Right and wrong exist independently of human opinion

Any truly eternal ethical laws would be independent of God.  What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong, and this applies to any divinities as well as to people.

This of course assumes that right and wrong exist as objective, real "things."  One is tempted to say they are analogous to ideas of beauty and ugliness, entirely in the eye of the beholder.  But beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder (while superficially this is so we have to recognize that beauty does have a deeper quality that outlasts cultures and fashions).

A better analogy might be right and wrong are analogous to truth and falsehood.  Even though people have varying ideas of what is true and what is not, we tend in the end to agree that truth and falsehood exist on their own independent of our opinions.

Don't confuse human ideas of right and wrong with real right and wrong.  Human ideas change and indeed seem to progress (slavery is not condemned as wrong), but in the end mankind has always known slavery was wrong, and just buried its head.  At least those who stopped to think objectively about it reached that conclusion.

Persistent religious belief

The number of serious Christians in China is estimated to be between 20 and 90 million.  Sorry for the imprecision in the number but that sort of thing in a country like China is hard to measure.  The actual number is probably on the higher side of this range (remember that China is a seriously big country).

These are mostly people in rural areas that have been Christian for generations and their descendants now moving to cities as part of China's overall planned urbanization, where they become more visible.  How have they persisted in spite of official condemnation and all sorts of discriminations?  The answer is easy: they indoctrinate their children, and no government in the world can defeat that short of breaking up families.

What you were taught as a child by your parents is almost certainly what you will believe, especially if it is done lovingly without brute force and consistently and with the parents setting a non-hypocritical example.  Those who do flirt with other belief systems in the vast majority of cases become lost sheep who experience the joy and peace of returning to the flock a decade or so later, all the time they experienced fear and guilt.

Those who don't return to the flock tend to develop hate for whatever they were indoctrinated into, and serious resentment over what was "done to them" as a child and the suffering this put them through until they were finally able to make a clean break. 

Thus religions and superstitions persist in spite of modern knowledge and rational thought.  It has to do with the way human beings are wired.

Indoctrinated belief vs. learned opinion

I like to make a distinction between "belief" and "opinion."  This kinda reflects ordinary usage but is also a bit technical.  One obtains a belief by being indoctrinated, generally in childhood but for some people this is possible at any age, while one gets an opinion by learning about it and becoming persuaded that the evidence is good enough to say it is probably true.

We aren't really consciously aware of our beliefs; we are about our opinions.  That is to say a belief is taken for granted, like the furniture you sit on in the living room, you rarely if ever actually notice its presence.  Opinions on the other hand tend to get scrutinized more often.  Beliefs are not questions and usually have aspects designed to prevent their being questioned, such as "faith" and guilt for doubting.  Most people however don't really need these crutches -- they believe out of habit and instinct, and in fact react with shock and anger when someone doubts or challenges them.  This is especially the case when they realize they are not able to defend the belief rationally but must resort to rationalization and logical fallacies and slogans.  (Of course the "realization" I mention is not conscious, but is only felt as what is called "cognitive dissonance.")

The ability to "believe" like that seem wired into us, something we evolved as animals, probably as a group coherence mechanism, and that has been supported by the fact that failure to believe has throughout history been a dangerous course.

Beliefs can be good and give us comfort and peace and even joy, but they often are delusions held in place by childhood indoctrination that divide mankind and have created the possibility if not the likelihood of our causing our own extinction.  They need to be identified, scrutinized, and then either converted to opinions or expunged.  That so few people do this is probably because it is so against the interests of religions and ideologies and governing institutions that it tends to be discouraged and suppressed.

Skepticism

To take an old joke from Oscar Wilde, skepticism is like society; it is downplayed by those who aren't for one reason or another, usually an inability or unwillingness to think honestly.

Enlightenment

Musings About Enlightenment 06/19/05

I think that much that parades itself as "being in touch with oneself," or "being in harmony with the universe," and so on, is air-headed. The concept of enlightenment as the end product of Buddha-hood probably is the same. To have "answers" come to one sitting under the Bod-ha tree, as the myth reports, is not credible to me.

We all have moments of realization – of mental lucidity, and sitting quietly as we mull problems increases the chances we will find answers. However, a conversion on the way to Damascus is to be seriously questioned. We should never fool ourselves into thinking that we, too, do not have the ability to be carried away with ourselves.

Ignorance is one thing. We all are ignorant about most things and unfortunately tend to hide this from ourselves. We are all children trying to figure out the thunder and thinking we know. The desire to know leads to the desire for enlightenment, but one does not achieve enlightenment without removing desire. (I don’t practice Zen. That paradox is enough for me).

I do have faith in reason. “All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal.” What is there in reason not to put faith in? Where we get in trouble is not when we are rational, but when we are not. I and almost everyone I know can see the syllogism, and has no difficulty agreeing that the conclusion “follows.” Where does this ability come from?

Oh, sure, the ability does give us a certain advantage over species who cannot reason things out, so if ability to reason is available, we can understand that natural selection would favor individuals who have it. However, that doesn’t explain where it comes from. I figure it comes from our spirit.

Karma is not supernatural or mysterious

There is nothing mysterious about karma.

Doing harm to others is like gambling; you may "win" short run, but in the long run you always lose.  The world is just simply built that way.

Vietnam's government

Since this blog intended at first to be mostly about Vietnam, and since there has been precious little about Vietnam in it, I think I will try to correct that a little now.

Vietnam is a free independent republic that tries and generally has good relations with everyone.  There aren't too many countries around like that.  It is mainly socialist, but with an active private market and has shown remarkable growth and prosperity over the last few years, so that living standards and other standards, such as education, health, transport, and so on, have improved markedly.

The biggest difference between Vietnam and most Western states is that it is a single-party state, with only one political party.  Over time this has evolved more and more into a meritocracy, where party membership goes to the educated and those who served well in the military, as well as those willing to do the extra work required.

I personally think this is the closest one can reasonably get to Plato's concept of the ideal state, although the selection is not made in childhood but from among adults.  Government decisions then follow, largely through consensus building.

Jainism

Westerners are not the only ones to have discovered atheism. Here is another case, Jainism, traditionally founded by Vardhaman Mahavira (about the same time as Buddhism was traditionally founded, although in both cases the tradition may be older).

I try here to provide a few of its teachings, with comparisons to Buddhism, but please be kind and forgive errors and important things I am not aware of – to be in a position to be accurate and complete in such things requires lifetimes of study.

1. The universe is neither created nor sustained by a supernatural being. It is without beginning or end and operates in accordance with natural law (Buddhism posits an uncaused and unknowable beginning to the universe, but agrees that all operates under natural law). I have been taught this and I suppose it is true, but one has to wonder in both cases if these traditions, until recently, had any firm idea of what natural law might be, or at least if they had a Baconian or similar sense of it.

2. Existence has two categories, mind and non-mind (some Buddhism tends to the idea that non-mind is a sub-category of mind).

3. The law of karma is a law of automatic cause and effect. Karma comes by non-violence (Buddhism also posits a law of karma, but sees it as both negative and positive; also, Buddhism sees all cause and effect as examples of karma – that is to say that often Buddhists see the cause and effect of classical physics as an example of karma too).

4. Karma leaves when there is violence, detachment, anger, pride, infatuation, greed, hatred, or craving (Buddhists see such behavior leading to the accumulation of negative karma, except for detachment, which is seen as desirable). It may be that there is a difference in the meaning of words here, with one group defining detachment as absence of compassion. Buddhists emphasize compassion but applied in a detached way

5. Attachment to material objects is the main cause of bondage and leads to greed and jealousy (Jains identify the problem as bondage, Buddhists as one of suffering).

6. There is no need for the rituals of the Vedas (Hinduism tends to insist that the world will fall apart if the rituals are not sustained).

7. There is no God or gods (Buddhists make no such assertions, seeing such matters as speculative).

8. The goal of life is liberation. (Buddhists call it enlightenment).

9. Vegetarianism is necessary. (Buddhists encourage vegetarianism).

It is likely that both Buddhism and Jainism and other subcontinent traditions come from the same extremely ancient root. This may be as far back as the ancient Indus Valley (Harrappa) cultures. While both traditions may have specific beginnings with particular founders, the very physical existence of these individuals cannot be proven and I am not willing to go so far as to say their existence is likely or unlikely (many scholars will say the existence of an important religious figure is “likely,” I tend to suspect to be friendly and maybe retain access). If these “founders” were real people they may also have been kernels of myth clusters around which the actual traditions later developed, or they shaped and modified existing tradition ― if would be difficult to say they founded them, since main ideas had already been around a long time.

Hinduism shares characteristics with Indo-European religions (especially pantheons of deities specializing in different aspects of existence) and seems to be therefore derived more from the Aryan invaders. Hinduism, however, does also share with the other two traditions the ideas of karma and rebirth, so we can discern that the Hindu tradition picked them up over the ages in India.

Even more on free will

A comment if I may about mites making choices.  For that matter elevators make choices.  You push button three and it goes to the third floor.  These things are called reflexes and natural selection programs them as well as do engineers.

Evidence that we are loaded with such reflexes, some of them amazingly complex in the range of behaviors available, is not valid that we don't have free will.

We are also sentient beings, meaning that we experience much of our existence, through senses and emotions, and natural selection has also used these phenomena to arrange for possible subtleties of choice beyond what is possible with programming that nevertheless are by no means free will.  The sudden powerful anger of a parent when their child is harmed is built into us by natural selection and serves us, or at least the progeny.  Behavior in such a state is not free will either, but a demonstration of that fact would not constitute proof that free will does not exist.

Our minds are not "things" (as the Buddhist points out) but process flows and they can make choices.  They are usually determined by things like past experience and personality and habit, but not always.  I think it takes someone with a little training in mindfulness (mind being aware of mind) to see that it is indeed possible to deliberately and willfully do things of our free will, even whim, if you will.

Atheist Buddhism

I go to Temple (Buddhist) and participate in the rituals and contribute to their charities.  As George Washington (a non-Christian deist) said, "attending church is something a gentleman does."  One nice thing about Temple as opposed to Church is you don't have to listen to sermons and you can do the various rituals or not as you please (some do require physical abilities beyond me at my age and weight).

Lots of atheists feel Buddhism is in the end a good thing so long as it doesn't take too many young men and turn them into navel starers (there are some who are better off in monasteries, at least for awhile).  I don't buy most of the Buddha stories but I do think we are reborn and that there is a non-materialist aspect to existence, and I think the philosophy about the root nature of our unhappiness and unease is close to the mark. 

Debunkers, skeptics, cynics, and believers

A "debunker" is someone who doubts some hairy story and actually goes to the effort of checking the assertions to see if they are factual or not.  Usually of course they are not.  I can see why believers don't like them and would censor them if they could.

A "skeptic" is just someone who doesn't accept unusual or exotic claims without damn good evidence.  They tend to be of a lazier sort than the debunkers and are prone to make logical arguments but leave it at that.  I think that tends to be where I am most of the time.  The religious types who have been indoctrinated, generally as children, don't like these at all, as they like their comfortable beliefs and don't want them doubted.

A "cynic" is a step beyond the skeptic and is in fact in some ways closer to the believer, especially when it comes to "official" versions of things, and as a result is prone to accept conspiracy theories that fit with their political views.

And then there are the legions of "believers" who rely on faith rather than evidence and reason.  A skeptic only has opinions, the others believe, and when cornered inevitably depend on their right to believe whatever, or on the tremendous virtue of having faith in the face of plain sense.

Unending free will debate

Well of course there is no soul; I keep forgetting that this is what Westerners think when you assert mind and body.  Out of body arises mind, but it has its own being, not as a thing but as a process -- the proverbial "chain of consciousness."  When we sit quietly (this is in fact a popular form of meditation) and "watch" ourselves (that can be misleading because what you are looking at is very recent short-term memories), we can see how the process flows.

Where or how free will arises I don't know, but I tend to take it as an assumption necessary for almost any philosophical knowledge and for any assumption of values.  Plus I am quite sure I can ascertain when I am mindfully exercising it and when, as is most of the time done for efficiency, I am just going with the flow.


I don't disagree with how what I say "sounds," especially to a materialist ear.  It is all inferential; I am persuaded I have the ability to exercise genuine choices, but of course it is impossible to prove that what I think has been an actual mindful choice on my part is not in reality just another aspect of my personalty that I don't notice, no matter how careful I am.  I really, truly find that too much of a stretch, that I am more aware of myself than that, but it remains a possibility.

Here is the rub: if we deny free will and assume some sort of determinism either by a deity or by mechanical processes, or maybe some sort of random choice at the quantum level (which would no more be free will than a classical deterministic process), then we enter a pointless universe and there is no point in even talking about it.  It's similar to the solipsist: there is no point having a discussion with such a person since only he or she exists and is in effect talking to itself.

Three take-aways:  first, I and most people think they have free will and we construct our society and most of our philosophy on that assumption, second, it is not hard to carry out introspective tests to convince oneself the mindful use of actual choice is possible, and, third, without free will as an operating assumption we only talk in circles.

Alternative medicine for the dying

I think someone who is dying and loves life will try all sorts of things the seem to have some sense to them.  Approved medicine tends to come first, followed by religion (prayer, going to temple, etc.) followed by the traditional medicines of the culture followed by practically anything people suggest or they themselves think up.

Cost and false hope and the potential of the treatments doing additional harm are the objections to these efforts, but sheesh just the western treatments which only defer death can bankrupt a family, and I see nothing wrong with hope -- even false hopes help in other ways, and surely we don't insist that regular accepted medical treatments don't also often do their own harm via side effects.

A bit more on free will and conscious choice

We often have discernible choices, but we must be mindful to be aware of them; otherwise we act out of habit or our desires.  Therefore free will is rarely utilized and more often than not our subconscious has already decided before we act.  I can deliberately and freely make my toe move, but if instead I think to my big toe, sometime shortly, move, then my subconscious actually does it.

The conscious we think of as a thing is really a self-perpetuating process not unlike a wave, although a good deal more complicated and with more inputs than just the energy of the rock thrown in the lake.

What is right and good

We each have to decide for ourselves what is right and good.  No one else can do it for us.  That doesn't mean there aren't standards we can apply, and we need to train ourselves in non-judgmentalism, mindfulness, compassion, awareness and understanding of the needs and delusions and compulsions of others, being aware but not judging them and of course first off is compassion and personal moral rectitude.

Free will

I have no problem with free will and think it is a necessary thing if there is to be judgment, responsibility and even purpose in life.

I don't have an omniscient deity in my thinking creating paradoxes, and I don't have a mechanistic universe winding itself down with inevitability either.

I doubt we exercise our ability to make free will choices most of the time; doing so requires mindful choice, and most people never even heard of the idea.  They just do what they do in accordance with their nature, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Psychic reading

A good "reader" can identify things about you that it is good for you to know.  I don't think it's magic, but just a skill some people have, sometimes learned, sometimes intuitive.  Once they have your main issues, their advice can be great.

The ability unfortunately includes the ability to be a fraud, pulling cons on people who will later say, "He [or she] must be genuine -- he knew things he couldn't possibly have known."

Of course they often make guesses, and certain guesses, like a recent loss, are very likely to be correct.  Then they assess how serious the loss was to you before proceeding.  Then, again, a wrong guess can also be covered in a myriad of ways, with something like, "What I mean is. . .."