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 Royal Tyrrell Museum, Drumheller, Alberta.  Photo JAT 2015.  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?

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 go into a rage -- maybe even erupt in 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."

LSP44: Parable of the Prodigal Son

The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32) is one of a series of parables Jesus wrote to teach others about forgiveness.

The main point of divergence between Jesus' theology and the theology of other religious groups in first century Palestine was Jesus' understanding of the mystical power of forgiveness.  Jesus' understanding of forgiveness is the key that unlocks the meaning of the Kingdom teachings, including the parables.

The Prodigal Son (or . . . Redemption Doesn't Happen Overnight). Photo credit JAT 2015

Jesus' teachings on matters other than forgiveness don't sound a whole lot different than the teachings of other groups.  Jesus, like the Pharisees -- and, indeed, like most religious groups of the time -- believed in the importance of ethics, moral choices, and obedience to a code of moral conduct because, well, it's the right thing to do.  So Jesus certainly didn't invent the idea of moral codes.  But he did build on the radical teachings of the Jewish author we call Job to present a minority understanding of how to be in relationship with God.  The minority understanding of Jesus (and Job before him) presented a model for relationship with God that was built on forgiveness (not mercy, not atonement, and not contract law); on agape/love (not obedience, not fear, and not contract law); on a "thinking" faith (not blind faith, not prophecy, and not revelation); on humbleness (not religious humility, not religious salvation, and not on status addiction);on radical inclusiveness (not clan chosenness, not honour-shame cultural norms, and not sectarian segregation); on courage (not fate, not predestination, and not abdication); and finally on the totally crazy idea that God is not a lone male figure (YHWH) but two distinct and separate figures, one male and one female (YHWH and his Asherah?), who together are the One God and make all decisions together based on mutual forgiveness, agape, thinking faith, humbleness, radical inclusiveness, and courage.  As above, so below.

The parable of the prodigal son reflects Jesus' theology, Jesus' understanding of how we can be in full relationship with God during our lives as human beings.

Jesus' parables always ran counter to the Wisdom literature of his time -- what biblical scholar Michael Coogan once called "anti-Wisdom Wisdom" in his commentary on Job.  It was Wisdom literature (currents of which ran through most major world religions of the time) which taught that obedience to divinely revealed laws and cultural norms would guarantee "happiness" and eventual acceptance into the heavens (in whatever form "the heavens" were envisioned in a particular religion).  Those who willfully disobeyed God's laws (again, in whatever form they were envisioned) would surely be punished -- and rightly so.  Wisdom literature (which was already ancient by the time Jesus lived) insisted that Materialist laws of cause-and-effect governed all Creation (including God's own choices) so stability, order, safety, and happiness could be built into a society by observing Creation's laws in scientific ways and then applying reason, justice, and piety to the whole affair.

Of course, the world doesn't really work this way, and Jesus knew it.  He saw a completely different paradigm in operation in the world around him, a paradigm that blended both Materialist and non-Materialist laws of science in complex and intertwined ways.  His parables reflect the anti-Wisdom Wisdom paradigm he observed.  He didn't invent what he saw.  He simply allowed himself to see what was already there.  He allowed himself to hear what God was already saying. And then he tried to share with others the process of emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and physical change that would allow them to willingly and voluntarily enter "the kingdom of the heavens" as Jesus himself had done -- as any of us can do, according to Jesus (though it's a lot of hard work!).

The Kingdom parables are confusing, messy, non-linear, multi-layered, and filled with anti-Wisdom Wisdom because life is confusing, messy, non-linear, multi-layered, and filled with all sorts of irrational (but totally wonderful) emotions like love and gratitude and devotion and forgiveness and the courage to change.

Paul didn't agree with any of this, but that's another story.

LSP43: Discoveries: Learning to See With Your Ears

This morning I was excited to read an article in the current issue of Discover (July/August 2015) that gives a really good analogy for what I do as a cataphatic mystic and how I learned to do it.  The article is called "Sonic Vision" by Berit Brogaard and Kristian Marlow, and it's excerpted from an upcoming book called The Superhuman Mind: Free the Genius in Your Brain by these authors.  If you have a subscription to Discover, you can read the article online.  Or you can buy the current issue at the newsstand, as I did.

First, though, a quick story that sort of shows how I navigate in my life as a mystic and auditory channeller.  (Some of you may recall that I have a strong auditory connection to the soul who once lived as Jesus son of Joseph.  Again, I understand this is problematic for some readers and, again, I can't apologize for who I am and what I do.)

To find the Discover article about humans who are blind but have learned to navigate in their environment by using sophisticated echolocation skills, I could have kept checking on the Discover website until such an article appeared.  But that's not how I live my life.  There's only so much time and so much money and so much brain energy.  What I do instead of constantly checking websites or subscribing to print magazines is to patiently wait until I get a message from my angels.  (Again, I understand this is problematic for some readers, but this is a Christian site, and angels or messengers or persons-of-soul or whatever you want to call them have always been part of the Christian narrative.)

So here's how my discovery of the Discovery article went.  First, I realized I needed to go buy a birthday card for a friend.  Then it occurred to me I could walk to the plaza instead of driving (though often I drive).  And because I walked to the plaza, I passed by the window of a convenience store I hadn't visited for a long while.  And because I walked past the window, I saw their sign for inexpensive cards.  (I'm on a tight budget, so I'm always looking for good value).  And because I saw the sign, I went in.  And because I went in, I discovered the store has been turned into a good magazine shop with titles that don't normally show up in the local drugstore.  And because there was a good selection of science magazines, I was able to "feel" the quantum Post-It note that was attached to the Discover issue.

Don't laugh, but this is how I do all my shopping.  It's a process of navigation.  It's a process of following quantum threads until they lead me to the quantum Post-It attached to the thing I need.  Often the Post-It is attached to something I'd forgotten I needed, but while I'm standing there, with my hand reaching out unerringly toward the shelf, my mind (often the slowest part of me to catch on in these situations) suddenly says, "Oh, yeah, I actually need that!"

At which point I know I've been guided by my incredibly kind and incredibly thoughtful angels.

So anyway  . . . back to the article about echolocation in Discovery.  If you have a chance to read it, you'll discover an amazing story about a man named Daniel Kish who lost his sight to retinoblastomas at the age of 13 months and then figured out on his own how to use echolocation to "see with his ears."  What's really fascinating (apart from Kish's skill, dedication, and willingness to teach others how to see with their ears!) is that he and others with this skill use the visual processing area in the brain's occipital lobes to generate spatial imagery in their minds.  They suss out echoes that most of us can't hear (because we haven't practised hard enough) and these echoes are processed not in the auditory centres of the brain, but in the visual cortex (which does process some sounds).  Using comparative informative (between the sounds going out from their clicking tongues and the reflected sounds coming back from nearby objects), the brains of these individuals can construct highly detailed images of what's nearby.  It takes proper training and lots of practice and commitment, but it can be done.  Sighted people can learn how to echolocate, too, although the phenomenological experience may be different.

The process described in this article is very similar to what I do and how I do it.  I don't click with my tongue, of course, but I seem to be able to "click" with an as-yet-to-be-determined type of brainwave.  I get "quantum echoes" coming back from nearby persons-of-soul, and these are the echoes my brain processes and turns into words and imagery.

I've known since December 2004, when I had my brain scanned on three different days at the Amen Clinic in California, that the visual cortex of my brain lights up like a Christmas tree when I'm talking to Jesus, but my auditory cortex isn't really involved in the channelling process.  I've also learned after 15 years of daily experience as a cataphatic mystic that when I'm awake and channelling, I don't really "see," yet I get black-and-white visual imagery with words that come in from persons-of-soul, including Jesus.  The words always come in clear as a bell -- the same as having a conversation with somebody whom my physical eyes can see.

SPECT scan of my brain when I'm talking with Jesus (December 2004).  White areas show which brain regions are working hardest (highest oxygen uptake), red areas show the next highest oxygen uptake, and blue areas show average regions that are working but not doing the "heaviest lifting" for the task that's being captured on the scan.  SPECT scans capture the brain's function during specific tasks rather than showing simple anatomy.  On my channeling scan, some of the high-activity areas are in the cerebellum (which is normal for most people), but the rest of the high-activity areas (white and red) are in the visual cortex at the back of my head.

This is a voluntary and learned process -- just as echolocation is a voluntary and learned process.  It's a scientific process.  And I had to be trained how to do it properly, just as Kish's students have to be trained.  In a few people (such as Kish) it develops instinctively.  But most people have to be trained.

Being a cataphatic mystic is a bit different from being a non-sighted person who's learning to echolocate.  The process is more complex, and not many people are born to be full-fledged cataphatic mystics (which is as it should be -- the world only needs a few full-fledged mystics at any given time!)

But everybody is born with the brain-talent for intuition (a talent which, on rare occasions, such as during an intense emotional crisis, gets pushed more towards the mystical end of the spectrum, with actual sensory impressions coming through briefly from Spirit).  And everybody can learn how to use their intuitive circuitry better than most people do.  Some adults have so badly fried their intuitive circuitry that they can longer hear a damn thing from God/Spirit/Source/angels, though the potential is there -- just as the potential to echolocate is there for both sighted and non-sighted people.  This potential can be developed with proper training, practice, and commitment.  With the proper development of the brain's intuitive circuitry, anyone can strengthen their relationship with God (who's talking to us all the time, whether or not we consciously realize it.)

Here's a great quote from the article:

"Kish's training curriculum differs from tradition by taking an immersive approach intended to activate environmental awareness.  It's a tough-love approach with very little hand-holding.  He encourages children to explore their home environment for themselves and discourages family members from interfering unless the child otherwise could be harmed."

OMG -- welcome to my life!  I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read this quote.  Tough-love is definitely the key.

All the best,
Jen

Addendum Nov. 5, 2017: Two other unusual but very real "frontiers" of neuroscience -- blindsight and tetrachromacy -- also relate to how I use my biological brain to communicate on a quantum level with God/Spirit/Source/angels. You can read more about blindsight and tetrachromacy here:

 BBC - Future - Blindsight: the strangest form of consciousness

 Human Eye Sometimes Sees the Unseeable - Scientific American

 BBC - Future - The women with superhuman vision
 

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):

___________________________________________________

Questions about the intersection of science, religion, and faith are deeply important to human beings and pop up everywhere on the planet. Illustration credit Hemera Technologies 2001 - 2003.

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.) It's an experience that, as far as I can tell, is rooted 100% in the most objective scientific principles the struggling human brain can master.

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.

LSP41: 16 Reasons Why My Life Is Better with God

Dear God, although I know you didn't ask, here are 16 reasons why my life is better with you:

Photo credit JAT 2018

1. You've redefined everything for me about the meaning of success.

2. You've taught me that Love isn't weak or passive, but is incredibly strong and tough and durable.

3. You've taught me that Forgiveness is the most radical catalyst for change we can know.

4. You've shown me that Healing always follows Insight.

5. You've reminded me that when we Heal others, we also Heal ourselves.

6. You've whispered to me in a few of your many languages, and I'm so glad to listen to what you say to us through Science.

7. You inspire me with your example of patience.

8. You've freed me from the crippling disease of status addiction.

9. You've taught me how to care for my brain so I can use my small but worthy "three-pound universe" to listen, learn, and love.

10. You've shown me by your example that it's okay to say No when brains begin to shock us with their anger, hatred, perfectionism, and deceit.

11. You make it okay for me to smile, laugh, and enjoy all the weirdness of quantum science miracles.

12. Your faith in me helps me get up in the morning.

13. Your example of courage sustains me when the going gets really rough.

14. Your Music brings tears of joy to my Heart.

15. Your Planet (one of many!) teaches me what courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion can build when the Heart expands the limited vision of the Mind.

16. When I feel you holding my neighbour's hand, my soul smiles in peace.

Mother & Father God, you are my heroes!

LSP40: Atheism: Blindness to the Question of Scale

The National Post has been very brave in the past few days.

First, it ran a major story on the current religious beliefs of Canadians. The article, called "A God? That's complicated. Canadians hanging on to personal faith as organized religion declines: poll," was published on April 5, 2015 and was based on a new Angus Reid poll.

Second, the Post offered readers a chance to answer the question "Do You Believe in God?"  Not only did the Post print a selection of the letters it received, it allowed 966 on-line comments before finally closing the debate.

It was great to see such an enormous spectrum of thought in one place.  Comments ranged from extreme atheism to extreme fideism, with everything in between.  It was refreshing and encouraging to see an actual debate with thoughtful and cogent offerings from regular Canadians on a topic that matters to many.  The Post editors, bucking the current trend of sanitizing and pre-packaging controversial ideas so no one's feelings will be hurt, took the audacious approach of allowing breadth in the debate.  I applaud the editors for their courage.

Something that emerged for me as I reflected on the varied comments was a better understanding of the schism that exists between atheists and theists.*

One comment, written by a prolific comment writer named Life's Traveller, really drew my attention and prompted me to reply.  In part, this is what he (she?) said:

In terms of religions, I just can't accept anything that my equally (and in many cases, greatly over-achievingly) ignorant fellow humans have to say about this. When we all hear the same, clear and consistent, story, straight from god with no human mediation (prophets, etc.), with ample amounts of irrefutable direct evidence, and explanations, testable under the most rigorous conditions that the brightest among us can devise, then I'll conditionally accept it ... perhaps.

I challenged this line of reasoning a couple of times, then Life Traveller came back with this:

"The God I trust and the God who sustains me every day is the God I see everywhere around me in the world of science" [quoting my previous comment]
Please be specific, and include your reasoning as to why exactly the god that you speak of in personal terms (who you trust and who sustains you), is absolutely necessary for whatever example that you choose to produce as a valid demonstration of the presence/existence/influence of "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity" (according to Oxford).

It took me all night to figure out why this line of reasoning (a line of reasoning shared by many atheists) is so psychologically and spiritually abusive when aimed at those of us who believe in God.

It's abusive because of the implicit assumption it tries to force on me. (I'm using myself here as an example of a person of faith, but I think other people of faith feel this way, too, in the face of militant atheism).  It tries at the very outset to force me to agree to take on the "burden of proof" for someone else who is either too lazy or too narcissistic to accept the responsibility for using his or her own brain in the most balanced, holistic way possible.  It tries to force me to put on blinders (as if I can't see God in the world "out there").  It tries to force me to use only human laws and human reasoning (as if I can't see God uses universal laws, not human laws).  It tries to force me to agree with the fairy tale imaginings of human minds that worship Materialism (and worship themselves).  Then, when I balk at these unfair starting assumptions (because they're not based in scientific reality), I'll be blamed for bringing mouldy bread to the table instead of the pure goblet of "truth."  It will all be my fault, according to the atheist.  And because it's my fault, I'll deserve to be punished.  This will make it okay for the atheist to deride me, deride God, and raise himself up on a pedestal of smug superiority.

All the while, he's assuming his interpretations of the laws of physics are "right."  He's using his "right to be right" as a foundation, a starting place, and he intends to sit in his comfortable place of "rightness" and feast on the imperfections and inadequacies of humans who believe in God.  Sure, it's schadenfreude disguised as the pure goblet of truth, but if the atheist can keep me from noticing that -- if he can keep me thinking it's all my fault that he's so miserable -- then can he enjoy a lasting banquet of guilt, shame, inadequacy, and unworthiness from those of us who buy into his Materialist fairy tale.

But, you know, it's not my fault.

It's not my fault that the atheist has consciously and willingly chosen to believe that the Materialist laws of cause and effect govern everything in the universe.  It's not my fault that the atheist has chosen to deny that the laws of physics governing baryonic matter represent only a small fraction of the total number of laws of physics in the universe.  (Baryonic matter, which makes up the atoms and molecules we think of as "real" while we're on Planet Earth, represents only about 4 to 5% of the total energy of the known universe.)  It's not my fault that the atheist can't -- or won't -- see the complexity and weirdness and relationships that govern quantum interactions.

It's not my responsibility to bring to the atheist's table a "proof" based solely on Materialist laws of cause and effect.

It's especially not my responsibility that the atheist simply can't cope with the questions and complexities that arise from scale.

It isn't possible to talk about God without always bearing in mind the question of scale.  God the Mother and God the Father are very, very big.  They're also very, very smart.  To ask anyone to describe God using only their own personal experiences and their own personal scientific knowledge is not fair, not justifiable, and not even a tiny bit humble.  Each one of us can provide only a small piece of the overall portrait of God.  Each small piece is important and valid, but no one piece (and no one person) can provide everything we hope to know. 

For those of us living as human beings on Planet Earth, we can't begin to get a sense of who God is unless we're willing to approach the question of God with scale in mind.

Moon in a daylit sky.  (The moon is in this photo, but it's small and hard to see).  If you're not filled with awe and wonder when you look at sky like this, you're not paying attention to what your soul finds beautiful.  Photo JAT 2015.

To get a true snapshot of who God really is, we'd have to take a poll of all living creatures on Planet Earth and then collate all our individual experiences and insights in a vast meta-study.  It wouldn't be sufficient to poll only human beings.  Human beings represent a small portion of God's children on Planet Earth, and human experiences are necessarily narrow in scope compared to the whole picture of God's relationship with Creation.  Humans don't have all the answers.

Humans who want to know God and be in relationship with God have to get over their own human self-importance. They have to accept with humbleness and courage that about 95% of the laws of physics governing their lives are not straightforward and not predictable and not within their complete and utter control.  (Have you met any atheists who aren't controlling Type A perfectionists?  I haven't.)

You're only human, and the fact that you get to play with even 4–5% of the laws of physics while you're here is really quite something (when you think of the whole scale of Creation, that is).

But don't be thinkin' God is required to squeeze into that small little packet of baryonic reality (like the Genie in Aladdin's Lamp) so you can be spared the challenge of "thinking bigger." If you want to know God, you're going to have to go outside your comfort zone and you're going to have to accept that what you find out there won't be designed from a neat and tidy human point of view. 

As the X-files used to say, "The proof is out there."

Or maybe, more properly, in there -- where quantum reality lies.

God bless.

(* Sorry for all the editing I had to do on this piece.  Sometimes new ideas take a while to "gel" and the relevance of "scale" is new to my philosophical paradigm.  Plus I found scads of typos!  Sorry if I created any confusion.  I hope today's additions to this post have made my thoughts clearer. Jen, April 11, 2015)

LSP39: Try This Prayer Instead

First Days of Spring, (c) Jamie MacDonald 2015.  Used with permission of the artist.

The Dawn Prayer (full version)

Gracious God,
What I long for more than anything
is to walk with you and hear the world as you do.
I long more anything for my Heart to be healed
so I may hear your song
and know your breath
and smile at the rush of your dawn-filled wings.
I feel so small
and so crushed
and I can't seem to hear you anymore.
I know this isn't what you wish for me.
Please show me the way back to your Heart
and to my Heart, too.
Please help me hear you
when you say you love me.
I know you love me.
Thank you.
Amen.

The Dawn Prayer (short version: post this where you'll see it several times per day, e.g. on refrigerator door):

Dear God, I know you love me.  Thank you.  Amen.


by Jesus and Jen, March 26, 2015