LSP54: Why Hatred Is a Free Will Choice - And Why Everyone Needs to Face the Truth About Hatred

 

It's common these days for spiritual leaders of all stripes to speak eloquently and volubly of love's power to heal the world. We're especially keen to talk about the power of love after we've been asked to deal with yet another horrific attack on innocent people, such as the recent gun attack at Stoneman Douglas high school in Florida  or the van attack in Toronto. When our fellow human beings choose to behave like monsters, we're quick to respond by sharing thoughts and prayers on social media, holding candlelight vigils, and making donations on crowd-sourcing sites. This is all well and good. What I don't see is a willingness on the part of influential commentators to ask why the violent perpetrators felt such hatred towards others and why they thought it was okay to act on their hatred. I don't see people asking what hatred is and why we're seeing a resurgence of this beastly human emotion throughout the world.

It's not good enough to sweep these questions under the carpet by proclaiming that hatred is simply a void in a person's head where love should be, as if it's not the hate-filled person's moral responsibility.

Hatred is not a lack of anything. Hatred is a moral choice. And unless a person can demonstrate that his/her biological brain has been catastrophically damaged by a head injury or a psychotic break or a viral attack or mercury poisoning or severe dementia or something else along the lines of an extreme physiological force, that person is responsible for the choice to hate others. 

As with all major meta-choices in life, hatred is a learned behaviour that evolves over time. You don't suddenly wake up one morning and decide to hate everyone whose name starts with a "J" (unless, as mentioned in the paragraph above, you've experienced a traumatic brain injury). Hatred is way of coping with a life you just don't like, a life that doesn't match what you believe you're entitled to. Hatred rewrites your brain's moral code and gives you permission to override the quiet whispering of  your soul's inner voice (that is, your conscience).

Irrefutable proof that hatred is a moral choice is found in the history of slavery among human cultures throughout time, region, and religious tradition. No one of conscience could ever believe that slavery is acceptable to God or the soul. Yet countless millions have persuaded themselves that slavery is a morally acceptable way to take what they think God owes them. Shown here is part of an Egyptian wall painting on display at the British Museum, London, UK. Photo credit JAT 2024.

Here is my working definition of hatred: Hatred is the choice to project your own personal responsibility onto somebody else so you don't have to deal with the consequences of your own thoughts, feelings, or actions. 

Hatred is the choice to blame other people for your own lack of happiness.

Hatred is the choice to blame other people for your own selfishness.

Hatred is the choice to blame other people for your own status addiction.

Hatred is the choice to blame other people for your own lack of self-knowing and self-love.

Hatred is the choice to blame other people for the rage you feel when someone tells you you've made a mistake.

Hatred is the choice to blame other people for the rage you feel when someone tells you you're not special and you're not chosen and you're not "better" than anyone else.

Hatred is the choice to blame other people for the rage you feel when someone tells you you're not perfect and you're never going to be perfect.

Hatred is the choice to blame other people because you don't think you should ever have to deal with your own feelings of shame or guilt.

Hatred is the choice to blame other people when you realize you haven't yet achieved your "rightful" place as a saviour, Messiah, or enlightened teacher of justice and mercy, a place you're so certain you deserve.

Hatred is an inevitable consequence of your own belief that you already know yourself so well that you couldn't possibly fool yourself into believing things about yourself that simply aren't true.

In short, hatred is your brain's way of trying to prove to itself that you're a really nice person who's trying to save others when, in fact, you're a mean, nasty person who's narcissistic and selfish and refuses to take personal responsibility for your own choices and beliefs and attitudes towards others.

Among the narcissistic self-delusions that create no end of human suffering are these:

• a belief that you're incapable of making mistakes because you have all the right education and all the right knowledge
• a belief that you're better than other people because you have the only correct ideological understanding of the universe
• a belief in the superiority of your own mental processes because your logic is obviously impeccable
• a belief that you deserve to feel moral outrage if anyone suggests you should feel shame or guilt about the choices you've made (including religious choices)
• a belief that you're using all your exquisite knowledge and specialness and logic to save other people from their own stupidity (though you probably realize you shouldn't say this part out loud)

Hatred is a terrible force, and it creates indescribable suffering in the world, but it exists only because individual human beings and certain communities allow it to exist.

It exists where individuals and ideological communities refuse to be honest with themselves about what human beings are capable of when they embrace a loving and humble relationship with God and with themselves. 

Of course, the choice to love with humbleness and courage is also a choice. Love and hate are at opposite ends of the free will spectrum. But the great thing about free will is that you can change your mind about the kind of person you want to be. Even if your family, religious community, or social community have encouraged you to be a person who hates, you can always decide you no longer want to be that person. You can decide to learn -- to remember -- how to love.

A particular passage in the New Testament summarizes these thoughts beautifully. The passage I'm thinking of is found in 1 Corinthians 13:1-8a, so it's long been attributed to the apostle Paul. I'm pretty certain, however, that this short and timeless ode to Divine Love was written by Jesus and later stolen by Paul as part of the latter's ongoing efforts to make his teachings seem more closely aligned with those of Jesus.

It goes like this (using the NRSV translation, mostly):

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have piety, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. 

What love looks like: Light, openness, shared space, healing beauty, one well of water that quenches the thirst of all people equally. Shown here is the well in the cloister garden of Westminster Abbey, London, England. Photo credit JAT 2023.

LSP53: Why the Practice of "No Right and No Wrong" Hurts Your Brain and Damages Your Empathy

The dispute began with this small saying posted over a photo: "Forgive people in your life, even those who are not sorry for their actions. Holding on to anger only hurts you, not them."

The first person to reply didn't want to talk about forgiveness or holding onto anger. He wanted to dismiss both of these important emotional and spiritual issues by playing the trump card of "non-judgment." So he said, "I would suggest that learning and practising NON-judgement would eliminate any and all need for forgiveness and lead to a more loving and peaceful world."

His definition of "non-judgment," as revealed by a later comment, is this: "These days, I tend to ask myself just one question about any event that I see - 'Would I like to see that in my autobiography.' NO judgement of 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'bad'. It just IS and it is up to me to decide how to respond - or not respond."

A forgiving brain reminds me of this modified photo of the Lady Chapel ceiling at Westminster Abbey, London, England. Forgiveness is strong and orderly, but also organic, layered, and subtly interconnected. Photo credit JAT 2023.

He was not all pleased with my first response to him, which went like this: "It's true that those who practise non-judgment see no need for forgiveness. It's also true that those who practise non-judgment believe firmly that this will lead to a more loving and peaceful world. However, there's no evidence that non-judgment actually creates what it claims to create. What it seems to create is rampant narcissism, self-entitlement, morality that's "convenient" and changeable depending on the circumstances, and a diminished sense of personal responsibility."

Among other things he said to me, he demanded backing for my comments. So although it's unlikely anything I offer in the way of research will interest him, I decided this would be a good time to talk about why the current practice of non-judgment (as defined above) is harmful to the brain and why it leads to widespread narcissism, self-entitlement, fluid morality, and a diminished sense of personal responsibility.

First, I'd like to make it super, ultra-clear that when I'm talking about the practice of non-judgment, I'm not in any rejecting the practice of trying to see your fellow human beings through the loving eyes and ears of kindness, compassion, inclusiveness, and equality before God. Obviously, it's a good thing to try to see the best in everyone. And, obviously, it's a good thing to help others on the difficult and confusing journey of trying to be the best self one can be as a human being.

The spiritual practice of non-judgment, wherein nothing is deemed to be either "right or wrong," "good or bad," is the specific practice I'm objecting to. According to this belief system, things just "are," and you're not supposed to have an opinion about them one way or the way. 

In other words, it's okay for you to reject conventional codes of morality, codes that boil down to the idea of consequences for your choices. In the non-judgment belief system, you may decide that a particular choice isn't a good one for you -- for example, you may decide not to copy the choices of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock -- but you're really not supposed to have an opinion one way or the other on what Paddock did. As teachers such as Neale Donald Walsch and Eckhart Tolle would have it, Paddock was following a false mental construction or offering resistance to life. No one who has accepted the teachings of non-judgment would want to do such a violent, unloving thing, say these teachers. But now that he's done it, there's no need to forgive Paddock, because in order to forgive him, you'd first have to decide his actions were immoral. And that would be a judgment. A judgment with consequences.

So yes . . . it makes perfect sense within the non-judgment belief system to say that forgiveness isn't needed. But when you understand what forgiveness really is -- a free will choice to override conditioned responses such as revenge, anger, hatred, rumination, and ongoing emotional stress in the face of harm -- you realize that people who've learned how to forgive are the real agents of love and peace in the world. They're the ones who aren't afraid to turn the brain's many tit-for-tat lemons into healing lemonade.

Learning how to forgive isn't quick or easy, but, in the hope that a bit of background information about the brain may help some readers, I offer the following simple map of what's going on inside your head as you pursue your spiritual journey.

To start with, it's good to know that the human brain is a vast assortment of neurons and glial cells and networks of connectivity and neurotransmitters and so on, with current estimates of the total number of neurons now standing at 86 billion accompanied by about an equal number of glial cells.

For many decades in the twentieth century, the belief that the adult brain couldn't grow new neurons was scientific dogma -- and vigorously defended dogma, at that. Despite some early evidence to the contrary, it wasn't until the late 1990's that researcher Elizabeth Gould (who worked with marmosets) was able to convincingly overturn this longstanding tenet of neuroscience. Today, a mere 20 years later, no reputable researcher would deny the brain's remarkable ability to reshape itself by building new neurons, building new networks, and dismantling cells and connections that are no longer needed. The umbrella term for the process of growing new neurons is called neurogenesis; the malleability of brain connections is called neuroplasticity.

The important point here is that until doctors and other medical professionals began to understand the full potential of neuroplasticity, many of them based their practical care decisions on false beliefs about the brain. Patients who could have benefited from care regimens designed to encourage the brain to repair itself were instead being told nothing could be done. Patients in need of neurological help didn't receive the therapy they needed, not because of a lack of care and concern but because of a lack of proper understanding of how the biological brain actually works.

The same thing has been happening in spiritual and religious circles. Certain beliefs and spiritual practices are being recommended in the well-intentioned belief that such practices will help people create a more loving and peaceful world. But if these practices interfere at a biological level with the brain's ability to exhibit traits such as empathy, altruism, gratitude, forgiveness, trust, love, and sense of meaning, then we need to be honest about these practices and revisit their usefulness for those who seek healing relationships with themselves, each other, and God.

Fascinating new research supported by the use of brain scanning technologies has revealed that the brain contains multiple networks -- like highly specific paths or roadways -- that connect certain regions of the brain to produce specific human traits. New networks are being suggested and theorized about all the time, so it's not possible for me to include a comprehensive list, but we now have data to point to the default mode network; the interoception network; the salience network; and the theory of mind network, to name a few. Networks aren't separate from each other and they tend to overlap at certain key "hubs." But without these networks, we wouldn't be able to process, regulate, and put into action the complex thoughts, emotions, memories, skills, and perceptions that make us human in a broad sense and also in a unique individual sense.

The brain's networks are so complex that there's always a struggle to keep them in balance. Sometimes an area of the brain is overactive (which affects any networks the area is connected to) and sometimes an area is underactive (which also affects any relevant networks). In addition, entire networks can become dysfunctional, which can become quite serious from a medical point of view because of demonstrated links to specific neurological and psychiatric disorders. The dorsomedial default network, for example, which is supposed to help the brain regulate pain perception, self-knowledge, empathy, and person perception (among other traits) is implicated in a number of major disorders when the links in the network become damaged or are shown to be metabolically overactive or underactive.

In other words, when networks are working in balanced and healthy ways, we can expect to see outward signs of that inner healthy balance. When a person's dorsomedial default network isn't suffering from the insults of illness or injury or genetic factors, for instance, there's less chance that we'll see a person who lacks empathy for others, appropriate responses to pain, and significant social and communication abnormalities. But with damage to this network can come suffering. Depression, autism, schizophrenia, and obsessive compulsive disorder have all been linked in various ways and in varying degrees to dysfunctions in this network.

And then there's the brain network involved in making moral decisions. Yes, I'm afraid to say there really is such a thing. This network, which uses the temporal-parietal junction, the medial prefrontal cortex, and the middle temporal gyrus (as well as a few other regions), uses brain areas similar to those involved in both theory of mind and empathy. The health and the interconnectivity of these brain areas determines your ability to make moral decisions; your ability to empathize with others (an emotional trait); and your ability to process the more abstract and cognitive aspects of social skills (theory of mind) -- all three at one time. These three important aspects of humanity are interconnected and, despite what you've been told by certain spiritual teachers, can't be biologically disconnected from each other. Nor should you want them to be. These traits reinforce each other and lead to wise decisions that balance both your emotional reasoning skills and your cognitive reasoning skills. It's win-win when you balance your heart and your mind.

If, on the other hand, you train your brain through the practice of non-judgment to ignore your natural, built-in, hard-wired ability to make moral decisions, you'll be rewiring your brain. (It's the use-it-or-lose-it aspect of neuroplasticity, which allows you to change your brain architecture over time through the repeated application of certain free will thoughts and practices.) Unfortunately, this will also impair your brain's ability to feel empathy and your ability to process the healthy cognitive aspects of your relationships, since both of these traits rely on the brain networks that create moral reasoning -- the connections you just intentionally hacked to bits. Lack of moral reasoning and lack of empathy go hand in hand. And it should go without saying that a person who has lost the ability to feel emotional empathy for others (as opposed to cognitive empathy) behaves in narcissistic, self-entitled ways, and struggles to overcome his or her own emotional egocentrism.

And, for those who still don't believe forgiveness is necessary, the neuroscientific evidence gets worse. Several recent papers on the neuroscientific basis for forgiveness reveal that granting forgiveness activates the same brain areas as moral cognition, empathy, and theory of mind social reasoning. In addition, there's evidence that the practices of gratitude and altruism, with their links to moral choices and actions, also use some of the same brain areas.

Like the unfolding of individual blossoms on a single orchid stem, the brain's ability to manifest certain soul-based traits such as morality, empathy, and forgiveness depends on a small number brain regions that are linked to each other and produce these traits in sequence. Photo credit JAT 2022.

So there's no getting out of it. You're born with a brain that comes with its own internal software packages for morality, empathy, social cognition, forgiveness, gratitude, and altruism, all of which are biologically intertwined and all of which help you be the most loving person you can be as a human. The trick to not losing any of these desperately needed traits is to treat them as a "package deal." Each time you practice one of these spiritual skills -- which means you're activating and strengthening the links between specific brain areas -- you make it easier for your brain to navigate the other skills in the package.

It's the package as a whole that gives us the tools we need to bring love and peace into the world. So do your spiritual brain a favour. Strengthen the best attributes of your brain so you can go out there and make a difference in the world. Learn from the mistakes made by people such as Stephen Paddock, find the courage to forgive them, and then take the time to teach yourself and others how to be the person you really want to be.

You'll be surprised at what you can do when you learn to use your brain wisely.

LSP51: Do You Agree with Pope Francis on the Question of Hypocritical Catholics Versus Atheists?

Last week, Pope Francis made international headlines when he criticized hypocrisy among Catholics who rigorously observe Catholic rituals but don't apply Christian virtues to their daily lives. This in itself wasn't an original insight, as anyone who knows the Bible can tell you. What attracted attention was Pope Francis' decision to quote this modern sentiment: "But to be a Catholic like that, it's better to be an atheist."

So is Pope Francis right? Is it true that atheists are capable of leading more virtuous lives than people who believe in God? Are atheists generally less hypocritical than Christians?

First, I want to be clear about the definition I'm using for atheist. I'm not talking about the people who are troubled by doubts and questions about God and who therefore aren't sure which direction to take; I'm talking about the people who are no longer troubled by such doubts or questions because they've a made a clear and conscious decision to reject the notion of a living God.

In my experience, it's the people who are most conscious about their decision to reject God who are the most hypocritical individuals I've had the misfortune to meet.

A few years ago, I worked for such a person, a store manager who was the boss from hell. For the purposes of this essay, I'll call her Celia.

Celia was a woman in her 40's who had worked in retail for many years. She was also, as voiced almost from the moment I met her, a passionate advocate of progressive values and human rights legislation. She claimed to be a person who wouldn't tolerate the slightest form of injustice. As an avowed atheist, she proudly spoke with righteous logic about the many harms caused by organized religion. She was, in short, the very model of a virtuous Canadian atheist.

But Celia had a dirty secret. She was profoundly hypocritical. She used her position as a retail manager not to lift others up through positive relationships but to bash other people down through a particularly insidious form of schadenfreude that loves the law but not the spirit of the law.

Celia lived to find fault in others so she could judge them as unworthy citizens who had committed crimes and deserved to be punished, all in the name of righteousness. So, instead of doing her job as manager, she would sit in the back of the store and obsessively watch the store's security cameras so she could catch small infractions of the "rules." She would make new rules, fail to communicate the new rules to staff members, punish us for breaking the rules, then set aside the new rules and replace them with more new rules the next day. She seemed unaware of how fickle and unprofessional and downright nasty her actions seemed to the rest of us. Meanwhile, she was so busy hunting down criminals, she wasn't leading the sales floor, or organizing stock, or promoting good relationships among staff so the store could operate efficiently and compassionately. She was just . . . dedicating herself to her "higher calling," her calling as a righteous warrior.

She was living in her own little world of purity and justice, and, from her point of view, she was righting a whole series of terrible wrongs. So she felt justified in firing anyone who didn't meet her standards, which was pretty much everyone. (After a while, I started keeping a list.) At any given time, she had a "favourite" employee and a "probational" employee, though you could quickly and quixotically fall from being favoured to being hated. One by one, she pushed us under the bus. I knew my time was coming to an end when she'd already fired everyone else who had given her "just cause." I was frantically looking for another job, but I wasn't fast enough. She'd set her vigilante sights on me. I got the boot because I dared to say in private to some other employees what I thought of her treatment of us. One of those employees was foolish enough to trust Celia's words about fairness and justice, and told Celia what I'd said. That employee didn't last much longer there than I did.

Celia's real problem was that she lacked any sense of true humbleness (with the meaning I've written about in previous posts). She was deeply narcissistic and absolutely certain of her "right to be right" (a brain issue I've also written about). She couldn't tolerate her own mistakes, so problems and doubts and questions always had to be somebody else's fault. 

Not only were the mistakes not her own, but she devoutly believed that all errors should be eradicated through the humanistic "religion" of perfection. Within this widespread human belief system of virtue, it's axiomatic that permanent perfection can be achieved through the proper application of human logic, law, justice, purity, and holiness. Once stupid superstitions like faith in God are eradicated, there's room for clever humans to get on with the task of building perfection. Those who achieve perfection are virtuous. Virtue confers authority. And authority grants the certainty to set yourself above the laws of justice that normal people (like employees) have to follow.

What laws are better, you ask, than the laws of fairness and common sense and personal responsibility and empathy? Why, the laws of self-justification, of course.  

Naturally, Celia was an expert at self-justification.

What Celia believed in was not justice but pure System 2 thinking and pure System 2 folly. Over the years -- perhaps as the result of a difficult childhood -- Celia had trained her brain to place less priority on the valuable input of her brain's System 1 processing system. She didn't want to feel empathy for others (because System 1 empathy, trust, and faith, unlike System 2 agreeableness, sometimes lead to emotional pain). She didn't want to feel humble. She didn't want to ask difficult questions about God. Or do the hard work of coping with her own messy System 1 sense of meaning. Most especially, she didn't want anyone else to tell her what to do or how to do it. She wanted control. She wanted to be in charge of the rules so she could change them at will and have a sense of power over others. She wanted to say she's a virtuous person without having to give up her "right to be right," her right to be happy in whatever way she damn well pleased.

In short, she wanted an excuse to proclaim herself a righteous warrior without ever having to do the hard work of loving your God and loving your neighbour as yourself.

She's an atheist because the atheistic worldview (with its suppression of System 1 brain input) gives her permission to be a controlling, narcissistic, unloving hypocrite who speaks volubly about justice and mercy but who actually prefers to terrorize others through her actions.

One aspect of being a cataphatic nature mystic is the sensitivity one develops to metaphors from nature. So when I went through my photo files to find an illustration to describe what it feels like to be attacked by an atheist, this photo, from a particularly nasty February 2015 storm, jumped out at me. The cold and vicious winds drove their payload of snow so strongly at every target that even the vertical bricks of my neighbour's house weren't spared. My personal faith is as sure and steady as these bricks, but when an atheist chooses to attack . . . it feels as if I've been blasted by calculated waves of pure, cold, logical hatred. Photo credit JAT 2015.

 

I've encountered a number of atheists who will resort to ad hominem attacks on people of faith at the slightest provocation, including the mere mention of God. Atheists who go on the attack (and many of them seem to believe it's their moral duty to attack) don't just argue on the grounds of logic or science but find it very easy to slip into hate-filled diatribes about the idiocy of anyone who trusts in God. The viciousness of an atheist in hot pursuit of a faith-based target is a scary sight indeed. (Survival of the fittest, no doubt?)

I agree with Pope Francis that all atheists will go to heaven, and I agree that all atheists should be treated with dignity and respect because they're human beings and children of God just like everybody else.

But this doesn't mean I find the moral choices of atheists acceptable.

There's no virtue to be found in an atheist's "right to be right." And atheists aren't less hypocritical than System-2-dominant Christians (that is, the Catholic hypocrites Pope Francis has complained about). The only way for any of us to stop living as hypocrites is to embrace the full capacity of our human brains -- to learn what it means to love and forgive and learn and grow at the deepest levels of heart combined with mind combined with soul combined with body on an ongoing basis till the day we die.

If you think you can do all this without asking God for help, you must really think highly of yourself.

LSP46: Don't Know God from Adam

Adam: So God, I was thinking. I've decided I should become a more spiritual person, so I thought maybe you could give me some tips. Nothing biblical, of course. I'm thinking of something more modern. I'm thinking . . . oh . . . maybe something with a bit of a Jesus feel to it. Jesus seems to fly well with just about everybody. You know, all that love and forgiveness stuff. How about it?  Any suggestions for how I can be more like Jesus? I'd really love everybody to love me. The way they love Jesus.

God:  Hmmm. Interesting choice, son.

Adam, shrugging:  Hey, it's, like, just a little something I dreamed up.

God:  Well . . . it's certainly doable, son. How would you like to start?

Adam:  I'm very big on the idea of respect, so we should start with that.

God:  Oh. You'd like to know how to respect me?

Photo JAT 2015

Adam, chuckling:  Of course not. You have such a sense of humour, God. No, I was thinking it's important for me to state what I need. That way, the boundaries will be clear, and there'll be no misunderstandings between us.

God:  I see. That's not the way Jesus started his conversation with me, but go on. Let's see where this takes us.

Adam:  Great. Just so we're clear . . . you and I are equal partners in this, okay? I mean, I don't even have to be doing this. I could just carry on with the life I've been living. I'm pretty impressed with the choices I've been making so far, and other people have told me how great I'm doing, so this spiritual stuff -- it's an add-on. If I don't like something, I'm gonna say so and I'm gonna stop right then and there. That's my bottom line.

God:  You have free will, son. I give that to everybody.

Adam:  Another thing. You're going to guarantee me the results I want, right? You're going to make sure I'm even more popular and successful, right?

God:  You know Jesus was hated by the people he loved, don't you, son? You know he pushed all their buttons?

Adam:  Yeah, yeah, the crucifixion thing. But that was before we got smarter and more accepting of others in our culture. That wouldn't happen today. We wouldn't let it. Today we know the difference between love and hate.

God:  You know the difference between status and lack of status. I'm not sure it's the same thing, son.

Adam:  So back to the Jesus plan. How do I start being more like Jesus?

God:  Well, I need a lot of help getting practical things from people who have them to people who need them. Do you think you might be able to help with that?

Adam:  You mean I should write a cheque to a charity? I might be able to squeeze out a few bucks for you.

God:  Actually, I was thinking about a young man who lives in your community and needs a kind word, an encouraging smile, and a fair chance at getting a job. You're going to cross paths with him on Monday at 5:00 p.m. Think you can help me with that?

Adam, checking schedule on phone:  Uh, well, sorry, but Monday isn't good for me. I have to be at the gym by then. Another day would be better for me. What's Friday like for you? I can squeeze in some time at 7:30 p.m..

God:  Shouldn't you be home with your children at 7:30 p.m.? I'm just wondering, since Jesus placed an extremely high priority on the emotional needs of children, and if you were to spend time in the evenings with your children, it would be a great first step.

Adam:  No problem. I always give them a kiss when I get home, and during the day I sometimes text them.

God:  You know, Jesus was pretty keen on the idea of visiting people in person. He did his teaching and healing in person, even though he could have written long sermons and sent them out by messenger the way other teachers did. Think you could be more of a hands-on guy?

Adam:  Interesting thought, God. Interesting thought. I don't think it's really my style. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

God:  Your children have free will, too, Adam.

Adam:  Hey, don't tell me how to raise my children, God. Next you'll be telling me I should say out loud I believe in God. Nope. I draw the line at saying -- or even thinking -- I believe in you. It ain't gonna happen, God. That's one of my ground rules.

God:  So . . . . to be clear . . . you want to be like Jesus, who believed in me with every shred of his being  . . . but you don't think you should have to believe in anything beyond yourself?

Adam:  You got that straight. I know my rights.

God:  Okay, son. Well, I think I'll be on my way now.

Adam:  Wait! I'm not finished! If this is going to work between us, I expect you to listen! You're supposed to help me when I ask for help!

God:   . . . (offstage whisper) Where's my copy of Horton Hears a Who? Anyone see my copy? Jesus, you borrow it again? Never a copy around when I need one. The kids love it  . . . (smiling) . . .

Adam:  See? Just what I thought! All talk, no commitment. Where are you, God? What kind of God are you, anyway?

LSP45: Atheism: You Think You've Escaped the Perils of Religion . . . So Why Isn't Your Life Getting Better?

If the militant atheists are right, and the world's greatest ills can be blamed on religion, then I'm wondering why, at the close of 2015, when more people than ever are rejecting faith and religion and relationship with God for the simple logic of atheism, the world is looking less loving, not more loving?

Could it be that militant atheism, in its religiosity, pure ideology, anger, lack of empathy, and anthropocentric hubris, is simply a new manifestation of the same neurophysiological patterning that leads to fundamentalism of all stripes?

Could it be that militant atheism is a fundamentalist philosophy with characteristics no different, say, than the Middle East movement known as ISIL, which purports to be a religious movement, but is really just a haven for human beings who have damaged their brains and have turned themselves into the Four Horsemen of the Dark Psychological Tetrad (Psychopathy, Narcissism, Sadism, and Machiavellianism)?

Black Beauty T. Rex at the Royal Tyrrell Museum, Drumheller, Alberta. Sure, it's unrealistic and unscientific for Creationists to deny the evidence of the fossil record and claim that Planet Earth is only a few thousand years old. No argument there. But it's also unrealistic and unscientific for militant atheists to deny the evidence of the quantum record, which speaks of weird phenomena such as non-locality, the conscious observer, bosons, fermions, and magnetism, not to mention all the dark matter and dark energy we know almost nothing about. From my perspective, the atheist belief that "dumb luck" led to the evolution of the universe requires a much higher degree of sanctimonious denial than the Creationist position could ever muster. Are we humans really so incredibly amazing that the entire universe evolved just so we could have consciousness with all the rights and privileges of the conscious observer effect? Really? We can't even manage our own bank accounts, let alone act as wise custodians of Planet Earth, so why would the universe evolve to give humankind the unique right to mess with the laws of physics? Photo credit JAT 2015.

The militant atheists I've known (and I've known quite a few) strut and preen in exactly the same harsh way as the spiritual and theological narcissists I've known. They're certain of their rightness, certain of their objective intellect, certain they have all the facts. They're quick to judge and even quicker to punish. They have no empathy (though they rush to claim they live by the laws of empathy's hobbled cousins "compassion" and "mercy"). They rely almost exclusively on the brain's System 2 thinking processes (linear thinking) and pour contempt on the brain's much older and more adaptive System 1 thinking processes (creative and intuitive thinking). They're slow to learn from their mistakes and even slower to admit they made any mistakes in the first place.

Here's something else I've noticed about militant atheists and other fundamentalist philosophers: they're really, really poor at constructing a whole and complete argument. In fact, most of them couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. But don't say this to their face, because they'll explode in vengeful anger -- maybe even treat you to a narcissistic rage reaction -- and they'll make you pay BIG for pointing out they're not really as smart as they think they are.

I take issue with militant atheist philosophies on the following fronts:

• They use restricted data sets and then claim they're using a complete data set. One example is an extreme reliance on Materialist cause-and-effect "Law" without regard or deference to the non-Materialist laws that govern most of the universe. Why is it "wrong" for religious leaders to ignore the actual laws of physics but "right" for atheists to do it when it suits them?
• Another example, taken from the field of religious studies, is a tendency for atheists to conflate many different topics into a single "bugaboo" called religion. Sure, religious fundamentalists conflate stuff all the time -- but why is it okay for atheists to fall back on conflation, over-simplification, literalism, and myth-making of their own?  
• Atheists, in my experience, rely heavily on "revelation" to an extent that rivals the worst abuses of "religious revelation" from major world religions. Under the category of "revelation" you find "proofs" such as "Because I said so," "Because I'm smarter than you," "Because I cherry-picked one small fact from an entire body of knowledge and used it out of context to show how smart I am," and "I just know it's true."
• Atheism has its own set of gods, though it likes to pretend otherwise. Top on the list of atheism's idols are "The Perfect Human Mind," followed closely by scientism; algorithmic solutions; and variations on the "it's not my fault I'm a scumbag because my genes made me do it" argument (which is really no different than the ancient religious argument that says "it's not my fault I'm a scumbag because my demons made me do it").
• Atheism is marked by a petulant, narcissistic refusal to examine the enormous and interconnected questions of scale, time, peripheral vision, alternating current, bonding, probability wave currents, and other non-linear, non-Materialist questions related to God and consciousness and Creation. They use their own personal human limits as proof that God can't actually exist! (as if God has ever understood questions of scale, time, etc. in the way a human brain does!) 

How are these philosophical approaches any different, characterologically speaking, from those used by religious fundamentalists?

How can you expect to become a happier, healthier person who understands patience and love and forgiveness and calmness and flexibility and healing and scale and time and bonding and breadth of knowledge and self-directed morality when you've made the choice to turn yourself into an "iceberg thinker" who refuses to look at anything except the small percentage of data floating above the surface of your System 2 thinking?

And why do you think it's wrong for religious teachers to do this but okay for you to do exactly the same thing?

In my view, militant atheism is hypocrisy in as pure a form as one can get.

______________________________________


March 2, 2016 addendum: A recent piece by Brian Bethune in Macleans highlights some interesting research by social scientists Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog into the unusual percentage of Islamist terrorists who have engineering degrees: http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/why-do-so-many-jihadis-have-engineering-degrees/. Bethune says: "That takes Hertog and Gambetta to the thorny question of “mindsets for extremists.” Different types of people are attracted to different kinds of extremism—engineers mostly on one side, social scientists and humanities grads on the other—and the authors went in search of traits found in both secular and jihadi extremists as well as among engineers. Three stand out among conservatives in general in recent psychological research: disgust (or the felt need to keep one’s environment pure, which can underpin everything from homophobia to xenophobia); the “need for cognitive closure” (a preference for order and certainty that can support authoritarianism); a very high in-group/out-group distinction."

LSP42: Gordian Knots in the Faith/Science/Religion Debate

On March 1, 2015, Scientific American blogger John Horgan posted a written reply he'd received from John Lennox on the question of whether religion and science can coexist. John Horgan (whose views are agnostic) had debated the question with John Lennox (whose views are Christian) at the Stevens Institute of Technology. Horgan posted Lennox's follow-up letter, and readers of the blog were then free to comment.

Here is my response, posted in the comment section on April 27, 2015 (with typos now fixed):

___________________________________________________
 

Religion isn't just "one thing." Faith isn't just "one thing." The human brain (where both religion and faith are experienced) isn't just "one thing." Anyone who tries to reduce these incredibly complex questions to simple either-or explanations isn't paying attention to reality. Photo credit JAT 2026.

 

In my experience, the real question is not whether religion and science can coexist, but whether religion and faith can coexist.

@4 Paul Topping wrote, "In my mind, the main 'proof' that convinces me of the atheist point of view is that people have so many different religions with such different explanations. . . . The only reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong and that belief in religion is just something that some people have like blue eyes."

When I read a comment such as this (and there are many these days) I know the individual hasn't taken the time and trouble to use objective research tools to examine key questions about religion -- questions examined with tools such as historicity, source criticism, socio-rhetorical criticism, and cost-benefit analyses from political, economic, social, military, and legal perspectives in the contexts in which the doctrines arose. Most importantly, when superficial assessments of religion are offered, it's quickly clear that all questions about neurophysiology have been shelved.

Shelving questions about neurophysiology isn't reserved for those who claim to espouse the methodology of science. Shelving questions about how and why the human mind works in relationship with the rest of the universe is one of theology's least helpful contributions to humankind, in my opinion. I've read theological arguments so convoluted in their efforts to avoid the question of how and why the human mind works that they make a Gordian knot look like a simple twist tie.

Theology is increasingly understood today as some sort of withering branch of philosophical thought, a deservedly marginalized branch of human thought that has now been proudly replaced by the randomized, double-blind study method, etc.

Those who've studied the history of theological evolution, however, know that all early schools of theological thought (no matter what "religion" they're linked with today) arose from careful study of scientific principles followed by the application of scientific observations to questions of human character, morality, Law (nomos in Greek), justice, disease, healing, mental health, and the pursuit of happiness.

It's not possible from a scientific perspective to reasonably argue that human beings 5,000 years ago (when the roots of today's religions really took hold in the soil of technological advances) had DNA so vastly different from ours that they couldn't use their brains in ways virtually identical to the ways we do. It's not reasonable to argue that they couldn't see for themselves the destructive issues of psychopathy, narcissism, sadism, and machiavellianism without the benefit of today's research and today's DSM-V (which hasn't the courage to include psychopathy in its lauded pages).

Just as we continue to struggle today with these issues, our ancestors took steps to limit the destructive power of certain human choices that spring from Axis II issues. One of the tools each major culture developed was religious doctrine. But religious doctrine wasn't set apart from questions of politics, economics, healing, justice, legal codes, and scientific inquiry. To attack religion as if it has ever been a separate and unnecessary "entity" -- like a dead tree branch that can be lopped off -- is just plain sloppy and lazy from a methodological viewpoint.

Religious doctrines reflect the times and the cultural necessities from which they were born. This is why names and places change from religion to religion, but underlying concerns about destructive human choices don't. Such concerns are universal to the human condition because a psychopath by any other name is still a psychopath. (Members of the Greek pantheon, for instance, certainly seem to be archetypes for the human behaviours we find least desirable: narcissism, fickleness, lust, power-mongering, status addiction, and lack of empathy. Sound like any world leaders you know?)

Religious doctrines, however useful they may have been over the centuries from a political point of view, typically reflect a Materialist cause-and-effect understanding of science, which is quite useful and practical on a day-to-day basis. (Can't argue with classical physics when it comes to everyday usefulness.) The one thing major world religions don't do well, however, is to reflect the needs of FAITH -- a highly influential current of human experience, mostly expressed through System 1 thinking patterns in the brain. System 1 patterns have always paralleled -- and continue to parallel -- the more rigid, linear, Materialist thinking patterns of the human brain's newer System 2 processes.

The experience of faith is the experience of the presence of God in our daily lives. It may or may not be linked to membership in a formal religion.

For me, faith is a relationship with God that endures in the absence of sacred texts. It's an experience that can't be placed within the restrictive boxes of religious doctrinal traditions or texts -- or, for that matter, the restrictive boxes of Materialist cause-and-effect scientific traditions or theories. (Same thing, really.) Faith, far from being just a fanciful belief, is rooted 100% in the most objective scientific realities of the biological brain.

I won't bore you with my own experiences, but if you're interested in opening your heart and mind to what this faith experience might be, I'd recommend the awe-inspiring book Man's Search by Meaning by Dr. Viktor Frankl. Any scientific questions we have about the experience of faith, love, forgiveness, and the human search for meaning must take into account the data collected by Dr. Frankl under some of the most searing and horrendous conditions humankind has ever known: the European Holocaust.

Dr. Frankl, as both participant and scientific observer of the "best" and "worst" in human behaviour, introduced data into the faith/science/religion debate that must, at the very least, be considered from a falsifiability perspective.

It's not enough for any sort of "ism" promoter (whether scientism or religious fundamentalism -- same thing, really) to make lofty claims about the origins of evil and suffering. (Did you know, for instance, that Tertullian's late 2nd century CE doctrine of original sin -- a theory now called Traducianism -- tried to account for human evil on biological grounds?) Ideologues must also account for the data of innate goodness collected by less lofty and less voluble speakers such as the late Dr. Frankl.

Therein lies the really juicy stuff.

LSP37: The Coat of Many Colours: What Scientology Teaches Us About Gnosticism

There's only thing I like about L. Ron Hubbard's cult of Scientology, and that's the way it serves as a teaching tool about the brutal efficiency of prophetic "revelation."

This morning, on the BBC site, I found a wonderful article by Owen Gleiberman about the new Alex Gibney documentary on Scientology. The documentary, called "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief" has been attracting a lot of attention since its release earlier this year. The film is in turned based on the 2013 book by Lawrence Wright called "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief."

Gleiberman ends his article by saying this:

The twisted genius of L Ron Hubbard is that he figured out a way to define and exploit contemporary soul sickness. He was right about the disease. But Going Clear makes a powerful case that he came up with a cure that only made it worse.

Yes, L. Ron Hubbard was a twisted genius. As Gleiberman notes, the film "captures how Hubbard fused reality, fantasy and the pursuit of enlightenment in a way that, according to the film's witnesses, expressed his own highly unstable and even violent nature."

This is what prophets do.

(Please note that I draw clear distinctions between the terms "prophet" and "mystic." For me, the term "prophet" is reserved for an individual of dubious mental health who uses claims of "divine revelation" to establish his or her primacy of authority over others. By contrast, I use the term "mystic" to refer to individuals who are on the extreme end of the "intuition" spectrum, most of whom go through life as writers and philosophers without becoming consciously aware of their vocation as "mystics.")

Prophets who claim divine religious authority for themselves aren't new. Shown here is a red granite statue from Egypt's 18th Dynasty (Temple of Khonspakhered) on display at the British Museum, London UK. Photo credit JAT 2023.

A prophet isn't interested in teaching people how to heal their relationship with God. A prophet is instead interested in crafting an entire "philosophy of science" (a cosmogony, if you will) for the purpose of explaining to you in ruthlessly logical ways why you should hand over to the prophet your integrity; your money; your free will; your core self of worthiness and wisdom; and your relationship with God.

The coat of many colours you were born with is stripped away from you, and in its place you're given a "new and improved" garment of ash.

You're told when you put it on that you're donning the pure white garb of enlightenment. You're told that you're abandoning the burden of emotion, replacing the heaviness of emotion with the weightlessness of pure reason. You're told that all the proof you need lies around you in the Materialist laws of Cause and Effect. You're told that when you see past of the illusions you've created for yourself, you'll suddenly recognize that you can transcend your lowly humanness and reclaim your rightful place in the universe as God. Or Buddha. Or Thetan (as Scientologists describe it).

The garment you've been given reeks of pure narcissism. It reeks of the prophet's absolute refusal to accept that he's a mere child of God. It reeks of his conviction that he himself is so omniscient and so omnipotent that he surely MUST be a god who has lost his memory of his own godhood and fallen to Earth, where he's obliged to dig his way out of Earth's heavy muck so he can stop being reincarnated here.

So have I conflated several different religious beliefs here? On the surface, it would seem so. But no.  What I've done here is describe a single religious paradigm that manifests again and again in humanity's many diverse cultures, not because it's right but because it so beautifully suits the psychological needs of bullies, tyrants, narcissists, and psychopaths.

What I've described here is Gnosticism.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Scientology's underlying cosmogony:

Scientology beliefs revolve around the thetan, the individualized expression of the cosmic source, or life force, named after the Greek letter theta (θ). The thetan is the true identity of a person – an intrinsically good, omniscient, non-material core capable of unlimited creativity. 

In the primordial past, thetans brought the material universe into being largely for their own pleasure. The universe has no independent reality, but derives its apparent reality from the fact that most thetans agree it exists. Thetans fell from grace when they began to identify with their creation, rather than their original state of spiritual purity.  Eventually they lost their memory of their true nature, along with the associated spiritual and creative powers. As a result, thetans came to think of themselves as nothing but embodied beings.

Thetans are reborn time and time again in new bodies through a process called "assumption" which is analogous to reincarnation. Like Hinduism, Scientology posits a causal relationship between the experiences of earlier incarnations and one's present life, and with each rebirth, the effects of the MEST universe (MEST here stands for matter, energy, space, and time) on the thetan become stronger.

It's easy to see the narcissism that underlies the teachings of Scientology. This particular body of teachings is so new that most of us haven't yet overlaid the raw narcissism of it with layers and layers of "divine authority" derived from "ancient tradition." Scientology would like you to pretend that L. Ron Hubbard successfully transcended his own flawed humanity, but, as Going Clear shows, this isn't true. The legacy of a revelatory prophet is most vulnerable in the decades soon after his life, when there are still witnesses with long memories and solid documentation who can attest to the true character of the prophet.

Scientology, like other forms of Gnosticism, is really an attempt to rupture the relationship between individuals and God.

It's just so damned inconvenient, from the narcissist's point of view, to have a God who's already here and already acting for our benefit. The narcissist can't tolerate the idea that he -- a human being -- isn't the smartest, fastest, strongest being in Creation. So, to assuage his intolerably monstrous ego, he invents an entire cosmogony where he is God and he is on a brave and bold quest to reclaim his rightful power as God. Or Buddha. Or Thetan.

By looking at the origins of Scientology -- and specifically at the psychological issues that have driven the founders and chief promoters of this new cult -- we can see the pattern of narcissistic behaviours for ourselves. We can then use our observations to help us decide which aspects of our own spiritual journeys are holding us back as we try to heal our relationship with God.

In order to progress on the Spiral Path of faith, science, wonder, and relationship with God, you must start with the assumption that it's good enough for you to be a child of God instead of trying to become Mother Father God themselves.

Being a child of God entitles you to all the benefits of wearing the coat of many colours God gives to all God's children. It entitles you to be fully yourself, without judgment, abuse, or psychological violence. It entitles you to live passionately according to the needs of both the Heart and the Mind. It entitles you to view your human lifetime as a richly rewarding, positive experience instead of a punitive, degrading, sin-filled, mud-wrestling match. It entitles you to blend both Materialist laws and non-Materialist laws in your daily life. It entitles you to be honest with yourself about how much you really want and need to be in relationship with God.

Gardens are one way to experience the coat of many colours while you're here on Planet Earth. God invites you to help with planting and watering and weeding a garden to create a place of peace, beauty, and healing for others to enjoy (including creatures great and small). But God doesn't expect you to be in charge of the design of every living organism in the vast universe we live in. That's God's job!  Enjoy the gardens of Earth while you're here and rejoice in the ways you can help create and sustain such beauty. It may not be a much of a contribution as far as a spiritual narcissist is concerned, but it's important as far as God and your angels and your own soul are concerned.  Great blessings come in small packages!

It's no fun at all believing you're required to be responsible for everything in Creation. Fortunately, God doesn't expect you to be God.

If you can manage to embrace the first stanza of the Serenity Prayer and live in basic accordance with the tenets of the Twelve Step Program, you'll be doing very well as far as your angels -- and your God -- are concerned.

Best of luck to you!

LSP29: The Presence of God

This morning, I read an online interview with author Gregg Braden in a New Age magazine called OMTimes. The magazine says Gregg Braden is "internationally known as a pioneer in bridging science, ancient wisdom and the real world!" If you go to Wikipedia to learn more about Gregg Braden, you'll find only a brief entry with a very short introductory paragraph followed by a list of his publications. I find it interesting that Braden's Wikipedia entry has been so heavily redacted.

The interview in OMTimes can't be downloaded, so I spent some time copying quotes from the article (including all the punctuation and capitalization):

"Since 1986 Gregg has explored high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts to merge their timeless secrets with the best science of today. His discoveries are now shared in 34 languages through such paradigm-inspiring books as: The God Code, Deep Truth, and his newest, The Turning Point: Creating Resilience in a Time of Extremes."

Braden believes the world is at a turning point with human beings facing extremes of climate change, economic change, and health change that no human beings have ever dealt with before. He defines "community" as "our answer to our time of extremes," and he defines "resilience" as "our personal ability to thrive in our time of extremes." (This sounds eerily like the apostle Paul's koinonia and hagiasmos: fellowship and holiness.)

He has this to say about the merging of science, ancient wisdom and the real world:

"The wisdom comes from 5,000 years of the spiritual traditions where we apply what we know about the world and about our lives. It's about making life work for us. As a scientist, I was trained and taught that I must follow either one path or the other -- the path of science or the path of spirituality.

In this generation, we have an opportunity, rather than to choose between science and spirituality, to marry the best science of the 21st century with 5,000 years of spiritual wisdom and weave them into a way of knowing that is greater than the science can be all by itself. It's greater than spiritual can be all by itself. And when we do that, we give ourselves the evolutionary edge that our ancestors did not have [emphasis added]. I believe that with this edge we can not only survive but that we will thrive in the new normal that is emerging based upon the extremes that we see in the world right now. The extremes are with us. For our lifetime, probably for our children's lifetime. We have to be honest with ourselves about that."

He goes on to talk about his so-called "new discoveries": "cooperation, mutual aid and connectivity." (Really? These are new?  Has he read the Bible lately?) And he tries to weave everything together by talking about magnetic fields, saying "science is showing us that the magnetic fields, regulated through the human heart, connect all of us":

"Strong magnetic fields are conducive to cooperation and the strongest magnetic field of the human body is the field created by the human heart. The heart based emotions of cooperation, of compassion, appreciation, care, gratitude, are scientifically proven to strengthen the magnetic field of the human heart. These fields embrace a group and even our planet [emphasis added]. This has also been shown through research through Princeton University and The Institute of HeartMath and so it brings us full circle back to our most ancient and cherished traditions when we find a way to communicate through our hearts."

At the conclusion of the article, Braden pays lip service to Love by defining Love as an energy that permeates the entire universe.

Not once, however, does he mention God or the soul.

He talks about 5,000 years of ancient wisdom (without ever describing how damaging some of it can be to the health of the human brain and body). He talks about "the turning point" (which is qualitatively no different than "the End Times" preached by apocalyptic prophets such as the apostle Paul). He talks about the unique and pivotal role of human beings in holding the planet together during a unique and pivotal time. He talks about the monistic Oneness ("connectivity") of all human beings. He talks about how clever we are. He uses Materialist cause & effect science to support his spiritual claims.

But he never talks about God.

5,000 years of ancient wisdom, huh? Well, hmm, I'm kind of wondering why we have to restrict ourselves to a mere 5,000 years of human wisdom when our planet is brimming with the history, stories, science, creativity, exploration, and wisdom of God's wondrous and infinitely present love. This fossil of an ancient turtle is on display at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta. Reflecting on the incredible history of our planet is a good way to keep ourselves humble and not give our mind-based religious texts more credit than they deserve. Photo credit JAT 2015.

Gregg Braden doesn't need to talk about God because Braden is a dyed-in-the-wool apophatic prophet.* Apophatics find the idea of a personal, theistic God highly inconvenient. For apophatics, field theory -- especially the Grand Unified Theory -- is all that's needed to explain who we are and why we're here. If Love can be presented as an energy field that unites us -- or, even better, as a single cosmic field from which all of us originate -- then so much the better. That way no one has to deal with the messy implications of a Divine Love that's based on choice, free will, courage, trust, gratitude, devotion, forgiveness, and NOT Oneness.

My mystical radar always go off when I read that a spiritual teacher has spent 28 years exploring high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts. I always want to know what such a teacher thinks he'll find in an ancient monastery that he can't find by paying full attention to God's messages in his daily life in and around his home.

So let me reiterate: God's presence can be felt anywhere you go in Creation. Anywhere at all. While God's presence has no doubt been felt by a few people who've abandoned their lives for the sake of high mountain villages, remote monasteries, and forgotten texts, none of this ancient wisdom is necessary. God wouldn't do this to you. God wouldn't takes all the clues about how to feel God's presence and then hide them from you in a bunch of ancient texts known only to a few people on the planet. Real life isn't like an Indiana Jones movie. God puts everything out on the table for everybody to see. God hides nothing.

In order to feel God's presence, you don't need to pursue hidden codes or lost languages or ancient magical prayers or occult naming powers. You don't need any of that. You have everything you need right where you are -- in your own heart, mind, body, soul, and strength (the combination of these is what Jesus called "the Kingdom").

Maybe you don't want to hear this, but it's the only reality that's truly consistent with the idea of a loving and forgiving God.

It's great fun to put hidden codes and lost languages in adventure films and books. I myself love that kind of adventure story. But don't make the mistake of thinking God is hiding reality from you by tucking it inside reams of dried-out papyrus or mouldy parchment. 

God reads today's newspaper every morning, just like you.


* Please see the post of November 11, 2014 called "The Burden of Perfection"


For Further Reflection:

If you're sitting really close to your screen, you may want to step back a bit (metaphorically speaking), because I'm about to vent. Loudly.

What is the one thing a narcissist fears?

This isn't a tangential comment. It's central to all the big questions we have as human beings about God and Creation and the soul. It's also central to all the big answers we've been given over the centuries by our religious leaders and spiritual gurus.

A narcissist is someone who cannot control his or her inner impulse to seize the high ground in the battle for "the Right to be Right."

Most people these days are aware that narcissism is a behaviour involving the need to be "special." Very briefly, this specialness manifests in constant attempts to prove that one is better than other people, more deserving of attention and rewards than other people, more worthy of worship than other people. They believe there's one set of rules for themselves and a different set of rules for regular people. They have particular difficulty understanding a morality of boundaries. This is because, from their viewpoint, any kind of interpersonal boundary is an obstacle to the ultimate goal of establishing their own personal purity, piety, and perfection.

While it's become popular to say that behind every narcissist is a person who lacks self-esteem -- and who therefore needs our unconditional love -- this is simply not true. A narcissist is someone who has stopped seeing Creation as a tapestry filled with nuanced colours, and has instead chosen to see Creation as a black-and-white tug of war between Chaos and Order -- not necessarily Evil versus Good (though it usually plays out this way in the end) but equality-of-relationships ("Chaos") versus equality of outcomes ("Order").

The narcissist then uses this dualistic thesis as an excuse to see him/herself as a righteous warrior on the side of Order. No method, no tool, no short-term form of violence is too unethical or unjust to be used for the greater good of restoring Order to society and hence to all Creation. A quick review of dystopian science fiction novels and films (e.g. "The Giver," "Blade Runner 2049") reveals that many careful thinkers have observed this ancient Chaos-versus-Order pattern: in their stories, the bad guys are never the ones who want to preserve or revive humanity's unpredictable, passionate, creative nature; the bad guys are always the ones who are trying to impose a crushing, soul-destroying perfection on everyone else.

For a narcissist, there's no more worthy goal than forcing the world around you to be a perfect mirror-image of your own purity, piety, and perfection. But to pull this one off -- to convince yourself and others that you yourself are the ideal model of humanity to which all others should aspire -- you need one hell of an algorithm to convince your biological brain to ignore all its System 1 input and focus solely on its System 2 input.

This algorithm is a line of reasoning I call "the Right to be Right."

To break this down a bit, "the Right to be Right" is a sequence of either-or statements (as all algorithms are) that are designed to get you to a specific endpoint or goal (in this case, the goal of proving your true worthiness to be admired and worshipped). You start with the intended goal, then you use logic to work out all the different pathways that could lead you to your goal, and, in addition, all the pathways that could block you from reaching your goal. You break down all these pathways into the smallest segments you can (this becomes your strings of either-or statements). Then you do everything in your power to optimize the pathway that gets you to your goal. You look for efficiencies. You root out redundancies. You banish ambiguities. You do it consciously and with a great sense of purpose, and, what's more, you regularly congratulate yourself on your ingenuity and persistence, which only serve to prove your point. Getting to your goal is no accident.

Here's how the script for "the Right to be Right" looks when drafted by the brain's System 2 networks: "I believe that I am a very special person who has been chosen by God* to save the world. I have very special gifts and a very special intelligence that will enable me to do what no one else before me has ever done. I am certain that I am right. Moreover, natural law dictates that I have the right to claim my superiority over others. Natural law wouldn't have made me so special unless I were, indeed, as special as I know myself to be, so natural law gives me the justification and authority I need to proclaim that I am right and must not be questioned by those of inferior ability. (I wouldn't be respecting the preeminence of natural law if I did anything less.) But I suspect some people may not believe I'm right, so I must do everything in my power to prove I'm right. Those of lesser ability will thank me for taking the steps I need to take in order to restore Order to our family/community/nation. God will thank me. I will be remembered in the annals of history as a great peacemaker. In the meantime, though, I must use every method at my disposal to prove to people that I am right. I am authorized (by natural law and by God) to hide, discard, or dispose of any facts or books or other sources of information that might create confusion about who is right and who is wrong. I am not obligated to consider any facts or books or other sources of information that might conflict with or undermine my "Right to be Right" (because, logically speaking, I do not and cannot make mistakes). If opposition to my goal of perfect Order becomes too vocal, too physical, or too heart-based, I have the authority to suppress dissent in order to preserve the pathways to ultimate perfection. Traits such as love, forgiveness, compromise, egalitarianism, and self-honesty must be considered enemies of Order, and must therefore be constantly opposed through just wars. I am confident that events will demonstrate conclusively that God has been on my side throughout the long and difficult path to salvation. (*Note: wherever you see the word "God" underlined, you can substitute the word "science" and get the same result.)

There are no limits to what a narcissist will do to ensure that his or her "Right to be Right" is protected. No cost is too great from the narcissist's perspective, even when the cost is everybody else's potential to have a loving relationship with God.

Keep this in mind as you read what religious and spiritual leaders, both past and present, have said about the presence of God.

Are they really trying to help you? Or are they hoarding the authority for themselves as all narcissists do?

God doesn't hoard love, and neither should God's human teachers and healers. So keep an eye out for the footprints of "the Right to be Right" in the books and lectures and workshops you choose. And watch for it in your own life choices, too. Most people these days are struggling with "the Right to be Right," so you have lots of company to help you work it out.

Meanwhile, in answer to the question above . . . what a narcissist fears most is that you'll see through the "Right to be Right" algorithm and realize the whole thing is a fraud from start to finish.

We all have days when we're right and we all have days when we're wrong. But no one except for God the Mother and God the Father have the right to be right.

The rest of us are just doing the best we can.

LSP26: Materialism, Buddhism, and Karma

Sometime in the 6th century BCE, in a region now known as Nepal, a man was born who is credited as being the Awakened One. Siddhartha Gautama -- known to us as the Buddha -- crafted an entirely new philosophical system in response to the problems he saw in Hinduism (as it existed then). His teachings are currently of great interest to spiritual seekers in the West who are tired of the turmoil created by our cultural norms.

From the earliest years of the movement, the Buddha's core teachings looked very different on the surface compared to Hinduism's ritual-bound, authoritarian teachings. Therein lay Buddhism's appeal. Unlike the highly supernatural Hindu teachings, the earliest Buddhist teachings were empirical, scientific, pragmatic, therapeutic, psychological, egalitarian, and directed to individuals.* The Buddha's original religion (or way of life) was therefore long on intense self-effort, short on metaphysical speculation, devoid of authority, devoid of ritual, devoid of tradition, and devoid of the supernatural.**

Unfortunately, because the Buddha continued to uphold the laws of Karma -- not only using Karma as the main root system for his philosophy but pushing the logical implications of Karma to their ultimate purified form -- the religion he founded is also devoid of relationship with God.

Technically, Buddhism is referred to as a non-theistic religion or philosophy because there's no room in it for a personal God. This isn't to say that God doesn't exist -- just that a personal God isn't needed. Or wanted.

This is a strong statement, so before I say anything else, I want to emphasize that my comments in this post refer only of those narcissistic individuals (some of whom I've had heartbreaking dealings with) who use the core teachings of Buddhism for their own selfish purposes and gain. Most Buddhists, I'm sure, try not to misuse the teachings -- just as most Pauline Christians try to rise above the low bar set by the Church for their personal conduct.

The Buddha's earliest teachings are intensely transpersonal -- trancending the self -- in the way that all apophatic teachings strive for. A personal God is discarded and replaced with the numinous cloud of Knowing/Unknowing that many people now call Source or Godhead. It's this unknowable cloud of universal law that lies behind the theories of Karma in the East and Gnosis in the West.

As with all major world religions, Buddhism isn't a single religious entity, but is instead an umbrella term for various schools and branches that have diverged from the earliest teachings. A common belief in the doctrine of Karma is one of the uniting threads among diverse forms of Buddhism. This statue fragment of the Buddha is from the Gandharan art collection of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2017.

According to Karma's teachers, the cloud's Materialist laws of cause and effect (i.e. Karma) are THE laws you must obey. There's no way around the absolutism of the consequences you bear for your choices. Although it's daunting to be stuck with these laws, the good news is this: whoever who can read the cosmic laws encoded in the cloud acquires great power -- infinite power, actually. Whoever who reads the cosmic laws and controls them no longer needs a relationship with God because he or she has, in a sense, become God.

In other words, once you have law, who needs love?

And who needs forgiveness and humbleness? The laws of Karma, which purport to originate in a universe of pure morality, haven't the teeniest tiniest crack within them for the seeds of Divine Forgiveness. This point alone demonstrates the stark contrast between the Buddha's teachings and Jesus' teachings.

Bear in mind an important point here, a point which is often overlooked: it's the people who claim to have achieved nirvana who get to tell the rest of us what the Karmic laws are. It's the normal, regular, everyday people -- not the universe or the planet or the laws of non-Materialist science or the laws of neuroscience -- who are dictating the meaning of universal justice. It's the ones who obey the traditions of their lineage who don't have to explain themselves. We're simply expected to trust that anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anatta (absence of a permanent personality or soul) tell us everything we need to know about life on Planet Earth -- because the Buddhist philosophers have told us so. (When they see this pattern of top-down authority in Christianity, we call it revelation.)

In its purest, earliest form, the teachings of Buddhism are no different than the teachings of other apophatic mystical traditions that seek to depose God as a person (actually, two people) and elevate the human mind to a position of authority it doesn't deserve.

Ironic, yes?


* Huston Smith, The World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 1958 and 1991), page 98.
** Huston Smith, The World's Religions, pages 94-97.


For Further Reflection:

Sometimes, when we've been born and raised with certain beliefs about how the Universe works, we discover it's no easy thing to set aside those beliefs even when we're sure they're wrong.

A few researchers in recent years have been looking for evidence in the human brain for "the God Spot" or "the God Code" to explain why most people seem to want and need religion in their lives. Some researchers have noticed there's a sort of "God-shaped conceptual space" in the brain that tends to fill up with non-Materialist beliefs. But it's really more complicated than this. From the moment of birth, the biological brain starts looking for evidence of two things: (1) how the 3D Universe works and (2) how the self fits into this strange new 3D Universe.

Bear in mind that, for the soul, the 3D Universe of baryonic matter (i.e. atoms and molecules that respond to the laws of classical physics) are not the norm. Souls (angelic consciousnesses) are born into the non-baryonic quantum world that governs 95% of all energy in Creation, a world where Divine Love and Divine Forgiveness and non-locality and quantum weirdness are normal parts of everyday life. Souls are used to weirdness. So when we choose to incarnate, we hit the ground running (so to speak) as we try to take in all the sights and sounds and gravitational laws that apply to 3D life on Planet Earth.

In our early years, we rely heavily on our own built-in observational skills as little scientists-in-human-form. We're constantly exploring the laws of classical physics, testing and retesting (yes, the peas still fall when I threw them!), and filling up our brains with all sorts of important data sets. Soon we start to ask more advanced questions about the laws of classical physics, and at this point we turn to the wisdom of the adults around us. We absorb what they tell us about how the Universe works. We also absorb what they indirectly imply through their own choices and their own responses to the world around them. We use the wisdom of adults as a sort of macro to filter and sort our understanding about the laws of the Universe. And this is a sensible thing for us to do because there's so much to learn and process.

When the adults around us live and breathe a highly specific cosmogony -- for example, Young Earth Creationism in Christianity, or Karma in Buddhism -- our growing brains start to accept this cosmogony not as a working theory but as an actual scientific truth. Based on our acceptance of cosmogony as truth, we then build an internal moral code that's consistent with our cosmogony. We do this because we want our inner selves -- our inner laws and choices -- to be in harmony with the laws we believe govern all Creation. This is the only approach to life that makes sense, because even when we're very young, we sense that we're not alone in Creation, that our lives are fully interdependent with the forces that govern all Creation. So we want to flow with the forces as we understand them, not against them.

You can imagine, therefore, how the biological brain will shape itself in childhood and early adulthood if the laws of Karma are upheld as scientific truth (even though in actuality the laws of Karma are pure conjecture). Planet Earth will, of necessity, look like a very grim place to you, and your lot in life will seem like a scientific reality that you must deserve and can't do anything about unless you commit to the path of letting go of the one thing that's truly yours: yourself.

The System 2 networks of the brain, scarily enough, see the logic in this path. But the System 1 networks, which hold within them the seeds for the path of love and forgiveness and meaning and empathy and relationship with God, will fight and fight against this ghastly "truth" until their biological networks are finally broken apart through constant suppression and denial.

Eventually, the brain's networks, so overgrown with the tenacious kudzu-like roots of Karma, can only see the world as proof of the theory itself. It's a vicious cycle, one that reinforces the theory of cyclical time and further damages the brain's ability to objectively assess religious doctrines.

One final note: You might think that a theory that's been around for a long time is surely correct simply because of its longevity. But many spiritual and religious theories have existed for centuries, even millennia, before being discarded. So longevity is in itself no proof of anything. In the past few centuries, Christianity has been undergoing a process of sorting and winnowing, and now many Christians are proud to say they don't accept ancient doctrines such as patriarchy and infallibility. We're constantly being called upon as children of God to be honest with ourselves about doctrines that create and sustain harm.

I personally believe that no religion anywhere on Planet Earth is -- or should be -- exempt from this constant process of reexamination, healing, and redemption. This is how we make the world a better place, one choice at a time. But we can't do it without Humbleness.