this is what I would want it to be interepreted as. I disagree with your ideas but I don't judge them to be "bad", and I may see them as "wrong" only in the sense that they are not ideas that personally would bring me joy and happiness. They may have a different result for you.

"I had assumed my comments about carob and incense and massages would be ludicrous enough that no one could mistake them for anything but what they were intended to be: jokes. Unfortunately, Brian took these humorous stereotypes to be the basis of my argument. They weren’t. They were only a bit of levity to open the piece.

In his total embrace of subjectivism, his rejection of truth as independent from his own desires, his willingness to create a personalized pastiche from the tenets of traditional religions held together by no adhesive stronger than his preferences, and his commitment to the ultimate authority of the self, Brian typifies the mental landscape of the majority. What he has expressed in his comment is the same vision of reality we find every day on Oprah, in the pages of glossy magazines, and in countless other venues. It is a popular and rarely questioned perspective Brian has chosen to parrot. I would have expected more from a man so proud of thinking for himself."

They are jokes, sure. But I think that those jokes along with your comments about Oprah seek to take away any serious validity that spiritual beliefs may have. "Pop" spirituality isn't representative of everybody who seeks to learn and grow outside the confines of religion. It's like taking Dr. Phil and saying that this is what psychology is all about.

Popularity of a belief doesn't mean anything either. According to the Religious Tolerance
website, there are over 2 billion Christians worldwide. I'm sure they are not all practicing Christians, but this would more accurately describe what the majority believe in. I still think it is irrelevent.

We're both taking leaps of faith here when it comes to what we believe in. Your beliefs will create a certain experience for you, and mine will create a different one for me. Neither of us is right or wrong, but we both have the ability to choose what we wish to experience in our lives.