Sunday Food for Thought: The Need for Gods

The week before last, Bill Moyers interviewed Robert Wright, author of the new book, The Evolution of God (which I haven't yet read).

It was an interesting discussion but what stood out for me, as an atheist buddhist (yes, there are such creatures), was this exchange:

BILL MOYERS: But you're not saying that one has to be religious to be moral?

ROBERT WRIGHT: I'm absolutely not. I'm absolutely not. One of my own closer contacts with, I would say, a form of consciousness that's closer to the truth than everyday consciousness, came at a Buddhist meditation center. These were essentially secular Buddhists and that was the context of the experience.

But through the meditative practice performed intensively for a week. No contact with the outside world. No speaking. Five and a half hours of sitting meditation a day. Five and a half hours of walking meditation a day. I reached a state of consciousness that I think is closer to the truth about things than the form of consciousness that is kind of natural for human beings.

BILL MOYERS: Was it a consciousness that had an ethical and moral issue in it or was it a state of being? A state of simple acceptance?

ROBERT WRIGHT: Well, it absolutely had ethical implications because it involved much broader acceptance of other beings and it involved being less judgmental of other beings. I mean it reached almost ridiculous extremes. Look looking down at weeds and thinking, "I can't believe I've been killing those things. They're actually as pretty as the grass. Prettier."

But in the realm of humanity, I mean I was just by the end being very much less judgmental about just people I would see on the street.

And I would just my focus moved away from myself. And I think that is movement toward the truth. I mean the basic illusion natural selection builds into all of us is that we are special. You know, that's obviously something if you were natural selection you'd want to build into animals, right?

Because that's how you get them to take care of their own and get their genes into the next generation. But it really is an illusion and it's more fraught with ethical implications than we realize, I think. I mean it just suddenly blinds us to the truth about people I think.

BILL MOYERS: I do find more people like you who are seeking a spiritual practice without a governing deity presiding over it.

ROBERT WRIGHT: Yeah. It seems to work. Now these people, they do though, even these secular Buddhists I would say, they do believe in a transcendent source of meaning. They believe that there's something out there that is the moral truth and that they are aligning themselves with.

Secular perspective that doesn't not involve belief in anything that you might call transcendent, although that's a very tricky word.

My reaction was: why the need for a God figure then? Why isn't it enough to be able to look inside yourself and to see the "truth", as Wright experienced it?

I was also reminded of the concept in this quote by Alan Watts:

"To see the moon, you must forget the pointing finger, and simply look at the moon."

And , if you have the time and the inclination, I'd suggest reading his Lecture on Zen which expands on that quote and this idea that we need something beyond ourselves - some authority figure - some doctrine - in order to live a satisfying, complete life.

In the western world, although we like to think of ourselves as being much more free than foreign societies with their strange traditions and religions, we are still so undeniably bound to paternalism, dogma and conformity. Yet we somehow believe that our version of "freedom" is far superior. How free are we? Really? And why do we continue to support political and religious systems whose main aims are to tamp down that freedom in our lives?

I don't know if there's a "God gene". But I do know that when we willingly restrict ourselves by only holding onto whatever the conventional so-called wisdom of the day is while not examining how that only serves the power structures we have been taught are so absolutely necessary to our well-being (see this book by Alice Miller for an insightful look into the results of that), we only end up giving up whatever it is in each of us that could truly set us free.
 

Obama and "the Muslim world"

For weeks, the press has been previewing "Obama's speech to the Muslim world". Where is that world, exactly?

I've checked maps and even a small globe - nope - no "Muslim world".

Maybe it's somewhere near the Christian world, the Hindu world, the Buddhist world or the Jewish world because I couldn't find any of those either.

If Obama's speech was meant to reach the largest number of Muslims in one country, self-admittedly he should have stayed home.

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

Hmmm...according to the CIA Factbook there are fewer Muslims in the US than Buddhists - a whopping 0.6%. (The state department begs to differ.)

And did you know that "only 15% of Muslims are Arab"?

So, why is Obama in Egypt reaching out to "the Muslim world" again?

And while he's doing that is it too much to ask that he actually tell the truth?

Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.

America is very much "the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire" and until Obama grasps that fact, what's the point of trying to convince anybody else of his intentions?

It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Says the man for whom the Afghanistan war has now become a war of choice in which the Pentagon always immediately and steadfastly denies the killing of civilians yet is forced to admit the truth when it can no longer be covered up. The latest example: US military admits errors in air strikes that killed scores of Afghan civilians.

That's scores.

140 dead civilians.

Now, what was it Obama just said about cowardice? And exactly how does he expect to win the hearts and minds of Afghans and the so-called "Muslim world" again?

And after providing the same old lip service to the long-dead Middle East "road map" (does he really think Netanyahu will ever concede anything?), continuing on with the things he must talk about while he's over there, he played these word games:

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Now, what kind of response can a realist have to that rhetoric beyond a simple "get real"?

Shorter Obama:

1. No nation can say who should have nuclear weapons.
2. The US says nobody should have nuclear weapons.
3. Iran must comply with the NNPT. India, Israel, and Pakistan (which already have nuclear weapons)? Not so much. (And raise your hand if you really believe the US will ever get rid of its nukes...)

Ergo, if I lived in the elusive "Muslim world", I'd be more than a bit skeptical when it's quite obvious that words still trump deeds in Middle Eastern affairs and how they're still being dealt with by the US government.

Lastly, I don't think I need to detail the obvious contradictions in this bit of flourish compared to Obama's record since he became president. (For those who remain clueless, simply read the writings of Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Glen Ford, Tom Englehardt, Andy Worthington and so many others if you're ready to give up this kind of adolescent girl-like fawning over Obama.)

No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

"True democracy" - has it ever existed in the United States according to that definition?

Stay tuned next week when Obama addresses the "Christian world" about violence against abortion providers and whoever else they might have their (gun) sights set on.

Or not.