Maddow on North Carolina versus Atheists

December 15th, 2009

I’m glad that this issue has finally been elevated to the level of evening political news with Rachel Maddow. North Carolina is one of a handful of other states with active constitutional prohibitions that prohibit atheists from holding public office. This blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution (Article 6 and the First Amendment)1 by creating a religious test for public office has not been the focus of the news, probably because prior holders of public office in those states either lie about their beliefs (pandering to the heavy religious pressure of the Bible Belt) or are religious themselves. However, recently, critics of a new Asheville city council member Cecil Bothwell have threatened to try to remove him from office because he’s an atheist.

Here’s Maddow’s inquiry and discussion with ACLU North Carolina Legal Director Katherine Parker:

  1. Article 6 prohibits religious tests for public office and the First Amendment prohibits establishment (and it can be argued that by requiring state officials to be of a particular religion, the state is establishing a religious preference [<]

The Origin of the Universe

December 14th, 2009

Looks like the blog was down all weekend, and I lost 100 subscribers. Not a lot when you’ve got thousands, but I only had 150 or so. Not sure why the site was down, but I apologize.

Short book review of Simon Singh’s “Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe”

I recently finished reading Simon Singh’s excellent book, “Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe.” I learned quite a bit from the book, and, as I’ve told some friends, I think I learned more about chemistry and physics than I did in the years that I took courses in them. Learned in a deeper level of understanding sort of way, conceptually. That’s something major missing from high school and college education — the way everything fits together, introduced in a historical scale. Before anyone even takes an advanced math or science class, everyone should have to take a course in the origin of the universe, taught in Simon Singh’s narrative style.

The book got me excited about astronomy, physics, chemistry, and, surprising to me, the history and people behind the development of what I recall as a child being this new and amazing “discovery” that everything started with a “big bang.” I was surprised to learn that when I was a kid, this wasn’t new stuff, but had been a theory steadily gaining support for many decades, constantly urged on by advancements in technology and discoveries across a swath of scientific disciplines.

That last bit is what I think most fascinated me — we needed astronomers, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians to help explain our universe; defining the stars wasn’t relegated to the astronomers. Singh’s book helped me come to the realization that our common understanding of the universe and all within it derives from separate disciplines related by the fact that they’re all merely different ways of trying to perceive and translate those perceptions of the universe into something we can understand. Each person in the chain of history had an important role, but knowledge was built on the backs of their combined (and often independent) efforts.

Singh also spent some time describing how religion and unscientific thought kept holding back discoveries and realizations of what the real world was like, despite the fact that a good number of discoveries were made by clergymen. Almost surprisingly, Singh didn’t place the likes of Einstein on a superhuman pedestal of perfection. Einstein wasn’t always right, and Singh focused on the mistake that each scientific generation was wont to make — settling in with a comfortable idea about how things work and turning a dogmatic eye to new discoveries that challenge the status quo. Einstein was guilty of it (read the book to see how), and it took decades for him to recant. He was by far not the only one.

Consider the Ptolemaic point of view, carrying on the ancient assumption that there was something divinely perfect about the circle, so much so that it must, by that very nature, lie as the foundation of just about everything. Ptolemy tried to mathematically explain both how the Earth was at the center of the universe (another stubborn claim perpetuated by religion) and simultaneously how all the orbits of all the satellites of the Earth and other heavenly bodies must necessarily follow circular orbits.1

What he came up with was quite a mess. Instead of going for simplicity (as in, perhaps the Earth isn’t in the center, and perhaps circles aren’t all that), he added in complexity.

Ptolemy
(image from cset.mnsu.edu/pa)

What that image shows is how each major entity in the solar system had two orbits — one around the Earth, and another around its own orbit around the Earth. This invention satisfied those who, despite new discoveries and scientific doubts, wanted to keep the universe squeezed into a God-shaped box. The universe is a lot more complex than we originally imagined; for example, it’s not reduced to four elements. However, it’s also a lot more straightforward; when we discover something new that doesn’t conform to our prior notions, it quite often leads to a shift in thinking (what Singh explains is a “Paradigm Shift”) that explains the universe in a different, more accurate way.

As described in the book, even the most brilliant minds resist change, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn’t care what the most brilliant minds think. If we feed it new information, and the results show that it does not conform to previously held ideas, then either the data is wrong or the old ideas were wrong. Singh’s book, while laying out the amazing development and modification of the theories of the origin of the universe, is a thorough explanation of how science works, despite all the efforts of stubborn humans to have it their way.

If you have even the remotest interest in why we accept the “big bang” as the theory of the origin of our universe (in the same way that we accept evolution), I strongly urge you to read “Big Bang.” If you’re afraid that the math and science will be beyond your comprehension, worry not; Singh’s style flows gently like a book of historical fiction, with a comfortable depth for the layperson. I didn’t once have to pull out a calculator. Of course, if you’re a scientist, you might find the math and science in the book to be beneath you, but the rich history, introduction to (or reminder of) the cast of characters involved, and the lesson in humility should appeal to anyone.

  1. This was in an effort to explain why Mars appeared to move backwards (retrograde motion) during part of its orbit “around Earth.” See Geocentric Perspective by Robert A. Hatch. Although the Ptolemaic model was imperfect in some ways (one being its non-reality), it did explain the behaviors of the solar system bodies better than any previous model, and more accurately. What science does in our favor is to take new data and destroy old ideas, no matter how nicely they appeared and no matter how staunchly they were protected by the men who clung to them. [<]

Re: U.S. Backing the Ugandan Gayhunt

December 4th, 2009

Rachel Maddow again has gathered more information about the US influence over Uganda’s human rights violations manifest in its newest proposed legislation to imprison or execute homosexuals.

I’ve said this before, but I think it’s appropriate again: I think the parents of those who preach abstinence should have practiced it.

Kill the Gays

December 3rd, 2009

Rachel Maddow’s take yesterday on Uganda’s bill meant to imprison or kill people engaging in, attempting to engage in, or knowing someone who engages in (but not reporting it) homosexuality:

I bet there are a lot more string-pullers over here than we’ll ever discover.

Be The Change

November 11th, 2009

bethechange Book review: Be The Change — How Meditation Can Transform You and the World, by Ed and Deb Shapiro

I tend to see the “Self-Help” and “New Age” sections of the book store to be redundant. Both appear to proffer a variety of methods by which readers may allegedly improve their lives, and the methodology is based either on mysticism or disguised pragmatism.

‘Be The Change’ is a book that I could see being found in either section, but something that seems to set it apart from most of its neighbors is that instead of focusing entirely on helping the reader, it has as a goal to improve the world in general. The premise is that meditation can change you and the world.

But what is meditation? Surprisingly, this book on meditation doesn’t come right out and tell the reader. This fact had two effects upon me. First was frustration. Why am I reading a book about meditation that doesn’t start off by telling me exactly what the authors think meditation is? Second was enlightenment. The authors are indirectly telling me that it’s not quite that easy to define meditation — the anecdotes told by the myriad contributors go a long way to show that although meditation is somewhat tangible as a concept, it’s still very subjective and personal. I wasn’t getting an easy answer, but instead of throwing the book down in frustration, I tried to analyze the collected thoughts of the authors and contributors.

Be The Change was written by Ed and Deb Shapiro, who, according to their website, have authored sixteen books on personal development, meditation and social action, and who have led meditation retreats and personal development programs worldwide for over 25 years.1 The book’s personal foreword was written by HH The Dalai Lama, and enhanced greatly by contributions from dozens of famous and influential people who have all had a variety of experiences with meditation. Although the book’s format is quite unlike reading an instruction manual, the personal contributions are interesting and thoughtful — the book could nearly rest on the contributions alone and still be a worthy read (note that there are certainly samples of religious contributors, but plenty of non-religious, spiritual, and overall peace-loving contributors to add balance).

The skeptic in me suggested that something so subjective and undefined as meditation couldn’t be as influential as advertised. The standard fare for self-help and new age seems to involve one of two fundamental components — magic or pragmatism. Authors often twist these into shapes that appear novel and exciting for readers who are on the lookout for the next great thing to help them along some personal path. But when those how-to books are examined, and the facade stripped away, all that’s left is either a skeletal message of “just do what makes sense and you’ll be fine,” or “this is about as reliable as coin-flipping, but at least you got to light some candles and chant some freaky words, right?”

With that as a basis for comparison, why should I think that meditation is any different than what boils down to mere “resting for recovery of the mind and body, a logical and pragmatic thing we all do in sleep anyway”? The book seems to challenge that notion, suggesting that meditation is not just a basic function hyped up for eager audiences, but, instead, it’s a source for clarity and personal insight that can have a positive effect on the world around us. One of contributor Ed Begley, Jr.’s comments expands on that notion:

Although we are not going to solve all the problems by just sitting on the side of a hill or by spinning a prayer wheel, we also have to be still and centered so we can act with clarity. In other words, in order to do this work, we need to have an inner resource we can always come back to. If we do not have quiet time, we will get too burnt out to be able to clean up the rivers or save the whales. We have to sit still and recharge. We have to be in the moment as it is happening, and we cannot do that if we do not have meditation as a resource.2

When my skepticism kicks in with a response like, “Well, that can’t possibly apply to everyone who is doing good in the world, for many of them get along just fine without meditation,” my guess is that meditation “apologists” would respond, “We’re not talking about meditation necessarily in the form of sitting down, cross-legged, humming or chanting for hours on end; meditation can take many forms, and fundamentally it’s about self-reflection, clarification, and contemplation.”

I, in turn, wonder whether, then, if meditation isn’t just another fundamental form of pragmatism, but one that transcends aspects of life so much that just about anything can be referred to as meditation. For example, a dancer who gets into a “zone” while dancing may not personally believe he or she is “meditating,” but ‘Be The Change’ suggests3 that dancing can be meditative.

The Shapiros nearly answer my question in their second chapter, So What Is Meditation?

Meditation has been associated with everything from affirming ourselves as thin/rich/in love to visualizing ourselves bathed in white light to sitting cross-legged with closed eyes and doing nothing but contemplating our own navel. Yet meditation is none of these. Rather, it covers a vast arena of experiences and activities, including opening our heart to all beings, realize the truth and becoming free, counting our breaths, gazing at the flame of a candle, intoning different sounds, or moving rhythmically…. In other words, it is both an experience and a practice — an experience of oneness, of being with who we really are, as well as the practice that enables us to be in this state.4

That statement is both revealing and misleading. I don’t think the authors are trying to say that sitting cross-legged while thinking self-affirming thoughts is “absolutely not meditation,” but instead that doing so doesn’t cover the gambit of meditation — it’s not the embodiment of meditation, since meditation includes so many different things, fundamentally being some sort of mental connective experience combined with whatever physical method is necessary to achieve that state.

Although I don’t agree with a number of the contributor quotes, there are so many different points of view that I found it to be more like reading different perspectives about life, so that even though I might not be able to perceive it in the same way, I can respect the thoughts of those who are experiencing it right along side me.

This isn’t really a comprehensive meditation ‘how to’ book. It provides a few basic techniques, plus insight into areas that I had not previously considered as fitting for “meditation,” such as while running, dancing, and writing. Despite the fact that by doing so, the book implies that meditation is anything and everything as long as you can pin the “meditation” label upon it, the concept of searching for a meditative state in an activity that is not stereotypically meditative is unique (for me) and has offered me something to try on my own.

So, can meditation change me and the world? Absolutely. If through meditation I am more clear, less distracted, focused, and can achieve some sort of greater connection to my inner self (where I believe most people have a common set of higher moral principles), then I, as a member of the world, have improved it, have changed it. If others do the same, we collectively improve and change it. Is ‘Be The Change’ the key component in accomplishing such a feat? No, but it’s certainly an interesting book that may help to guide those who know nothing about meditation or who are curious and want to learn more. Just be sure to approach the book with the knowledge that it is primarily anecdotal, with clarifying insights by two longtime practitioners, and not everything in it should be taken as objective fact. (For example, the book is full of statements like, “Meditation accomplishes X,” where a more factual and unbiased approach would be, “Meditation can accomplish X.”)

In any event, I think meditation is certainly worth a shot, and I plan to try some different methods and try to visualize meditation with different points of view based on my reading of the book. It’s already gotten me thinking about things I’d like to try, and considering my general skepticism, I think that says something about the quality of the book and the revelations of the authors and contributors.

  1. http://www.edanddebshapiro.com/about-us/ [<]
  2. p.197 [<]
  3. pp.321-323 [<]
  4. pp. 15-16 [<]