Your Meditation Guide Blog

The Worst Horse as usual is on its game in reporting another example of just how foreign Buddhism still is to many in the West. Bill Maher, the American comedian and t.v. show host recently said some pretty uninformed things about Buddhism. His comments are in red and mine in yellow:

[Buddhism] really is outdated in some ways — the “Life sucks, and then you die” philosophy was useful when Buddha came up with it around 500 B.C., because back then life pretty much sucked, and then you died – but now we have medicine., and plenty of food

(James: Not all of us Bill, a lot of people in this world don't know where their next meal will come from. And medicine? Americans can't even afford medicine these days let alone impoverished countries. Go to Africa where I lived for two years and tell me there's enough food and medicine for everyone. Then tell me that thus there isn't much suffering from it.),

and iPhones, and James Cameron movies – our life isn’t all about suffering anymore.

(James: And life wasn't all about suffering back in Buddha's time either)

And when we do suffer, instead of accepting it we try to alleviate it,

(James: Buddhists seek to alleviate suffering too but we also have had the revelation that no amount of "relieving" can end the suffering. What Buddhists are more interested in other than alleviating suffering is to END suffering once and for all through, what I would consider to be the first "12 Steps" program that is the Eight-Fold Path). If Buddha saw life as hopeless as Maher believes he taught then why would he have even tried to develop a system to deliver himself from it?

Tiger said, “Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves” makes us unhappy, which confirms something I’ve long suspected about Eastern religions: they’re a crock, too. Craving for things outside ourselves is what makes life life

(James: And despite its highlights, life is full of a lot of suffering Bill. There isn't enough money--even for a lot of millionaires who won't be "satisfied" until they get a BILLION dollars. Even those that spend their money can never buy enough houses, clothes, boats, vacations to feel satisfied for long. We lust after something until we get it and then quickly become bored with it and we return again to enslaving ourselves to crave once more. Buddha didn't say that we couldn't enjoy life but that we should enjoy life in moderation to reduce our suffering, and he laid out a path that many people have followed over the millennia toward lasting peace of mind and happiness.

And Buddha didn't command any of this, which is what I think separates Buddhism from many of the traditionally defined, "religions." Buddha encouraged seeing for oneself if his techniques do indeed bring about a greater peace and a life of less suffering by direct experience, which isn't unlike the scientific method where direct observations are the basis of knowledge. Pursue a life of constant seeking for the next "buzz of pleasure" and then live life for at time following the Buddha's guidelines and see, which way gives you the strongest feeling of satisfaction and happiness of life. If you find you think Buddhism is only causing you more problems then best of luck. Sincerely. A lot of people come and go with Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't want to force anyone to do anything. Buddhism would rather let the people come to it so that they are making a choice of their own free will and feel ready to follow such a path).

— I don’t want to learn to not want, that’s what people in prison have to do

(James: We are in a prison Bill--look around you--We Want a better job, want a new car, want our body to heal quicker or look sexier, want our spouse to change to how we think they should be, and on and on. It's a prison without bars that lures us with shiny new distractions to keep us from finding a way out of the suffering. However, it doesn't have to be an either or proposition as you're stating. You're saying Buddhism says "life sucks, it has no meaning, purpose or value" but that is a common misconception. That isn't Buddhism--that's nihilism. Buddhism teaches that there is a way to live in balance with things of the world yet reduce your long-term suffering. That is what Buddhism offers).

And reincarnation? Really? If that were real, wouldn’t there be some proof by now? A raccoon spelling out in acorns, “My name is Herb Zoller and I’m an accountant.” …something?

(James: First of all not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. A lot of Buddhists believe in rebirth and yet still others believe in neither. As for proof? Even science says that energy never disappears but simply changes form. There are many Buddhists who say that it doesn't really matter much what happens after death (if anything) because the only moment we have is this one. For these Buddhists they focus on the rebirth that happens within this lifetime. For example, I am a completely different person from who I was 10-12 years ago when I was an ardent Mormon who was politically conservative. Now I am a Liberal Buddhist!!

But the point of rebirth, in my view, isn't so much about whether we are reborn a slug, or even reborn at all but rather that we realize how our actions affect our future. It's about becoming aware of how we alone are the architects of our own life and what our life becomes is directly influenced by our actions. So, for me, it comes down to what you reap is what you sow. And if all you water are seeds of hatred, greed and delusion then you will reap a lot of misery but if you water seeds of love, compassion and patience then you will reap the opposite and leave a better world behind then when you were born into it.

People are always debating, is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy: it’s a religion. You’re a religion if you do something as weird as when the Buddhist monks scrutinize two-year-olds to find the reincarnation of the dude who just died, and then choose one of the toddlers as the sacred Lama: “His poop is royal!” Sorry, but thinking you can look at a babbling, barely-housebroken, uneducated being and say, “That’s our leader” doesn’t make you enlightened. It makes you a Sarah Palin supporter.

(James: Bill, I like you--I really do, and while I think your usually well informed, on Buddhism you're quite ignorant. Only one school of Buddhism believes that their teachers are reincarnated, and that's Tibetan Buddhism. If you have a problem with Tibetan Buddhism then take that up with the Dalai Lama, but I would have expected you to know better than to lump all Buddhists together. I didn't want to write this to defend Buddhism so much as to explain it, as best as a common practitioner like myself can to those who aren't familiar with Buddhism so they, can hear both sides).

~Peace to all beings~

I just returned from a short trip to Italy to attend my grandmother Clara's funeral. I was there for my family, of course, since my grandmother has ceased to exist and will no longer be, ever.

Clara was close to her nephews and nieces, and she was always kind to us while we were growing up. Still, she didn't really die last week at age 95, but rather a few years earlier, when her mind suddenly turned from sharp and alert to hardly being able to recognize where she was or who was visiting her. Despite this, her body was strong, and she physically survived herself for several more years, years that were meaningless to her and painful for us.

Which is why the Catholic service we attended with family and friends rang so hollow, even preposterous. The young priest did his work as well as one would expect. Of course, he didn't know my grandmother, so he had to limit himself to generic statements like “her daughters were lucky to have her as mother” (regardless of what the reality may have been). But that, of course, wasn't the worst of it.

The priest had to utter the standard nonsense, such as “we thank god for her life” (including the meaningless last years of suffering?), or “we make sense of the mystery of death through our faith” (that's like saying that one makes sense of something by embracing nonsense). There is no mystery of death. Death is part of the natural cycle of life, and once the particular combination of atoms that makes our existence possible decays beyond repair we are gone. Sad but natural, no spooky “mystery” involved, no need to prey on people’s emotions and hopes.

My skepticism, indeed my irritation, during the service was of course to be expected. After all, I'm a godless atheist. But I had time to look around me and watch the reactions of people I know well. Perhaps the most distraught of my relatives was my aunt, my mother's sister. She is allegedly a devout Catholic, and yet the priest's words seemed to be of no comfort at all to her, as if she didn't really believe that her mother was now in “a better place,” as if she realized just as much as I did that this was the final curtain, with no possibility of an encore.

And than there was one of my brothers, who is what I think of as a smart Catholic. It still isn't exactly clear to me what he believes, but he often runs into trouble with the more pious branches of the family because of his rejection of concepts like demons and hell. More than anything else he seemed to be ironically amused at the priest's clumsy attempts to turn my grandmother's funeral into a “joyous” occasion for celebrating “the word of god.”

Clara will be cremated, another instance in which the self-professed infallible Popes of the Catholic faith apparently changed their mind about what scripture says: it used to be that you had to preserve the dead body while waiting for the end time resurrection, apparently now ashes are ok, god will simply add back the necessary water (and restore the low level of entropy).

Funerals, of course, are for the living, not the departed. It was nice to be able to offer as much comfort as I could to my mother, my brothers, my cousins, and my aunt. That comfort did not derive from the malicious illusion that we will all soon see Clara again. It derived from the knowledge that we are here for each other, to celebrate the joys of life together, but also to share the inevitable painful losses. Such is the human condition, but we are strong enough to be able to bear it with the help of our loved ones, no divine givers of random suffering need apply.

Besides the obvious advice of cultivating self-discipline, I think the best thing about the Dalai Lama's comments in regard to Tiger Woods and Buddhism was that he needed to be told who Tiger Woods was in the first place!! I think the Dalai Lama's ignorance about celebrities and their lives is a good thing--it's a good example to put forth. So many of us are obsessed with celebrities because we find our own lives unsatisfactory, boring or inadequate in one way or another. This obsession is a craving for a different life, one where we are famous, beautiful and/or rich. Anything but our "ordinary selves."

The world of celebrity looks glamorous and ideal but it's a facade for fellow, flawed humans who are just as miserable as anyone else in this sea of samsara. Because when we peel back the layer of glitz, glamour, make-up and good acting skills we see that they live very flawed lives of sex, drug and money addictions amongst many other chains of suffering that bind them. Our obsession is a form of escapism in a desperate but futile search for happiness in the material world. Yet once we return from the movie or finish reading the celebrity magazine we must face our lives again. The waves of reality come washing back in like a tidal wave to inundate and knock us over with the suffering that we tried to ignore.

This is why, like the Dalai Lama, I generally am not very interested in the lives of celebrities. I appreciate their art but I don't see them as examples of how to live a life with less suffering. One of the only "celebrities" that I think does that is the Dalai Lama himself.

Why antidepressants may be no better than placebos.

Relatedly, a New Yorker article takes a skeptical look at the field of psychiatry as a whole, and asks whether it can even be considered a science.

You may be saved on Judgment Day, but what happens to the pets you leave behind?

A report card citing violations of physical laws in movies.

In scientific research, the rich get richer -- what can we do about the "Matthew Effect"?

Eliezer's drawn up a great list of "conversation halters," tactics that stonewall debate.

Personally I don't care too much about the whole Tiger Woods "scandal" except how Buddhism fits into it. I'm not one of these people who feels that Tiger Woods personally owes me an apology or any kind of explanation of what he's dealing with. He's apologized to the public and yet that's not enough for some people. They want their pound of flesh. Why do some people live through the lives of celebrities like they are apart of their lives to where they'd deserve an apology? Just leave him and his family alone to deal with their issues. The media is asking, was his apology enough to gain the forgiveness of the public?" As if we all are apart of his personal life!!

This obsession we have in America of worshiping celebrities and then tearing them down when they show that they're human, (just like us) is a highly corrosive aspect to our society. It is escapism to live vicariously through other people, so that we don't have to face our own struggles, obstacles and weaknesses. So, when these celebrities inevitably miss the mark of perfection we feel let personally let down because we have this delusion that our happiness is somehow tied up into how they live their lives. Personally, I think that this incident is between him and his wife but he said in his public statement that Buddhism is helping him deal with his sexual attachments and that's what I'd most like to focus on in this post. Woods said:

"I have a lot of work to do, and I intend to dedicate myself to doing it. Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don't realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously I lost track of what I was taught."

James: Buddhism is a compassionate religion, which I think demands that we give people a second chance because who amongst us hasn't needed one ourselves? I think we should be supporting him whole-heartedly in his pursuit to free himself from samsara. It is quite common for humans to turn to spirituality in times of need and suffering. In that sense perhaps something good can come out of the ashes of Tiger's previous life. In some ways our suffering does us a favor in channeling us toward a path to free ourselves from that misery but you can't force that path onto someone who isn't ready. I think that is in part why we Buddhists don't do much proselytizing. Buddhism doesn't come to you, you have to come to it. Because proselytizing often involves using coercion and fear, which causes suffering. So you're basically causing people suffering to get them to overcome their suffering!! It's a futile exercise. Once Tiger was ready, the teacher arrived to help him blaze a new trail, and I for one wish him the best and support his recovery and dedication to living a life with less suffering.

Perhaps in a strange way to others, Tiger Woods is a role model again in drawing attention to how much attachments can make us suffer and how one can go about alleviating it. So says renowned Buddhist teacher Jack Kornfield, "The fact that people could see this kind of behavior causes suffering is an incredibly important message for all kinds of people who respect Woods." If someone with such a high profile as Woods can inspire others to deal with their own toxic suffering then this whole situation will have been positive overall. That is where he'll find redemption. He has the potential in this moment to inspire countless people to excel at more than golf. Besides working through this with his family, I can't think of a better way for him to find the redemption he seeks. The compassion in Buddhism is seen in part how each moment we can start a new. May Tiger, his family and his ex-lovers find the peace and happiness that all sentient beings deserve.

* xkcd on what it means to join the tautology club...

American talk show icon, Oprah has recently interviewed Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh. The whole interview is great but I especially liked this quote:

Enlightenment is always there. Small enlightenment will bring great enlightenment. If you breathe in and are aware that you are alive—that you can touch the miracle of being alive—then that is a kind of enlightenment. Many people are alive but don't touch the miracle of being alive.

James: If you want to read the rest of this interview (and I recommend it) then just click on this sentence.

PHOTO CREDIT: Rob Howard

A new word has entered the atheist vocabulary of late: “accommodationist.” It is meant as a derogatory term toward those atheists and assorted rationalists who try to extend a metaphorical olive branch to moderate religionists and find common ground against the real danger, fundamentalism (of any kind, religious or not). To give you an idea of the landscape, I think it is fair to count Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers among the “purists,” while Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and yours truly have been labelled as accommodationists.

Contrary to what many people think, this isn’t a debate about pragmatic tactics in the culture wars, it is a matter of principle. Few people — possibly not even Dawkins — would disagree that, say, the fight for a true separation of church and state has to include a broad coalition of religious and non-religious groups, partly because the goal is in the interest of both parties, and partly because there simply wouldn’t be hope for just secular groups to prevail, considering that they represent a (sizable) minority of the population.

The Great Atheist debate is a matter of principle because it hinges on the epistemic limits of science. When Dawkins says that science can refute “the God hypothesis,” or Coyne claims that a 900-ft Jesus appearing in London (why London?) would disprove atheism, they are making epistemological assertions that are founded on a naive understanding of philosophy of science (and it is interesting that both of these esteemed colleagues scoff at the very idea that philosophy has anything to contribute to the debate).

The argument on the “accommodationist” side (a term that deliberately sounds like “collaborationist,” presumably to insinuate a negative connotation, a logical fallacy known as poisoning the well) is that there is a distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism. I first heard this argument from my friend Genie Scott several years ago, and — not having any background in philosophy (at the time I was a scientist) — reacted pretty much like Dawkins and Coyne. But a moment of serious reflection shows that Scott is correct: naturalism is the idea that all there is in the universe is natural phenomena and natural laws, i.e. there is no supernatural. Philosophical naturalism is essentially the atheist’s (eminently reasonable) position, grounded on serious philosophical arguments (e.g., the argument from evil) and informed (but, crucially, not determined) by science — science provides the most reasonable explanation for questions of origins, so it makes sense to accept those instead of fanciful stories about gods and angels that do not amount to explanations at all.

Methodological naturalism is what science does: science cannot investigate the supernatural because the latter — by definition — can be compatible with any given empirical observation, and moreover it simply cannot be experimented upon. But science doesn’t need the stronger philosophical position, it works very nicely by using the methodological (i.e., pragmatic) stance that what it studies likely has a natural explanation, so let’s go and find out if we can.

A common strategy of the “purist” camp is to say that science falsifies specific religious notions, such as Noah’s flood, or that the earth is 6,000 years old. Besides the fact that it is funny for a philosopher to see scientists invoking Popper’s idea of falsificationism (which has been superseded decades ago in philosophy of science), this simply won’t do, for two reasons. First, the claim is that science can reject the God hypothesis, not just a specific version of it. Plenty of Christians do not read the Bible literally, so any “falsification” based on that approach is out the window. But it gets worse: science technically cannot even reject young earth creationism because of an escape clause known in some circles as “last Thursdaysm.” The idea is that, yes, the earth may look like it is billions of years old, and it may look like there are millions of fossils scattered throughout the geological column. But in fact the world was created by god last Thursday (or whenever), and he arranged it this way just to test our faith.

Let us be clear on this: regardless of how many Christians actually subscribe to some version of last Thursdaysm (we don’t know, there are no polls), the example unequivocally shows why science has no business testing supernatural hypotheses: because they are not hypotheses at all, just like supernatural “explanations” do not, in fact, explain anything. They are just elaborate and fanciful admissions of ignorance.

Last Thursdaysm, however, gets into deep theological and philosophical troubles, for what does this sort of divine behavior tell us about the nature of god? Is he a cosmic trickster bent on providing us with the gift of reason only to hurl us into hell if we use it properly? And we are supposed to honor and adore this guy? Notice too that the philosophical counter here gets off the ground by acknowledging the science as background information (i.e., the earth really is much older than 6,000 years), but does not in fact depend crucially on it for its rejoinder (after all, Hume’s and Kant’s arguments against the existence of god were very persuasive before Darwin and Einstein).

So, dear readers and podcast listeners, what do you think of the Great Atheist debate? What about the distinction between science and philosophy that underlies it? What are the epistemic limits of science, and do they somehow constitute a problem for the scientific endeavor?

China is one of the places that I want to visit before I die. I have long been attracted to Chinese culture. The traditional architecture of temples, monasteries, neighborhoods and other historic buildings is stunning. The designs are classic yet are still some of the most unique in the world and the public gardens appear tranquil, relaxing and invigorating. Their written language is one of the most beautiful I have seen and with some of the oldest history in the world; China is a must for a historian like myself. They have produced some of the greatest thinkers of the human race and I adore Chinese traditional music. I honor it as being the birthplace of my tradition of Zen Buddhism. Yet, sadly this great country has fallen far from the days of celebrating Buddhism. Actually its government has fallen in that regard, not the people who I think would investigate Buddhism if allowed. As we all know, the government has been actively working to eradicate it from the culture for decades. The most obvious example being Tibet.

The irony with China blocking Buddhism is that Buddhism has much in common with the socialist mindset. It teaches interdependence, oneness and reliance upon each other. In fact, most monasteries seem to act as small communes!! The difference is that Buddhism is also inline with democracy. It values human rights, individual freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. So in many ways Buddhism represents the middle-path in politics--a little bit of socialism mixed with a little bit of democracy. This is a political mindset that is found in practice in Europe. Buddhism, however, also encourages a healthy dose of skepticism of the political system in general. In the end politics can and does cause a lot of suffering. It can easily lead to greed as people seek power to control and manipulate the masses for their own selfish gains. Too much politics is just as dangerous as ignoring it. So, in some ways I hesitate even bringing up politics in the same conversation as Buddhism. However, to not participate in voting and maintaining good government can easily lead to losing ones freedom to practice the relatively non-political religion of Buddhism in the first place.

I know that there are some Buddhists who think politics should be avoided altogether but with all due respect I think that's potentially, dangerously naive. In some ways it's ignoring reality and ignoring a big part of our daily lives to be mindful of how our leaders affect our daily decisions that we might not think much about otherwise. Like the freedom to just walk out your door and sit with your sangha, read a Buddhist themed book or visit a monastery for a retreat or other services. Or the freedom to write online about your beliefs to share with others without censorship. Yes, politics can be ugly and cause a lot of harm. That said, however, to retreat from it completely is veering off the middle-path to the point where such denial can literally jeopardize the very basic freedom of religion that you enjoy and center your life around. It's not about protecting Buddhism because it too is impermanent but rather it's about protecting each others right to basic human dignity, decency and free will.

So, I couldn't be happier that U.S. President Barack Obama will be meeting with the Dalai Lama. It is a powerful symbol to the world and to oppressed peoples everywhere that someone, somewhere is standing for freedom. That there are still places in the world that celebrate diversity and encourage religious expression. The light is on shining in the darkness to guide and give hope to those without freedom. I know that the United States has interests with China that might be hurt a bit with this visit but as an American I would rather upset China than abandon those suffering unnecessarily in political oppression.


PHOTO CREDIT: His Holiness the Dalai Lama taken by Manish Swarup for AP News.

Out of all the cognitive biases and logical fallacies, I think the most pernicious of all is a kind of meta-bias, one underlying tendency that makes us more susceptible to all of the others: simply not wanting to be wrong. It's so automatic that it's hard to notice it coloring your judgment unless you really pay attention, but once you do, you realize how frequently it makes you grasp for a fallacious argument just so you don't have to admit to yourself that you were wrong. I'm definitely no exception -- I can't count the number of times I've caught myself reacting to an argument by asking myself, "OK, why is that false?" rather than "Is that false?"

Eventually, I was struck with one of the fundamental ironies of rationalism: that if I want to be actually right as much as possible, in general, then I have to stop caring about being right in any particular disagreement. Otherwise, I'm not going to be able to update my beliefs when the evidence calls for it. Below, six tricks I've picked up during my ongoing project of becoming fine with being wrong:

- Divorce your belief from your self. We get so attached to ideas that we think of them as part of ourselves, so that when someone attacks a belief we hold, it feels like an attack on us personally, and we automatically jump into defensive mode. To prevent that from happening, I try thinking of my belief as no longer being my belief, just a belief that I'm examining alongside other alternatives. (In fact, I find it useful to visualize this figuratively, imagining the belief under discussion as being located somewhere a few feet away from my body. Weird, but you'd be surprised how much it can help lessen your sense of identification with the idea.)

- Think of disagreements as collaborative, not adversarial. When I'm disagreeing with someone, I try re-framing the conversation in my mind as, "We're working together to try to figure out the truth about X" instead of "we're debating X." That helps me think of my goal as simply getting the correct answer, as opposed to winning. (Relatedly, I hate the practice of playing devil's advocate. I think it just gets us more in the habit of figuring out how to win, as opposed to figuring out the truth.)

- Visualize being wrong. This tip's from Eliezer Yudkowsky, of Less Wrong; he suggests that before you pass judgment on a claim you find unpalatable, that you first visualize how you would react and cope if it did turn out to be true. "The hope is that it takes less courage to visualize an uncomfortable state of affairs as a thought experiment, than to consider how likely it is to be true. But then after you do the former, it becomes easier to do the latter," Yudkowsky says.

- Take the long view. Acknowledging you're wrong seems less distasteful when you consider the long-term benefits: If people learn that you're willing to concede a point if it's warranted, then on those occasions when you don't concede, they'll be more likely to take your objections seriously rather than dismissing them as obstinacy. So I try to think of conceding a point as an investment in my future power to convince people of things.

- Congratulate yourself on being objective, not on being right. Part of the reason it's so hard to change our minds is that our self-image is bound up in being right. When we're right we feel proud; when we're wrong we feel disappointed or ashamed. Pride and disappointment can be useful motivating tools, so I'm not suggesting you try to shed them altogether, but they're being put towards a bad end here. Instead, I've been trying to re-train myself to feel pride whenever I consider an issue as objectively and fair-mindedly as possible, rather than whenever my initial belief about an issue happens to be correct.

- If you can't overcome your competitive instinct, re-direct it. Sometimes I really can't shake my desire to be right, to win. Ultimately, I hope I'll overcome that desire, but in the meantime I can at least channel it towards more productive ends: When I'm finding myself reluctant to admit that someone's points are stronger than mine, I remind myself that if I adopt those new beliefs, I can use them to win a future argument with someone else who holds my current beliefs. (Hey, I didn't say I was proud of this one -- but it works, so I'm sharing!)

Any recommendations for techniques you use to get yourself to be more comfortable with being wrong? I'd love to hear 'em.