Parallel Reading 1

I've started a project to read in parallel
     Christopher Hitchen's God is Not Great
     Peter Hitchen's The Rage Against God
Since the two brothers are both very well educated and accomplished, yet reach very different conclusions about God and Religion, it should be interesting to let them comment on each other.

My impressions of Christopher's first chapter:

     "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

     The buzzwords are "scientific" and "rational."  Scientific here does NOT mean using the scientific method.  It does not mean running experiments in your own life and carefully collecting the data.  Those kind of activities are reserved for scientists.  What it does mean is reading books that popularize science for the layman (Dawkins, Darwin, Hawking and Crick are mentioned specifically) and being informed and inspired by them.  Rational here doesn't mean a mathematically rigorous use of logic (either inductive or deductive).  There are no Syllogisms, no recognition of Axiomatic foundations or Well-formed Propositions.  Rational just means "free-inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."  It is as much a shared cultural attitude about what things are right-thinking and what things are not, as it is anything else. 
     He explicitly counters a frequent charge that atheism is a kind of faith - "And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers, our belief is not a belief.  Our principles are not a Faith."  He then very quickly makes some very non-scientific assertions that sound awfully, well, "faithy."

"no statistic will ever be found that...we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful...In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way." 

"We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion."

Oddly enough he reminds me a great deal of a writer whom he finds "dreary and absurd" - C. S. Lewis.  Like Lewis, what we have is not so much a closely reasoned argument - say a philosophic paper whose conclusions had darn well better be warrantable under close peer review.  What we have is rhetoric.  A chatty, lively sharing of ideas and attitudes he hopes we find persuasive.  The difference between Christopher and Jack (as Lewis's friends knew him) is that Jack knew exactly what he was doing, and Christopher does not.  Jack knew he was trying to communicate a point of view from inside himself in hopes that another might find it resonating or at least understandable.  Christopher is under the illusion that he is proving something.

Even more than Lewis, he reminds me of Freud (whose Interpretation of Dreams I'm about a third of the way through now) - The cocky certainty, the assuming of the mantle of science and rationality without its rigors; the charming style; an unmistakable undertone of narcissism.  I really don't think he would have been too disappointed during his lifetime to have been classed with Marx and Freud, who (in Christopher's own words) "were not doctors or exact scientists.  It is better to think of them as great and fallible imaginative essayists."

Grace seen from two perspectives

1) A Catholic priest involved in the "Men's Movement" in the 90's.

"Most myths include belief either in a benevolent universe, a hostile universe, or one that is indifferent.  Until we accept that ours is a radically benevolent universe, we are not Christians.

...if we are lucky, we will finally meet what we call grace, the notion that someone is for me more than I am for myself....I feel an aura of synchronicity and providence; things seem to work.  It is radically OK."

Richard Rohr
Quest for the Grail

2) A Tibetan Buddhist (founder of the Naropa Institute in Colorado).

"As human beings, we are basically awake and we can understand reality.  We are not enslaved by our lives; we are free.  Being free, in this case, means simply that we have a body and a mind, and we can uplift ourselves in order to work with reality in a dignified and humorous way.  If we begin to perk up, we will find that the whole universe - including the seasons, the snowfall, the ice and the mud - is also powerfully working with us.  Life is a humorous situation, but it is not mocking us."

Chogyam Trungpa
Shambhala

The Best Horse in the Race?

Shunryu Suzuki
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

"...almost all of us want to be the best horse.  If it is impossible to be the best one, we want to be the second best one....When you are determined to practice zazen with the great mind of Buddha, you will find the worst horse is the most valuable one.  In your very imperfections you will find the basis for your firm, way-seeking mind."

The Book of Mormon implies that it is very difficult (perhaps impossible?) to come unto Christ without first confronting the reality of the natural man in ourselves that we might truly understand our need for the atonement.  Only one who realizes is not on the way, can have a "firm, way-seeking mind."

Suzuki also refers to a Japanese proverb that I find interesting in a similar context:

"We say, 'A good father is not a good father."  Do you understand?  One who thinks he is a good father is not a good father.  One who thinks he is a good husband is not a good husband.  One who thinks he is one of the worst husbands may be a good one if he is always trying to be a good husband with a single-hearted effort."

Utopian Limits

Chogyam Trungpa
Shambhala

"While everyone has a responsibility to help the world, we can create additional chaos if we try to impose our ideas or our help upon others.  Many people have theories about what the world needs.  Some people think that the world needs communism; some people think that the world needs democracy; some people think that technology will save the world; some people think that technology will destroy the world.  The Shambhala teachings are not based on converting people to another theory."

Maturity

"The mature person is like a good archer:
when he misses the bull's-eye,
he turns around and seeks
the reason for his failure in himself."


Chuang Tzu
in Stephen Mitchell's
The Second Book of the Tao

Taoism and the martial arts

Chi Hsing-Tzu was training a gamecock for the king.  After ten days, the king asked if the bird was ready for combat.  "No, Your Majesty," said Chi, "He's arrogant, always ready to pick a fight.  He's still relying on his own strength."

Another ten days passed, and the king asked again.  Chi said, "No, Sire, not yet.  He still becomes excited when a rival bird appears."

Ten more days.  The king asked again.  "Not yet," Chi said.  "He still gets an angry glint in his eye."

Another ten days, another question.  Chi said, "Now, Sire, he's almost ready.  When a rival crows, he doesn't react.  He stands motionless like a block of wood.  His focus is inside.  Other birds will take one look at him and run."

Chuang Tzu from
Stephen Mitchell's
The Second Book of the Tao

Beyond the limits of yourself

You can't talk about the ocean
with a frog who lives in a well:
he is bounded by the space he inhabits.

You can't talk about ice
with an insect who was born in June:
he is bounded by a single season.

You can't talk about the Tao
with a person who thinks he knows something:
he is bounded by his own beliefs.

The Tao is vast and fathomless.
You can understand only by stepping
beyond the limits of yourself.

The Second Book of Tao
Stephen Mitchell