New Year, New Thought Rejected

New year, new beginning, right?  To some degree, yes.

Trouble is, there's no new beginning on an ancient issue: religion.  And to that, I have only to say that there's a lot more to be said on such issues.

So, 2015, for me, will yield more commentary on religion and the counter-points surrounding it.

Let's get started then, shall we?

I used to be a Christian.  Used to be an ordained minister to a small Lutheran community, too.  Studied theology, philosophy, history, and a little bit of counseling.  I'm not the world's smartest person.  My head's not full of mud, either.

So, in that respect, I think I have a few relevant things to say about religion -- in particular, Christianity -- and the philosophical ideals that give them a voice.

In recent years, I've been exposed to a spate of odd, interesting, semi-convincing, but largely unreal ideas about reality.  I say unreal because, after attempting to adopt them, experimenting with them, and pushing myself to take up a beginner's mind (an open mind as free from pre-formed conclusions as possible; a child-like willingness to learn), I haven't been convinced by them, and I've seen them provide key ingredients for damaging some of my most cherished relationships.

But this is par for the course when it comes to religious ideologies, isn't it?  So if someone you love takes-up some notions that directly influence the atmosphere of your relationships, what are you to do?  In my case, I attempted to see through that person's eyes what that person was seeing.  I'm not all-knowing, and I know that.  So perhaps there were things missing from my view that these soft-core religious notions were plugging in?  Worth looking into if I consider myself a man of dignity, which I do.

New Start

It's 2014.

Saint Cynic has been stop-and-go for two years. I will be taking a couple of weeks to rework the format here, and will then re-launch my blog.

Please stand by...

Sex and Purity

It's called "love-making" not "a loss of purity."

Read an interesting article by a Christian woman, Rachel Held Evans.  The article is here, and questions whether or not Christians idolize virginity.

Short Answer: Yes, they do.

Long Answer: I understand that for Rachel Held Evans, being a woman, she would naturally write from a woman's perspective.  Well and fine.  And the "purity" that is enforced by implication or pledge on young women is a crass control that demeans and degrades the oceanic and beautiful force that is womanhood.  Such pledges do exactly what one of the writer's described as pinning her name and vagina to the corkboard.  In other words, it gave power of control over natural desires to a capricious ideology that, from its Sumero-Babylonian inception, has been viciously patriarchal and violent toward women.

Dawkins Criticized by Higgs

Professor Emeritus, Richard Dawkins

Professor Peter Higgs

Apparently Professor Peter Higgs has described Richard Dawkins as concentrating "his attacks on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists" (Source). 

I've seen this accusation before regarding, well, really any atheist who fervently lays out his or her reasons for disbelief. It's not a new accusation, and it most likely won't go away in the forseeable future. The implication seems, to me, to be: by picking on fundamentalists, Dawkins et al. are purposefully taking aim on the weaker expressions of religious belief. That if the popular atheists and non-believers of today would go after theologians who have been rarified by more liberal indoctrination, the case against supernaturalism, on the whole, wouldn't be so easy to pick apart.

I Disbelieve: Part 3

At 20 years old, I applied for and was accepted into a local bible college.  I was slated to begin studying at the beginning of September 1994 but due to some difficult life-circumstances, I had to delay my start-of-study date until January 1995.

In the meanwhile, I furnished myself with theology books by H.A. Ironside, cassette tapes by John Hagee, whatever fiction or theology I could find by C.S. Lewis, and any theology primer I could scrabble together from used book stores, the local library, and the church bookshelves.

My Reason for the Season

A small departure from my "I Disbelieve" series (which, I assure you, is going to see part 3 soon).

During the Christmas season there's a lot of propaganda floating about the web, and cluttering the city streets.  People are trying to plug their tried and worn traditional values: Christmas should be about Jesus, Jesus is the reason for the season, Take the 'X' out of Christmas, Take back Christmas, blah-dee-blah-dee-blah...

We're not that far removed from our senses that we can't simply enjoy the holidays, are we?  I suppose I'm not supposed to use that word, either: holiday.  Doesn't matter that its Christian derivation equals 'holy day,' so the faith-heads can take it easy.  And for the pre-Christian in all of us, the use of 'holly' made for a smooth transition to 'holly day' or 'holiday' and everyone was happy.  Go light another yule log, or something.

I Disbelieve: Part 2

Leaving aside the  issue of jargon, or as I quickly came to call it, "Christian-ese," I pressed on to bigger and better things.  It seemed to me that so much of the Christian life was to be experienced.  That was an obstacle to me that I decided I had to get past: much of my life up to that point was lived deflecting first-hand experience because, psychologically, it meant being vulnerable to disappointments and pains that I wasn't prepared to endure.

Surving a broken home, I was entirely unequipped to wrestle with the realities and responsibilities that came with what I perceived, at that time, as being a functioning family of believers sharing a common experience.  And most pointedly, opening myself up to the experience of a perfect relationship with a perfect Father was a completely alien concept to my mind: how could I even begin to appreciate such an experience when my biological father and I got along so poorly?

I Disbelieve: Part 1

I became a Christian at the age of 18.  Life before that was a hodge-podge of classes in New Age ideas, transcendental meditation, dabbles into demonology, and a few brief but dull bursts into the Anglican church.

I recall being about 8 years old and asking my dad to take me to church.  He was obliging, even gave me my first bible and had me baptised.  But after teaching myself how to spell more compicated words by using the hymnal, I decided that, well, maybe church wasn't for me.  I was bored.  And at the ripe age of 8, I declined further attendence.

Where I Stand On Issues of Religious Belief

There is a slight ambiguity to the intention behind Saint Cynic.  On the one hand, I write in such a way as to support certain religious notions, while on the other, I reject a good number of religious ideas.  This has led to the occasional question about my personal point of view on the matter of religion.

Until now, I've hesitated to simply have it out.  There are a few solid reasons for that, but I won't get into them.  Suffice it to say that my social life was not secure enough to handle the backlash that would come from being honest on this matter.  That has recently changed, however, so I don't mind to step out and be clearer on this issue.

My Inner Conflict with E.O. Wilson

E.O. Wilson

E.O. Wilson, a highly regarded entomologist, scientist and author has recently published an article called "Evolution and Our Inner Conflict."  The basic gist of the article is that our conflicting urges to compete and co-operate is not derived of kin-selection theory, but of multilevel selection theory.

"I am convinced after years of research on the subject that multilevel selection, with a powerful role of group-to-group competition, has forged advanced social behavior — including that of humans, as I documented in my recent book “The Social Conquest of Earth.”"

Venerating the Dead

St. Maria Goretti

It bothers me that people keep re-living their suffering, as if somehow, by re-living the events that caused them pain, they will be alleviated of that pain.  My own experience tells me that brandishing traumatic events in my life only adds depth to the pain I once felt; that is, it makes the pain more intense.  What it doesn't do is bring closure, or lessen the pain.  [I don't include the unfortunate victims of post-traumatic stress disorder in my observation.  They are re-living their pains against their choosing; I'm sure they would be happy to be rid of their suffering, just like any other sane person.]

What I don't understand, however, is the seemingly insane adoption of another person's pain, even long after they're dead. 

Take the example of St. Maria Goretti: she was 12 years old in 1902 when she was stabbed to death by a rapist.  A horrible tragedy, I'm sure no-one would disagree.  Now, 110 years later, Catholic devotees gathered by the thousands in Toronto to view her body, as if by doing so, their imaginings of her pain and heroism somehow effected their lives in a positive way; they were somehow blessed by looking on at her century-old corpse.  No doubt, Catholics also imagine Maria is considering each one of them from her extra-planar vantage, if not bending her knee to the Almighty as he sifts the sin from contrition and radiates the better portion to Miss. Goretti.

A Few Things Learned

Blah, blah, blah...

I've spent a few years participating on internet theology and philosophy forums.  I've assumed points of view opposite to what I hold, written crass articles, scholarly articles, argued with soft-boiled brains and bright-lights alike, and I've come to a few conclusions:

1. It's a waste of time.  Everything that I've contributed to a forum, I could have better contributed to my ambitions to write a book.  By this point in time, I could quite reasonably have written a manuscript covering the kinds of topics I enjoy: religious claims, philosophy, history, and the rational mind.  As it is, I've got a laptop with links to sites where I've let myself be dragged into non-productive arguments with people who have no real connection to my life.
2. 'Last-word Charlie' is a title that is apt for almost everyone with access to a keyboard.  Forget a graceful exit from a conversation.  Forget the social convention of stating politely that you really don't have anything more to say, and expecting that that will be alright with your dialogue partner(s).  That is not a privilege afforded the chat-forum community: you either get the last word in and really show those foot-suckers how stupid they really are, or you endure the brunt of everyone else writing in to you as if you're that stupid foot-sucker.  Someone always has to get the last word in.  It's insufferable.
3. Anything of any real substance quickly degrades into something of no substance.  Conversations will come up that have a good lot of potential, and a few excellent comments will light the screen.  After that, it's like a sudden jump into being an octogenarian: everything degenerates faster than time-lapsed tree-rot, and you're left with a shaking head and a bevy of pills to quell the pain.
4. Quitting is not so far-off of killing an addiction.  Most likely because it is an addiction.  In my case, at least, I crave the fight, the argument, the chance at coming out on top of a hard question.  I like being right.  But because my initial premise for participation is to be right, I'm wrong right from the start.  Even if my alleged facts line up better than another person's, my motivations for being there are not really the most salutary.  I like competition, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but when it comes from a place of scorn and derision (which, admittedly, in these past couple of years, it has), it's not really competition anymore; it's combat.  And no-one really likes to be pushed into a position where they feel they have something personal to lose by participating in a topic of discussion.

So, I'm coming back to my blog with a new perspective: I want to share the things I think and open the board to better discussion with people who enjoy a fair, and gracious exchange of ideas.

Cheers!
Kane

p.s. There will be no Saint Cynic forum.

p.p.s.  Articles will come via the treacle-down effect: slowly but surely.  ;)

On Further Consideration

Saint Cynic enjoyed 3 years, and then I shut it down.  Due to some significant philosophical shifts, I didn't feel honest continuing on with this site.  Despite that though, I have longed to continue writing here, and have never been able to pull myself away from one of my first academic loves: religious philosophy and history.

More, the focus of the blog turned more to the Cynic bashing the Saint, instead of a balanced approach to both. I was angry because of my philosophical changes.  I was disinterested in my former partisanship with religious concepts.  I dropped the focus of the blog.

For almost a year now, I've been taking the time to re-focus myself, and have come to a place where I can re-open the blog, but with notable re-visioning.  For example, the 'Saint' portion of the articles I write will be my endorsement of those things that happen to be true (as far as can be determined) in religious perspectives; the 'Cynic' portion will deal with those things that are shown to be untrue (also as far as can be determined).  More, the 'Saint' side will deal with things that I enjoy and endorse; the 'Cynic' side will deal with things I would caution against (e.g., veganism and vegetarianism).

I will be putting all of this together in the very near future, so stay tuned for further updates.

Thank you for giving of your time to read this.

World Destruction!

Happy end of the world everyone!  Total annihilation never felt better.

I'm going to go get a drink now.  Perhaps toast Harold Camping on his next apocalyptic miscalculation.

Parsing Original Sin P. II

In part I of this essay, I concluded that I couldn't bring myself to believe the doctrine of original sin.  It is contradictory to hold that man is inherently evil, expect that he will be good by accepting the grace of God that his 'evilness' prevents him from receiving, and then consider him condemned for his inability to do the very thing he was predisposed not to be able to do.

From this it is argued that such a contradiction is resolved by God's enabling a person to receive his grace, for such is the nature of grace that it brings about what cannot be accomplished by a person's will.  To begin with then, a person is created predisposed against God's grace, but then by God's grace is favourably inclined to God again.  It should strike the reader as suspicious that God's initial activity toward his highest creation -- people -- is, as original sin shows, lowly and capricious: he sets the conditions by which to manipulate a person's will while declaring the most extreme results for the outcomes of his own manipulations.  That is if a person's original state of separation -- the one that he creates people in -- is not reconciled, that person is condemned eternally to hell.  If that same person is enabled by God's grace to reconcile to God, that person is eternally saved.

What is interesting to realise in this scenario is that despite the efforts of apologists to place a person's "eternal address" (Victor Hugo) on their own shoulders, people never had free choice to begin with.  For if it is true that people are born in original sin (that is, they have inherited an inclination to sin and evil), the their moral tendencies have already been weighted in a certain direction.  So saying, people are not so much freely choosing as they are struggling to beat the odds of a choice already made from them.  Thus the reason for Ayn Rand's words:

"A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality... Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil.  A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice.  It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear the responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he has no power to escape.  If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, he is not free."

People are either free or they are not.  A is A, and not ~A.  If people are free-willing creatures, then original sin is a damnable doctrine because it is unapologetically damaging to a sense of human wholeness.  If people are not free-willing creatures, the original sin makes God responsible for, and accountable to humanity's depredations; God would, in effect, be a devil.

All this talk about free will, however, begs definition.  In short, free will is the capacity of a conscious creature to choose between alternatives.  In a negative sense, if there are no alternatives, then no choice exists.  Add to that , that the notion of original sin implies the alternatives are morally laden; they are between the "knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:17).

Since the alternatives within the doctrine of original sin are between those things we understand or perceive as 'good' and 'evil,' we are forced to conclude that having a knowledge of good and evil (i.e., having a moral awareness) is the essential sin in original sin.  Apologists would take umbrage with that assertion, citing instead that the original sin was the choice to do what God commanded them not to do: eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17).  But this does not advance their opposition at all because it fails to recognise that by making an alternative choice available (eat from the tree vs. do not eat from the tree), God had initiated the process of knowing good from evil, of having a moral choice.  So to command a prohibition from action, God had first to initiate a knowledge of good and evil in order to prohibit a knowledge of good and evil, which apparently eating from a forbidden tree would bring about.

Such a contradictory premise is hardly worthwhile to any thinking person: bring about an awareness of good and evil in order to prohibit an awareness of good and evil.  Not put too fine a point on it, but such utter and nonsensical (un)thinking is beneath human dignity and reasonableness.

One further point should serve to finish digging the grave for original sin: though man is guilty of making a choice to become morally aware, even though God's prohibition brought about that awareness (not the forbidden tree), the questioned doctrine ascribes the full weight of man's guilt to man.  It is worth asking the question at this point, "what is the nature of man's guilt?  That is, what is man guilty of?"  For the answer to that question, I quote Ayn Rand again:

"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin?  What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection?  Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge--he acquired a mind and became a rational being.  It was the knowledge of good and evil--he became a moral being.  He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor--he became a productive being.  He was sentenced to experience desire--he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment.  The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy--all the cardinal values of this existence."

Because man became morally aware, a rational being; because man became a creative and productive creature; because man learned of desire and sexual fulfilment, man was therefore damnable.  In other words, an understanding of the human condition and how to fulfil it is what made man worthy of hellfire.  Now, I ask you, does this doctrine sound like the inspirations of an ominpotent, omniscient, and all-good God?  Or does it sound like the evil and controlling manipulations of demented leaders who needed some way to enforce their religious headship over the masses?

Clearly the guilt man experience for his existence has nothing to do with an all-good God, and everything to do with a malicious psychological manipulation perpetrated on otherwise rational, good people in an effort to control their lives, and make them somehow obligated to a tyrranical system of bigoted piety.  To date, that doctrine has served its purpose well, but it is a doctrine that deserves a special place in the fictional hell it condemns people to.

My Apologies

Absenteeism

Please accept my apologies for not posting for this past while.  Work, the advent of spring and all the work that entails, renovations, and an injured back have all conspired to keep me from getting any new posts up.

I will, however, in the next couple of days (hopefully tonight), have part 2 of my series on Original Sin up for you to read.

In the meanwhile, I hope you're doing well.

Masters and Slaves

Warning: This post is going to be harsh and offensive.  If you're disinterested in raw emotions coupled with stinging invectives, stop reading now.  If you can keep a dispassionate view and recognise this entry as what it is--an explosion of stressful feelings not directed at anyone in particular--then keep reading.

Who are the masters among us?

They seem to be those who manipulate and weasel their way into positions of power, thinking themselves suited for directing the lives of others.  They seem to be curdled souls tortured by unresolved psychological issues, who, in a sadistic twist, see fit to inflict their misery on others.  They seem to be the kinds of people who trip a macabre dance through the web of society, warts covering their eyes, and pestilential ideals burning the light of their days.  They seem to be the man or woman who thinks nothing of passing a regulation, bill, or expectation that indentures others to false pretenses, moral dissonance, and self-abasement.

Who are the slaves among us?

These passive souls lack the courage to block the passage of those who would purposefully dominate them.  They can't--sometimes won't-- see their own personal sovereignty as a human being, a member of the natural world.  They kowtow to the masters for fear of  being ruled too harshly; as if by cowering blindly under a self-proclaimed dominator their life will go easier for them; as if by denying the freedom inherent to their existence they will be able to gain the approval of those who seat themselves in places of authority.  They are willlingly blind, purposefully silent, self-abnegating, falsely humble, arrogantly immoral about their own self-worth, given to humourless self-deprecation, and easy to turn against their own kind.  They are sickly, weak, tepid personalities forced ever deeper into their own concentric shells by the force of their own untamed illusions and the violent machinations of those who presume the place of a master.

But the master doesn't need to be a maniacal fuckwit stamping about the earth in some sophisticated temper-tantrum; he doesn't have to be the person who gains his titular superiority by seeing how many people he can manipulate into bending over.  He can give those things up for a more reasonable, more mindful way of being.  He can change his negative self-limitations into positive self-sovereignty.

Similarly, the slave doesn't have to be a slave.  The alternative is blindingly simple: he can choose to be free.  He can shed his snake-oiled false humility, straighten his shoulders and recognise that he belongs: he belongs inherently to a class of creatures that have a unique freedom.  Why should anyone, let alone a slave, limit himself by his own preconceptions of useless servility?  Why serve something "greater" while touting the contradictory message that you are "unique"?  Doesn't that uniqueness assume the greater?  Doesn't being unique mean, definitionally, that you are greater?  What can be greater than the singular essence of your unique self?  There has never been a you before you, and there never will be another you after you: that makes you the "greatest," doesn't it?


If you fit the abject cowardliness of the modern slave, if you understand that your limitations are self-imposed (e.g., you can't do such-and-such because you haven't gone to university to get your letters), if you're the person who sneers at mainstream social impositions (e.g., getting an English degree to prove you can refer to others who write well), then bloody-well get off your ass and start doing it!  You don't need to modify your desires, your ambitions, your passions, to fit anyone else's expectations of how you should be.  Stop listening to the message of the masters, the slave-drivers.  See your uniqueness as your evidence of your sovereignty.

If the fact that no-one else is you doesn't convince you that you are, definitively, "the greatest," then you will always be the slave, the milquetoast personality that aspires to mediocrity, that lives under the bar as if it was a roof instead of raising it or removing it; if you cannot break free of the master-slave mentality that so predominates our cultural mechanisms, if you cannot declare your own personal freedom and sovereignty, then you are a slave and you will be ruled.  You will be ruled by the same self-limiting assholes that have made it profitable to thrive off of your weakness, your lack of creativity, your refusal to be a self-actuating personality.

Your uniqueness is proof of your greatness; it is the evidence of your personal sovereignty.  Stop feasting on the blandishments of mediocrity, of commonplace social expectations.  Start self-directing, self-dictating.  In essense, start being rationally selfish.  Or to put it less controversially, don't be afraid of self-referencing decisions: you are not required to sacrifice your personhood for the predeterminations of others who are no more fit to rule you than a camel is to play a guitar.  Be free.  Rule yourself.

The Art of Choice P. I

What choice will you make?

It occurs to me that everybody is an anarchist. There isn't a person alive who doesn't freely exercise choice between alternatives. Even those within the most oppressive political climates make choices every day, choices that compel them toward whatever is in their best interest in the moment. And those of us who live in freer political situations have no more freedom than the oppressed: we simply have less to fear from the consequences of our choices.

Anarchy, when distilled to its most sedimentary concept, simply means "rulerless," or "leaderless." This is a way of being that all of us accept in our day-to-day, mundane lives. You don't have to go to work: you choose to go to work. You don't have to research your paper for university; you choose to. You don't have to scoop your dog's droppings from the lawn; you choose to. You rule your own life on your own terms. You, as an agent of action, choose between the alternatives available to you. Even when things are chosen for you, you compel yourself to accept or reject the choice made for you.

So why do people feel so beholden to have their choices made for them? I'm thinking specifically of churches now. The religious person, it seems, accepts the choices of her predecessors--no! she chooses the choices of her predecessors when she chooses the particular brand of Christianity she will participate in. The Catholic convert can only be accepted by her socio-ecclesial circle if, like the rest of them, she chooses to accept the doctrinal choices chosen (often) 1600+ before her existence.

She may choose trinitarianism, but quietly nod at Arianism. Yet to air her innermost, her truest choice, she would be summarily forced to decide between alternative punishments for her free-thinking assent: recant or be excommunicated. So while she thinks she may be making a choice for Catholicism, by choosing a certain expression of Christianity, her mind has been decided for her long before she arrived at confirmation class. She is anarchist essentially, and Catholic positionally.

This is the juggernaut we are all (in a bitter irony) forced to face when we consider our participation in society and social infrastructure: to get along, we must go along. In order to be, we must be ordered. But we are not to order ourselves; we are not to freely compel ourselves. In religion, as in politics, we are late on the scene; we are to content ourselves in the same pasture, not choose the pasture we know we will feel most content in. Doing so, naturally, makes one anarchistic (leaderless) and heretical (literally, "able to choose").

And since we freely choose between alternatives in mundane ways all day (every day), we must certainly be incapable of choosing in extraordinary ways on any day, yes? The logic doesn't follow, I know. But before I explore this topic any further, ask yourself this question: are you choosing the life you want, or wanting to choose a life that is you?

I'm interested in thinking through this with you, if you're willing.

38% of Americans Are Insane

What happened in Japan recently was terrible. The aftermath, and continued crisis is devastating. But is it "divine retribution," as one Japanese official put it? 38% of Americans seem to think so. So, with a well-deserved leap over the middle (the excluded one, that is), I have concluded that of those Americans polled, 38% of them are utterly insane.

What causes an earthquake is pretty basic: shifting of tectonic plates.  It is a natural occurence not needing divine prompting.  If God sees fit to dip his hand into the Sisyphean burden of pushing giant rocks, well then whatever.  Who's going to argue?  In the meanwhile, until we have some evidence of that reality, I'm content to take the operations of the planet on an evidentiary, naturalistic basis.  Because I'm not insane.

*Thank you Atheist Media Blog for this gem.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Jiddu Krishnamurti

This morning, a friend of mine inadvertently tipped-me-off to an Eastern philosopher, Jiddu Krishnamurti.  I had encountered his theosophical writings when I was in bible college in 1996.  In particular, I was launched into many years of socio-cultural reflection by this one quote: "It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

Having been reminded of this sage this morning, I sifted through some other material I could find on the net, and came across this quote.  I hope you enjoy it, and feel free to comment on it.

"Truth is a pathless land." Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, nor through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation, and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a sense of security – religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these dominates man's thinking, relationships and his daily life. These are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man in every relationship.