Religion as Cynicism

To say that reality was created by an invisible man in the sky who you cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or sense in anyway is the exact same thing as saying you don't know where reality came from but you don't want to believe it is self sustaining. To say that ethics are outside of the realm of reality is to say that ethics are not real, but you want to believe in them any ways. Or to put this all in a simple thesis, to be a religious person is to be a cynic who still wants to hold on to beliefs.

Think of what the religious person is truly saying. Its the belief that mankind is a broken animal, reason and rationality are not valid, the senses are not always accurate, and that there is no inherent good in reality.  Now if we leave it at this then I think it would be safe to say that anyone who believes this is a cynic and nihilist. There is only one thing that religion adds on to this cynicism: That there is a magic man in the sky that makes it all better.  This magic man takes care of reality, and controls it, this magic man created ethics with the wave of his hand, and for this reason you don't need to rely on rationality and trying to understand reality.  In fact for the religious person thinking is really just game, that you can do if you feel like.

Ultimately the religious person is a person who thinks that reality has nothing to offer them so they look to non-reality (or things that aren't real) as the source of virtue in their life.

I have pointed out the problem with this belief before, mostly in my blogs The Nature of Emotion and Joy, Philosophy and the Fulfillment of Being but to put it simply, you can't invest emotional happiness into the existence of leprechauns and expect to get a return on that investment.  Because leprechauns do not exist.

If mankind is in fact a broken animal it is not because of his nature but because of his ideas. By teaching children that they need to invest emotional well being in to something that is non-existent you can expect nothing else but broken minds, and broken lives. As an anti-mystic and pantheist I believe it is an individuals relationship with truth and reality that determines his well being.  This being said, rationality is vital to the health of the individual, not just some game you can play if you feel like it.

You can either embrace reality, or you can reject it, but reality will always win, and you will always lose.

Concerning Stereotypes of Women

This is dedicated to my wonderful girlfriend Chay. Who continually inspires and supports me.

All my life it has been driven into my head what a woman is and what she is like. I have always been told this as if it is an absolute truth.  Then of course it is always fallowed by some warm hearted but resentful phrase such as "oh women, can live with em, can't live with out em". But as I started to go out in the world and meet women these stereotypes didn't necessarily seem to be true.  Some women I met were very emotional, some where not. Some were very kind hearted and some where not. Some where very independent and some where not, and so on, I am sure we have all heard these stereotypes.

I have a little theory that applies to both men and women but sense I am a man and I am attracted to women I have made that my focus.

It is my belief that most men that complain about "the way women are" are the same men that make it a point to date a "hot" girl or perhaps a better way to describe it, a girl that meets up with cultural standards of attractiveness.  Don't you think its safe to say that if a girl makes it point to be at the cultural standard for attractiveness then it is also very likely that would do the same with her personality? I think it would be safe to guess that most people are not only trying to meet a cultural standard of appearance but a cultural standard of every kind. Of course this is where we get religion and patriotism and all that nonsense. The definition of who is "hot" who is "patriotic" and who is "a good religious guy" is really just an extension of this joke we call culture.

Don't get me wrong, I do invest time in my appearance in order to have a more pleasant social life as I am sure all of us do to an extent.  And I definitely think there is something to the idea that how you dress can communicate who you are.  My point is not that we should all stop cleaning our selves, buzz our hair and stop wearing clothing but rather that, if you are attracted to mediocrity, conformity, and cultural standards then that is exactly what you will get.  Not just in physical appearance, but on every level.  You will probably find a religious girl, who loves her country, is physically attractive, sweet tender and emotion, maybe a little illogical but ya know only in that kinda cute submissive way, and wants to be a homemaker.

If that's what you want then congrats, its not that hard to find. And you will probably have a nice mediocre relationship, raise pretty mediocre kids and have a pretty average experience in general.

How ever this is not what I am looking for, and not what I have found in my own life.

Pantheism and Anti-mysticism

Ultimately we can sort human thought into two categories:

1: Those looking for meaning and value "out side of reality" or what we could call mysticism and

2: Those looking for meaning and value with in the realm of reality its self.

The second category does not have such a clear cut name that we can attach to as mysticism does. Some of us call our selves atheists but this is not necessarily the opposite of mysticism but simply the position that there is/are no god(s). Perhaps there is a word that we can come up with to claim a more clear position for those of us that fall into the number two category. I have a couple of proposals.

Anti-Mysticism

My first proposal is a very safe and simple one: Anti-Mysticism. If a mystic is a person who finds meaning and value out side of the realm of reality then the anti-mystic is simply one who does not find meaning and value out side of reality.

Very simple as you can see but is it our most effective definition? It is simply a negative definition, it is more claiming a position that you do not have. So then is there positive definition we can claim? Well this leads to my next proposal.

Pantheism

This proposal is much more ambiguous and tricky but I find that it catches my interest. This proposal is pantheism.

When we break down pantheism into its Greek roots it means "all is god" but perhaps a better definition when put into cultural context is "nature is god" or "reality is god". For many pantheism is simply a way of being an atheist but still holding on to mysticism and "spirituality", and before some of you get too concerned I will state it simply, I am not one of these pantheists. If you define pantheism to its most simple and true definition that reality and God are equivalent then there is no room for mysticism or "reality being alive" or any of that nonsense that these "pantheists" advocate. By my definition Anti-Mysticism and Pantheism are the same thing: the belief that meaning and value are rooted in reality rather then "beyond it".

Redefining God

At this point it is probably clear that what I call god in the pantheist sense is not the same as what we call god in the traditional way (this being said, it becomes clear why my definition of pantheism is not in opposition with atheism, the god the atheist opposes and the "god" the pantheist endorses are two separate things). Perhaps the greatest difference is consciousness. I do not believe reality to be conscious, this would be mystical nonsense, thus in contraction with my definition of pantheism as anti-mysticism.

What then you ask do they have in common? Quite a lot actually. God in the traditional sense is something that is an authority, the source of right and wrong, something you try to understand and live in harmony with. Can't all these things be attributed to reality its self? The greatest difference between the theist and the pantheist is one embraces non-reality and the other embraces reality its self. The issue of a conscious god is rather trivial, its simply the difference between a person who believes in unicorns and a person who believes in unicorns and leprechauns. The real issue is mysticism vs anti-mysticism.

As you can see it is a matter of a hierarchy of values. The mystic values things "beyond reality" above reality its self, the pantheist values reality above things "beyond reality" (of course anything "beyond reality" is simply non-reality or in other words, not real).

Conclusion?

Forgive me if this has been very plain and straight forward, but I wanted to state some simple frame work for my beliefs in pantheism and anti-mysticism before I start writing more specific blogs with these terms. I plan to use pantheism and anti-mysticism interchangeably and always together to avoid any confusion due to how undefined pantheism is, but still be able to use it as the opposite of mysticism. This is all because I believe once put into the right context pantheism makes a very clear and powerful position. I may however have to drop the term if it causes more confusion then it reduces. So please feel welcome to give me as much feed back as you would like so that we can decide if pantheism is a word worth saving.

Thank you for reading. I plan to write more on this subject soon.

Quick Rant: The Cleanest War Ever Fought?

1.2 million Iraqi civilians dead

Over 3 trillion dollars of stolen money

Colin Powell one of the architects of the Iraq war once called Darfur a Genocide.

The estimated about of deaths in the Darfur genocide is 400,000

Interesting information

Joy, Philosophy, and the Fulfillment of Being

As we go on in the trance of our daily lives its all to easy to never think. Even about some of the more important things in our lives that we claim to hold dearest to your hearts. When it comes down to it we spend most of our time feeling our way through life rather then understanding it, and then acting upon that understanding.  But when one does stop to think, and truly tries to understand reality and his relationship with it, his whole world changes, and he can then strive to live his life consistently.  Whereas the person that has no concern for truth but rather how he feels about it, spends his life in an endless circle with no destination or goal. 

For this person happiness is nothing more then a state of relief from his constant state of terror and confusion that only happens by chance.  The danger in this definition of happiness (which most people hold) is that your meaning and goal in life is completely out of your hands.  You then do not strive to understand your relationship with reality and try to live in harmony with it but simply try to escape it.

Is this not what the drinker does when he can't seem to handle life?  He takes a substance that makes him feel that he can escape reality at least for a short time.  Is this not what the religious person does when they turn to God in difficult times?  Because reality seemed to be working against them they simply search for something "beyond" it.

But these things are not happiness.  Its nothing more then lying to your self for a short lived state of relief.  Where one separates them selves from reality (only in a state of mind, removing your self from reality is quite impossible) because they feel it has nothing to offer them.

Where then can we find happiness and joy?  What exactly is happiness?

I believe the foundation of happiness is understanding reality and living in harmony with it.  And the foundation of unhappiness is fighting reality, and trying to separate ones self from it, or what we could call mysticism.  By my standard happiness can only be achieved when one says A=A, reality is real.

The more some one believes in things "beyond" reality the more likely they will be unhappy.  If some one believes in something "beyond" reality then by definition it is not real.  if some one is emotionally invested in beliefs that are not real then they surely will not get back on that investment because emotions are within the realm of reality and their values are not.  This persons happiness is then subjective to their surroundings and environment or in other words, their happiness is out of their control.  Which can only lead to cynicism and a loss of self esteem due to the fact that the individual feels that their life is out side of their control.

I am not going to pretend that I can tell you how to live your entire life in one blog (or that I would even be able to tell you at all!) but I will tell you that philosophy and rational reflection has greatly improved my life.  The person who embraces religion wants to ignore reality but the person who studies philosophy is trying to come to terms with it (of course this is not always the case because not all philosophy is rational, but in general philosophy is observations and thoughts regarding reality).  But wether you embrace reality or not it will always win.  If your happiness depends on the existence of leprechauns then you will never be happy. 

Man by nature is a rational being, and therefore our fulfillment of being is to be rational.  To philosophize, to understand, to learn, and which in the end is really just embracing reality, truth, and existence.

Global Warming: Fear Mongering, and Intellectual Elitism

Take a moment and let us reflect back on the last ten years. As you have watched the news how many times have you been told that the world is going to end? That if you even think of taking your eyes of your children for one moment they will probably be murdered, raped, and shot at school. How many times have you been told that society as we know it is on the brink of collapse?

If you can't think of any let me help you. SARS, terrorists, school shootings, west nile virus, mad cow decease, killer bees, Illegal immigrants, drugs, child predators, and many many many more.

If the media can keep you scared then they can keep you watching

If the politicians can keep you shaking then they can always say "you see? this is why you need us".

This has always been the cycle in history, only now in our day and age our ruler can't be quite as honest about it. Kings struck their people with fear by threatening them with death directly, now they still control us with fear, but now they have to be more sly and manipulative.

Global Warming is another example of this that the media uses to make money and politicians use to control you, only this time there is another element. It is more then just fear mongering, there is an aspect of intellectual elitism.

This explains why global warming has been so successful. Not only do they use fear, they also tell you are that you are a better person then everyone else. That you are "part of the solution, not the problem".

Don't you see how this works? Can you really be that blind?

Beat the dog when he is bad, but give him a treat when he sits.

If you drive a hybrid or car pool then you get to drive in the HOV lane. Aren't you so special? You must be masters favorite pet! Why don't you reward your self by wearing your hybrid car like trophy.