Costa Rica Guy

The Proverbial House of Cards

October 8, 2014 by costaricaguy Leave a Comment

My last post, as well as others, may have alluded to some hostility I feel towards religion. I don’t really feel “hostile” towards it…

just altogether fed up with it.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about.

In the video below, Bill O’Reilly tells Richard Dawkins that because science cannot yet explain “everything”, Bill’s “throwing in with Jesus.”

In what sense, Mr. O’Reilly?

In the sense of your boisterous and blustering American bravado and exceptionalism that raises the red, white and blue, along with its wars and capitalism run amok, as idols to be worshipped and praised as if they were stamped with the approval of the man, Jesus, himself?

Isn’t that what you, and the network that brings your brand of “religion” into millions of homes every evening, are all about?

Certainly seems so to me…

But the Jesus that I’m familiar with, the one that said “blessed are the meek”, I don’t believe that one would approve.

I don’t believe he would want to “throw in” with you at all.

He might even tell you to lower your arrogant voice and listen to what your guests have to say, for a change.

What Mr. Dawkins was trying to tell you is that your religion may rest on a foundation that is the proverbial house of cards.

Consider that the christian idea of Jesus as god incarnate, who came to rescue us from our sins via his atoning death…

that entire idea is based on the concept of original sin as presented by the book of Genesis in the Old Testament.

Now, I know that “thinking” christians like yourself, desire to pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to accept as fact and what parts you dismiss as allegory.

But it’s hard, no impossible, to dismiss the story of original sin as allegory.

After all, everything that comes after it, including the need for Jesus’ very existence, is based directly on it.

And if it is “allegory”, then allegory of what exactly?

That man (and I guess we should include woman as well) is borne sinful…i.e., sin is built into his genes, and therefore he deserves punishment and is in dire need of atonement?

That’s just the way god set it all up?

Well, that doesn’t paint a very pleasant portrait of god, now does it?

That he designed us in such a way that he would have to sacrifice his son (who was actually, ah, him) in order to avoid the need to punish us with eternal death?

Sort of a planned obsolescence?

That tends to portray god as less intelligent designer and more demented psychopath, doesn’t it?

The concept of original sin requires, by its very nature, some place from which that sin in fact originated…

Doesn’t it?

And the bible clearly tells us that place is with Adam…the first created human.

But the problem is that his very existence is refuted by everything we know from science.

In short, it simply never happened.

So, everything else that follows, including the story of Jesus’ atoning death, is really…unnecessary.

That’s not to say Jesus wasn’t a real person who walked the earth and was crucified for insurrection by the Romans over 2,000 years ago.

And that his reported words give rise to one of the greatest moral philosophies of our time…and one that Bill O’Reilly seems not to have a clue about.

No, that we’re pretty sure of based on historic fact.

But the rest of it, sort of folds under the weight of it’s own ridiculousness.

Dawkins is hostile towards religion because he believes it impedes intellectual growth.

In that sense, it is a barrier to the continued evolutionary progress that he quite “religiously” believes in.

I, on the other hand, just believe that it is a blinder…

an impact blinder.

That it too often serves as a mental barrier against taking action that will positively impact humanity on a scale wider than simply tithing to your local church, or trying to convince others to believe the craziness that you do.

And that’s even more the case with the warped sense of “patriotic religion” to which Bill O’Reilly obviously subscribes.

image credit: undereachsnare92 via Compfight cc

Higher Levels of Confusion

October 6, 2014 by costaricaguy Leave a Comment

I apologize for the paucity in prolificacy as of late.

I am currently in the U.S., engaged in the unimaginable…

investigating the potential for repatriation.

Sunday I celebrated, with extended family, some of whom I hadn’t seen in well over a decade, the 100th birthday of my dear Grandma Essie.

Someone remarked during the festivities that Grandma was borne the same year Mother’s Day was declared a national holiday…

Grandma Essie wittily retorted, as has been her style over the last 10 decades, that she’d taken full advantage of President Wilson’s decree.

Back to today’s post theme, I remember Anthony Robbins once telling seminar participants that the more confused they felt, the closer to a breakthrough they were.

Well, I’m currently reading The God Delusion by evolutionary biologist and unabashed atheist, Richard Dawkins. The book, while fascinating, is most definitely leading me to higher levels of confusion.

I was already relatively relaxed with the idea that christianity holds no more truth in it than any of the other religions that man has conceived, contrived and contorted over the ages.

Just consider for a moment the question of whether life exists on other planets.

Science estimates that there are probably a billion planets located in so-called goldilocks zones, where it’s not too hot, nor cold, but just right to support life.

That’s only about 1% of all the planets they estimate that the entire universe contains.

Now, could any of those planets actually support biological life forms?

Well, I guess the fact that we’re currently riding on exactly that type of a planet indicates a resounding YES!

In other words, there’s an extremely high probability that life does in fact exist out there, since we do in fact exist…right here.

We may never know for sure simply due to the unimaginable distances that lie between us and them.

On the other hand, is there any probability whatsoever that “they” are reading from the same religiously inspired books in the futile attempt to explain the perplexities of their existence…

not a chance in heaven, or hell.

So, I’ve pretty much had it with the idea that this book, or that book, this dogma, or that dogma, holds any degree of truth about the meaning of our existence.

That notion just doesn’t cut the mustard with me anymore.

Which is a slightly difficult thing for me to write in light of the fact that the same extended family I introduced above will unanimously declare me nuts for the thoughts I just expressed!

Nevertheless, one thing is for sure, and I believe Dawkins himself would readily agree…

There’s this lingering mystery behind it all. As much as science has advanced, and continues to do so, it still can’t explain…

the unexplainable.

Now, Dawkins would say that just because that’s the case, doesn’t mean we automatically resort to the intellectual sloth of conjuring up some Intelligent Designer to fill in the gaps.

After all, who, or what, designed the designer?

But as much sense as Dawkins makes, and he makes a lot, there still lingers in my far inferior mind this notion that there must be a purpose behind it all.

And that maybe this amorphous sense of purpose has some connection in those gaps.

That the purpose for my existence lies somewhere in there.

In this blog I take the bold leap of suggesting A purpose.

Now, do I know it to be THE purpose?

No, I would never presume such knowledge.

The most confusing chapter in Dawkin’s book, so far, has been the one that deals with this very question of purpose. The one in which he refutes the idea (repeatedly suggested in this blog) that the human capacity for good emanates from that same Intelligent Designer that Dawkins rather effectively poopoos.

Dawkins alternatively suggests that our tendency to engage in altruistic acts, or good, is built into our genes (and/or memes) via natural selection…

the engine that drives evolution.

Now, such a built-in altruism would have to be by nature focused intently on self or species propagation. But much of the altruism we actually witness in our world is certainly less focused and more broad based.

Why is that?

Well, Dawkins says that it’s just a case of misfiring of the survival urge.

For example, a mother bird has the natural urge to feed the chirping mouths that share her nest. But if a cuckoo appears (a brood parasite that sometimes shows up in the nest of other species) she will work just as hard to feed that one as well…

a misfiring of her altruistic urge.

So, Mr. Dawkins, am I to be led to believe that Ghandi, MLK, Mother Teresa, Mandela, and others of their ilk were simply engaged in acts of altruistic misfiring when they sacrificed their own lives for the lives of others?

That they did so purely by means of an evolutionary accident?

I find it easier to believe that they were led to do so by that mysterious sense of purpose that perplexes me and to which this blog is directly addressed…

The idea that life is so beautiful and so grand, and yes I agree that it has been made so by the “miracle” of natural selection, that we share a common purpose of trying to sustain it in that state.

Not just for ourselves to enjoy, but for future generations to have that same privilege.

We humans are impact-full creatures. We tend to leave a larger footprint than any of the other complex life forms that have evolved along with us on our planetary ship.

Maybe that’s why it’s most important for us to be impact mindful.

That idea admittedly offers little solution to the as of yet unsolved mysteries of material existence…

But it does lead me to a more inspired purpose for my being than the notion that any positive impact I might be able to make is simply the result of…

evolutionary misfiring.

The Delightful Folly of Fools

September 26, 2014 by costaricaguy Leave a Comment

And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus in Matthew 5:22

“Foolishness” comes in many sizes, shapes and colors…

Chris Guillebeau took ten years to accomplish the foolish quest of visiting every nation on earth…

Felix Baumgartner rides a capsule strapped to a balloon to the edge of space and then, foolishly, jumps…

Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone (aka, Saint Francis of Assisi) strips in the public square and renounces the “worldly life”…

Ernesto “Che” Guevara joins a misfit band of Cuban revolutionaries under the leadership of Fidel Castro, taking off in a leaky boat from Mexico, bound for Cuba with the foolish idea of taking control of the island from a ruthless, U.S. backed, dictator…

Christopher Johnson McCandless donates all the money saved for law school, burns the cash left in his pocket, and sets off with a backpack for the Alaskan wilderness to “find himself”…

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the U.S., makes a foolish vow on behalf of a nation of “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth by the end of the decade.”

It’s easy to call someone who is doing something you don’t agree with, or you don’t understand, a fool.

From the perspective of the audience, the onlookers, the “peanut gallery”, that’s exactly how you might appear…

foolish.

But the truth is, nothing really beautiful would ever happen in this world if it weren’t for the foolish.

Maybe that’s the reason for Jesus’ strong admonishment against calling someone a fool.

It’s of course foolish, in the eyes of the world, for one person to think him or herself capable of greatness.

For some reason, perhaps some evil reason, the consensus will always be against such notions.

“Who are you to think…!” is usually what you’ll get if you divulge your dreams of divine inspiration.

But those who achieve noteworthy things, remarkable things, are people who plunged ahead in spite of being called a fool.

In fact, they were perhaps delighted to be so called.

Anyone who ever thought themselves capable of spilling ideas onto paper that might one day inspire a generation is certainly at first a fool…

and then later, a Pulitzer prize winner and legend of literary exploit.

But no one ever accomplished such feats without initially exposing themselves to being ridiculed as a fool.

Think about it.

Don’t be afraid of being a fool, or being called a fool.

Cherish it and act accordingly.

Because the world is in need of less status quo stagnation and more of the exploits and accomplishments that flow from the delightful folly of fools.

Sometimes, often times, it’s the foolish things that bring meaning to a seemingly meaningless life.

Suffering fools gladly is a great lesson in humility and patience…

But suffering gladly as a fool is a requirement for many impact-full endeavors.

image credit: cogdogblog via Compfight cc

Sustainability is a Spiritual Concept

September 23, 2014 by costaricaguy Leave a Comment

I believe the essence of spirituality is the search for truth, about ourselves and our world.

Lately I’ve been interested in the atheistic viewpoint, reading the likes of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krause.

I’m not an atheist. But I don’t believe there’s anything inherently wrong with atheism. It’s just another way of trying to figure things out.

In other words, atheists are just as spiritual as the rest of us seekers.

On the other hand, religious people, or those who have accepted the dogma of a particular religion as representing undeniable truth, are unspiritual.

That’s because in my mind, as soon as you stop searching, you lose spirituality.

On Sunday of this week, people around the world, with some 400,000 in New York city alone, marched in support of action to prevent the catastrophes threatened by global warming and resulting climate change.

There is overwhelming science behind the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is the culprit behind the phenomenon of global warming. And climate change is something we are actually experiencing now at an accelerated rate.

Yet, there are many who scoff at those who would take action to sustain our planet. In the U.S., the loudest of the scoffers is the Fox News Channel.

I watched a video this morning of the Fox News Five deriding the participants of the march in New York with their typical terminology, calling the marchers hypocrites, hippies and communists.

What exactly is the underlying motive behind the cynical attitude of Fox News towards people who have a passion for sustainability?

Because in my mind sustainability and spirituality go hand in hand.

I believe it’s because Fox News has positioned itself as the guardian of the status quo. And many are saying, now more loudly than ever, that in order for us to combat global warming, the status quo must change.

Change to what?

Something better. Something more sustainable.

And that scares the hell out of a lot of people, especially the ones that regularly tune into Fox. And of course, that’s what keeps the Fox News ratings high and Rupert Murdoch, one very happy billionaire.

The only reason to be afraid of change is if you are convinced that the status quo represents the truth, or the way things are supposed to be. And in America many believe that’s exactly the case.

Our capitalistic system is sacred to many. It’s as if they believe it to be god-ordained. But unfortunately it’s the engine behind the activity that’s overheating our planet.

Being convinced that something is true doesn’t necessarily make it so, unless, of course, your conviction is backed by scientific fact.

Moreover, the mode of thinking being perpetuated by Fox News, that the status quo is somehow sacred, is what really threatens us all.

And, despite the fact that most of the Fox viewers would probably identify themselves as christian, this Fox News motivated mode of thinking is inherently unspiritual.

I wrote the following piece many years ago on the connection that I see between sustainability and spirituality.

I believe it’s now more relevant than ever, so I decided to re-post it this morning. Because in my opinion those so-called hypocrites, hippies and communists who marched on Sunday are actually the most spiritual among us. They are the ones searching for truth. And they are the ones who can help save us, despite the contrary efforts of Fox News.

…

My last post addressed my personal definition of what it means to act sustainable. However, what is the ultimate aim of sustainable action? I believe only in knowing that can one truly bend the bow, release that arrow of ardent action, and hit the intended target.

It seems we’ve been far too focused for a very long time on maintaining inanimate objects, or stuff, than we’ve been on sustaining life.

If you’re a spiritual person with a belief that life is beautiful, regardless of your conception of how it might have come to be in the first place, you probably also hold fast to a conviction that we should try to sustain life in its healthy and beautiful state.

But human interaction and impact, with its priority on the inanimate stuff that gives us that false sense of comfort, has tended to diminish that healthy state.

Sustainability thus becomes our attempt at managing our interactions and impacts in a way that promotes the health of living things…

a healthy environment with healthy ecosystems, our own healthy bodies, even healthy relationships.

I guess we could call this facilitating ecological health, or endurance.

Of course, if you’re not at all spiritual and would rather subscribe to a “survival of the fittest” philosophy of life, then you probably don’t feel much of a need to act sustainable.

That’s the status quo way of thinking…that seeks to sustain not the health of living things, but the pursuit of selfish interests, with continued priority on the inanimate stuff that satisfies our lust for material comfort.

Sustainability, on the other hand, is a spiritual recognition that life is connected and that every part has a role to play in sustaining the whole.

It’s not sustainable to just sit back and expect for living things to sustain themselves and if they fall short, well it was just meant to be.

That all that really matters is my own personal comfort and the fact that people are starving, animals are becoming extinct, rain forests are disappearing, and the planet is overheating, just doesn’t enter into my picture.

Because the reality of connection is that, oh yes it will, eventually!

Sustainability is a spiritual concept that’s concerned that our interactions and impacts facilitate the health and endurance of the life that surrounds us, and of which we’re an integral part.

And I truly believe that in so doing the spiritual health of the human race can also be dramatically improved.

God is Not Dead was a Dud

September 21, 2014 by costaricaguy 2 Comments

I recently watched the movie God is Not Dead, (or, God’s Not Dead). I’d heard a lot of people talking about it on Facebook, so I decided to give the flick a look-see…on Netflix.

Here are 5 reasons why I think God’s Not Dead was a dud…

Reason 1: Sloppy Stereotyping

Hollywood is often guilty of stereotyping, but this movie takes the cake. There was such a stark delineation between the good guys and the bad ones. With the bad being really obnoxiously bad and the good, nauseatingly neat, prim and proper. Sorry, but life just isn’t like that.

In short, the sinners were just too sinister, and the saved too saintly, to not strain credulity.

Reason 2: Detached Demonizing

I was especially taken aback by how much of a demon this movie makes out to be not only the poor and demented philosophy professor, but really the entire higher education system. It’s as if the movie tries to plant the idea that there’s an underlying motive to convince our sons and daughters to convert into evil robotic atheists hell-bent on destroying our “christian” American society.

They kill the evil professor off at the end in the most painful way (he was run over by a truck), only to have him repent and accept Jesus in a middle of the rainy road “death-bed” confession. I guess he got what was coming to him for trying to impose his faith on his students.

But isn’t that exactly what this entire movie attempts to do on its viewers?

Reason 3: Rachety Reasoning

I listened to the fresh and spot clean “pre-law” student deliver his argument for a living creator and saviour to his classmates, but for the life of me I couldn’t possibly follow his reasoning. Maybe I’m just not smart enough, or possibly it’s because none of it made the slightest lick of sense. He was of course able to sway the entire class to the embarrassing mockery of the evil prof, who after all only had the facts of science to go on.

Reason 4: a Tear-jerked Termination

Do all christian movies end with concerts? Seems so. And this one didn’t fail to deliver. Another of the non-christian evil doers, inserted into the plot haphazardly, makes a confession with the band backstage (she was a reporter of sorts, or a blogger, the movie didn’t really make that clear). That was motivated by an earlier terminal cancer diagnosis and resulting breakup with her evil capitalist pig of a boyfriend.

Why were all the non-christians in this movie so inherently evil, or screwed up? I know many who aren’t.

Also, I thought christianity and capitalism went together like Reagan and Robertson (Pat, that is)?

Reason 5: The Gaping Abyss

The thing that really left me wondering at the end is this: So let’s say there is a god (I do believe that, by the way). Why does he have to be christian and why is the bible the best source for explaining his doings? That question was not answered in the slightest way and to me is the greatest fault underlying this dud of a movie.

Perhaps because it’s a question that cannot possibly be answered.

You see I have this belief that faith is a personal issue and should not be used as a sword to divide. But in this movie that’s exactly what it’s used for.

Yes, it takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist…perhaps as much or more than it does to be a christian. Neither should be condemned, nor demonized.

I’m more for beating the swords into ploughshares that might serve some benefit for us all.

Unfortunately this movie fails in that effort, miserably…

and really doesn’t prove a damn thing.

image credit: Chris Piascik via Compfight cc

A Suffix that Sucks

September 16, 2014 by costaricaguy Leave a Comment

Lately my mind has been over-preoccupied with visions of “re-patriation.”

Needless to say, new ones (i.e., ideas, visions, etc.) have been kinda crowded out in that process.

But, thankfully, I have my good old stash of CRG posts (all 612 of them) out there to be used on occasion for spare parts…

I’ve received a few comments on various posts over the years that attempt to label me as one of those nut-jobs who leans towards socialism, or even communism.

Hell, some will quickly label you that way as soon as they find out you voted for Obama.

I believe some might get that impression because in the past I’ve mentioned the likes of Che, or Sandino in a favorable light.

Actually I really don’t feel qualified to judge the ways in which men choose to govern themselves.

I simply call it like I see it.

I once observed the world through very restrictive lenses…

Back then, if you didn’t believe in my Big Three C’s of Christ, Capitalism and Conservatism (the Republican political brand) you were doomed to the fiery depths of hell.

When you grow up in a particular place and associate only with particular people, you tend to have views about the world that are “in line” with your environment.

That’s understandable.

But almost invariably as soon as one ventures out a bit further from the fold, new vistas of thought and perception open.

Especially if you’re a person who isn’t content to just take in new experiences sensorially…

and not allow yourself to venture into deeper levels of awareness.

You may refuse yourself that luxury because of being so anchored in your traditional experience of life.

You’re content to play the role of outsider looking in.

But then there are those adventurous types who open up their hearts and minds, becoming a part of their experience.

I’m definitely one of those types.

And I’ve become a part of the Latin American experience.

I’m still a gringo, no doubt about that (I get reminded of it frequently), but I’ve come to empathize with the feelings that Latin people have towards my previous paradigm that would have quickly condoned capitalistic imperialism as being “the will of God.”

It isn’t.

And all that leads not to the conclusion that I’m a socialist, nor a communist.

In fact, I don’t believe that any particular brand of ism, meaning a scheme of government, world-view, or religion, has it 100% right.

In my humble opinion, ISM is a suffix that sucks!

You see, when folks believe that they do (have it all right), problems occur, resentments are fomented, wars are started, people are oppressed and slaughtered and humanity is generally brought a notch lower.

I don’t have the answers and don’t mean to pretend to.

I don’t believe anyone does.

But I do believe in a few things.

Like being compassionate and open-minded and trying to understand why people believe and behave differently and not condemning them for doing so.

I also believe that we’re all connected.

That there’s some force outside of our understanding that is in control and has given us a purpose and that it’s not to pursue our destruction (that word “our” implying and encompassing a sense of connectedness with each other, the natural world, and the universe).

Too often the isms lead us down that road of mutually assured destruction.

Usually it’s because we become convinced in our hearts and minds that “we” are right and “they” are wrong.

But that just isn’t necessarily so and until we can begin to grasp the idea that no one’s completely right and that we’re all in this (boat) together, I’m fearful that we will go on destroying each other and our planet.

I believe that most of these ism’s, world views, religions, or whatever you want to call them have some element of good in them.

The “good” that works for the common benefit of the entire connected world.

Maybe we should just focus on that and disregard all the rest.

image credit: phill.d via Compfight cc

Connect with RM