,,,The Buddha taught that the three poisons cause a great deal of suffering. They are: Greed, Anger and Ignorance. His goal was to get people to strive for a life of: Generosity, Compassion and Wisdom. If we could reach that goal, we could eliminate a lot of human suffering, including our own.
,,,First, greed comes from a desire to have more than we need. It’s a desire that cannot be satisfied with its object; for instance, money. When we give in to greed, the more we have, the more we want. Greed can never be satisfied. It can only be challenged with self awareness. We must determine how much we need and when we have enough, admit it. Greed is a distraction that always puts happiness out of our reach. It only produces suffering.
[,,,]
Anger is the next poison. It’s not anger that causes suffering; it’s the actions that we take when we don’t know how to handle our anger. Anger is natural. Harming others is unnatural and causes suffering for the victim and the perpetrator.
[,,,]
Ignorance is the third poison. The most vivid example today is the ignorance that prevails in certain countries that are struggling to keep modernity at bay with archaic forms of obsolete religious belief systems. I won’t argue that there certainly are some aspects of post modernity that I wish we didn’t have to tolerate. But institutionalized ignorance is not the answer. This kind of ignorance demands that terrible things happen to innocent victims.
The Three Poisons of Human Suffering | The Big Slice
Showing posts with label Opinion Piece. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion Piece. Show all posts
Monday, April 8, 2013
The Truth of a Religious Belief is Not Important | The Big Slice
Yet over 3.6 billion people belong to the Abrahamic religions and subscribe to all or some of these beliefs. That’s half the population on the planet; a fact I can’t simply ignore. So I’ve come to the more balanced perspective of being an instrumentalist. Now this might be a stretch but indulge me for a moment longer.
From Wikipedia, “In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a scientific theory is a useful instrument in understanding the world. A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.”
Although this definition applies to science where evidence is paramount, I’m using it on religion because it takes us out of the realm of describing objective reality and into the realm of “predicting phenomena.”
[,,,]
In this case, instrumentalism is about the practicality of a belief. I.e., its usefulness. In other words, I can forgo the need to reach a conclusion on the truth of a religious proposition and look to its capacity to predict phenomena, for instance “help believers.” And I cannot argue against the reality that religious belief does help believers.
Of course the next question that looms into view is, “what does this kind of help look like?” Or to be more precise, “help to do what.”
[,,,]
But I must admit, my argument, like many, is a hall of mirrors. If we apply the work of Jacques Derrida, the French postmodernist philosopher, when we deconstruct meaning far enough down to its origins, we find nothing there but what other human beings put there. And when we deconstruct that, we find aporia; a confusion in establishing the truth of any proposition.
[,,,]
You see, our faith in the truth of all propositions depends on how firmly we believe in the truth of supporting propositions. In the end, they’re all human propositions. Do they help or hinder the people who believe them and the people they influence? To me that’s the only question worth asking.
The Truth of a Religious Belief is Not Important | The Big Slice
From Wikipedia, “In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a scientific theory is a useful instrument in understanding the world. A concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.”
Although this definition applies to science where evidence is paramount, I’m using it on religion because it takes us out of the realm of describing objective reality and into the realm of “predicting phenomena.”
[,,,]
In this case, instrumentalism is about the practicality of a belief. I.e., its usefulness. In other words, I can forgo the need to reach a conclusion on the truth of a religious proposition and look to its capacity to predict phenomena, for instance “help believers.” And I cannot argue against the reality that religious belief does help believers.
Of course the next question that looms into view is, “what does this kind of help look like?” Or to be more precise, “help to do what.”
[,,,]
But I must admit, my argument, like many, is a hall of mirrors. If we apply the work of Jacques Derrida, the French postmodernist philosopher, when we deconstruct meaning far enough down to its origins, we find nothing there but what other human beings put there. And when we deconstruct that, we find aporia; a confusion in establishing the truth of any proposition.
[,,,]
You see, our faith in the truth of all propositions depends on how firmly we believe in the truth of supporting propositions. In the end, they’re all human propositions. Do they help or hinder the people who believe them and the people they influence? To me that’s the only question worth asking.
The Truth of a Religious Belief is Not Important | The Big Slice
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Why Does Religion Always Get a Free Ride? | Alternet
We try to persuade people out of ideas all the time. We try to persuade people that their ideas about science, politics, philosophy, art, medicine, and more, are wrong: that they're harmful, ridiculous, repulsive, or simply mistaken. But when it comes to religion, trying to persuade people out of their ideas is somehow seen as horribly rude at best, invasive and bigoted and intolerant at worst. Why? Why should religion be the exception?
[,,,]
In a free society, in the marketplace of ideas, we try to persuade people out of ideas all the time. We criticize ideas we disagree with; we question ideas we find puzzling; we excoriate ideas we find repugnant; we make fun of ideas we think are silly. And we think this is acceptable. In fact, we think it's positively good. We think this is how good ideas rise to the surface, and bad ideas get filtered out. We might have issues with exactly how this persuasion is carried out: is it done politely or rudely, reasonably or hysterically, did you really have to bring it up at Thanksgiving dinner, etc. But the basic idea of trying to convince other people that your ideas are right and theirs are wrong... this is not controversial.
[,,,]
And religion is a very specific kind of idea about the world. Religion is a truth claim. It's not a subjective matter of personal experience or opinion, like, "I'm a one-woman man," or "Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings." It is a statement about what is and is not literally true in the non-subjective world.
So if we think it's a mistaken idea, why shouldn't we try to convince other people of that?
[,,,]
But religion isn't the only idea whose adherents have historically been targeted with persecution. Political ideas certainly have been. To take an obvious example: Look at Communism. People who thought Communism was a good idea had their lives utterly destroyed. Even if they weren't actually trying to overthrow the government. Even if all they were doing was writing, or creating art, or gassing on in cafes with their friends. Even if they weren't really Communists. McCarthyism and other Red scares destroyed the lives of countless people who were simply suspected of being Communists. And like religious persecution, anti-Communist fervor has often been closely tied with nationalism, ethnic hostilities, and more. Immigrants from Eastern Europe, for instance, were often feared and despised as "dirty Commies," with the political hostility becoming inextricably tangled with the xenophobic nationalism, and each form of hostility feeding the other.
[,,,]
When we criticize religion -- just as when we criticize any other kind of idea -- we do need to make sure that criticism of the idea doesn't turn into persecution of its adherents. We need to draw a careful line between criticizing ideas and marginalizing people. We need to remember that people who disagree with us are still people, deserving of basic compassion and respect.
[,,,]
But if religious differences really are more likely to lead to bigotry, tribalism, violence, etc.... doesn't that show what a bad idea it is? If the ideas of religion are so poorly rooted in reality that there's no way to resolve differences other than forming battle lines and screaming or shooting across them... doesn't that strongly suggest that this is a truly crappy idea, and humanity should let go of it? Doesn't that suggest that persuading people out of it is a really good thing to do?
Why Does Religion Always Get a Free Ride? | Alternet
[,,,]
In a free society, in the marketplace of ideas, we try to persuade people out of ideas all the time. We criticize ideas we disagree with; we question ideas we find puzzling; we excoriate ideas we find repugnant; we make fun of ideas we think are silly. And we think this is acceptable. In fact, we think it's positively good. We think this is how good ideas rise to the surface, and bad ideas get filtered out. We might have issues with exactly how this persuasion is carried out: is it done politely or rudely, reasonably or hysterically, did you really have to bring it up at Thanksgiving dinner, etc. But the basic idea of trying to convince other people that your ideas are right and theirs are wrong... this is not controversial.
[,,,]
And religion is a very specific kind of idea about the world. Religion is a truth claim. It's not a subjective matter of personal experience or opinion, like, "I'm a one-woman man," or "Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings." It is a statement about what is and is not literally true in the non-subjective world.
So if we think it's a mistaken idea, why shouldn't we try to convince other people of that?
[,,,]
But religion isn't the only idea whose adherents have historically been targeted with persecution. Political ideas certainly have been. To take an obvious example: Look at Communism. People who thought Communism was a good idea had their lives utterly destroyed. Even if they weren't actually trying to overthrow the government. Even if all they were doing was writing, or creating art, or gassing on in cafes with their friends. Even if they weren't really Communists. McCarthyism and other Red scares destroyed the lives of countless people who were simply suspected of being Communists. And like religious persecution, anti-Communist fervor has often been closely tied with nationalism, ethnic hostilities, and more. Immigrants from Eastern Europe, for instance, were often feared and despised as "dirty Commies," with the political hostility becoming inextricably tangled with the xenophobic nationalism, and each form of hostility feeding the other.
[,,,]
When we criticize religion -- just as when we criticize any other kind of idea -- we do need to make sure that criticism of the idea doesn't turn into persecution of its adherents. We need to draw a careful line between criticizing ideas and marginalizing people. We need to remember that people who disagree with us are still people, deserving of basic compassion and respect.
[,,,]
But if religious differences really are more likely to lead to bigotry, tribalism, violence, etc.... doesn't that show what a bad idea it is? If the ideas of religion are so poorly rooted in reality that there's no way to resolve differences other than forming battle lines and screaming or shooting across them... doesn't that strongly suggest that this is a truly crappy idea, and humanity should let go of it? Doesn't that suggest that persuading people out of it is a really good thing to do?
Why Does Religion Always Get a Free Ride? | Alternet
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
It Feels Like Hope Is Finally Making A Comeback | The Big Slice
Those are the words that everyone seems to forget when they quote Michelle Obama. “…for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” They love to quote the first part about being proud for the first time with her country, and then scream about how horrible a phrase that should be for any American to utter much less the First Lady of the United States.
[,,,] There are those who will scream Support Our Troops,,,There are those who will scream We Are A Christian Nation,,,There are those who will scream about The Constitution,,,
[,,,] My point is that Michelle Obama grew up in a country that was in the throes of demanding rights for blacks, rights for women and rights for the poor. She also grew up during a time when both Vietnam and the Cold War were in full swing. We were, as an American powerhouse, sending our men and women to die in a war that had nothing to do with us, spending millions on a race to the moon and teaching our kids that huddling under a wooden desk, would somehow save them from a nuclear explosion.
[,,,] Meanwhile, through all of this, Michelle is still an educated, black woman in America. We have seen from the Palin fiasco that Educated is not a word many Americans see as being a positive thing, calling it elitism. Somehow not being stupid became elite. Go figure.
She is Black, which we have seen with the election of Barack Obama, racism is still rampant in this country. No White President would have ever been called a ‘secret Muslim’, a Kenyan or been accused of not being born in this country. Know how I know? Because EVERY President before him was a white man, and those questions never came up, not once.
And lastly, she is a Woman. Which these last four years have shown us from the state-to-state attempts to vote in things like required vaginal invasions, to referring to rape as a choice, to voting against a Violence Against Women Act, to trying to make abortion illegal time and time again – all while voting against Equal Pay for Women and then pretending they respect you, when it’s time to win your votes. Luckily, a majority of women in America are ‘elitists’ and smart enough to see past this fakery.
So when Michelle Obama says, “…for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” I say, right along side her, no shit!
[,,,] I refuse to denounce that woman for those words she spoke, because at the end of the day, she was not lying. And the problem with this country is we like to applaud people who say what we want to hear, even when we know they are lying – instead of supporting those of us who are just smart enough, just tough enough and truly love this country enough – to admit we still have a long way to go. Honesty is far more Patriotic than a bumper sticker, a flag pin on your lapel or saying some words over and over again with your hand on your heart.
It Feels Like Hope Is Finally Making A Comeback | The Big Slice
[,,,] There are those who will scream Support Our Troops,,,There are those who will scream We Are A Christian Nation,,,There are those who will scream about The Constitution,,,
[,,,] My point is that Michelle Obama grew up in a country that was in the throes of demanding rights for blacks, rights for women and rights for the poor. She also grew up during a time when both Vietnam and the Cold War were in full swing. We were, as an American powerhouse, sending our men and women to die in a war that had nothing to do with us, spending millions on a race to the moon and teaching our kids that huddling under a wooden desk, would somehow save them from a nuclear explosion.
[,,,] Meanwhile, through all of this, Michelle is still an educated, black woman in America. We have seen from the Palin fiasco that Educated is not a word many Americans see as being a positive thing, calling it elitism. Somehow not being stupid became elite. Go figure.
She is Black, which we have seen with the election of Barack Obama, racism is still rampant in this country. No White President would have ever been called a ‘secret Muslim’, a Kenyan or been accused of not being born in this country. Know how I know? Because EVERY President before him was a white man, and those questions never came up, not once.
And lastly, she is a Woman. Which these last four years have shown us from the state-to-state attempts to vote in things like required vaginal invasions, to referring to rape as a choice, to voting against a Violence Against Women Act, to trying to make abortion illegal time and time again – all while voting against Equal Pay for Women and then pretending they respect you, when it’s time to win your votes. Luckily, a majority of women in America are ‘elitists’ and smart enough to see past this fakery.
So when Michelle Obama says, “…for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” I say, right along side her, no shit!
[,,,] I refuse to denounce that woman for those words she spoke, because at the end of the day, she was not lying. And the problem with this country is we like to applaud people who say what we want to hear, even when we know they are lying – instead of supporting those of us who are just smart enough, just tough enough and truly love this country enough – to admit we still have a long way to go. Honesty is far more Patriotic than a bumper sticker, a flag pin on your lapel or saying some words over and over again with your hand on your heart.
It Feels Like Hope Is Finally Making A Comeback | The Big Slice
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Real Thomas Jefferson - NYTimes.com
Definitely makes one go hmm,,,learned something new,,,
Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson’s slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to slavery only after discovering how profitable it could be, seem willing to confront the ugly truth: the third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite.
Contrary to Mr. Wiencek’s depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience.
There is, it is true, a compelling paradox about Jefferson: when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, announcing the “self-evident” truth that all men are “created equal,” he owned some 175 slaves. Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to write off Jefferson’s inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition.
But while many of his contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves during and after the revolution — inspired, perhaps, by the words of the Declaration — Jefferson did not. Over the subsequent 50 years, a period of extraordinary public service, Jefferson remained the master of Monticello, and a buyer and seller of human beings.
The Real Thomas Jefferson - NYTimes.com
Neither Mr. Meacham, who mostly ignores Jefferson’s slave ownership, nor Mr. Wiencek, who sees him as a sort of fallen angel who comes to slavery only after discovering how profitable it could be, seem willing to confront the ugly truth: the third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite.
Contrary to Mr. Wiencek’s depiction, Jefferson was always deeply committed to slavery, and even more deeply hostile to the welfare of blacks, slave or free. His proslavery views were shaped not only by money and status but also by his deeply racist views, which he tried to justify through pseudoscience.
There is, it is true, a compelling paradox about Jefferson: when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, announcing the “self-evident” truth that all men are “created equal,” he owned some 175 slaves. Too often, scholars and readers use those facts as a crutch, to write off Jefferson’s inconvenient views as products of the time and the complexities of the human condition.
But while many of his contemporaries, including George Washington, freed their slaves during and after the revolution — inspired, perhaps, by the words of the Declaration — Jefferson did not. Over the subsequent 50 years, a period of extraordinary public service, Jefferson remained the master of Monticello, and a buyer and seller of human beings.
The Real Thomas Jefferson - NYTimes.com
Monday, November 19, 2012
Explaining Freedom To Republicans And Democrats « Real Truth Now
When talking to people about politics, especially my Republican friends, I sometimes ask how our freedom in the United States is different from other advanced countries throughout the world. What sets us apart? It is interesting to hear the variety of answers to that question.
Explaining Freedom To Republicans And Democrats « Real Truth Now
Explaining Freedom To Republicans And Democrats « Real Truth Now
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Bishop James Magness: Veterans Day: Healing the Wounds of Those Who've Served Us -- A Spiritual Perspective
An additional conclusion can be made that we are on the verge of becoming blind to service members and veterans; that we have forgotten about them, and therefore no longer care about them. Even in the recent presidential debates, aside from the argument over who would cut or fund "defense spending" to include a moderately interesting comment about Navy ships and "horses and bayonets," we hardly heard any mention of the military. We heard even less about the fact that every day our service-members continue to be engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan.
[,,,]
Why bring out these hard statistics, you may ask? Can't you just leave well enough alone and let this tragic war fade into the rearview mirror of historic obscurity? Let me answer my own questions. I am a person of faith and a Christian. In my opinion, one of the most influential sayings of Jesus in the Christian Scriptures is this one: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15.12, NRSV).
If people of faith are going to engage in God's mission of healing, forgiving and restoring, we have to know the facts. If we are serious about healing, we will soon find ourselves chest deep in repentance and penance. The service members and veterans are the unseen citizens who have been going to war, OUR WAR, for more than 10 years. I recognize that many of us have little or no sympathy with the war.
However, that does not absolve us of the need to care for these citizens who are our children, neighbors, sisters and brothers. How will we love those who have been willing to lay down their lives for us? Do we care enough about service members and about veterans to help them? Though there are some technical and organizational fixes to the solution for helping service members and veterans that may not be the fix for God's people. God calls us to more than a simple fix. The first principle is, I believe, to take seriously Jesus' mandate of love.
Bishop James Magness: Veterans Day: Healing the Wounds of Those Who've Served Us -- A Spiritual Perspective
[,,,]
Why bring out these hard statistics, you may ask? Can't you just leave well enough alone and let this tragic war fade into the rearview mirror of historic obscurity? Let me answer my own questions. I am a person of faith and a Christian. In my opinion, one of the most influential sayings of Jesus in the Christian Scriptures is this one: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends" (John 15.12, NRSV).
If people of faith are going to engage in God's mission of healing, forgiving and restoring, we have to know the facts. If we are serious about healing, we will soon find ourselves chest deep in repentance and penance. The service members and veterans are the unseen citizens who have been going to war, OUR WAR, for more than 10 years. I recognize that many of us have little or no sympathy with the war.
However, that does not absolve us of the need to care for these citizens who are our children, neighbors, sisters and brothers. How will we love those who have been willing to lay down their lives for us? Do we care enough about service members and about veterans to help them? Though there are some technical and organizational fixes to the solution for helping service members and veterans that may not be the fix for God's people. God calls us to more than a simple fix. The first principle is, I believe, to take seriously Jesus' mandate of love.
Bishop James Magness: Veterans Day: Healing the Wounds of Those Who've Served Us -- A Spiritual Perspective
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)