Meditation and "inner peace"

I think I've finally understood what people mean when they talk about gaining inner peace or being in a meditative state. Unfortunately it really doesn't seem to be more than having most of your processing being done in the right hemisphere. The left hemisphere is all about the now and it is where one has a very well defined definition of where 'you' end. The right hemisphere is the non-singular input of all your senses, hence it is the 'one-with-the-universe' feeling. This is probably because you are not processing the information relative to your self identity (likes, dislikes etc).

I don't know for sure that I have ever been in the state they describe but I've never found it hard to be in the 'sensory-state' were you are just right-brain processing (or it feels like that). It's usually what I do to fall asleep. Well I'm sure "serious" mediators will say I haven't and without an fMRI I can't disagree. but if I am right it is a nice feeling but it definitely isn't what I would call bliss. It's a fun state, but I wouldn't want to live there. If you spend your whole life there (say you could do it) then you'd never live. It's literally like being in a vegetative state. Well if that's people's idea of a life goal it ain't for me!

Almost seeing truth

This was, I thought, a very nice and honest discussion by the Reverend. Two things pop up from this talk. The first is that he (and others like him) have at least acknowledged the big problems of a benevolent God. I was actually touched by his sincerity and thoughtfulness. There was an amount of honestly and intellectual rigor I am unaccustomed to hearing from religious people on religion. I can say I do feel for him and his problem. He really wants to believe, but the cognitive dissidence has clearly become disturbing to him and I feel empathy for his "loss" (loss in the sense of the loss of simple unthinking faith of a child in God).

Secondly, though, I found it intellectually interesting that he only makes the case for a God to believe in and worship. For instance, he could have concluded that there is a god who is very evil and once in a while induces some massive suffering on the world. Secondly, he could have postulated no god. At the end he comes very close, but never says it when he talks about a god which is simply the universe plus some supernatural stuff. I have always said atheism is not for everyone. It is harder than religious believe but it it intellectually honest. Still, I feel for him, the blissful ignorance of unthinking faith, once gone is almost impossible to restore.

Consumed in work

I was working on improving pieces of my code that does analysis one my data. I wanted to look up the function that takes the complex value of a number called cabs to see its specifics. I went to google and without thinking about it searched for cabs... I was completely oblivious to the fact that cabs is a common word! I was soo engrossed in my worked I didn't read cabs I was reading Complex abs (abs= shorthand for absolute value). Talk about tunnel vision.

From authority to reason: Francis Bacon

Learning about the the "Birth of the modern mind" was very interesting since in many ways this journey paralleled my own journey from theism to atheism, or more accurately from faith to reason. There were a few things that particularly struck me. The most astounding of which is how many modern people who discuss philosophy and science seem to have missed most or all of what Francis Bacon said with regard to authoritative knowledge (scripture) and what we now call science. This quote, even alone does the idea some justice:

"Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world."

He made the clear distinction between real knowledge and authoritatively dictated opinions. Today it is more obvious that authority is not a guarantee of wisdom (quote the Catholic church's view that the sexual abuse of children isn't really harmful to them!!!). But in the context of his world this was a great leap forward and some of the "great" philosophers still missed his point.

That brings me to the other notable item: the arguments these guys are making must be taken in context. Many times I hear people bring up various arguments made by some of the post-Renaissance philosophers as if it is a complete argument. Many well versed scientific naturalists see them as almost trivially silly. The problem is the arguments are out of context. It is hard, in a modern discussion with intelligent people, to bring up these arguments if the context is not clear to all. For instance when people talk about the fact that we are resigned to understand things in context of our cultural upbringing and thus cannot know "real" truth because it is tainted, they clearly do not understand how theories are built in modern science. they are referring to unnatural (natural being science) philosophical models. This is because the distinction between the physical universe and the perceived human world (the world filtered through the lens of your brain) are often still confused, even all these years after Plato.

Another common example is Pascal's wager. This often misunderstood piece of nonsense cannot be rehashed now a days in modestly educated settings. The wager, simply put says one is better of believing in a god since if then you either get infinite rewards if one exists or nothing if one doesn't, but if one doesn't believe one gets damnation or nothing so it is better to believe. While there are many logical fallacies here (if there are more gods others may get angry, god may not reward fake practitioners etc, just think of the same decision but where the god will punish the faithful... it's fun) he wrote it because he said he could not trust reason! So he was trying to give an argument, but not appealing to the readers reason. I know, I don't know what that means but it is emblematic, as I see it, of the modern philosophers who still think science can't know things or post-Renaissance philosophers who had mental brakes. He should just have said, atheism is hard, I believe in Christian god (he rejected the Muslim and Jewish god's as less likely than the Christian god). Then at least your faith rests on nothing so it can't be challenged by reality or reason.

Barak Obama's faith finding, silver lining?

Of course I want a secular president. An atheist preferably, but I'm content with a religious person who is secular. Barak Obama meets this criteria pretty well, but I was disappointed to hear that he will continue and expand(!) Bush's Faith based initiatives. I can see politically this is a good tactic but clearly it is bad secularism. Ok, that's my idealist rant, now let's get practicle.

This will help him win the white house so that is good since McCain has been a disappoinment since around 2006. Also Obama has put a clear caviate:

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxpayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

In one sense that isn't bad since, as we all know, the US is great for law suits. Anyone terminated due to their faith would get to sue and make headlines about how intolerant one of the religions was. Still I find this a small concillation to the departure from secularism. It has completely muted any excitement I had for his candidancy. If he will compromise on something as basic as secularism, he can't get my support (although he may get my vote since I vote in NY and I haven't read much about the libertarian candidate).

Question Dr Eddie

Often I get asked similar questions about my beliefs/worldview so I've decided to make this post to clear up my views.

1) Do I want everyone to be an atheist?
Simply put, it doesn't matter. While I am more comfortable knowing the people around me aren't acting to please imaginary people or whims, the fact that people have faith (Faith: belief without reason. Faith can never be shown to be wrong since it isn't based on anything) isn't the critical condition I am concerned with. What I am concerned with is whether people can think critically and objectively. While having faith can cloud people's critical thinking, it is not always the case. Therefore, I'd like everyone to be faithless, i.e. completely open minded since any of their beliefs can be shown/reasoned to be false. Most importantly, not all atheists are faithless, since some believe in esp, fortune telling etc despite the evidence.

2) Can science help the "human condition"?
Firstly, the "human condition" is what unnatural philosophers (theologians, marvelists or other non-reality based philosophers) use to describe the misery of human existance or the suffering humans experience and it is of great concern to their work. This question can be answered in a few ways depending on the stability of the person who's suffering one wants to alleviate.

Let's start with the barely stable people. If we define suffering as mental anguish caused by lack of food or resources, science already has. We have created more food than ever before but people keep procreating exponentially. We have also solved that, but it is a choice. So the "human condition" has been solved in this case. If the problem is more existential (like the desire for transcendence) we now can cultivate magic mushrooms and they can transcend whenever they want. Similarly any existential problem is a chemical imbalance in the brain and can thus be fixed by the insertion of the appropriate chemical. (This probably seems incredibly arrogant but recall mythical experiences have been duplicated many ways using these drugs and targeted brain activation so even if it is "real" it can be duplicated and people will feel better.)

For the more stable people the answer is more interesting. Science humbles us by showing us we live no where in particular in a vast and uncaring universe. We are a tiny blip in the cosmic story not even likely worthy, so far, of a mention as long as "harmless." But our very current existance is a testament to our ancestors, inventiveness, cunning and perseverance. We are the last of all the hominid species on earth and have populated every corner of the globe! Science shows us how interrelated we all are, both environmentally and genetically. Most importantly it explains (to different degrees as time goes by) WHY we have these conditions. Science has started to answer question such as what is happiness and what is consciousness. While there is still much to learn, I fail to see how one cannot be comforted to know the following:
i) In the future more will be known giving us more control over ourselves,
ii) Our problems/imperfections had their place and where beneficial at one time,
iii) Our behavior and responses are tied meaning we can modify ourselves as desired.
While some may squawk at the futurisms, looking back 50-100 years at what was known about the brain compared with today and look at the impact we are having just with the relatively new treatments. In the end science offers the golden promise: Your children will be healthier than you. After millions of years of trial and error we now can actually save our children (pre-industrial societies had an 80% mortality rate for children under 5).

3) Without God there is no purpose?
In an absolute sense this is true. A god gives a useful yard stick for evil/perfection/purpose/etc. The very definition of the word pupose changes meaning without a god. Since there is no absolute human standard, purpose becomes subjective. I feel this is incredibly liberating. The answer to what is the meaning of life is then: whatever you want it to be! One is free to make it your children, your pets, your world or even your thoughts! Your life is an open ended journey, not a destination. Now those who like being told what to do will not like this and will therefore be more inclided to religion or other faith system.

4) Why get up if there is no god and no afterlife?
Simple, this is all you have so make the most of it. The big secret is simple: life has no inherent meaning. Life, like a blank piece of paper is what you make of it. The fact that has no inherit purpose is liberating, although I'll admit it may be too imposing for many since it takes a strong will to make one's own destiny and not just follow the other sheep. Since there is no afterlife, life itself has infinite value since it is irreplaceable (this is why killing for atheists is a definite no no) and must be savored as if it were the last piece of cake in existance! There are no seconds so make the most of it.