Peter Kazmaier

At the first lecture of Get Over Yourself by Bruxy Cavey an interesting book by J. M. Twenge and W. K. Campbell entitled The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in an Age of Entitlement was discussed.

In summary, Cavey, while he acknowledged there were people who had self-destructive perceptions of themselves, argued that “self-love” and “self-affirmation” have become a panacea of our generation for almost all psychological ailments. Instead promoting this, in his words we should:

“…renounce the pop-culture pursuit of self-love. Forget trying to love yourself more. In fact, most of us would benefit from thinking about ourselves less, period. Start focusing on the needs and desires of others, especially those people who are on the margins of social circles.”

In response to this, I would ask:

• Is it true that our generation is overly focused on ourselves?
• If we are, is it a bad thing?

(continue reading…)

In our culture where we receive so much advice about building self-confidence and self-esteem, it is refreshing to hear about a series of lectures that challenges this paradigm. If you are interested, I’ve attached the information on the lectures below.

In one sense to me, building self-esteem and self-confidence by imagining that I am able to do things that are beyond me is a bit like a placebo – I am relying on a psychological lift to improve my behavior. Although, like a placebo this may have some positive effect, ultimately I’m relying on a cheat. I am a finite human being and I do have limitations.

It will be interesting to see how Bruxy Cavey deals with this question. If you’d like to learn more, listen to the free podcasts or attend the lectures, check out the link to The Meeting House to get more information. It is my hope that Bruxy Cavey will teach how to take the “self” out of self-confidence and self-esteem.

Thanks for reading,

Peter

It was about a year ago when a friend of mine asked what I thought of Peter Joseph’s movie, Zeitgeist . Zeitgeist is a movie that has been viewed by more than 50 M viewers and has propagated by viral marketing (i.e. one viewer after another emails the link to their friends because of its startling and controversial message). The movie itself is divided into three sections. The first part claims that Jesus and his life is a “recent” version of an astro-theological myth that has been replayed many, many times in the past. The second part claims that the 9/11 catastrophe was orchestrated by the United States, and the final portion makes claims about an international banking conspiracy.

Now let me say at the outset that I watched part 2 only once and never watched part 3, so I have no comments to make on these. So what are my thoughts on part 1?

(continue reading…)

Judging by the comments of Stephen Weinburg and the more recent additions to this body of writing by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris, there are many modern writers who would like to orchestrate and/or hasten ‘The End of Religion’. However Cavey’s book does not have the same end in mind as the other five who foresee a brave new world based on a ‘religion-free materialism’. Cavey has written two versions of ‘The End of Religion’, one by Agora Imprints and a longer one by NavPress. I have read both and I will discuss both. So what does Cavey mean by ‘The End of Religion?’ (continue reading…)

“We have to run the ramp of reason before we take the leap of faith.”

Bruxy Cavey November 18, 2007

I frequently read Chemical and Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society. Most of the articles deal with science in general and chemistry in particular, but occasionally a letter-to-the-editor will appear in which a colleague attempts to reconcile or perhaps differentiate science and religion. At some point in the letter a statement will appear which I will paraphrase as “science deals with facts while religion deals with faith”. Now I, as a person with a foot in both camps do not find this particularly conciliatory. My personal sentiment not withstanding, one needs to ask “Is this a true and accurate description of science and religion?”. (continue reading…)