Religion, Faith, Belief, And Understanding

I'll start this post by opening a can of worms: What is religion?

There are many, many answers to that question. Some say that religion is a social construct. Others say that it is a system used to control a populace (Marx's "the opiate of the masses"). Others say that it is a mystical union with the Divine. Others say that it is a narrow way, a union only with a specific Divinity. Others say that it is an outdated remnant of our evolution. Others don't care what it is, and others don't know. What is a person to do when confronted by so many different - and often conflicting - viewpoints?

The term "religion" supposedly originates from the Latin term "re-ligare", or "to reconnect, to rebind"; a more free-form translation may be "to re-unite". This brings up the idea that we are somehow separate from something which we should not be, and that religion is a system of practices to reunite us with that thing. Many people interpret the Sanskrit word "yoga" the same way: to reunite, to re-yoke. The biggest and most problematic issues arise when people start trying to define the "thing" from which we are separated.

I've personally been through many states with regard to religion. I was raised in an agnostic household; my parents didn't really care about religion, faith, or God. In my teens, I became an atheist of my own accord, arguing against the existence of any deity. In my late teens, I converted to Christianity and remained there for about 12 years; in this tradition, I was training to be clergy. After a serious tragedy in which I didn't feel that my religion had given me the support I needed, I became an atheist again. A few years later, I realized that I may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and I have since returned to an open mind concerning religious matters. I now believe that there may be a deity or deities, or there may be nothing, or there may be an amorphous, unconscious "greater state" which creates, sustains, and destroys the universe. None of my beliefs are deep-seated at this point, as I'm not yet sure of anything.

I do, though, hold one deep-seated belief: human beings need religion. They need faith, community, belief, ritual, and most of all, understanding. Religion isn't about gods or prophets or enlightenment or salvation; religion is about understanding. Human beings want to understand the universe around them. They want to understand themselves, and their relationships between themselves and their environment and other human beings. This is the basic abstract goal of any religion, belief system, and/or on the planet: understanding.

Why do people get so upset when their religion is attacked or insulted? They become upset because they believe that they will lose understanding, that they will be cast back into the darkness of ignorance. They want to know. It's a very strong drive, almost as strong as pure survival, so they fight back.

Which religion you follow hardly matters (yes, there are a few bad apples; with a little research, they fall by the wayside very easily). What matters is that you desire understanding and that you approach your religion/belief system/faith with an open mind and an open heart. You must also be open-minded with regards to others who may disagree with you. If you believe that the main goal for all of this is "understanding", then you have gone a long way towards getting along with your fellow humans, your environment, and your self.

Understand your religion/belief system/faith. Understand yourself. And understand others. These are the tenets of every religion on the planet. They just all word them differently and drape them with different clothes, languages, texts, and rituals.

You Own Nothing

We come into existence naked and with empty hands. We leave naked and with empty hands. Possessions are only possible between the two events, during the state we term "life". Our natural state is naked and with empty hands.

Yet, we never really own anything, even if we possess it. You work, and your employer writes you a check. You take the check to the bank. Any number of things can happen here:

• The check clears and the money is "in your account", yet you do not possess it.
• The check doesn't clear, as the employer doesn't possess enough money.
• The employer's bank refuses to honor the check for some reason, even though they possess the funds to do so.
• The economy crashes between the time you leave work with your check and the time you get to the bank. No one possesses any worthwhile money.

As you can see, you really don't possess your money. Your employer, your bank, the economy overall - they possess your money. And society is the 800-pound gorilla, so if you want to possess your money yet society doesn't want you to possess it, you won't.

People make up excuses, thinking they are smart or clever or are being protective. What they are really doing is making it more difficult to live as a human being.

This post is spurred on by an experience with my credit union today. I deposited money in there yesterday. I had money in there already, so it was money+money. Today, my account shows $0 available even though the actual balance is over $70. No, I don't have outstanding checks or transactions that would do that. The credit union, or the credit union's computer, or someone at the credit union decided that my labor was worth $0, so that's what my account reflects. It's an insult, and they will hear about it.

Humanity's "Progress": Creativity, Tools, or Sheer Population?

Picture progress' progress over, say, the past 500 years. Without computers, we did amazing things. With computers, we've done more amazing things. But, how much progress is due to technology, and how much is due to individual creativity, and how much is due to the pure number of humans increasing?

Meaning: Leonardo da Vinci thought, drew, painted, and built amazing things. One guy, without a computer. Radio and television were developed, as well as computers, using vacuum tubes and slide rules. The first successful small computers were built in garages and small, run-down warehouses, by very few people.

But, find things that are coming out now: biotech, software, whatever. In many cases, it's not "just one person" doing it, but a team or a company, or a country. Is that due to sheer numbers of people being thrown at the problem? Are we becoming more stupid because we each, individually, have to give less to have a project succeed when there are multitudes working on it?

Maybe we need to return to slide rules and hand-mixed paints, and using our own minds instead of computers.

Formality Isn't Just a Formality

In the United States, people often downplay the importance of ritual. It is looked at as haughty, unimportant, and/or repetitive. What people don't realize is that ritual is a vitally important part of how we interact with ourselves, with others, and with the universe around us.

Rituals have many purposes. They can help one focus on an object. They can teach. And they can bring people together to celebrate an event, whether present, past, or future. They do all these things and more, yet modern Americans don't see their power. I believe this stems from the fact that the United States was formed by a non-ritualistic group of religious fanatics. Their influences still affect us down to the present day.

I recently heard of a wedding where the groom wore blue jeans. This is a perfect example of how someone doesn't take a serious ritual seriously. He may have thought, "Oh, this is all pomp and circumstance. No matter, we are still married.", or "This ritual means nothing; it is our love which is important." Both of these things are true, but neither abrogates the importance of the ritual itself, both to its participants and its spectators. I would go so far as to say that he disrespected himself, his new wife, and their marriage by his actions; his clothing reflected the state of his mind. I wonder if they will remain married.

Human beings are hard-wired for ritual. We do better when we have a bit of order to which we can cling — but not too much. Rituals should be performed with all of one's energy, which will be directed towards the purpose of the ritual itself. Then, the ritual's purpose will manifest into something stronger than if someone "just does it". Yet, these days, everyone "just does it". Proof abounds of the failure of such an approach. Look around you.

We are allowing magic, strength, companionship, bonds, and emotion to flow out of our regular direct experience, and we are the worse off for it.

No, No, No - That Can't Be It

A meteorite fell near a small Peruvian village this past weekend. The residents reported headaches, dizziness, nausea, and other physical symptoms, which they blamed on the object. Before a single scientist had been there to research what happened, there were plenty of "scientists" saying that the villagers were wrong, and that the meteorite couldn't have possibly sickened them, no way, no how! Then they called the villagers liars, saying it was psychosomatic sickness, or maybe that it wasn't a meteorite at all but a geyser of some sort which belched sulfurous fumes and that the villagers just think they saw a bright streak in the sky beforehand and heard sonic booms and crackling. And, if it was a meteorite, it had to be metal, and there couldn't be gas in a metal meteorite, no way, no how, the "scientists" belched.

Now, real scientists have been there. It was a rocky meteorite, just like the villagers said. Doctors still see no evidence of sickness, but they took tissue samples to check for contamination of some sort.

Why do people rush to judgement, especially so-called "scientists"? Why does the news report shit like that? And, why can't people get over the idea that it is possible that things fall on the Earth all the time, and they can contain various compounds, and that those compounds can have an effect, from causing a pretty streak in the sky, to sickening plants and animals, to helping create life?

Frankly, when I first read the article, I was hoping for some strange bacteria or virus that sickened the villagers. That would have been proof of extraterrestrial life. But, alas, we get gas instead.

Work vs. Life

(This post was edited 6 Sept, 11:17MDT, adding the bit about Ray Jenkins and my dad.)

Yesterday, I saw a posting on Lifehacker that pointed to a Wired article that suggested ways for people to "put your vacation behind you and successfully re-enter the workplace". They say that "your mind needs to adjust to a world in which responsibility and discipline are important parts of daily operation". Of all the comments, I was the only person who said anything other than, "Yes! This is helpful!" I wrote:

Instead of "getting back into work mode", why don't people spend a bit of time trying to discover why they need to get back into "work mode"? I've had "vacation hangovers", and they have helped me to question the entire system. Maybe others should do the same. Vacations don't have to be "respite from work". Instead, we can mold our lives into something that is a mix of "work" and "vacation", something pleasant and which is worth waking up every day.

How we as a society are functioning at the moment isn't "the only way". There are other options, and they could very well be "better", more sustainable, and more enjoyable.

There are so many assumptions and misrepresentations of real life in these few words that it's pretty amazing. First, why the dichotomy of "work sucks, vacation is great"? It's not true. Doing what you love and making your livelihood from it is rewarding and fulfilling, and vacations can often be stressful times full of disaster. My suggestion: life as you wish, doing what you love, in concert with the universe, and you won't need "vacation"; your entire life will be wonderful.

Another issue is the idea that responsibility and discipline aren't part of life other that "at work". This is a major societal problem in the United States. Everyone thinks that you bust your ass for work, then fuck off completely in your spare time. There is no balance in that approach, and it only benefits the corporations and those who run them. The people are basically slaves, unfulfilled, worked to death, and with no real purpose. That is a form of existence, but it's not any kind of a life.

One example of not using your "non-work time" in a fulfilling manner is in an article from the Burlington Free Press about Ray Jenkins, the United States' oldest "worker". Ray says, "I can't sit quiet and do nothing. I've got to keep going. Keeps your mind occupied. If you don't keep busy, forget it." My dad was the same way. When he retired from a job of 30+ years, he sat at home, having no clue what to do with himself. He tried a few things, but eventually found another job at a similar company to keep himself occupied. He didn't know how else to spend his time but "to work".

And what disgusted me more than the fact that the article exists (and was referenced) in the first place? It was probably the fact that all of the other comments to the post and article were so deeply embedded into the system that they couldn't see anything wrong. One person wrote, "vaaaycaayshun? Never heard that word before... oh right that's where my owner goes 3-5 times a year..." Another commenter is more blunt: "people have time for vacations?" Or take this simple advice that probably underlies every comment but mine: "like Nike...just do it" No one other than me suggested anything other than "get back to work and forget your vacation".

What a sad state in which our society finds itself, where people think they must do boring and unfulfilling things for 50 weeks out of the year, then take 2 weeks to do nothing important only to return to unfulfilling things and forget the 2 weeks ever happened! We would be better of if we were formally slaves, knowing our part. This giant lie of "freedom" is truly soul-destroying.

Proximity breeds difficulty

Why do people spend incredible amounts of energy on the inhuman atrocities in Darfur, yet completely ignore issues closer to home, or even in their own minds? "Fix that, over there!", they yell, holding up a protest sign and sending a few bucks to some charity. Yet, when confronted with the disaster which is American politics, or local homelessness, or local food banks needing money, they ignore them or even get angry that they exist.

The closer the problem, the more difficult the solution. It's like steering a car. If you are on a highway that lightly curves to one side, it's fine. Yet, if you were going 55 miles per hour in a residential street and then had to navigate a 90-degree turn immediately, it's a lot of effort.

So, how can one ever solve any "proximal issues"? Slowly, and over time. If you reduce the speed of the car, you can make that 90-degree turn safely. In the meantime, you'll also see the surrounding houses, children playing, or the park past which you are driving. You get more from slowing down than just a solution; you get life.

Slow down. Solve issues closer to yourself, your home, and your community. If we all did this, all the problems — including huge, "distant" problems like Darfur — would be solved, as everything is local to somebody.

Inequality

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top executives at major businesses last year made as much money in one day of work on the job as the average worker made over the entire year, according to a report released on Wednesday. (from Yahoo.com)

How does severe economic inequality affect for a society? Let's see:

• Inequality reduces trust. (study)
• Inequality increases crime. (news article)
• Inequality increases poverty, which itself has myriad effects (greater dependence on government assistance, more crime, malnourishment, etc.)
• Inequality reduces educational opportunities for the poorer.

Those are just a few things, with a couple of references (for more information, Google something like "effects of economic inequality"). As you can see, every single one of the societal effects are negative. Who benefits? The rich, of course. Yet, they have their own issues.

So, why do people propagate inequality?

Hmmm...an empty list. I can't think of any good reasons. Can you?

Social and Individual Control

This is a bit rambling. Expect that from some of my posts.

I don't like the fact that society insists on controlling the individual. So, in my life, I've tried to discover how societal control works, and how to steer myself away from it. Of course, all societies must exert some influence over the individual or else the society cannot function. And I'm not "a rebel for rebellion's sake" like many teenagers; I just have viewpoints which differ from the surrounding society.

I see two types of responses to societal control: voluntary and involuntary. A voluntary response is an agreement with the ideas, goals, and methods of the society, and one acting upon those items via one's own will. Yet, I don't believe one can often do that in a complex society such as that in the United States. Instead, we are driven down a path like cattle, into the involuntary response. "Go to school, work, have kids, buy a house, die" is the path, and it is expected that one will follow it without argument. Well, I won't.

There are many studies and sociologists who say that the maximum effective size of a coherent human community is less than 200 people. Two hundred people! Can you imagine living in such a small town? No, most of us cannot, as we've lived in cities filled with tens and hundreds of thousands of people. A town of a couple hundred folks seems quaint and out of touch. Western societal models don't function well in such small groups, either. Yet, our brains have developed to work in a small tribal environment like that, not in a seething mass of humanity like our cities.

How does one fix this situation, then? Well, I guess it depends on the society and the individual. The United States isn't known for being too heavy-handed compared to the Soviet Union, Albania, North Korea, or China; we don't regularly grab people off the streets for disagreeing with the party line and toss them into prison. Yet, in the U.S. there is massive peer pressure to conform, and that can sometimes be worse than prison. Families insist that children go to college, or follow a certain career, and ostracize them when they don't comply. Employers expect that the worker's entire life revolves around their job, and they react when it doesn't, often by sanctions such as firing the employee (hence, removing their livelihood).

There are multiple kinds of sanctions that can be used. The strongest ones work on the most basic parts of the human psyche: fear, food, reproduction, housing, and community. When an employer threatens to fire someone, what they are really doing is threatening their ability to eat, clothe themselves, and house themselves; they may also be threatening the employee's family by extension. The fears concerning the loss of life are deep in the human brain, and they are mostly unconscious, hence they are extremely effective in controlling a person. Frankly, I believe that such manipulation should be illegal, but it is not.

My approach is to realize that I have ultimate control over my own survival. For example, if I am fired from a job, I can still find food (hunting, fishing, gathering, dumpster diving, begging, eating with friends, etc.). In this manner, I take power away from society and reclaim it for myself. I may still decide to work with society towards various goals, but I always remember that they cannot force me to change my approach.