Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Little Book of Athiest Spirituality

By Andre Comte-Sponville

Parental warning: Don't read if you don't want to know (I mean this as a literal warning to my parents!)

This book was a birthday gift from my friend, Conrad. (By the way, Conrad, I look forward to a conversation with you about this book over a cup of coffee or two!)

This book was mind blowing. Comte-Sponville's thinking is thorough yet open to his own potential error, true to himself yet aware of his own limitations, genuine in a way that is difficult for philosophers to muster. He seemed to love the exploration, understand the complexities and be unafraid of the controversies. Surely, to someone like Dawkins or Harris, his American counterparts writing about the problem of religion, even using the term "spirituality" is anathema. Comte-Sponville struggles with that as well but deals with it straight on, honestly and openly.

His discussion of morality was an important beginning, expressing clearly why atheism does not in any way break down the possibility for human morality. He then exposes his six reasons for being an atheist, a twist on the usual formula of refuting arguments for the existence of God. Once morality is on the table and religion is off the table, Compte-Sponville can freely explore the moments of transcendence we experience as human beings (moments of being moved by music, taking a great hike that connects you with nature, true friendship). This is where he delves into the content of this spirituality - immensity, silence, serenity, simplicity, unity (to name a few). Regardless of your opinion on the use of the term "atheist spirituality" his exploration of each of these experiences is refreshing, personally challenging and stimulates self-searching.

Woven throughout his discussions of "why atheism" and then into his spirituality section, he grapples with the reality of human suffering. All of my personal and academic life has centered around a search to understand what religious people call "the problem of evil." And what those who are afflicted with said "evil" (slavery, holocaust, rape, just to highlight a few) call suffering or their own personal story. I turn the reality of it over like a perplexing object and as much as I read, as much as I study, as much as I listen to painful stories I still can't make heads or tails of it. I always end up perplexed. Grasped viscerally by the horrific reality of human existence. I appreciated how attuned he was to the reality of human suffering.

I do think that redefining "spirituality" in the way he does is debatable. It is helpful if you are, as Compte-Sponville openly admits, interested in dialogue with believers. It is a twist that can lead to interesting dialogue. But what if any is the value in usurping that term for atheists otherwise? An interesting point to talk to with other non-believers. I think the book would have been just as good had he used an alternative, not as heavily loaded, word as "spirituality." At the same time, for me, it made the ideas compelling and challenging in another respect to not be afraid of the term simply because it has been largely used by religion.

There are so many, many quotes I could put here. I really hope these are a pleasant smorgasbord of what lies in wait for you, the potential reader of this fine philosophical yet extremely accessible book.

"Horror is numberless, with or without God. Alas this tells us more about humanity than it does about religion." Pg 76

"The existence of being is intrinsically mysterious. This is what needs to be understood - this, and the fact that the mystery is irreducible. Not because it is impenetrable but (on the contrary) because we are inside it. Not because it is too dark, but because it is light itself." Pg 86

"Despite its suggestiveness, the analogy [the watch in the field as an indicator that there is a watch maker-my addition] has a number of weaknesses. Firstly, it is only an analogy; the universe is clearly not made up of springs and gears. Secondly . . it makes short shrift of the countless examples of disorder, horror and dysfunction in the universe. A cancerous tumor can also be described as a kind of clock (as in a time bomb); an earthquake, if we wish to prolong the clockwork metaphor, would be something like a planetary buzzer or alarm. Does this prove that tumors and cataclysms are all part of an intelligent, benevolent design? Thirdly and most importantly, the analogy advanced by Voltaire and Rousseau is out of date. Its model (like eighteenth century physicis) is mechanical, whereas nature as described by contemporary science has more to do with dynamics (being is energy), randomness (Nature plays dice - this is just what distinguishes it from God) and general entropy (what would we think of a clock that tended toward maximal disorder?)." Pg 88 - 89

"Finally and most important, in human beings the idea of the infinite is a finite idea, just as the idea of perfection is an imperfect one." Pg 92

"If the absolute is unknowable, what right do we have to believe that it is God?" Pg 105

"Life is too difficult, humanity too weak, pain too frequent or atrocious, chance too unfair and haphazard for us to be able to believe that so imperfect a world is of divine origin!" Pg 111 (I love this quote!)

In regards to humans: "The more I get to know them the less I can believe in God. Let's say I don't have a sufficiently lofty conception for humanity in general or myself in particular to believe that a God could be at the origin of this species and this individual. Everywhere I look, there is too much mediocrity, too much pettiness, too much of what Montaigne called nothingness or vanity - "of all the vanities, the vainest is man!" What a poor result for omnipotence! Some will object that God may have done better elsewhere. Well, perhaps he has. Is that any reason to be satisfied with such a lousy job here? What would you think of an artist who, on the pretext that he has produced masterpieces for other people, would saddle you with his trash?" Pg 119

"Were we copies of God we would be either ridiculous or terrifying." Pg 120

"A religion of man? Definitely not. What a sorry god man would make! Humanism is not a religion; it is an ethics. Man is not our God; he is our neighbor. . . Ours is an illusionless humanism that cares about protecting our species, especially from itself. We must forgive humanity, and ourselves, for being what we are - neither angels nor beasts . . . neither slaves nor supermen." Pg 120 - 121

I love this whole section on "Desire and Illusion":
""What do we wish for more than anything else? Leaving aside our base or vulgar desires, which have no need of God to be fulfilled, what we wish for most is: firstly, not to die, at least not completely, not irreversibly; secondly, to be reunited with the loved ones we have lost; thirdly, for justice and peace to triumph; finally and perhaps most importantly, to be loved. Now, what does religion tell us . . .That we shall not die, or not really; that we shall rise from the dead and thus be reunited with the loved ones we have lost; that justice and peace will prevail in the end; and, finally, that we are already the object of an infinite love. Who could ask for more? No one, of course! This is what makes religion so very suspicious: As the saying goes, it is too good to be true!. . . .God is too desirable to be true; religion is too reassuring to be credible." Pg 125

"To be deluded is to believe that something is true because one wants it to be true." Pg 129

"God is too incomprehensible, from a metaphysical point of view, not to be dubious (if you don't understand something, how can you know whether it is God or chimera?); religion is too comprehensible, from an anthropological point of view, not to be suspicious." Pg 129

"Not believing in God does not prevent me from having a spirit, nor does it exempt me from having to use it . . . The spirit is not a substance. Rather it is a function, a capacity, an act (the act of thinking, willing, imagining, making wisecracks . . . ) and this act, at least, is irrefutable, since nothing can be refuted without it." Pg 135

(Contrast this with the theologian that dubbed God as verb, God is not a noun or a being but is in the act of connecting, the act of friendship, the act of serving homeless people, the act of goodness).

"All our speeches are about this, which itself is not speech. Not the Word, but silence. Not meaning, but being. This is the field of spirituality or mysticism, when they break free of religion. Being is mystery, not because it is hidden or because it hides something but, on the contrary, because self-evidence and mystery are the same thing, because the mystery is being itself." Pg.143

"When I contemplate immensity, the ego seems laughable." Pg 149

"Spiritual life . . is the life of the spirit - but only . . . inasmuch as we can break free, at least partially and occasionally [moments] from what Kant called 'our precious little selves,' our precious little fears, resentments, self-interest, anxieties, worries frustrations, hopes, compromises and conceits. Is it a matter of 'dying to oneself'? The expression recurs in the writing of many mystics. . . however it puts too much emphasis on the death wish. Rather, I would say that it is a matter of living more - of living at last, rather than hoping to live - and, in order to do so, leaving oneself up behind as much as possible: not dying to oneself, therefore, but opening oneself up to life, to reality, to everything." Pg 200

Personal aside: This book was my first ability to accept the term atheist for myself instead of agnostic. He makes a very good, entertaining and spirited argument that agnostic is simply a term used to provide smoke and mirrors in order to avoid the controversial label "atheist." If you really believe "there are mysteries or spirit, but no old man with a beard roaming in the sky deciding our fate" then why not just use the term atheist?

Book 30

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Do Cats Hear With Their Feet?

By Jake Page

This book is well written and researched thoroughly; it is clever, instructive and engaging. Beginning with a great natural history of the cat, the first few chapters takes you through the millions of years of feline development. Jake Page engages the arguments of paleontologists and geneticists about origins of feline domestication and feline evolution. Page writes nimbly and trots the reader through such discussion without getting bogged down or distracting from the subject at hand. The sketch drawings of the various cats he is talking about brings the differences among these felines home.

A chapter is devoted to understanding the senses that are keenest in cats and how they assist in night hunting (cats being nocturnal and predators by nature, even domesticated cats). I found his exploration into the senses fascinating and thorough. He begins with the sense of touch, a sensation which he argues is much stronger on creatures with fur.

"On a cat or a dog, for example, each hair grows out of a small cluster of cells that are fairly strongly tweaked when a hair has been moved. Each hair is like a lever, the shifting of which in one direction or another has a magnified effect on the sensory neurons at its base. The most sensitive levers on a cat's body are, of course, its whiskers, which scientist call vibrissae . . .These are especially thick and stiff hairs, and the little bundle of cells are three times farther below the skin than regular hairs. These deep cells send vibrissae-sensed messages back to the brain along the same pathways as the nerves to the eyes. And some of them produce a sensation that is probably analogous to vision." Page 100

The vibrissae on the face "are what have given the cat the reputation of being able to see in the utter dark. While the cat's eyes are excellent gatherers of light, even very low light, they cannot perceive anything in true dark. But the vibrissae, held forward, can detect the slightest motion of the air in a wide swath as wind or air currents are reflected from nearby objects - a kind of "seeing" that is unimaginable except perhaps to some blind people." Page 101

"Aside from the use of their whiskers, it is speculated that their feet are so sensitive that they can pick up the vibrations on the floor, say, of someone walking in a familiar gait." Page 117

Cat communication comes in three categories of cat sounds: murmur (sounds made with mouth shut like a purr), high intensity (made with the mouth open like growls, snarls etc) and then vowel sounds (the miaow). "The cat vowel sound calls are used to ask for something, to complain about something, or to express confusion. In these instances, the cat's mouth stays open, changing the shape to make different vowel sounds." Page 135 The cat uses its entire body to communicate - posture, tail position, whiskers. "Most of the signals cats make with their posture, their tails, their ears and their facial expressions are what scientists call distance-increasing signals - as opposed to distance-reducing signals that are more common among dogs and other highly social animals." The movement and position of a cat's tail can tell you fairly accurately the mood of the cat. Here are some examples from the book:

-Arched tail over its back or tail in an upside down U, or straight up, "it is making a friendly approach or if it is a kitten, it wants to play"
-Tip of the tail or whole tail waves back and forth, "it means the cat is uncomfortable with the situation at hand"
-Flat ears back are almost always fear or aggression

"Suffice it for now to say the cat has twelve separate muscles serving each radar antenna-like ear, and the cat's eyes work well in both day and night. Here we will observe some of the details of the predatory strategies cats (including domestic cats) use, of which there are two main types: mobile, where the cat actively seeks out prey; and stationary, where the cat waits silently for the action to come to him or her." Page 60

Page's premise is that cats are "obligate loners" and in some situations when forced they can learn to tolerate socialization. All other domestic animals were social in the wild, living in packs or herds. "Cat's are the only domestic animals that derive from loners in the wild. The notion of herding cats is a colorful way of describing anarchy." Page 148

As loners, their day to day experience is not about dominance like a dog who is used to a pack structure but instead about territory. Each cat has a series of boundaries around them which are related to safety and comfort. Home range is the whole space the cat considers its area, the widest boundary around a cat. Within that is a territory, which is "the area the cat will defend agianst encroachment by feline strangers." Within the territory is an area called "social distance and inside that is personal distance." Males have a wider territory and are considerably more territorial (more aggressive over a wider area).

While understanding cats remain an utter mystery, Page's book brings us one step closer to grasping aspects of feline behavior which we can utilize in everyday life as well as a genuinely enjoyable exploration of felines in history. For cat lovers, it brings us closer to those amazing, curious and mysterious creatures who fill our lives with such humor, audacity and admiration.

"Here is an animal whose direct ancestor only a few thousand years ago was a lone hunter, and body language are geared to keeping other cats at a distance if not altogether out of the picture. Here is no herd animal, no creature drawn to the life of the pack, like dogs or cows or elephants or dolphins or horses. Here is the lone stalker, an animal so preoccupied with itself that it will spend up to a third of its waking hours licking its own fur. And this animal, if treated well, will allow itself to find warmth and affection, food (at least some), and companionship with you and me. This is an astonishing turnabout . . . Indeed if we are smart, we just let cats be cats, and recognize that they have done a pretty good job of domesticating us." Page 164

Book 29

Monday, June 15, 2009

Killing Rommel

By Stephen Pressfield

In this historical fiction, Pressfield gives the account of a more modern desert battle that of the Nazi African campaign in World War II. This book was as well written, meticulously researched and contained as complex characterization as his other books. Which of coarse meant I absolutely loved it! Engaging, challenging, didactic. There are so many interesting things I learned about fighting war in a desert and the specific challenges faced by those who fight in this terrain.

Interestingly enough, we watched Humphry Bogart's "Sahara" last night and it dramatizes some of these challenges. Mainly: water, exposure, sand and then water again.

"Let me say this about courage under fire. In my experience, valour in action counts for far less than smply performing one's commonplace task without cocking it up. This is by no means as simple as it sounds. In many ways, it's the most difficult thing in the world. Certainly for every glorious death memorialsed in dispatches, one could count twenty others that were the product of fatigue, confusion, inattention, over or underassertion of authority, panic, timidity, hesitation, honest errors or miscalculations, misphas and accidents, collisions, mechanical breakdowns, lost or forgotten spare parts, intelligence deficiencies, mistranslated codes, late or inadequate medical care, not to say bollocksed-up orders (or failure to grasp and implement proper orders), misdirected fire from on'es own troops or allies, and general all-around muddling, sometimes the fault of the dead trooper himself. The role of the officer, in my experience, is nothing grander than to stand sentinel over himself and his men, towards the end of keeping them from forgetting who they are and what their objective is, how to get there, and what equipment they're supposed to have when they arrie. Oh, and getting back. That's the tricky part." Page 13 - 14

"Am I mad? On the one hand, I cannot and will not let myself believe that what I have ordered and performed at Benina is "right" It isn't and never can be. I can't simply block it out and carry on as if nothing has happened. At the same time I must carry on - for my mates, for England, for Rose and for our child. The alternative is unthinkable. With this, I understand the perverse logic of war and the true tragedy of armed conflict. The enemy against whom we fight are human beings like ourselves, individuals with whom each of us might have been friends except for the deranged fictions of nation, doctrine, race and religion, and whom now me must murder (as they seek to murder us) in the name of those very same fictions. And yet, knowing all this and understanding it, still, in some depraved and ineluctable* way, we and they must live it out to the bloody finish." Page 241

*impossible to avoid or evade

I am now very interested in reading something about Rommel himself, a true account of his life and history. He sounds like a fascinating leader.

Book 28

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Fan Fiction

Total Aside: I thought it important to disclose that I have read an additional probably 4000 words online through what is known as "Fan Fic." It is basically fiction written by fans of famous books utilizing the characters from those books but taking them into very different places, story lines and conclusions. The ones I know about are based on Harry Potter and the Twilight series. They may exist for all kind of books or stories but I have exclusively limited my reading to Twilighted. Yes, I am a certifiable nerd about this story.

With the upcoming release of New Moon and the just released trailer to that movie it is hard to stay away. It is a complete indulgence. How can Stephanie Meyers write such a good story that you can turn it on its head, unravel it and knit it back together and the characters are still compelling, intriguing and surprising? Anyway, I will certainly have to re-read New Moon before it comes out as well.

Something unique about the experience is that I do love to see new writers unfold. It is a GREAT venue for a writer to get immediate feedback on what and how they write. It is a great way to "practice" writing. None of them can publish anything they write (Stephanie Meyers owns everything) so they do it purely for the sake of the story. I love that.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Nobody Move: A Novel

By Denis Johnson

New York Times Book Review Recommended

Crime novel would not adequately describe this book. Although it feels like that is exactly what you are reading. Without crime solvers, only crimes. The omniscient view point Johnson writes from almost forces the reader to become the only one observing the crimes, privvy to the "who done it" unfolding in this mystery.

Tired phrases come to mind to describe this unique book: gutsy, hard-boiled, dark (my least favorite). It is almost a Pulp Fiction in fiction. Very entertaining, full of twists and turns, you never know what sort of laughable horror the next page will hold.

Book 27