Stumbling in the Dark

CARM has 28 questions for "homosexuals." I have some answers.

2011-11-21T23:58:00.000-08:00

CARM, for those not blessed enough to have encountered them is a fundamentalist Christian website, I believe they are evangelical, but I am not sure. In any case, Matt Slick wrote a list of of 28 "Questions for homosexuals - and those who approve of it." I found this list via Former Conservative Blogger's own responses. Slick's responses to FC's responses tended to be a very dismissive, which I suppose was only fair as FC's responses were somewhat dismissive.

In any case, since the option of nitpicking has been opened, let me begin with Slick's title. It is grammatically nonsensical. Either the questions are posed to homosexuals and those who approve of them, or it posed to those who approve of homosexuality. Your nouns and pronouns must agree.

Observant readers will also note that Slick refers to gay people as "homosexuals." This is, of course, an effort to stigmatize homosexuality by making gay people sound diseased; the term "homosexual" is a clinical one. It also allows him to avoid calling us "gay," and thus implying that we are anything but miserable. GLAAD advises against using the term saying

Please use "gay" or "lesbian" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style).

But, on to our main course, Slick's questions. I'm going to address some of them singly and some of them in groups.

GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then how can it be said that homosexuals are born that way since their genetic tendencies would have died out long ago through natural selection?
GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition and the homosexual community wants cultural and social support since, as they say, "they are born that way," then shouldn't they also support “homophobia” since it could be legitimately argued that homophobes are born with heterosexual-orientation and possess a natural aversion to homosexuality?
GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If heterosexual behavior produces offspring and homosexual behavior does not, then doesn't it make sense to say that homosexuality is a learned behavior since the implication is that pro-homosexual genes would have been wiped out generations ago?
GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY: If this is not the case, can you please explain the mechanism by which “homosexual genes” aid in survivability and are then passed on to descendants?
GENETIC PEDOPHILIA: If genetic predisposition is used as a support for stating that homosexual behavior is morally okay (because they are born that way), then shouldn’t pedophilia behavior also be considered morally okay since they claim they were born that way?
GENETIC PEDOPHILIA: If pedophiles are morally wrong because they violate the wishes and will of the younger individuals, then at what age is a person too young to engage in sexual activity in accordance with his or her natural predisposition (i.e., being born that way)?

I do not agree with those who argue for the morality of homosexuality by saying that it is genetic, or a product of early hormonal conditions in the womb, or of early childhood parenting. I believe it is a fallacious argument. The morality of an action is irrelevant to whether one is predisposed to so act. There is no predisposition towards being a Christian, but that does not make it immoral. Likewise kleptomaniacs have a predisposition to steal, but that does not make it moral. If same-sex relationships are moral, they must be defended in their own right, based on the consequences of those relationships, not whether those in them are predisposed to do so.

It's only fair to Slick that I show all my cards here. I am a moral consequentialist. I believe that the morality or immorality of any given act should be determined based on its consequences. I believe homosexuality is moral because I do not believe it has negative consequences; any negative consequences that currently exist are the result of societal disapprobation, not something inherent to homosexuality itself.

This is not the case with child molestation (as distinct from pedophilia as not all pedophiles molest children and not all child molesters are pedophiles). Child molestation has observed and strong negative consequences for the abused children. They can expect at least some of these consequences: a warped view of sex, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, eating disorders, chronic pain, STDs, drug addiction, suicidal ideation, and learning disabilities (see Wiki for more).

I should note that in Slick's world, homosexuality would be immoral. Homosexuality leads to Hellfire and damnation, which are sufficiently horrific that almost any effort to avoid it would be morally requisite. This means that having children is immoral, as those children might not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and hence be damned to Hell. Abortion, far from being a sin, would be a holy sacrament as it guarantees the aborted zygote, embryo, or fetus a place in Heaven. Indeed, killing any child or baby below the age of reason would be the most noble act possible, as it would mean condemning yourself to Hell that others might be spared it.

CONSENT: In light of being born with a sexual orientation (like homosexuality, frotteurism1, voyeurism2), if pedophiles are morally wrong because they are acting out their sexual orientation upon minors who are not mature enough to consent, then what do you do when minors become mature enough to consent and also claim they are born wanting a sexual relationship with an older person?
CONSENT: If what is sexually permissible is what is based on consent, then what do you do with with younger-than-18 adolescents who consent to having sex with much older people? Is it okay?

(Note: I cannot get blogger to number this list properly, a bug that exists due to the interaction of blogger's and CARM's softwares.) I am uncertain as to where line should be drawn as regards the age of consent. In general, I think US law currently does a reasonably good job by setting that line at eighteen, sometimes allowing some wiggle room when both participants are under the age of consent but of reasonably close age to each other, and sometimes again some wiggle room when the two parties are on opposite sides of the line but are very close in age to each other. This isn't perfect, of course, but from a consequentialist point of view it does a good job of minimizing potential harm to minors while still allowing adults to make their own choices (which I believe has ultimately positive consequences, but that's an argument for another day.).

MORAL STANDARD: From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?
MORAL STANDARD: From where do homosexuals get their moral standard by which they can judge what is sexually right and wrong?
MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?
MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system if it contradicts another?

The LGBT community is philosophically diverse. We include consequentialists (such as myself), deontologists, those who believe morality is based on rights, those who believe morality is an illusion, moral relativists, moral subjectivists, and all manner of other positions. I freely admit that I cannot demonstrate the moral superiority of consequentialism over other systems, but this is a flaw common to all ethical systems. Until one accepts the premises of that system, it is nearly impossible to demonstrate its superiority. There are three possibilities: demonstrating internal consistency, demonstrating that a particular system leads to minimization of harm, or appeal to authority--asserting that a moral system is correct because some authority has imposed it.

MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?

I believe moral behavior is required of all people, and so in that context, yes, moral standards are obligatory. Which is a good place to address the question of what is permissible versus what is requisite. In a consequentialist morality these are very different things. Many things are permissible, that is, they do not result in harm. Others are required, deviating from them actively causes harm, so they must be avoided. Murder, theft, arson, malicious lying, and torture all fall into this latter category. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, falls in the former. They are permitted, but not required. No one is required to have sex with someone of the same sex, the opposite sex, or indeed to have sex at all. These are all morally natural choices.

MORAL STANDARD SOCIETY: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from society, then what gives them the moral right to change society's morals when the majority condemn homosexuality as morally wrong?

From a consequentialist point of view, allowing the majority to determine what is permissible is a mistake. It invites abuse of power on the part of the majority. It should be permissible to be a Christian anywhere, not just where it is popular. Even though I think Slick's form of Christianity is in many ways repugnant, I believe that the infringement on his freedom to practice his religion would have worse consequences than denying him the liberty to practice it.

MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, including those who disagree with them?

As I stated earlier, I do not believe any moral system can be properly justified outside of that system. Because of that, I believe that people should be free to act as they see fit, provided their interactions do not limit the freedom of others (this is an oversimplification, but I have no desire to go into a lengthy discussion of the relation between morality and law and where and how they should interact).

MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to condemn those whom they label "homophobes" when they are just expressing their personal moral preference?
MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals say that "homophobes" are wrong because they want to restrict homosexuals' rights and impose their values on them, then what gives the homosexuals the right to impose their sexual values on others?

I am relatively uninterested in the first question, people have a right to condemn others for any reason they see fit. I have a right to condemn Slick for his homophobia just as he has a right to condemn me for my advocacy of gay rights. However, the second deserves more attention. I have no desire to impose my sexual values on Slick. I do not require nor even expect him to have sex with a man. It would be entirely abhorrent for someone to make such an expectation of him. Slick need not even like that others practice homosexuality.

All that I ask is that he not interfere with my ability to form relationships and have sex with consenting partners. This means not criminalizing gay sex; not preventing me from making a binding, recognized contract with my life partner should I ever meet one; and not refusing to employ, house, or provide legal services to me solely because I engage in legal and consensual practices that he disapproves of.

MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, then do they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences?
MORAL STANDARD PERSONAL: If homosexuals derive their standard of morality from themselves, and they also believe they have the right to try and change society to suit their own moral preferences, then how is that not arrogant?

Since I don't derive my moral standard from myself but through a moral philosophy with a long and proud tradition, I see no need to address these questions.

CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation (i.e., sexual behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights be granted to those of Alternate Sexual Orientations (ASO) such as pedophilia, incest, voyeurism, exhibitionism, sadism, fetishes, frotteurism, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation, etc.? If not, why not?

Provided that a sexual activity is not harmful (in the context of sexual behavior this primarily means that it does not involve a participant who does not or cannot consent), I see no reason not to grant people who engage in that activity the right to freedom from discrimination with regards to housing, employment, purchase of goods and services, etc. Indeed, I belief that our current non-discrimination system is flawed. Rather than a having a list of protected classes, we should recognize that it is immoral to discriminate against any non-harmful behavior. Discrimination based on appearance, bad fashion sense, health, weight, and many other features should also be illegal.

With regards to marriage, the civil right that is most in the public eye, people who engage in exhibitionism, sadism, masochism, and most other fetishes can already get married provided they are straight.

CIVIL RIGHTS: If civil rights should be granted to homosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior), then shouldn't equal civil rights also be granted to heterosexuals based specifically on their sexual orientation (behavior)? If not, why not?

Yes, absolutely. Same-sex marriage should only be legal if opposite-sex marriage is. Likewise, straight people should (and under ENDA will be) free from discrimination based on their heterosexuality.

CIVIL RIGHTS: If equal civil rights should not be granted to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (excluding homosexual behavior), then what is it about homosexuality that deserves special status protection where other sexual behaviors do not?

I have already answered this question.

CIVIL RIGHTS: If homosexuals are granted privileges due to civil unions and domestic partnerships, shouldn't the same be offered to heterosexuals?

Civil unions and domestic partnerships are essentially marriage lite, they are a poor substitute for what straight people have; a "separate but equal" arrangement, if you will. That said, is a straight couple wishes to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership, they should have the right to do so if that is an option given to same-sex couples.

FAIRNESS: Shouldn’t an equal amount of sexual-orientation-promotion be offered to people of Alternate Sexual Orientations (i.e., pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, autoerotic asphyxiation) such that they are also promoted in parades, schools, movies, sitcoms, magazines, schools, etc.? If not, why not?

None of those, except autoerotic asphyxiation generally involve only consenting parties (most incest is not consensual, and tends to result in severe birth defects and has a potential to cause psychological damage even when it is), and autoerotic asphyxiation tends to kill people or cause brain damage, so I don't approve of promoting it. But let's take the more realistic case of BDSM. There already are parades, movies, and magazines that celebrate BDSM, and I fully support their right to exist.

I do not approve of discussing BDSM in the context of grade schools, while I do approve of discussing homosexuality. This is because BDSM is secondary to a relationship; it is perfectly possible that my mother and father engaged in sadomasochism (though as their child the idea of them having any sex at all is naturally repulsive to me), but if they did, I never found out about it. BDSM is a sexual practice (it is occasionally a lifestyle, but even then I imagine the children of such a couple are mostly unaware of that aspect). On the other hand, if my mother had been a lesbian and had raised me with another woman, that fact would have been impossible to conceal. The existence of same-sex couples must be addressed in grade school for the simple reason that some children have parents of the same sex and their classmates find out and are curious about this.

FAIRNESS: Would you, if you are pro-homosexual in practice and/or ideology, promote and support heterosexual parades, heterosexual oriented TV, and overt heterosexual appreciation and promotions in school classrooms – the same as is occurring with homosexuality? If not, why not?

While there are no straight pride parades, almost all TV is heterosexually-oriented, and heterosexuality is acknowledge and affirmed in classrooms every time straight marriages are spoken of positively, which is often. I have no objection to straight pride parades, but would consider them rather pathetic and sad, just as I have no objection to white pride parades but consider them pathetic.

FAIRNESS: If being intolerant of homosexuality is somehow wrong, then why are the homosexuals not wrong when they express their intolerance of those who disapprove of homosexuality?
FAIRNESS: Isn't it hypocritical to say that homosexuals want tolerance for everyone, but at the same time they practice intolerance of the those who disagree with their behavior?
FAIRNESS: If homosexuals want tolerance, then when they try and change the rest of society's views about homosexuality, aren't they demonstrating their intolerance of the majority position?

I believe in a world where people are free to dislike homosexuality. But I also believe in a world where the rest of us (and in the US we are rapidly becoming the majority) are free to express derision and mockery of those who hold such a ridiculous position.

FAIRNESS: If you affirm that it is okay for homosexuals to show their intolerance for the majority view against homosexuality by trying to change the rest of society's view to conform to their own, then shouldn't it be okay for the majority to try and change the moral view of the homosexuals and have them conform to the majority?

Yes, the marketplace of ideas should be open. You are just as free to try to convince me of the rightness of your position as I am free to try to convince you of the rightness of mine.

I invite Mr. Slick to post responses to my arguments, provided that you link to this article in that response, that I am free to respond to your responses, and that you inform me (by e-mailing me or posting a comment to this post) that you have done so.. I will be e-mailing him a link to this post for that purpose.

From PostSecret

2011-06-27T00:08:00.000-07:00

-----Email-----
God isn't the one who is lost; we all are. God is where He always is... we need to stop trying to "find God" and instead rid ourselves of the things that we use to hide from God.

-----Email-----
I was so deeply offended that someone would assume that it is one's fault that they feel void of God's presence. It is the worst thing to be told when you are so desperately trying to feel something that once seemed to be ever present, and then one morning is just gone.

The Labyrinth

2011-06-15T14:14:00.000-07:00

There is only one rule in the Labyrinth: do not look back; make no attempt to retrace your steps. This is a rule not enforced by a watchman and the certainty of punishment, nor by some design of the maze itself. Rather, it is a rule written on the hearts of its myriad wanderers. Those who disobey risk looking endlessly, trying to remember every twist and turn they have made. Most will not even manage that; they will be paralyzed by uncertainty and doubt until, at last, they collapse from weariness.

One wanderer, a lost soul new to the Labyrinth, wonders what she is to do here. Unlike some other souls, she entered without any purpose, was hardly even aware that she was entering the Labyrinth until she found herself hopelessly lost in its serpentine paths. Each time she encounters someone, she asks, “What is your purpose?” Some, like her, have no notion of what they are to do there. Others seek the center that is variously rumored to house some fabulous treasure, a staircase leading out of the Labyrinth into a beautiful garden, or a savage beast—a Minotaur—that will kill anyone who finds it (but O! the glory to the one who slays it!). Saddest of all are those who seek a friend, lover, child, or brother in the maze. They search frantically but, in all likelihood their efforts are in vain. Even if, by some miracle, they should succeed in finding their beloved among the twisted, endless passageways of the Labyrinth, they, too, will be doomed to remain lost there for all eternity..

She asks herself also, “Why am I in the Labyrinth?” Each wanderer has a different answer, or if not an answer, at least a guess: the Labyrinth is a punishment for past sins; it is a testing ground where worth must be proved; they are there for the glory of the treasure, the garden, or the slaying of the Minotaur. Perhaps, they decide, there is no reason for their presence save chance, misfortune, or fate. Strangest of all are the few who say the Labyrinth is a reward. They take joy in following its winding paths. While a few of these people have some other purpose for being in the Labyrinth it is the search itself that has meaning.

She has no map of the Labyrinth; no one does. All who wander wander aimlessly, hopelessly lost. A few she has met along the way claim to have some special knowledge of the maze, but that they cannot impart it to others. And besides, they do not seem to any more of an idea where they are going than anyone else.

The maze is gloomy. Her candle lights less than a foot around her; she cannot even see her own feet. At every step she wonders if she has missed some crucial opening, some new path that might lead to the center, or even outside the Labyrinth.

But, for all the gloom, it is also beautiful. The walls are beautifully engraved, the floor, when she bends down to look at it, is an intricately tiled mosaic, and occasionally she will stumble upon a chamber that is not gloomy, but bright and airy, with wonderful fountains or statues. These things break the monotony of the maze.

She cannot remember what she did before she came to the Labyrinth. Few do, and even then their memories are vague. They might remember the reason they entered, but the details of that time before are always hazy. Memory fades quickly in the Labyrinth. After only a few days it feels like she has been there forever.

Slowly, as she walks, she considers her purpose here. First, she decides, she needs one. Walking aimlessly will not do. But none of the purposes of others seem meaningful. Finding the center has no real purpose to her, she is uninterested in treasure or in fighting a Minotaur, and what, ultimately, would there be to do in a garden? Nor is there anyone she can look for; she has lost no one to the Labyrinth. And so she considers those who find the Labyrinth a joy. She asks herself, “How can walking here be good?”

She meditates for many days on this question. And, slowly, an answer begins to develop. She has met so many people here, and all of them fascinating in their own way. She thinks of the strange carvings found everywhere in the walls and of their beauty. To be in the Labyrinth is an unique experience, one she is, perhaps, lucky to have.

Lucky. That thought had never occurred to her. But how many people get to walk in the Labyrinth? A few hundred, a thousand? And so many more never get to walk in it, do not even know of it. To be in the Labyrinth is lucky. Not always wonderful, not always fun, but certainly lucky. But that doesn't seem enough to take joy in being there. But perhaps, she thinks, that isn't important. Perhaps simply by asserting her wanderings as meaningful, she can make them so. Perhaps that is the source of joy for that handful of walkers.

She looks around at the dark gloom, at her flickering candle, at the walls and floor of the maze, and smiles.

A Religion Is More Than Its Holy Books, Part 2

2011-06-13T20:14:00.000-07:00

Recently at Friendly Atheist, someone wrote in with a question: should she convert to Orthodox Judaism to please her fiance's family? And one commenter's answer struck me:

I have a question. Even if you are an atheist, why is it socially acceptable to willingly identify yourself as a cultural Jew? The old testament portrays the ancient Jews and their god as evil genocidal maniacs. Keep in mind I’m talking about someone who self identifies with Judaism, not just someone who comes from a family that is labeled as Jewish.

What if there were someone who thought that what the Nazis did was horrible and that Hitler was a bad person, but still considered himself a cultural Nazi? Although he doesn’t agree with with the Nazis, he still wears a swastika, celebrates Nazi victories, appreciates Nazi art, and makes a holiday of Hitler’s birthday. Obviously, there would be a stigma with this kind of association.

Ignoring the Godwin, let us consider the central point. The god of the First Testament* is a horrific character. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible notes three hundred ninety instances of cruelty and violence in the Torah alone. Not all can be attributed directly to YHWH, of course, but most are either his actions or the condoned--even commended--acts of his servants.

And that ignores the genocides of Joshua, the massacres of Judges, and YHWH's condemnation and destruction of Israel and Judah. All in all, the First Testament is a bloody, bloody book.

So why would anyone associate with it? Why aren't the Jews ashamed to be connected to such atrocities? It comes back to my earlier point: a religion is more than its holy books. The Torah may be the core of Judaism, but it does not stand alone; the Torah is viewed in light of the Talmud and rabbinic commentaries, in light of history and of changing understandings of God.

The fact is, barring a few extremists, most Jews do not feel bound by the Torah's commandments of genocide, do not believe the punishment a huge number of sins should be stoning. They see these in the light of a tradition that has grown beyond such things. Not being intimately connected to Orthodox Judaism, I do not know exactly how they view them, but I know that hardly any are a revelatory experience away from going on a murder spree.

And the god of the First Testament isn't as cruel as our society has come to see him. He commands that the alien in the land should be well-treated; that the poor not be oppressed (Deuteronomy 24:14-15), to take care when building houses so that they are safe (Deuteronomy 22:8); and repeated injunctions to care for the poor, needy, and oppressed. When Jesus commands to love thy neighbor, he is basing this on solid Torah ground. When Jesus says to help the poor, he is relying on the Torah. All the good stuff of the New Testament is linked to the Old.

So, when Jews identify as Jews, when gentiles convert to Judaism, they are not identifying just with the Torah, but with a history. A history that includes the Torah but is more than the Torah. Just as I identify as an American without liking everything about my country, a Jew can identify with Judaism without liking everything their religion.

The analogy isn't perfect, of course, as I have no choice but to be a member of a country, whereas a Jew (or Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) can chose not to identify with any religion. But religion is so intricately wound up with culture that saying people should not identify with one is like saying people shouldn't have a culture.

So, I don't think there's a problem with identifying with a religion with a history steeped in blood. Religion is a deeply personal thing, and there's no way of knowing from the outside why someone chooses their religion. So I say don't judge and save belligerence for times when religious people act like atheists are less than human, or invite debate.

*A term I have been advised is more culturally sensitive than "Old Testament" when discussing Judaism.

Conceptions of God: Pantheism

2011-06-12T13:42:00.000-07:00

As I understand it, pantheism posits that the universe is God; the physical matter and energy of the universe is properly considered divine. The idea that God is a world-soul is a similar idea called panentheism. I may write a separate post on panentheism in the future.

If the universe is God, that has certain implications. The first, I think, is that God is neither omnibenevolent nor malevolent. The universe can be a cold and heartless place. A world where smallpox is part of God is not one where God is perfectly good. This doesn't mean that God is not good at all, though. I believe many pantheists relate to God as a very good being. This isn't unjustified. The universe is a glorious place, filled with awe and splendor. Looking upon the universe, it is easy to feel a sense of connection to the divine. But at the same time, the terrors and horrors of the universe should not be ignored.

The second implication is one of holiness. In a universe that is God, all things are holy, all are sacred. I have difficulty with this, as I the concept of holiness I am most familiar with is the Hebrew one: קדושה or kedushah which connotates separateness. How can anything be separate in a world where everything is God? I think, if the concept can be salvaged at all, it is that we should remember the presence of God in all things, that all things should be special to us. I am not at all sure that this works though.

The third implication is that all things are connected. If the universe is God than every atom is a part of a far greater whole, everything you encounter is a reflection of another aspect of yourself. For if the universe is God, then we are, in some sense, aspects of God. Divisions are all ultimately false.

In terms of accepting this conception of God, it is both hard and easy. Easy because it requires very little in terms of faith or belief. Hard because, given that, there seems little reason to bother. The main difference between calling the universe "the universe" instead of "God" is one of connotation, perhaps a greater sense of connection or relationship.

What does it mean to pray in a pantheistic universe? Prayer becomes the part speaking the whole, but can the whole respond? If the universe is as governed by natural laws as it seems to be, probably not. So is prayer useful? Probably primarily for the prayer rather than the prayee (I am inclined to believe this is always the case, which I may discuss in a future post).

What does it mean to have a relationship with God? I think it means having a greater sense of connection to others, and to nature. To embrace fully living in the world and making an effort to deserve being part of something as glorious as the divine. It requires living not just a moral life, but an exemplary life, one worthy of an aspect of God.

Ultimately, is this conception one I can embrace? Perhaps. It certainly has its advantages from a purely practical standpoint, although the metaphysical grounding is, I think, a bit shaky. But it might be a wise way to think about the universe and my place in it.

Conceptions of God: Introduction

2011-06-04T16:53:00.000-07:00

I have decided to write a series of posts about different conceptions of the divine and my ability to relate to them. This will be a deeply personal, and rather paradoxical, undertaking. Until recently, I identified as an atheist. Now, I'm not so sure. I have come to feel that questions like "Does God* exist?" are the wrong sort of question. That they don't accurately assess the nature and reality of God. I will explore this further in this series.

As I said, until recently, I identified as an atheist, and I'd like to discuss why that was and why I no longer do. I became an atheist after ten years of being something of a Christian deist, with more emphasis on the "Christian" in the earlier years, more on the "deist" in later years. My conception of God became smaller for several reasons:

I concluded that God does not now intervene in human lives and the natural world, or if he did only in very small ways. I came to this conclusion both because I saw no evidence of such intervention, and because I could not imagine that God would intervene in my life tangibly when he was so clearly ignoring the sufferings of others who were beset by troubles far beyond my own. I will address this at greater length in a post on monotheism.
My belief in a soul and free will were challenged by a psychology class. The more I learned of just how driven we are by our brains, of how much brain damage can affect personality, the harder it became to believe in pure free will or a soul, both of which were deeply tied to my understanding of God.
I stopped believing in Hell. This isn't entirely true, emotionally I remained terrified of Hell, but intellectually, I could not reconcile a good god with perdition.

All this lead to a dwindling of God, but the final nail in the coffin was stumbling upon the writings of Robert G. Ingersoll. Ingersoll was a nineteenth-century orator who spoke passionately against the existence of God, the morality of the Bible, slavery, women's exploitation, and poverty. His speeches made believing in the god of the Bible untenable for me, and also showed me how little room there was for a creator-deity in a world run by natural forces.

And all this, to a considerable extent, I still believe. I find parts of biblical morality abhorrent, though I now believe it also has much to offer a spiritual seeker, and find the idea of a creator essentially superfluous.

So whence my sudden interest in God? Last year I went through a very rough period, which resulted, among other things, in my hospitalization. There, wanting someone to counsel me, I spoke to a chaplain. He told me that he believed people need something external to themselves to rely on, that we are too fallible to be our soul support, and that other people are also too fallible. So he, at least, needed God. At the time, I needed more support, too. And so I began to be interested in spirituality, in particular Zen Buddhism, which seemed to provide an avenue of having something to rely on that wasn't God (which I still found untenable): the dharma realm (I should note that I now believe the dharma realm to be a conception of the divine).

But meditation was unsatisfying to me, and I slowly abandoned it. That was when I began attending the local Reform synagogue. I already knew the rabbi, having taken classes from him earlier, and liked him. And I found the services enjoyable and uplifting. Participating in Judaism gave me a connection to part of my heritage, and made me feel in touch with millennia of tradition. I began to think of what it would mean to follow the mitzvot (commandments), of how Judaism might make me a better person. At first, I still rejected the idea of any sort of god utterly (Reform Judaism doesn't require that Jews believe in God), but merely attending services made cracks appear in that wall.

That was when I began exploring ways that the idea of God might make sense. The traditional theistic conception wouldn't do, but I began to realize that that was a limited conception. I read the writings of Bishop Spong, who argues that God is the ground of being and source of life, I watched Youtube videos on pantheism and panentheism. And I thought. A lot.

And that's what brings me here. Uncertain of the existence of the divine, but open to it. Curious to see if I can find something to stand on, spiritually speaking, and hopeful that I can. I am of course, aware, that wanting something to exist has no bearing on its existence, but I'm not sure existence has to be a property of the divine to be real. Spirituality is about paradoxes, not logic. Wish me luck!

*or "Do gods"

A Religion Is More Than Its Holy Books

2011-05-06T19:15:00.000-07:00

Ed Brayton of Dispatches from the Culture Wars recently put up a post asking whether the French ban on the burqa and niqab [ETA: and apparently the hijab, a headscarf] was appropriate.* But I don't want to discuss that here, I want to discuss what one commenter, Garnetstar, wrote:

The French might argue that women covering themselves is not a religious practice, but only a cultural one, and so can be made to conform to French culture and standards of gender equality. Veiling is not mentioned or commanded anywhere in the Koran. The horrific practices mentioned above are also just traditions, not religious practices.

This is correct. Only the wives (and daughters?) of Muhammad were required to veil; the custom was later picked up by most Muslim women. However, Garnetstar makes an assumption that I believe warrants examination: that something is not a religious practice if it is not commanded in that religion's holy book. Zie claims that because the veil is not a quranic command, it is a cultural rather than a religious obligation.

I disagree. In the first place, it is impossible to draw a line between religious and cultural practice. Religion is part of culture. It's not some strange thing superimposed on a culture, but part and parcel of its fabric. This is why you see cultural Catholics and Jews; although they may not longer believe in God, they still find value in the practices and ceremonies of the religion, as well as the cultural customs that grew around those ceremonies and practices.

In the second place, the idea that a religion can be boiled down to its essentials by looking at its holy texts displays massive cultural ignorance. Wicca has no holy text, does it have no essentials? Sikhism has a holy text (the Guru Granth Sahib), but it contains only prayers; completely absent is the central requirement that Sikhs never cut or shave their hair. Simply because the veil is not commanded in the Qur'an, and only dubiously required by the Sunna, does not mean it is not part of the religion.

So is, ultimately, the hijab or veil a religious practice? It would require a pretty convoluted argument to say no. It has become central to what it means to be a Muslim woman, even women who do not regularly wear it must don it when entering a mosque or masjid. If it is not a religious custom, it is hard to say what it would be, as it is so closely tied to Islam.

This isn't a problem limited to discussions of Islam, however. We also see it in Christianity when people try to deny that the Trinity is a central doctrine. It is true that the Trinity is completely absent from the New Testament, but that does not make it any less central to what it means to be Christian.

When deciding what a religion is and isn't, its holy texts may be a guide, but they are not definitive. What is definitive is the tradition and practices that have grown up around that holy text. Those, far more than ancient words, are the living and vibrant reality of the religion.

*it isn't

Being Respectfully Skeptical of the Divine

2011-05-03T19:53:00.001-07:00

My last blog entry got me thinking about how skeptics* such as myself, can respond to claims of experiencing the divine, especially if we want to engage in dialogue with non-skeptics. Here are some possibilities in decreasing order of skepticism:

We can outright deny the claim. Say the person who experienced the divine is lying or delusional. This is obviously problematic. Billions of people have claims of experiencing the divine, it seems unlikely that all are lying or deluded. Not impossible, certainly, but unlikely.
We can change the scope of the claim. Rather than deny it or fully accept it, we can say the person misinterpreted a subjective experience. They thought they were experiencing something outside of themselves, but were really simply experiencing something that was a product of their own mind. This is still problematic because if still implies the person is, to some extent, delusional. Such a view is not conducive to dialogue for that reason.
We can accept the claim, but deny that the experience was of something tangibly real or real outside of humanity. This is a bit complicated. What I mean to convey is that the divine may be something like love, stories, history, friendship, or ideas. These things are all real, but not tangibly so, and they have no existence apart from humanity.
We can keep an open mind and neither accept or reject the claim, but be as utterly agnostic on the question as possible. This is not entirely intellectually satisfying. It is also very difficult to be truly agnostic on any claim; it is almost inevitable that we will either believe or not believe any claim we hear (and this is true of other claims besides those relating to the divine).
We can accept the claim. This is the most conducive to dialogue, but harms our desire to be skeptical. It requires accepting something that seems to be impossible without any personal or objective evidence.

I am not sure which of these is the best solution, if any are. I would also be interested in hearing other ideas of how to respond to claims of the divine.

*There are people in the skeptic community who have experiences of the divine, I do not mean to deny their existence. I am using "skeptic" here to specifically refer to those who are skeptical about divine or supernatural matters.

G-spots and experiencing the divine

2011-05-02T15:42:00.000-07:00

Recently read this post by Joel Monka.

The existence of the G-spot has been debated for decades; the King's College study was no surprise for many doctors. "“I think this study proves the difference between popular science and biological or anatomical science,” said Gedis Grudzinskas, consultant gynaecologist at London Bridge hospital." The issue is the type of evidence used- on one side, the G-spot deniers, to whom the only acceptable evidence is that obtained with a scalpel and camera: “This is by far the biggest study ever carried out and it shows fairly conclusively that the idea of a G-spot is subjective.” Those who believe the G-spot exists have the evidence of their own senses- they can feel their own or have found their partner's G-spots. Listen to their arguments:

"It is rather irresponsible to claim the existence of an entity that has never really been proven..." "The plural of anecdote is not data." "And you're basically telling people that they aren't experiencing what they're experiencing -- just because it isn't how you experience it." "Personal experience is not, by itself, enough reason to believe something is true." "I don't want to stigmatise at all but I think the Protestant, liberal, Anglo-Saxon character means you are very pragmatic. There has to be a cause for everything, a gene for everything,...I think it's totalitarian." "To be reasonably certain that what our experience tells us is probably true, we need to rely on rigorous testing of hypotheses."

Essentially, Monka links disbelief in the G-spot to disbelief in God or the divine. For a variety of reasons, I think the study was flawed, but I'm not going to go into that, instead I want to focus on the analogy Monka draws. I think it's valid, but not quite. See, what the study showed was not that the G-spot didn't exist, but that it had no physical basis, that the experience of the G-spot was subjective, not objective. And we both think there's a clear parallel to be drawn here to the divine. Just as people experience the G-spot, Monka says, people experience the divine. And it's very condescending and othering to tell people that their experiences are not valid. That they are either lying about their experience or delusional. Experience of the G-spot, or the divine, is proof of its existence.

But I think there's another, slightly different possible interpretation: the G-spot is a subjective experience, not rooted in a specific material cause. Women still can have the G-spot experience, but that doesn't mean we can medically point to anything and say, "That's what caused it." Instead, it's a psychological phenomenon. And I think the divine may be like that, too. It may not objectively exist, but rather be something within our minds that we can tap into that creates the experience. It may not have an objective existence, any more than love, friendship, or war do. These things still can impact our lives and aren't unreal it. They just aren't real in the same sense that physical objects are.

A blaphemous song about Judas

2011-04-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

This song actually is blasphemous, it challenges the goodness of Jesus, suggests that his teachings were harmful, and presents Judas as the betrayed, not the betrayer. It's also much better than Lady Gaga's Judas (reviewed here).

The Forest of Shadows: What is Real?

2011-04-26T19:07:00.000-07:00

Walking through the Forest of Shadows is not like an ordinary walk through another forest. In other forests there is stability and organization; even the changing things change in accordance to rules. Here, nothing is ordered or stable. A walk eastward may bring you westward, if you are lucky. More likely, you will end up not moving at all.

What is real? Before, it was simple. Perceived things were real, thoughts were real, emotions were real. Dreams were not real, imagined things were not real, illusions were not real. Here, in the forest, a tree will fade from view the longer you look at it. From the corner of your eye you think you see a flower; look around, and it is gone.

Many have found deer or rabbit tracks, you may too, but you will never see a rabbit or deer. Does this mean there are no deer or rabbits? Perhaps not, but perhaps the tracks are simply part of the unreality of the forest.

Deep in the forest, there is a smooth lake; at night it perfectly reflects the moon, even on nights when there is no moon.

It is easy to believe that the forest is purely an illusion, it is hard to comprehend how any of it can be real. And yet, most of the travelers you meet in the forest will insist that at least parts of the forest are very real, perhaps even more real than the rest of the world. You may find talking to them frustrating, few will make reasoned arguments for the reality of the forest. Instead, they will point to the bracing air, the joy of stumbling upon a new clearing, the beauty of the leaves in autumn.

What is real? You are used to thinking that what you clearly perceive is real. But your fellow travelers have a different idea of reality. They say reality is the beautiful, the sublime. The echoes of birdsong, far more beautiful than birdsong beyond the forest, is more real than the cawing of ravens. This is said despite the fact, freely admitted, that there are no birds to be seen in the forest, and that their cries are only the faintest of echoes.

Tired, you rest on the forest floor, leaning against a tree until the tree becomes insubstantial. And you dream. In your dream, the forest is real, gloriously real, but even less logical than the forest while awake. A step may send you halfway around the world; a conversation may change substance, and speakers, in mid-sentence; trees grow and die before your eyes.

When you wake, you doubt your dream. Waking, a dream, so real while asleep, seems even less real than the forest. Things of the mind, you think, are less real than things of the body. Except, in the forest, that may not be the case. The memory of the sun warms you far better than the sun itself; you can climb a tree if you believe one is there even though you do not see or feel it.

What is real? The forest may be more real than anything else, it may not exist at all, or it may just be another part of the world. It would be nice to just experience the forest, but the unreality of it distracts you from staying in the moment.

Eventually, you decide to leave the forest. The mere decision changes it. The paths begin to twist and turn, the trees seem to reach down and snatch at your clothes. The forest, at first blush, seems to be trying to trap you. But a moment later, it seems quite the opposite. The trees thin out, the path straightens and broadens. You quickly find yourself at the forest's edge.

Leaving the forest, you quickly forget about it. It is easy to dismiss it all as a waking dream. The memory of the Forest of Shadows is itself a shadow. It fades away until it is gone. You will not visit it again.

What is real?

Is Lady Gaga's "Judas" blasphemous?

2011-04-25T00:03:00.000-07:00

Someone on a forum I frequent recently posed a question: is Lady Gaga's song "Judas" blasphemous? This was my response:

This is a tricky one. Lady Gaga is definitely trying to be provocative and offend Christians by using sexual language connected with Jesus and by stating her love for a figure associated in Christian tradition with evil.

Thing is, being provocative and offensive isn't blasphemy. Whether you're Ezekiel dining on a meal cooked over human dung, Jeremiah telling the leaders of the city that they will be destroyed like a pot, or a holy fool, the Christian tradition has a definite place for you. So being offensive isn't enough to be blasphemous.

Which brings us to an important questions: what is blasphemy? Blasphemy isn't just doing stuff that's forbidden by religious law: it must have a distinct component of defiling or denying something divine. Two men having sex isn't blasphemy, it's just a sin; it only becomes blasphemous if they do it in church, or have a priest perform the sacrament of marriage before doing it, or similar.

In other words, a Lady Gaga song can only be blasphemous if it has religious content. Which brings us to the case of "Judas." I agree with Vampirekid that Gaga is probably using the character of Judas as a metaphor for her boyfriend; this is not blasphemous. Comparing people to biblical figures has a long and rich history within the Christian tradition.

And if we look at what we see in the song, it's pretty standard stuff. The idea that Jesus would have forgiven Judas has biblical support (Luke 23:24). This is essentially a midrash on the existing text, extending Jesus' forgiveness of the Roman soldiers who put him on the cross to Judas.

There honestly isn't any material in the song that I think could be considered blasphemous.

Reflections on Spirituality: Results of my Exercise

2011-04-23T12:15:00.000-07:00

As I reported in my last reflection, I decided to undertake a visualization exercise to see if I could tap some inner spiritual resource. It went...oddly.

I found myself in a garden, a place I'm familiar with from other visualizations that I've done. I walked briskly through it, occasionally passing people, probably men, in suits, They walked by me quickly and we did not speak. I wandered up and down through the garden until I encountered a young man, about my height.

I. Who are you?

He. I am who I am.

I. Do you mean you're God?

He. I could be so considered.

I. But are you?

He. I am not what I am.

I. How do I find out more about you?

He. By going away from me.

And so on. I t was all very confusing and I learned very little. I have encountered this man before, and have tended to regard him as a reflection of my inner self. Whether that is true, I do not know. He has always been very enigmatic about himself, though occasionally helpful when I asked questions about myself. I am uncertain as to whether further explorations would be fruitful.

Reflections on Spirituality: Preparing for a Visualization

2011-04-23T12:04:00.000-07:00

On Emer d'Ange's advice, I'm going to attempt a visualization exercise to see if I can have a spiritual experience. I'm not sure what I want from this. If I experience the divine, it could potentially shatter my world. I don't know what the divine means to me. I can accept some sort of connecting force between people, on a not -entirely literal level, but anything more is outside my comfort zone. On the other hand, I feel a yearning for the divine, and want to experience it, even if that experience changes my worldview. Which means I don't really know what I want. I guess the best way to approach this is with an open mind.

Reflections on Spirituality: the Gospel According to Mark

2011-04-15T00:09:00.000-07:00

In Mark 10:33-34 Jesus foretells his death and resurrection. This always troubled me. What is the meaning of a sacrifice if you know it will not last? It also denies Jesus' humanity as men do not know their fates with with such certainty. So I found it difficult to find much spiritual meaning in Mark or the other Gospels.

Recently, I encountered a different interpretation of Mark 10:33-34. In this interpretation, not all of the sayings of Jesus are supposed to be read as occurring before his death. Rather, he is speaking as the risen Lord. With this new take Mark has some spiritual significance. Jesus is a man, afraid of death, but still willing to do his duty, even if his duty is to die a horrific death and go down to Sheol (Mark 14:36).

So great is Jesus' faith that, as he dies, he cries the opening words to Psalm 22: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” While this might seem a cry of despair, it is intended to evoke all of , which turns into a resounding cry of faith in the Lord and confidence that “posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, saying he has done it” (Psalms 22:30-31).

Relections on Spirituality: Spirituality

2011-02-20T21:15:00.000-08:00

What is spirituality and how can I connect to it? That is the fundamental question I will be trying to answer with this project. My search will involve meditations, readings, introspection, attending religious services, and other traditionally “spiritual” practices. I don't know what exactly I'm looking for.

Spirituality is one of the six basic human needs. The others are boundaries, socialization, physical self-care and exercise, intellectual fulfillment, and full emotional realization (sometimes described by the acronym B-SPIES). The other five I'm relatively secure as to both what they are and my ability to meet them. I lack this with spirituality. I don't feel a strong connection to things greater than myself. I don't even really know what is meant by “spirituality.” So I will be exploring and delving into my psyche and the works of others, into practices that are supposed to enhance spirituality, and trying to get a sense of it all through these reflections. My final reflection will echo this one: it will hopefully provide a working definition of spirituality, and give me some idea of how to express mine.

Don't serve tea

2010-12-06T14:06:00.000-08:00

One of the slogans or proverbs I was taught when learning how to sit zazen was "leave the front and back doors open, but don't serve tea." The idea is that thoughts arise during zazen, don't seek to prevent them, but also let them leave. Don't keep them around, don't engage them.

I struggle with this. It's very tempting to try to clamp down and expunge every thought as it arises. But I've found this is counterproductive. It just creates a new thought, a "clamping-down" thought, which I notice, and notice the noticing and end up engaging on some level, often simply by continuing to clamp down.

So keeping the front door open is a challenge. But so is not serving tea. I'm a thinker. My mind is in constant motion. Getting it to quiet is difficult, and my thoughts don't come in little spurts, but in chains that I seem to have little control over. Sometimes when I'm attempting to be mindful I can bypass a whole chain of thoughts simply by acknowledging where the chain is going, but in zazen, things are different. My thought chains have no real order or structure; I don't know where they're going, and they tend to loop.

Keeping the back door open isn't something I've thought much about. I suspect I'm not doing it, there doesn't seem to be anywhere for my thoughts to leave my mind.

Why I like Zen

2010-12-05T22:18:00.001-08:00

One of the lamps I'm currently toying with is Zen Buddhism. I've liked Zen ever since I first learned of it. I try to sit zazen daily, with varying success. There are several things about it that speak to me. I like the emphasis on pure practice over doctrine or rules (though there are rules. More on that later). There's an idea of bringing mindfulness into everyday life that I've found very effective when I do it. The concept of delusion as the belief that we are separate rings true with me. The dharma (teachings) of Zen often confuse me, but they do so in a way that provokes me to really think about things, which I think is always valuable

More aesthetically, I like how the zendo looks. I like the chants, the sutras, and the ceremonies. I find sitting zazen at the temple a very spiritual experience. The Zen community here is a friendly one, and I feel comfortable around them (though most are much older than me).

However, there is one area that I feel I'm lacking in with Zen. I don't really know much about the precepts or the paramitas. And I feel like I need to. I feel like I haven't been living an ethical life, and I want assistance in that. If anyone reading this knows of good resources on Zen ethics, please link them to me. I'll try to read and review them.

Gassho.

In Which I Introduce Myself (and sound very pretentious)

2010-12-05T22:09:00.001-08:00

I figured, largely on a whim, that I needed a blog. So I made one. I'm Leum, a twentysomething college student studying science with a fascination for the humanities on the side. I'm an atheist, but largely a friendly one, having spent way too much time studying theology (some of which isn't as ridiculous as you might think. I said some, please note) for the fun of it not to have some respect for religion.

I called my blog Stumbling in the Dark because I feel like that's what most of this part of my life is. I made some poor choices over the years that have lead me to be in a place I don't really like, and I'm trying to get out. With lots of tripping and stumbling. There isn't much to light the way on the path of life; I'm looking for a lamp.

I plan to blog about several things. My own searches for good lamps, science, religion, atheism, and literature will probably form the core of it, but we'll see how it develops. Please come over and say hello!