What hasn't changed

I figured I should clarify some things since my search seems to be taking on a new direction. It might seem that I've done some sort of theological 180, but I haven't. I'm no more likely to believe supernatural explanations for events in India than I would believe someone claiming that Jesus appeared in a grilled cheese sandwich.

Here are some of my beliefs that haven't changed:

• Separation of church and state FTW!!!! (Duh.)
  
• Science is the best tool for determining the facts of the world around us.
• I have a serious problem with people who do harm in the name of religion.
• I highly doubt that there's some sort of omnipotent being in the cosmos that worries about the minutae of our sex lives.
  

Here's a really interesting talk given by author Jennifer Michael Hecht on what she calls Poetic Atheism. She talks about the need for ritual and having some outlet for feelings of transcendence. She also mentions the need to remember death and that life is not fair. I'm glad that there are groups out there trying to meet those needs, but I just don't see them in the freethought groups in my area, unfortunately.

Hecht uses the phrase "drop by and lie" to refer to people who use religion for various social benefits. That phrase may sound like she has contempt for such people, but that's not the case. She's fully aware of the needs that this behavior serves. Naturally, I wonder on a regular basis if that's what I'm doing with Vedanta. But those thoughts are voluminous and complicated enough to require their own post, so I'll save them for later.

We've reached a milestone

Apparently this blog is now officially spam-worthy. Not only that, it was spammed in a foreign language (Chinese characters, I think). Since this blog is not a democracy, I have already deleted the offending comment. If you want to advertise here, pay Google like everyone else.

I'm not going to post a long, impassioned plea for spam-free comments, since I imagine there is almost no overlap between the people likely to spam this blog and the people who actually read it. I'll just say I hope it doesn't get to the point where I have to start moderating the comments.

Actually, I'm more amused than anything. I can't imagine that this site gets enough traffic to drive a lot of revenue for the offending sites. Also, I assume that all you readers are far too intelligent to click on that sort of thing, yes? ;-)

Your concern is appreciated

Can I start a backlash against a backlash?

I should probably begin with the disclaimer that I haven't read any of the Twilight books or seen any of the movies. My commentary doesn't have anything to do with the actual content of these books and movies, just the discussion about them.

An acquaintance of mine keeps posting stuff on his Facebook page about how Bella and Edward are in an abusive relationship, vampires are creepy and therefore not proper objects of lust, etc. This stuff may be completely true, but I can't help but wonder about a couple of things:

• Since when did we look to literature for role models on how to conduct relationships? In fact, there was a point after my divorce where I distinctly remember thinking, "Wow, I'm glad I'm not a 19th-century literary heroine, because this is probably the point in the story where I'd kill myself." For the record, I had no desire to do that; I was simply remarking on the all-too-common fate of such women after failed romances.
• The Twilight series is obviously the first time a bunch of teenagers have obsessed about something. Ever. We didn't see the same thing when Titanic came out or anything. Leif freakin' Garrett, for dog's sake.

So maybe Edward is mean and nasty to Bella, who still hangs on him like a lapdog. A big part of most people's teenage and young adult years is working out their unrealistic expectations of other people, romantically and otherwise. Hopefully these people have models of healthier relationships around them, but if not, I don't think that's Stephenie Meyer's fault. Give people some credit. I don't know anyone who reads, say, Harlequin romances who actually expects to be swept off their feet by some drop-dead gorgeous billionaire.

If the whole thing bothers you that much, save your concern for the fictional characters and redirect it toward actual people in your life. The flesh-and-blood humans might actually appreciate it.

Defensive Dating

By sheer numbers, my post-divorce dating life is not going well (don't worry, this post isn't going to turn into a pity party). My OkCupid profile didn't get the results I'd hoped for, and I've actually disabled my account until I figure out how I want to retool it.

Fortunately, some recent events have made me realize that one thing is actually going very well: I'm spotting guys who are a bad fit for me before they get too close. Not too long ago, I would have been taken in by anything that looked like interest that was thrown my way, which would lead to us attaching to each other like lampreys. And eventually, I'd wonder why I felt so drained and suffocated. So I'm almost as glad that these sorts of things aren't happening as I would be if I'd met the love of my life.

Just as in sports, offense tends to get more attention than defense. And as in sports, it helps to be competent in both areas if you want to win a championship. I freely admit that my offense needs work. But I'm immensely glad to see that the defense is doing its job. I love what Drew Barrymore had to say in a recent interview about her love life: "I'm not in the wrong relationship, and it's great!"

I hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving, or failing that, can keep the hip flask well-concealed.

That community thing again

I've touched on the idea of community several times before in this blog, and I've basically said that religious groups tend to do a better job of providing supportive communities than secular groups do. I don't even think that's a terribly controversial statement. Typically when non-religious people discuss this issue, they might offer reasons why it's the case, but I don't think I've heard anyone dispute that it's the case. In fact, that's probably a big part of why I started attending those Vedanta Society services.

This was driven home to me in the last few days. One of my great-aunts passed away, and the outpouring of support from her church community and those of the surviving relatives was amazing. In fact, there were so many people who came to the memorial that it had to be moved to a bigger church, and nobody complained. The night before the funeral, some people cooked copious amounts of food and brought it to another relative's house.

The whole experience has helped me better articulate the issue I've hinted at repeatedly: what does freethought offer to those who are down and out? Former criminals and addicts often embrace fundamentalist forms of religion because it gives them a less destructive way to live their lives. If there is to be any such thing as a freethought movement that goes beyond the fringes, it needs to become competitive in this market, so to speak. There needs to be some way to reach people who've hit rock bottom.

Freethought groups love to cite surveys that show declining attendance at religious services, and even declining affiliation with organized religion in general. And those things are certainly true. But I don't think it can be assumed that such people are all ready to embrace purely secular ideals. What doesn't get mentioned is that while "Unaffiliated" may be the fastest-growing group, it also has one of the worst retention rates. Specifically, of those who were raised without a particular religion, slightly less than half remain that way. Of these people who went on to embrace a religion, 51% gave "spiritual needs not being met" as their top reason.

Let's assume you don't believe in anything spiritual, and therefore not in any such thing as "spiritual needs." Then what needs are not being met? Human needs, of course. If secular groups want to be taken seriously, then they need to hit religion on its own turf: offering meaningful support to society's most vulnerable.

What I'm kind of hoping will happen is that someone will read this and tell me where and how these things are already happening. I think groups like Foundation Beyond Belief have some great ideas, and I wish them success in their goals. But I'm mainly concerned with action at the local and regional levels. Could we see atheist-run soup kitchens and disaster relief organizations in the future? What other ideas do you have to improve this situation?

I'm a lousy ideologue

I know I'm probably going to alienate a lot of freethinkers here. If you're interested, hear me out. If not, well, don't, I guess!

To be clear, I haven't affiliated myself with a religion, but it's fair to say I'm investigating it.

Here are some quotes (I'll give sources at the end of this post):

Nothing is extraordinary or supernatural in life. There are no miracles. [...]When we classify something as a miracle, we might as well say that, "I do not know how it happened."

If the scriptures say something about [...] the world around us - which contradicts what perception and inference [...] tells us, then, the scriptural statements have to be symbolically interpreted.

The second statement was actually written over a thousand years ago! The tradition they come from is Hinduism, particularly the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism. Philosophically, it's actually very similar to Buddhism. In fact, one of the criticisms directed at Advaita Vedanta is that it's Buddhism in a Hindu framework. Both groups tend to take a skeptical approach to things.

Long before George Harrison chanted the Hare Krishna mantra, some Americans were familiar with Hindu teachings courtesy of Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda introduced Hinduism to many Americans when he participated in the Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago in 1893. Since that time, Vedanta Societies based on his teachings and those of his teacher, Sri Ramakrishna, have slowly sprung up throughout the United States.

As you may have guessed, there's a group in my area. I've checked out a few services, and have had some very nice chats with the nun who serves as Resident Minister. She told me that the group is basically apolitical and stays out of the bedroom. She also told me that if I have a hard time believing in a particular thing, I shouldn't believe in it until I can verify it for myself.

So what distinguishes them from, say, Unitarians? Philosophically, probably not much. Both groups tend to consider ethics a mostly personal matter and focus what ethical talk they do have on being a good person to those around you. Both groups tend to see mythology as useful metaphor.

The differences come down to practice. In Vedanta, while each member may interpret things differently, everyone's still using the same set of metaphors and symbols. In Unitarian congregations, that tends not to be the case. I can't think of much offhand that actually unifies Unitarians. Also, my experience with Unitarian congregations is that they tend to be more political than they let on. I think I may have mentioned before on this blog that I like my separation of church and state to apply in both directions.

See, if I'm going to give a group (religious or otherwise) significant amounts of my time, there needs to be some benefit. I don't necessarily mean, "What can the group do for me?" as much as, "Does this group have a worthwhile purpose, and can I make a positive contribution to it?" So far, I seem to be able to answer "yes" to both parts of that question with Vedanta. To refer back to the title of this post, I'd rather do some good with people I may disagree with on some things than do nothing with people I do agree with.

For the time being, I'm trying to take it slowly. I haven't outfitted my apartment with statues of Hindu deities or anything. I'm aware enough of my own history to know that this might not work out. But for the time being, I'm enjoying participating in a really nice community to the extent that I'm able.

Quote sources: The first quote is from the podcast "Vedanta and Yoga," put out by Swami Tyagananda of the Ramakrishna Vedanta Society of Boston. The episode containing the quote is called "Practice of Raja Yoga" and is dated 11/16/08. I get the podcast through iTunes; I don't know if it's available through other means. The second quote comes from Adi Shankara, the person who consolidated the Advaita Vedanta philosophy. More information about that here.

Buddhism redux

(h/t to Deip for the title!)

So why has the possibility of "cutting a deal" with a religious or spiritual group even arisen? I've talked before about how much I loved the sense of community I felt when I was going to synagogue regularly. And it didn't come from debating the finer points of Jewish law. It came mostly from ordinary conversations about jobs and families. I felt valued as a human being.

And I don't feel that way in the freethought groups I've hung out with (if any of you are reading this, sorry). In those groups I feel like a stack of ideas, if that makes any sense. When someone new comes in, they're asked the typical getting-to-know-you questions, but usually the only real interest is in the person's deconversion story. I don't feel like there's much interest in me (or anyone else) as a person. In fact, one day when I was venting about a personal problem that had nothing to do with religion, it was clear they had no interest. If anything, I got shamed a little because I wasn't handling it like a hyper-rational being. (Edit: I don't think it was anyone's intent to shame me. It was probably just an unintended consequence of less-than-stellar people skills. But that was cold comfort at the time. 10/27/09)

So would it be possible to make nice with the Buddhists? Unfortunately, the closest group to my home is affiliated with the zendo I had the bad experience with. While it's possible that a lot has changed in the last ten years, I wanted to check my alternatives first. Fortunately, there are many groups within a reasonable distance. I also wanted to check out some Buddhist websites so I could see what actual practitioners had to say about their practice. In too many cases, it amounts to, "My practice can beat up your practice!"

There's a term that describes the whole thing beautifully: spiritual materialism. Ironically, this term was coined by a Buddhist author (Chogyam Trungpa, if you care). It refers to the tendency of people to pursue spiritual practices in order to build their egos--the Dharmic version of "holier than thou." And unfortunately, when so many people are convinced that they are on the one true path that the Buddha intended all those years ago (stop snickering! Of course there's such a thing! </sarcasm>), it tends to stifle real dialogue.

Most people at some point in their lives go through a stretch where they keep breaking up with and getting back together with the same person. But they almost always end up breaking up again over the same issues (yes, I've learned this the hard way). Generally, people don't change much over time. This is neither good nor bad in itself.

Regardless, it would be really arrogant of me to expect a person or group to change its habits for me. If I thought for a second that I could find a Buddhist community that resembled the ideals in Rahula's book, I'd probably join up in a heartbeat. But I just see way too much of the "look at how enlightened I am" vibe (and have even been guilty of it myself at times) to go down that road again.

Fortunately, Buddhism does not have a monopoly on meditation. In fact, I've previously discussed forms of meditation that aren't specific to any religion. Living close to a major city, I have a lot of options. In fact, I think I might have found one that I could live with. But since I try to stick to one topic per post, I'll save that for another post.