Looking forward to coming home to the Emerald City with ~myDakini.

"When thinking changes your mind, that's philosophy.
When God changes your mind, that's faith.
When facts change your mind, that's science."
-- Edge: the World Question Center

"What the soul sees and has experienced, that it knows; the rest is appearance, prejudice and opinion."
-- Sri Aurobindo. Jnana // ESSAYS DIVINE AND HUMAN. Vol.17

What's more exciting than to start the year with a question like this from Edge?

WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT? WHY?

Edge is indeed "like the crack cocaine of the thinking world." Now if only our political and religious leaders would follow suit and honestly reflect on this same question...

Here are some answers that I find interesting...

Scott Atran: The Religious Politics of Fictive Kinship
"I once thought that individual cognition and personality, influences from broad socio-economic factors, and degree of devotion to religious or political ideology were determinant. Now I see friendship and others aspects of small group dynamics, especially acting together, trumping most everything else."

Rupert Sheldrake: The skepticism of believers
"Creationists opened my eyes. They use the techniques of critical thinking to expose weaknesses in the evidence for natural selection, gaps in the fossil record and problems with evolutionary theory. Is this because they are seeking truth? No. They believe they already know the truth. Skepticism is a weapon to defend their beliefs by attacking their opponents."

Daniel Dennett: Competition in the Brain
"I've changed my mind about how to handle the homunculus temptation: the almost irresistible urge to install a "little man in the brain" to be the Boss, the Central Meaner, the Enjoyer of pleasures and the Sufferer of pains. In Brainstorms (1978) I described and defended the classic GOFAI (Good Old Fashioned AI) strategy that came to be known as "homuncular functionalism," replacing the little man with a committee."

Daniel Goleman: The Inexplicable Monks
"At the higher reaches of contemplative expertise, do principles apply (as the Dalai Lama has suggested in dialogues with neuroscientists) that we do not yet grasp? If so, what might these be? In truth, I have no idea. But these puzzling data points have pried open my mind a bit as I've had to question what had been a rock-solid assumption of my own."

Richard Dawkins: A flip-flop should be no handicap
"When a politician changes his mind, he is a 'flip-flopper.' Politicians will do almost anything to disown the virtue — as some of us might see it — of flexibility. Margaret Thatcher said, "The lady is not for turning." Tony Blair said, "I don't have a reverse gear." Leading Democratic Presidential candidates, whose original decision to vote in favour of invading Iraq had been based on information believed in good faith but now known to be false, still stand by their earlier error for fear of the dread accusation: 'flip-flopper'. "

Sam Harris: Mother Nature is Not Our Friend
"Like many people, I once trusted in the wisdom of Nature. I imagined that there were real boundaries between the natural and the artificial, between one species and another, and thought that, with the advent of genetic engineering, we would be tinkering with life at our peril. I now believe that this romantic view of Nature is a stultifying and dangerous mythology."

Paul Davies: I used to be a committed Platonist
"For most of my career, I believed that the bedrock of physical reality lay with the laws of physics — magnificent, immutable, transcendent, universal, infinitely-precise mathematical relationships that rule the universe with as sure a hand as that of any god. And I had orthdoxy on my side, for most of my physicist colleagues also believe that these perfect laws are the levitating superturtle that holds up the mighty edifice we call nature, as disclosed through science. About three years ago, however, it dawned on me that such laws are an extraordinary and unjustified idealization."

Steven Pinker: Have Humans Stopped Evolving
"I've had to question the overall assumption that human evolution pretty much stopped by the time of the agricultural revolution."

Tim O'Reilly: I was skeptical of the term "social software" at the time
"Both Clay, who thought then that "social software" was a meaningful metaphor and I, who found it less useful then than I do today, have changed our minds. A concept is a frame, an organizing principle, a tool that helps us see."

Howard Gardner: Wrestling with Jean Piaget, my Paragon
"...I have come to realize that the bulk of my scholarly career has been a critique of the principal claims that Piaget put forth. As to the specifics of how I changed my mind: Piaget believed in general stages of development that cut across contents (Space, time, number); I now believe that each area of content has its own rules and operations and I am dubious about the existence of general stages and structures."

Clay Shirky: Religion and Science
"Belief in compatibility is different from belief in God. Even after I stopped believing, I thought religious dogma, though incorrect, was not directly incompatible with science (a view sketched out by Stephen Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria".) I've now changed my mind, for the obvious reason: I was wrong. The idea that religious scientists prove that religion and science are compatible is ridiculous, and I'm embarrassed that I ever believed it. Having believed for so long, however, I understand its attraction, and its fatal weaknesses."

Patrick Bateson: Changing my Mind
"For many years what had been good enough for Darwin was good enough for me. I too described myself as an agnostic. I had been brought up in a Christian culture and some of the most rational humanists I knew were believers."

Alan Alda: So far, I've changed my mind twice about God
" Until I was twenty I was sure there was a being who could see everything I did and who didn't like most of it. He seemed to care about minute aspects of my life, like on what day of the week I ate a piece of meat. And yet, he let earthquakes and mudslides take out whole communities, apparently ignoring the saints among them who ate their meat on the assigned days. Eventually, I realized that I didn't believe there was such a being. It didn't seem reasonable. And I assumed that I was an atheist."

Susan Blackmore: The Paranormal
"...my whole identity had been bound up with the paranormal. I had shunned a sensible PhD place, and ruined my chances of a career in academia (as my tutor at Oxford liked to say). I had hunted ghosts and poltergeists, trained as a witch, attended spiritualist churches, and stared into crystal balls. But all of that had to go."

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

I just finished reading this Newsweek article entitled, Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield. There are a couple of important points from the article that I want to highlight:

1) Although the article didn't completely concede "victory" to the (New) atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens), it recognized their achievements for they have "emphatically (and correctly) argued that nonbelievers have the same rights under the Constitution as believers do." As a case in point, Mitt Romney's speech on faith was a "testament to the power of the atheists that he [Romney] had to answer to them all." In short, thanks to the "loud and intransigent rhetoric" of the (New) atheists, conversations on religion, science, belief, faith are catapulted into mainstream media.

2) Moderate voices are now rising up to the challenge. Rev. Timothy Keller's upcoming book, The Reason for God, and Bart Ehrman's God's Problem are two books cited in the article. [Note: Too bad the article didn't mention Thank God for Evolution! by Michael Dowd since that book is out already.]

I've been covering the New Atheists on my blog (since the middle of 2006) way before the "New Atheist" label was in fashion. I even collectively criticized them and called their ideas FLAT. Looking back to my previous criticisms of the New Atheists, I admit that I was too quick on the draw. My bad. I've made a cardinal mistake of treating them as a leviathan with three heads [Dawkins, Dennett, Harris]. However, the more I learn about each of them, the more I realize that their ideas are as diverse as the believers they criticize. Instead of a leviathan, they are more akin to horsemen with different personalities and philosophy fighting under the banner of rationality. By actually reading their books and articles, watching their interviews, and following their video debates, I've come to appreciate and understand where they're coming from. Because of this I could highlight the important parts of their arguments while at the same time be more critical of their arguments which, to my judgment, are very partial, arrogant, and too certain. In short, I could better rank their ideas and put them into a more integral perspective.

IMHO, this differentiation and ranking of the New Atheists is what seems to be missing from mainstream media as well as the Integralists subculture. The absence of ranking and differentiation in mainstream media, that I can take. But I expect more from Integralists. For example, I expect Integralists (i.e. authors, thinkers at IntegralWorld, philosophers like Wilber, Spiral Dynamic gurus) to treat the New Atheists with respect, acknowledge their importance, and take the time to join them (e.g. debate with them, dialogue with them, critique them) in this "important national conversation" [Wilber's words]. So far, I'm still left wanting. But then again, that's just me.

Some integrally-informed people say that there's nothing really new with the philosophical arguments of the New Atheists; that their arguments are rehashed from the old days of the Enlightenment and conscientious theologians of the past. I agree. I think even the New Atheists would agree, for they have bibliographies in their books pointing to the Founding Fathers, theologians, and thinkers in the Age of Enlightenment. However, what I think the main difference is between the New Atheists and the Enlightenment is the context, timing, and the ubiquity of information in our fast evolving globally connected culture. With the dangers of divisiveness caused by irrational and unexamined religious differences, the New Atheists are fighting a more important philosophical and political "battle" because the stakes are much higher today than a thousand years ago. I doubt that they would convert people into nonbelievers (or into believers of their cause), but the fact that they've already succeeded in making noises, sounding the alarm and getting the religious fundamentalists, moderates, atheists, and agnostics to join the religious battlefield (while enriching their bottom line in the process) is already a big accomplishment. They've sown the seeds of dissent in our current global culture. It's time for Integralists to follow through, seize the opportunity, and take this important (inter)national conversation to a whole new level.

My questions to you dear readers: Should Integralists Storm the Religious Battlefield? How? Why? Why Not? Do you have to be a moderate to be integral? Can Integralists take on the New Atheists with the same rhetoric and passion?

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

Presidential candidates are now sprinting to the finish line of the Iowa Caucus. Personally, in this presidential election, I don't resonate with any of the Republican candidates. Most of them are too conservative in their policies and their public expression of religion for my taste. With the exception of McCain, they even dance around the definition of the word "torture." Give me a break! So I'm leaning more towards the Democratic party.

But I'm still torn on who to vote for. I like Obama's character and charisma. I respect Clinton's political experience. I have a soft spot for the soft-spoken Edwards and his policies. But truth be told, I would more likely vote for someone like Kucinich because he strikes me as the boldest yet most embracing of the Democratic hopefuls. Too bad he doesn't stand a chance in the Iowa Caucus, so he's throwing his support on Obama instead:

"I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice ... because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade," Kucinich said. "But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice."

That said, even with Kucinich's endorsement of Obama in Iowa, I'm still undecided. So I'm carefully reading Steve Kirsch's essay, Who should be our next President?

Why do I care about what Steve Kirsch has to say? Who the heck is Steve Kirsch anyway? Check out this article about Steve Kirsch on the NYTimes. To make the long story short, Steve Kirsch thinks like an engineer and a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. I admire how he tackles problems. He did a good analysis on George W. Bush (who was running for President at time). And I like the way he analyzed and compared the policies of the top 3 Democratic candidates, putting more focus on Global Warming and Iraq.

Kirsch's conclusion is to vote for Edwards. He has 19 arguments to support his choice. Here are the first three:

1) "He's the strongest candidate on climate change. Climate change is the most important issue in our planet's history. We must make a dramatic greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction by 2020 and we must help (and convince) other countries to follow our lead. We must start phasing in significant reductions by 2012 and ideally sooner."

2) " All three say they will end the war in Iraq; but Clinton and Obama voted against setting a deadline to get out of Iraq in 2006! Clinton and Obama are followers on other top issues such as Iraq. See The Iraq Funding Bill example for the best example of how they were afraid to express their views on ending the Iraq war, even waiting to see how other Senators voted before they voted."

3) "Edwards is the best on healthcare. Only Edwards has a plan that will cover everyone. Obama's doesn't. And Hillary has so far just suggested reducing the power of insurance companies and computerizing medical records! Hmm.... tough choice. See this May 30, 2007 Boston Globe editorial for details on the plans from all three candidates: Obama's incomplete health plan - The Boston Globe"

Read the rest of the 19 arguments and see if Kirsch would change your mind on who to vote for. His arguments definitely made me thinking. Too bad he didn't include Kucinich in his analysis (because Kucinich is not on the top 3 Democracts). But I think Kucinich responded well to Kirsch's question on Climate Crisis.

In the meantime, Christopher Hitchens delivers a timely political tirade on the mass media and The Iowa Scam, and rightly so.

"The process might be a good way for Iowa to pick its party convention delegates, though I frankly doubt even that. It is an absolutely terrible way in which to select candidates for the presidency, and it makes the United States look and feel like a banana republic both at home and overseas."

Like Sam Harris, I don't like putting labels on my belief and faith. But this is very close to what I subscribe to:

"So what would be the features of an ‘agnostic Buddhist?’ Such a person would not regard the Dharma as a source of ‘answers’ to questions of where we came from, where we are going, what happens after death. He or she would seek such knowledge in the appropriate domains: astrophysics, evolutionary biology, neuro-science etc.  An agnostic Buddhist would therefore not be a ‘believer’ with claims to revealed information about supernatural or paranormal phenomena, and in this sense would not be ‘religious.’ An agnostic Buddhist would look to the Dharma for metaphors of existential confrontation rather than metaphors of existential consolation. He or she would start by facing up to the primacy of anguish and uncertainty (dukkha), then proceed to apply a set of practices to understand the human dilemma and work towards a resolution.  An agnostic Buddhist would eschew atheism as much as theism, and would be as reluctant to regard the universe as devoid of meaning as endowed with meaning.  (For to deny either God or meaning is surely just the antithesis of affirming them.)  Yet such an agnostic stance would not be based on disinterest. It would be founded on a passionate recognition that I do not know.  It would confront the enormity of having been born instead of reaching for the consolation of a belief. It would strip away, layer by layer, the views that conceal the mystery of being here at all."

-- Stephen Batchelor, The Other Enlightenment Project

Thanks to Ottmar for the link.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

The 2008 Iowa Caucus is now history. Obama and Huckabee celebrate their victory. I watched and compared their victory speeches. When it comes to eloquence, charisma, delivery, projected authenticity and presidential electability, Obama trumps Huckabee. See for yourself:

Obama's Iowa Caucus victory speech



Huckabees' Iowa Caucus victory speech




Joe Klein is right:

"That day has now come, at the highest level of American politics. A black man with a dangerous-sounding foreign name trounced his opponents in the nearly all-white state of Iowa. And he did so because, after spending months getting to know him, the people of Iowa stopped seeing his color and began to admire his character. In an election where the word "change" became an almost meaningless talisman, Iowa's triumph over race is a message to the world about the real nature of America — and a ratification of Obama's belief that this will be an election year where everything is on the table, where all the conventional wisdom can be tossed aside, where anything, including decency, is possible."

As for Huckabee, he may have the support of Evangelical Christians (and Chuck Norris) to back him up as he race to the primary, but his incessant appeal to the Religious Right irks me (i.e. invoking the Creator in his victory speech). I simply, don't {heart} Huckabee. And besides, I don't see anything fresh or bold about him (or any of the other Republican candidates). I'm already tired of all the religious intonation of the current Republican administration. I too long for change. Should Huckabee win, I'm afraid that his religious rhetorics would make America look more like a Christian congregation than 21st century super power nation.

But it's not only about religion why I'm choosing to vote Democrat in this election. It's about the war in Iraq, environmental issues, climate change, energy policies, health care policies, and immigration. I prefer a bold, intelligent, charismatic, eloquent, entrepreneurial, secular, and green President. I'm convinced by Steven Kirsch's analysis on who should be our next President:

"I spent a lot of time researching the candidates. I limited my analysis to the Democratic candidates because I want us out of Iraq now (which eliminates all the Republicans) and we need a candidate that takes global warming as a top priority (which again eliminates all the Republicans as you can see from this chart of Where the candidates stand that was put together by the League of Conservation voters."

In the Democratic race, I'm still awaiting how Edwards and Clinton would perform in the primaries. According to Kirsch, Edwards is the right choice because of his policies and his leadership qualities. Unfortunately, the media's attention is on Obama and Clinton (even if Edwards is second place in the Iowa Caucus). In any case, I'd throw in my support to whoever wins the Democratic nomination (even if it's Hillary). But for now, I'm rooting for both Edwards and Obama.

Should Obama eventually bag the primaries and win the Presidential election, my first time to vote as an American citizen will be part of a historical shift at the highest level of American politics. Exciting times to be alive, indeed.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

This video just made my day. Very politically and religiously timely.



Bill Maher just cracks me up every time he takes pot shots at religion and politicians. Bill Maher is a ballsy politically-incorrect comedian who tells it like it is. Although I don't completely agree with his treatment of religious people, for example, not everyone who takes the Holy Communion believe that they're eating the body and drinking the blood of a "two thousand year old space god," what he has to say make me LOL. But Maher could add to his understanding the religious politics of fictive kinship so his views would be less partial than it is.

Thanks to Pharyngula for the video link.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

Glassbooth Election 2008 is a cool site wherein you choose the issues that matter to you, answer a few questions based on those issues, and then it connects you to the 2008 presidential candidate(s) that represents your beliefs the best.

I just took the Glassbooth quiz and I came up with the following matches:

Dennis Kucinich 80% similarity
Mike Gravel 80% similarity
Barack Obama 79% similarity

Nice. It matched me well with my first choice: Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, I don't think Kucinich has a fighting chance in this election. The top 3 Democratic candidates (Obama, Edwards, Clinton) will be neck and neck into the primaries. Kucinich already endorsed Obama in Iowa. It looks like it's logical for me to go with Obama on this one. However, I'm still rooting for Edwards to give Obama the scare.

Why do I limit my choice with only Democratic candidates? Because for me, the most important issues in this election are Iraq and the environment. Steven Kirsch has an excellent analysis on this. See: Who should be our next President?

In the meantime, try out Glassbooth and see if you're a match with the candidate you are endorsing. Let me know how it goes.

Thanks to The Republic of T. for the heads up.

"For the last ten or twelve years, at night when I go to sleep, I meditate for half an hour, then sleep for half an hour, meditate for half an hour, sleep for half an hour. And when I’m sleeping it’s a totally witnessing sleep. My wife knows this, because she sees me sitting up in bed. And I’ve started to have a very sober non-dramatic, but very distinct, ever-present witnessing awareness, whether I’m sleeping or dreaming or in a waking state. The witness is always there; it’s there now for example. And it’s not dramatic, but it’s very much part of who I am at the moment. I don’t prepare for lectures anymore. I used to prepare, like to speak at Harvard Medical School, where my brother is the dean, which I do once a year. But now I find that I give my lectures very naturally. It comes spontaneously and there is a witnessing quality as I am speaking."

(via Deepak Chopra @ Andrew Cohen's Blog: The Universe Project Continued..)

Thanks to Albert for the heads up!

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

I'm quite sure that Mike Huckabee has policies that make perfect sense to his supporters, not to mention their attraction to his religiosity. Case in point: See this Exclusive Interview: Governor Huckabee Speaks with Catholic Online. But this article on Physorg puts it succinctly:

US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

"A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution."

"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."

"Former Arkansas governor Huckabee said in a debate in May that he did not believe in evolution.

Read more.

Don't take my word for it. Watch and be awed.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali reviews The Suicide of Reason by Lee Harris on the NYTimes Sunday Book Review. She sympathized with Lee Harris on his efforts to bring about awareness on radical Islam, but then she left a big gaping hole on the main argument put forth by the book.

This is the bomb.

"I was not born in the West. I was raised with the code of Islam, and from birth I was indoctrinated into a tribal mind-set. Yet I have changed, I have adopted the values of the Enlightenment, and as a result I have to live with the rejection of my native clan as well as the Islamic tribe. Why have I done so? Because in a tribal society, life is cruel and terrible. And I am not alone. Muslims have been migrating to the West in droves for decades now. They are in search of a better life. Yet their tribal and cultural constraints have traveled with them. And the multiculturalism and moral relativism that reign in the West have accommodated this.

"Harris is correct, I believe, that many Western leaders are terribly confused about the Islamic world. They are woefully uninformed and often unwilling to confront the tribal nature of Islam. The problem, however, is not too much reason but too little. Harris also fails to address the enemies of reason within the West: religion and the Romantic movement. It is out of rejection of religion that the Enlightenment emerged; Romanticism was a revolt against reason.

"Both the Romantic movement and organized religion have contributed a great deal to the arts and to the spirituality of the Western mind, but they share a hostility to modernity. Moral and cultural relativism (and their popular manifestation, multiculturalism) are the hallmarks of the Romantics. To argue that reason is the mother of the current mess the West is in is to miss the major impact this movement has had, first in the West and perhaps even more profoundly outside the West, particularly in Muslim lands.

"Thus, it is not reason that accommodates and encourages the persistent segregation and tribalism of immigrant Muslim populations in the West. It is Romanticism. Multiculturalism and moral relativism promote an idealization of tribal life and have shown themselves to be impervious to empirical criticism. My reasons for reproaching today’s Western leaders are different from Harris’s. I see them squandering a great and vital opportunity to compete with the agents of radical Islam for the minds of Muslims, especially those within their borders. But to do so, they must allow reason to prevail over sentiment."

Read more.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is my kind of New Atheist ;)

Thanks to RichardDawkins.net for the heads up!

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

I've been wanting to watch this documentary for a long time now. But I couldn't find a DVD to rent. Good thing it's now available on Google Video.




"THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Footage from pop culture, advertising, TV, news, and corporate propaganda, illuminates the corporation's grip on our lives. Taking its legal status as a "person" to its logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" Provoking, witty, sweepingly informative, The Corporation includes forty interviews with corporate insiders and critics - including Milton Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change."