Connections 2

There should be a way to connect with all the beings and forces that make up this "me". There should be a method, based on the experiences of nature, to appreciate my connectedness with all other things. This method would allow me, without recourse to supernatural ideology, to transcend the limits of what I commonly call myself, and to experience what Thich Nhat Hanh calls "life without limit".

Connections

I am connected to myriad other lives. The myriad are connected to me. Where do I end and the myriad begin? If I have no boundary, then my life is not limited.

Cellular Organization:

This thing called "myself" is formed of other selves. There are a bazillion cells in me, and each of them is an individual. Each an individual, not one independent. All depend for themselves on other selves, and I depend on them for myself.

Transpiration/ Respiration:

When I breathe, I exhale carbon dioxide to plants. When the plants breathe, they exhale oxygen to me. So we breathe to each other. The plants depend on me, and I on them.

Nutrition:

I eat, and food passes through. Some of it stays with me, but most goes to waste. The waste enters the lives of other beings. I eat from the earth, absorb the minerals of earth, and produce more earth.

Reproduction:

My mother and father came together, and produced me. I came together with women, and produced my children. Life flows from the past into me, through me, and from me into the future.

If I Had One Day, What Would I Do?

No Self, No Fear 1

A few years ago, just after apostasizing from Christianity, I realized that the final reason I had stayed in that faith was, simply and sadly, that I was afraid of going to Hell. This is an indictment of religion in general- it is miserable, since all it can give is a fear of eternal fire.

Is there any reason for religion, I mean for supernatural beliefs in a personal Deity, in a scientific and secular society? Not reason, but raison d'etre? Why do most people seek some supernaturalism, whether of a traditional religion, a "cult", or New Age practice? With reason and science providing a better way of life for all people, why does God not go away?

I have come to believe that we are indeed "hard wired" for spirituality. There is just something about spirituality and its religious rituals that satisfy us. I believe that it is pattern.

We naturally want to be in control, or at least know where the next mammoth is coming from. The ones who could see the pattern of animal migration or seasons would be more likely to survive. Being able to discern- or imagine- pattern in the seeming chaos of life would be very valuable. It might even make one into a spiritual leader.

Yet scientists also have patterns in their laws and theories; but science does not fill our spiritual needs. What is the missing element? Putting it another way: what does religion (or spirituality) give us that science (or humanism) cannot give?

In short, I believe it is freedom from death. Religion allows us to believe that we will not end. We love stability; we fear change, and the greatest change is death. We are stark naked terrified of that dark cold end. All religions appeal to this fear. They claim to show us the way to live forever, whether through going to heaven, being reincarnated, or whatever.

By contrast, for all the great good they have done, humanistic thinking and science have done little to ameliorate our mortal terror. We are left to try to be brave, or to pretend that we are not afraid. The main failure of humanism is its lack of hope.

What if there were a natural way, a technique, for people to discover that life does not end, that they are connected to other lives that will go on, that this very connectedness is salvation and freedom from fear? Such a way would free humans forever from our ancient enemy.

I have long sought a means to overthrow the gods. If someone taught how to relieve the fear of death, apart from a god or church, what would that do to religion?

J Edgar Billings, Ultd.

I have tried to be so many things, to have some name over me, Yoga and Christianity and Buddhism and Humanism and Biosphere-ism and Scientism...It's okay now to be just who I am, without a doctrinal imprimatur: J Edgar Billings at the top of the page.

The Crystal of Civilization

I would like at the outset of this endeavor, to thank my brother, Charles Christopher Billings, for his unwitting (?) inspiration. Our discussions over the past weeks have catalyzed certain of my thoughts, made me look upon things differently: made me think.

How can I get my ideas, my teachings really, to the largest number of people in the least amount of time? I call this burst and spread. Both burst (time) and spread (space) are needed to propagate an idea or practice effectively. Therefore I need some way, some vehicle, or vector for my ideas.

What are my ideas? As you can see from this blog history, I have come to what I think is the essence of civilization: freedom of expression, and the right to self-defense. These two rights are irreducible: I cannot say less and still speak of a civil society. Also I need not say more. These two rights, without anything added or subtracted, form the crystal of civilization.

Freedom of self expression, and the right to defend it: these are not abstract ideas, but the very implementation of the Enlightenment. I mean to teach people not to talk fruitlessly about these two rights, but to practice them daily. In effect, I am making a religion of our first two Amendments.

Now, we need a symbol, better a person, even a god, around which to gather. Now to find a suitable god...

I Get Religion!

According to Yahoo News, 82% of Americans say that God helps them in their daily lives. Well, the evidence is overwhelming: people are happy with their gods. Gods are fun! In fact, the most fun people I have known have been Pagans, and they have lots of gods! All right, then: I shall get myself a god, and a religion to boot.

On Quote Mining and Freedom

Hi David,

Alas, you are "quote mining". This is taking words of a famous person out of context, in order to prove a point. I could also quote mine Einstein, Paine, or even Darwin, to prove points. Even the Bible can be quote mined. But let's not go there, at least not yet.

I see that you are well educated, as well as sharp witted, with due respect for science. Good. You also maintain Christian beliefs: to which you have a right, a right I would defend.

If you would like, I can email you a copy of "Can Religion be Reconciled with Science?" It is rather "church of Christ-y", but that is how I have been taught to present, and it still works fairly well.

As to god not answering prayers: your defenses are exactly the ones I would have given as a Christian, 10 years ago. I will respond to them as I would have responded to myself (?).

If god does not answer my prayers, no matter how many or how tearful, then why should I pray to him? Given that there is no proof of prayer, no body of evidence for this claim, why should anyone pray?

When people we love do not answer our heartfelt requests, we leave them and go on about our lives. This is a natural and healthy response.

However, when god does not answer our prayers, we start making excuses for him. In a human relationship, we would call this "enabling an abuser". It is not healthy.

We would not allow people to ignore our needs. Why should we allow god to ignore our needs?

As to the "atheists in foxholes" argument: there are many atheists who have been in foxholes; in fact some of them may have been in yours. I personally know of several active secularists and atheists in the Armed Forces. They brave the foxholes right along with believers.

By the way: I should clarify that I'm not an atheist. I cannot prove that god does not exist.

As to the founders of this nation being Christians: people argue this endlessly, and it is irrelevant. The founders' religiosity or lack thereof does not matter. They will be known by their fruits, their works, such as our Constitution.

"We the People", it begins, and proceeds to lay down an entirely secular set of laws. These laws protect our freedom of religion and speech, etc (1A), the right to self defense (2A), etc. The Constitution protects our right to think freely, to pray or not to pray, even to have this discussion.

Humanistic thinking inspired the Rights of Man, the whole concept of human rights independent of a god. It wrote the US Constitution; it keeps composing ethical responses to human problems.

The greatest irony to me is this: organized religion has historically deprived people of the very religious liberty you and I enjoy in the USA. So if you enjoy your religion, thank a humanist!

David, and other readers: please excuse my long diatribe. The freedoms we enjoy in this country are close to my heart.

Anyway, none of this alters or answers my original challenge: what good has religion (organizational belief) done that humanism could not do better?

Marry Rifqa!

As I wrote on Pam Geller's "Atlas Shrugs" blog this morning: someone should marry Rifqa Bary. I would gladly do it, but I'm 51 and an unbeliever. If some nice Christian lad would take a shine to her- and I am sure she has admirers- she could engage to one of them, on her 18th birthday marry him, and that would be it.

Rifqa would become a US citizen, protected by our Constitution, and defended from Islam by a nation of armed citizens. (Yes, the British are still coming). Someone marry Rifqa Bary!

Freedom of Expression and Self Defense

As a freethinker, I set for myself these two rights: freedom of expression (freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, of peaceful assembly, and of petition); and the right of self defense (the keeping and bearing of arms). If I look carefully at these two, I see that the second supports the first. Only if I can defend myself, can I defend my freedom to speak or practice religion or do anything else. Without self defense there is no freedom. With this in mind, I prepare for Boston.

Re: God Helps with Personal Decisions, Most Americans Say (Yahoo News)

As an ex-believer, god-free for over one year (yea!), I am amazed at the bollocks I used to believe. I would obey whatever the "Word of God" said, never mind that the Bible contradicted itself and common sense as well. I would ignore or deny real evidence in favor of words in a 2000-year-old book!

Back then I would argue the most irrelevant issues, whether we were "born sinful" or if Jesus were God, instead of learning about the real world. Now, thanks to enlightened men like Voltaire, Paine, and,Darwin, I am free to think and speak the truth. I love nature and history, and don't give a rat's a*** for religiosity.

Now today I read that 82% of Americans still depend on a god. In the second decade of the 21st century, eight out of ten people I meet are in the Dark Ages! There is much teaching to do, get busy.

Spiritual Crystals and Free Thoughts

Crystal Cave of the Giants, Chihuahua, Mexico.

All of my science-speak has only one problem: it sounds bad. People do not like the word "Science", since it sounds too much like a religion, and that without smells and bells. "Atheism" sounds harsh and loveless. None of these words suffices to explain who I am.

I want something that derives from data locuta causa finita, but appeals to the finer senses. I want a word that implies logos, but includes mythos as well. I want to operate blessedly free of the gods, devoted to scientific inquiry, but open to spirituality.

Now by spirituality, I mean the "sense of the sacred". Example: "Crystals are so spiritual, aren't they?" (New Age store attendant, Brookline, MA, ca. 1987). How can a rock be spiritual? It is a feeling of sacredness, of a pattern, a meaning in the apparent chaos of life.

What we call spirituality is a sense that there is a pattern to things, that life has meaning. This explains the persistence of religion in a scientific age: religion offers a pattern, order out of chaos, eternal meaning in our tiny, shaky life.

We hate chaos and seek pattern because we want consistency, predictability, permanence: survival. We are willing to believe all sorts of things in order to survive.

What word adores science but does not despise mystery, beauty, and spirituality? What characterizes the mental processes of my lifetime? Free thought. I'm a freethinker.

Scientism, Church of Christ Style

Having fun trying to format this, but it is totally legit.

The ongoing debate between creationism and evolution is really about a deeper question:can religion and science peacefully coexist? Can they be reconciled to each other?

Some people have tried to marry science to religion, or else to draw a treaty line between them. Examples of these approaches are Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design; and NOMA, or Non-Overlapping MAgisteria.

Can religion ever be reconciled to science? Let us look at the facts.

	Religion	Science
What is the Basis?	Unproven assumptions	Evidence
Bases?	Assumptions: scriptures, dogmata, fatwas, experiences, feelings, etc.	Evidence: data, experimental results, photographs, fossils, etc.
What is Basic Process?	Make unproven assumption, claim as Truth; retrofit evidence to assumption.	Examine evidence, draw conclusion; adapt conclusion to evidence.
	Assumption <- Evidence	Evidence -> Conclusion
Can it be Corrected?	No.	Yes.
How to Correct?	---	Present new evidence.
Can it Change?	Not by debate. Must internally change.	Yes.
How does it Change?	Reinterpret assumptions. This happens only when religion must adapt to society, or go extinct.	Present new evidence. Debate, examine evidence, draw new conclusion.
Binding on Everyone?	Yes.	No.
Results of Disagreement?	Debate, division, persecution, torture, etc.	Debate, search for new evidence.
Results on Humanity?	Ignorance, superstition, magical thinking, prejudice, persecution, warfare, disease, sexual suppression, etc.	Longer life span, healthier children, freedom from disease, clean water, improved food, sexual freedom, etc.

You may draw your own conclusions. If you would like further information, or to learn about Scientism, please contact: jegarbillings@yahoo.com

Brookline/ Boston LTC

Some can, and do, carry in city

Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – +

June 8, 2008

The article on gun permits was nicely written. But some finer points are missing. People who live in towns that have less stringent licensing requirements, such as Dartmouth, are able to carry statewide. That includes Boston. Just because Boston's regulations are more strict, that doesn't do much to reduce the number of people who can carry a concealed weapon in the city.

I am a Class A license-holder who does not live in Boston. However, my license allows me to carry concealed in any county in the state, Boston included. I have carried in Boston occasionally. Whether riding the T or attending a late-night show, I do so to protect my family. Boston's extra licensing requirements do nothing to stop the out-of-city resident from carrying in the city legally.

So what is needed is uniform licensing standards that apply statewide and are not altered or "interpreted" by overzealous police chiefs who are accountable to no one. The current system punishes and unlawfully restricts the residents of Boston from employing their Second Amendment rights while many other cities practice no such restrictions.

There was a comment from a police chief in your article:

"When you get a driver's license, you practice driving," says Sergeant Paul Cullinane, Brookline's identification/firearms licensing supervisor. "This is the chief's way of saying you need to get a little practice if you're going to get a license to carry."

Well, last I checked there was a constitutional right to bear arms. That right does not include restrictions as to the owner's proficiency.

Zack Aubut
New Bedford

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Platform 1

These are the basic rights I as a Scientist establish for myself and others.

1. 1. Freedom of Inquiry: the People have the right to ask, to study, to examine, and to record all public information.
2. 2. Freedom of Expression: the People have the right to speak, to publish, to practice religion, and to gather in a civilized manner.
3. 3. Right of Defense: the People have the right to defend themselves, their families, their neighbors, and their freedoms from predatory attack.

The Advent of Scientism

Since traditional religion is inherently false, being based on ideas without (or in contradiction to) evidence; and since the scientific method is the only thing keeping us from the Dark Ages; and since current religious practices (such as circumcision, spanking, creation pseudoscience, abstinence "education", forced "marriage", gross abuse of women, Islamic jihad, stealth Crusades, etc etc) are clearly contrary to human progress and civilization itself: therefore I pronounce judgment on traditional religion, and set myself to establish a new path for all people. This path I call Scientism.

The Minuteman

We need in this nation a new minuteman. We need men and women both, who are willing to step outside the WalMart-ized, Oprah-ated "politically correct" dhummitude of popular culture, and are willing to stand for the same freedoms the Founders established for us with their sweat, tears, and often their blood.

We need people who will say "No!" to the insidious incursions and infringements, the stealthy war on our freedoms of religion, speech, and of the press. If an American wants to say "Allahu Akbar" I will stand for him. If another wants to say "Allahu Naq'bah" I will also stand (and cheer, but I am open to debate).

If someone wants to wave an Israeli flag; if another wants to fly a swastika; if yet another wants to burn the American flag: no matter what I think of the action, as long as he injures no one, I will stand for his freedom. We do have freedom; I will not tolerate any intolerance of it; I will fight for it.

To those who would refuse me the liberties guaranteed by our Founders: you may consider this a declaration of war. I would prefer a war of words, the clash of ideas only: but that depends on my opponent.