Mind-Bending Esoterica

 Open Letter to Spiritual Person Regarding Belief in Supernatural

based on several posts on Facebook to my Wall. 

First,  this subject matter does not lend itself to a sound-byte. That's why science is often wrongly interpreted as unable to respond to wild claims from believers in the supernatural. Complicated things require complicated explanations. 

Second, this content is not directed at you, CMorte, exclusively. I will be speaking both toward your comments, and toward the spiritual community at large.

Third, yes I was a little harsh.  I will try to keep my anger at bay long enough to explain why I react that way....this is where Political Correctness and progress intersect (if not with a simple fender-bender, then certainly with an eardrum-splitting crash). Political Correctness has discouraged us, as a society, from speaking the truth, for fear it might damage someone's fragile sensibilities.  Progress should never be impeded by a need to coddle adults who respond to the world as children. 

This leads to other things, the least of which is redefining the meaning of words, so that no one can communicate clearly anymore. 

I am working on my own book as well, (Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology) and the more I have researched and learned THE FACTS, the more I have moved toward a certain intensity about how damaging and ridiculous this subject is. So yes, I get intense, because this type of worldview has caused and is causing great suffering and peril and death to us all. It's causing a great number of otherwise intelligent people to cling to a collection of atavistic concepts that have not, and never will serve humanity in any ultimately beneficial way. Any benefits that spirituality ostensibly provides to its adherents, can be found equally in the  worldview of philosophy and ethics, communities of other kinds, and so on. It's a myth that the only morality, hope, purpose and comfort to be found, resides only in the supernatural. And this supernatural belief paradigm endangers ME and those I love, and humanity in general. 

So yes, I take it personally, though not so long ago, I didn't. I thought "live and let live"--as long as it didn't infringe on my pursuit of happiness or my rights or my freedoms or my safety. Now, I take it personally, because it has been personalized and all those privately individual aspects are under siege. Now it DOES infringe on my pursuit of happiness, my freedoms and rights, and my safety. Now, we are seeing the results of people believing in the supernatural, and WANTING or NEEDING to believe in it, coupled with a technological society that allows them to act on it in a global way. It leads to the corruption of scientific principals, the twisting of facts to suit a more comfortable set of ideas in the believer. And that affects us ALL. 

But I guess Christians are the only ones allowed righteous anger; because they are the bedrock of belief in this country. All other beliefs seem to just spring from there. How often in the last decade, have Christians backed off the dogma and simply adopted the tenets that they liked best, dropping the rest? How often do we hear "I'm spiritual, but not religious"? This indicates not only that morality and goodness is inherent in people regardless of the presence of religion, but also the often lethargic evolution of a realization; a concept no longer making sense. It's  a rare individual who denies a prevailing and sanctioned lie with the severity of a guillotine. Mostly, the denial comes in incremental steps away from the doctrine, when a human brain is niggled constantly by cognitive dissonance. Thus, "spirituality" is one of those steps. It's still a belief in supernatural, just without the main supernatural component of a supreme deity at the helm.

 You said,

i am at a stand-still in my research because I am convinced now that we have the power within our minds to recreate a haunting based on our beliefs. i refuse to say that nothing or everything can be debunked but that if we believe we are being haunted evidence will back it up simply because the power of our minds is so powerful it can manifest our beliefs on film."

Yes i do have a strong mind. Not the point here. I asked for proof. You don't seem to have any. You just have assertions.

"the proof lies in the research of Dr. Bohm and his colleuges. they believed so strongly in the holographic universe theory that it seems to explain alot of our mind's capabilities"

If you're referring to Dr. David Bohm, the physicist--he interpreted quantum mechanics in his own way, but his theory of holographic universe was overall rejected, since his premises required connections that are subliminal and which violate the principles of special relativity. There is no real evidence of his theory, nor of the subquantum forces he includes in his postulate. If there ever is any evidence to support his claims, then science will find it, test it and it will then be accepted if proven to a high degree of certainty. Until then, it is not to be considered "proof" in the true definiation of the word.

But notice that Bohm was well known to be gullible and to entertain esoteric ideas with no basis in fact. Bohm carried a key around with him he believed Uri Geller bent, as if it were a holy relic. We now know exactly how this key-bending was done. Michael Shermer even demonstrated it on a video. So while Bohm might have been a brilliant mind, it didn't preclude him having some erroneous, illogical, and delusional ideas about other things, which again, were never proven to have any veracity whatsoever.

CMorte: "Paranormal is anything that can not be explained by science. parapsychology is anything that our minds have created that can not be cured by medication - my definitions"

Jae Baeli:"I am aware of the definitions of these words."

There are many things that haven't yet been explained by science, but they do not fall into the category of paranormal. Also, to say "anything our minds have created" is to give the subject a wide field. There are also many things our minds create that aren't explained fully, yet don't require medication. This type of vagueness is also a component of the communication problem between rationalists and spiritualists.

CMorte: "I was being a smart ass bout meds. In this realm nobody is an expert. As far as im concerned nobody knows anything"

Jae Baeli: "there are quite a few people who know quite a few things. I find that statement absurd....especially since you seem to be so convinced of your own beliefs...so which is it? you believe in everything? nothing? only in what YOU believe, but not in anything else? the tooth fairy? Leprechauns?"

CMorte: "scientifically none of that is proven but i like to lend credit to the believers. when some people believe so hard in something it is true to them. miracles happen or whatever that motivate them to believe harder. i think (and i'm not telling anybody else what to think) anything is possible...by nobody knows anything i was talking about the paranormal. i figured as a skeptic you would agree. i just got off work and was catching up and saw all this. i am sorry really i am. i didn't expect you to take it so personally. i just posted it on your wall because i didn't want to send it in a message."

Why do you "like to lend credit to the believers?" Why is that your goal? What purpose does that serve in your estimation? What you describe is a manifestation of delusion, created in the minds of those who are susceptible to magical ideas. The end result is that they "believe harder" and I contend this is a negative, not a positive, because it entrenches them even more deeply into delusion and denial, and perpetuates the deification of falsehood, and the dismissal of truth.

As a skeptic, I don't accept as fact things unproven--that much is true. That doesn't mean I don't believe in anything. I believe in quite a few things. Like education, honesty, self-awareness, truth, self-responsibility, friendship, love, learning, ethics, separation of church and state, etc....These beliefs don't affect my ability to recognize facts and truth. And they do not reportedly determine the fate of my soul, or exist under threat of suffering if i don't choose to embrace them. They are concepts that inform the quality of my daily life and my interactions with others. I have imposed a subjective value on these things, for those reasons. This is nothing like the tenets of faith and belief in supernatural, as these ideas are attached to the concepts of guilt, fear, suffering and death, springing, as they did, from monotheistic belief systems. So it follows that supernatural belief systems are insidious in their ability to usurp the thinking mind, and instead draw on the primitive reactions of the amygdala, where reason cannot get a foothold.

So when you say you are a skeptic, CMorte,  I have to point out that the data seems to indicate otherwise. You say you "don't believe in anything"--but that's not any truer for you than it is for me, as I pointed out above. This statement is contradicted by the things you write. And you are even writing a monstrous book about guiding people on "the other side"!! That implicitly states a belief in souls, afterlife, and all things supernatural (it also assumes facts not in evidence, which is YOUR BELIEF in something). When you speak of demons and goddesses and anything else supernatural, and you frame it in a context of having experienced phenomena like this, then you BELIEVE IT. The fact that you have labeled these things, means you think you know what the experiences actually were, and thus, they are real to you. This, while admitting to drug use during at least some of those experiences. It's easy to see why you would count those experiences as "real"--you were under the influence of something as strong as your own wishes and needs, namely, a drug. 

The significance of this becomes clear. It's not Astrophysics. We know that the drug katamine can induce a Near Death Experience in the brain, too. We also know that electrical impulses in the brain, when pinpointed and excited manually by a surgeon, can also produce other experiences of that sort. That doesn't mean it "happened" objectively, it only happened subjectively. This is not, however, indicative of truth. When people say "It's true because i saw it" or "It's real because I felt it" or "I know it in my heart"--they are misusing the terminology of true/real/know. True and meaningful are not the same in this context; nor is Knowing and believing. But the spiritual folks among us continue to try to blur the line, and combine belief with fact. It can't be done, unless you change the defintions.

Additionally, when you announce you have no beliefs, I wonder why that seems a badge of honor to you?  "no belief" would include love, honesty, ethics, conservation, charity, alternative fuels, voting, kindness, equal rights, etc--the word "anything" in this context is all inclusive, just like the word "nothing" which is "no thing." Believing "in nothing" doesn't make you an atheist. NOT believing in supernatural beings and realms is what makes you an atheist. You are not, by definition, an atheist. Semantics is an important issue, here. I can say that I believe in UFO's and

this would be a true statement because I know that UFO is an abbreviation for Unidentified Flying Object, and yes, there have been instances when an object was flying and it could not be identified. That doesn't mean I believe that they are spaceships, piloted by extraterrestrials. And it doesn't speak to my opinion on whether or not that might be possible. These are more examples of logical fallacy, and the variables inside these arguments are the catalyst for misunderstanding. Thus, you must understand what you are saying, and you must use the same dictionary everyone else has agreed to use. That's what a standardized dictionary is for.

Additionally, saying that you don't believe in anything means you can't make a logical decision based on facts; and that ought not be referenced as a source of pride, in my opinion. Then, in a heel-spin of contradiction, you speak of things as if they are true, when they are not. So perhaps you're not communicating yourself accurately. Is that it?  Or do you merely deceive yourself by saying you don't believe in anything? I contend that you do believe in many things (as all humans do), and it comes through repeatedly in everything you talk about. I'm not sure what compels you to deny participation in the act of owning what you believe. It requires no courage to stand aside and say you don't believe in anything. That's not being open-minded, that's refusing to take responsibility for your own ability to make decisions. I find that stance intellectually dishonest.

My issue with it is that belief should be predicated on truth. So I don't use it in the same context as it is used colloquially and theologically. And yes I do get intense about it, because it's high time the logical and rational among us stop allowing Believers to make all the rules and get all the free passes, while systematically destroying everything that would save us, the planet and honor our own evolution as sentient beings. It's no longer innocuous to be spiritual or religious. It now bleeds over into the lives of EVERYONE. Unfounded beliefs keep children from learning the science that will allow them to understand how life and the universe really operates; unfounded beliefs map young minds into knots of hatred, superstition and fear rather than in acceptance, discernment and clarity; unfounded beliefs cause people to neglect proven medical care for themselves or their children; unfounded beliefs cause people to kill each other, start wars, commit acts of torture, genocide, infanticide, hate crimes, cause oppression, starvation,  child abuse, rape; unfounded beliefs incite groups to intend and plan

takeovers of our secular government; unfounded beliefs cause someone in power to put their finger on a red button that will annihilate life as we know it. 

Damn right I get intense. 

I have a right to live, and THEY don't have the right to take it from me. 

Now you might think you are not in this category, but I contend you are only a step away, because all it takes is the willingness to accept ideas without proof, which you have already demonstrated repeatedly. So I'm sorry if my intensity offends you. But I'm pretty weary of biting my lip about it. As Frantz Fanon said, "There comes a time when silence becomes dishonesty." I have no desire to be guilty of either.

You said, "i am not trying to be offensive. i am not trying to argue."  This is the way spiritual people weasel out of the fray. They deny any malice, and say they don't want to argue. The reason is, if they engage in a rational argument, their beliefs and postulates will be shown false and even sometimes absurd, and this is not something they are open to. 

Now, I have been accused of being single-minded in my recent full conversion to atheism. And further, been accused of hypocrisy on some level, because I cannot be persuaded to believe again. But the point to be had here, is that I WAS A BELIEVER. I  said all those same things, clung to all those same ideas, and defended them to others, just as believers do now to me. So I have been on the "other side" in that regard (pun intended) and made a logical decision to deny its veracity, based on the development of my intelligence, and the evidence and clarity of thought and reason. So implications of my stubborn single-mindedness are unfounded. I came to conclusions based on facts, and now honor my conclusions, since there have been no other facts or evidence to change them.

You said,

"in fact, I was posting something personal to me that was mainly just some ideas. wasn't trying to get everyone riled up. i was just speaking to you as a friend not as a scientist or an expert."

So, if you speak casually, in a friend-kind-of-way, this excludes the necessity for truth? or rational thinking? or clarity of belief? If you are merely ruminating innocently, why work so hard on a book that is quite copious and detailed regarding supernatural forces and conditions in a plane of existence no one has proof for, and even you yourself haven't experienced in reality? I think what you are really doing is back-peddling in the face of a rational argument.

"in this realm evidence is anything that happens consistantly and with documented evidence. alot of this eye/camera/orb stuff can only be based on the ghost documentary shows i saw on tv. not saying it is real but it is "believeable" to me. i can't physically show you or else it wouldn't be paranormal. some things are consistant with the research tho and that is electromagnetic energy that when charged from a source lights up. and seems to be consistant with a haunting and the frequency of our chakras. that is all i have as far as evidence. sorry to have let you down today."

You mention "evidence" so glibly, it's clear you  don't understand the meaning of the word as I mean it, which is as science sees it. When I  speak of evidence, I refer to empirical, not anecdotal. I refer to the use of scientific method with falsifiability and double-blind procedures at play; not a photograph that "seems" to indicate something magical or out of the ordinary. You mention the "Frequency of chakras"--yet, again, you use another unprovable item to prove your other unprovable item. Chakras are an IDEA that became a cultural meme, but have no basis in fact.  Adherents imbue the idea with some supposed authority beyond the realm of science, but this also places it beyond the realm of fact and thus, of truth. But try to get a believer to understand this, and you'll be at it for eons. The irony with this sort of thought-paradigm is that if you don't know how to think things through properly and logically, you are unaware that you don't know how to think things through properly and logically. That's why the arguments go on between the rational and the irrational--between atheists and spiritual/religious individuals. The problem can only be solved by educating as many people as possible in the skills of rational thought.

At the risk of this eons-long head-butting, I will point out that you have repeatedly utilized logical fallacy, and in fact, used almost all of the most common ones:

• Tautology, or circular reasoning (A=B because A=B).
• Special Pleading, AKA ad hoc reasoning, (arbitrarily adding new elements in an effort to repair their lack of validity)
• Non-sequiter, (implying a logical connection where none exists)
• Moving the Goalpost (A method of denial that moves the criteria out of range of the evidence)
• post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for after this, therefore because of this; assuming a cause and effect relationship of things simply because one thing came before another), 
• Inconsistency --Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others).
• God of the Gaps (which is merely explaining something mysterious by plugging in a supernatural explanation);  
• Confusing association with causation, (similar to post-hoc, except it's when two things happen in proximity of time or location, and are assumed to be related).
• Argument from Personal Incredulity, (lack of personal understanding is interpreted to mean it cannot be true)
• Argument from Authority, (stating a claim is true because a person or group perceived as an authority says so)
• Argument from Ignorance (a statement must be true because we don't know it isn't true)

Understand that in all the 200,000 years that humans have been on the earth, not once has there been empirical evidence of supernatural claims. Never. Not even enough to serve in a court of law under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" edict. This fact must give us pause. If something were indeed true, in all those millennia, wouldn't we have some shred of proof for it?

But humans are relentless in their need to depend on the supernatural to find their value in this life. Matthew Alper, author of The God Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God, approaches this subject head-on, in what seems to be an emerging understanding among scientific circles about why humans are so staunchly attached to the ideas of the supernatural:

"Essentially, what I'm suggesting is that humans are innately "hard-wired" to perceive a spiritual reality. We are "hard-wired" to believe in forces that transcend the limitations of this, our physical reality. Most controversial of all, if what I'm suggesting is true, it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the human brain. And why would our species have evolved such a seemingly abstract trait? -In order to enable us to deal with our species' unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death.

With the dawn of human intelligence, for the first time in the history of terrestrial life, an organism could point its powers of perception back upon its own being; it could recognize its own self as an object. For the first time, when an animal kneeled down to drink from the watering hole, it recognized its own reflection. Only humans possess the advanced capacity for self-awareness. Though, in many ways, this capacity has helped to make our species the most versatile and powerful creature on earth, it also represents the source of our greatest affliction. This is because once we became aware of the fact that we exist, we became equally aware of not just the possibility that one day we might not, but the certainty that one day we will not. With the advent of our species, with the emergence of self-conscious awareness, a life form became cognizant of the fact that it is going to die. All we had to do was to look around us to see that death was inevitable and inescapable. More terrifying yet, death could befall us at anytime. Any moment can be our last.

All life is "hard-wired" to avoid those things that represent a threat to its existence. When an animal gets too close to fire, for example, it reflexively pulls away. It is this negative stimulus, this experience we call pain, that prompts all forms of life to avoid such potential life threats. Pain, therefore, acts as nature's electric prod that incites us to avoid those things which may jeopardize our existence.

In the "higher" animals, most particularly among the mammals, threatening circumstances elicit a particular type of pain we refer to as anxiety. Anxiety constitutes a type of pain meant to prompt these "higher" order animals to avoid potentially hazardous circumstances. For example, a rabbit is cornered by a mountain lion. In such a situation, the rabbit is pumped with adrenaline, charged with the painful symptoms of anxiety, all meant to incite the rabbit to most effectively escape from the source of its discomfort, in this case the mountain lion. In its healthiest form, anxiety is meant to prompt an animal to avoid or escape a potentially hazardous experience. In humans, however, once we became aware of the fact that death was not only inescapable but that it could come at any moment, we were left in a state of constant mortal peril, a state of unceasing anxiety - much like rabbits perpetually cornered by a mountain lion from which there is no escape. With the emergence of self-awareness, humans became the dysfunctional animal, rendered helpless by an inherent and unceasing anxiety disorder. Unless nature could somehow relieve us of this debilitating awareness of death, it's possible our species might have soon become extinct. It was suddenly critical that our animal be modified in some way that would allow us to maintain self-conscious awareness, while enabling us to deal with our unique awareness of our own mortalities, of death.

Here lies the origin of humankind's spiritual function, an evolutionary adaptation that compels our species to believe that though our physical bodies will one day perish, our "spirits" or "souls" will persist for all eternity. Only once our species was instilled with this inherent (mis)perception that there is something more "out there," that we are immortal beings, were we able to survive our debilitating awareness of death."

And that is a compelling argument about why people believe in the supernatural, and why logic and reason seem so out of reach for those who desperately need something outside of themselves to give them courage or purpose or hope. It is my fervent desire, to see the swelling of ranks in those who find these things inside themselves, instead.

Mind-Bending Esoterica

The God Banana

On YouTube, recently, a video was posted of a Christian program called "The Way of the Master" wherein the hosts, Ray Comfort and actor, Kirk Cameron gave their argument for creationism based on the "design" of a banana.



Included in their argument were points they said showed that the banana was a product of Intelligent Design, i.e., God. They said the banana is shaped to fit the human hand; that it's color-coded so we know when it's not ripe, when it's overly ripe, and when it's just ripe enough; that it has a handy pull tab, and perforations to allow peeling, and it is sweet, delicious, and nutritious, and even bent toward the mouth so nicely, tapered on the end so it can be pushed in with ease...this was their "proof" for God as Creator of the Universe and all the fruit in it.

Well gang, this is where it helps to know something about science. The wild banana-the one "God" created-was almost inedible. It had hard black seeds inside it. The banana references in history were related to it's original form of plantains. It wasn't until 1836, that a mutant banana was found by Jean Francois Poujot, a Jamaican banana farmer. The fruit was yellow instead of green or red. Cuttings were taken from the mutant plant, and over the years, genetically engineered BY MAN to be what we find in the supermarket today. Since the genetically modified fruit, known as the Cavendish Banana, had no seeds, it had to be grown through cuttings. So there were no God-given convenience factors in place originally, as Comfort and Cameron suggest, nor even did they originate in the proper climate.

Bananas do not grow simply from seed. Man intervened long ago and crossed two varieties of African wild bananas, the Musa acuminata and the Musa baalbisiana, got rid of the many seeds that were an unpleasant presence, and improved the flavor and texture from hard and unappetizing to its present soft and irresistibly sweet flavor.

Today bananas must be propagated from large rootstocks or rhizomes that are carefully trans-planted in a suitable climate, namely the hot tropics...(Banana.com).

So yes, the banana has an intelligent design, but the designers were humans.

And here's another thought: according to the creationist argument of Comfort and Cameron, "God" must also have made the coconut, and most of us are aware of how user-UNfriendly, THAT fruit is. You have to have a hammer to get it open. Did God, then, just want us to work harder for our food?

One commenter understood the absurdity of it all and gave me a good laugh. On a blog about this video, the commenter said, "Hey, my banana is curved AWAY from my face....oh, wait..."

The God Banana

Thatness And Whatness

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


Existence and essence--two things we are prevented from knowing about god from within the Christian faith. Why would we adopt a lifestyle, belief system, code, or any other guideline that has no basis in rational thought or empirical proof?

Christian theology states that God is incorporeal, which is to say, non-material. This means God is not composed of matter, which renders the reference to God as a being meaningless. For if something is non-matter, how could it matter? We are beings who are made of matter (in the simplest terms) and thus our understanding of everything is predicated on matter. All else is both immaterial in a literal and figurative sense and negligible.

And what of ideas and concepts and immaterial things like kindness? Might the theist argue that kindness is real to us, though not made of matter? of course, the theist could argue that, but the argument would dissolve under the powerful force of reason; kindness is not being touted as an entity, as well as something immaterial . If God is not made of matter or of anything humans can comprehend, then God, is in a very real way, NOT REAL. If we cannot perceive God, then, why would we believe in him? If we cannot experience god, since god is non-matter, how could he possibly exist to begin with? And why don't Christians who peddle this concept just admit that they are agnostic, since agnosticism is defined as something we cannot know? Slippery slope, that.

____________________________
painting, "Chocolate Drizzle" (c)Kelli Jae Baeli

Thatness And Whatness

Honk if You'll Kill for God

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


...We have had time to evolve since those dark days. Yet, how could we, when there were so many examples and encouragements to keep us uncivilized and vicious?

In the story of Abraham and Isaac most Americans are familiar with, God commanded Abe to sacrifice his son to Him. Old Abe never batted an eye. Good thing an Angel stilled his hand just in time. Abraham was praised and promised blessings because he feared the Lord enough to sacrifice his son, whom he loved, because "God" told him to.

Abraham's "devotion" to God makes him a model of faith to Christians and Jews alike. . .right. But a model of WHAT? I have a few suggestions. How about a model of zealotry? A model of stupidity? A model of a schizophrenic killer?

What would have impressed me more, and made a great deal more sense, is if Abraham would have instead said, "I will not kill my son for you, because to ask this of me proves that you are evil, and I will neither worship nor obey an evil God." That would have shown Abraham to be truly a model for other people-not of faith, which this shows is not a positive thing to have, but a model of ethical, loving behavior. This would have also shown him to have courage in the face of some request made by a God he worshiped, but who had obviously become something not worthy of adulation or obedience. And if God had really been testing Abraham's mettle, He would have responded, "You are indeed a man of great courage and integrity and compassion and ethics, and I am well pleased." But as we all know, that's not what happened.

To anyone reading this, Christian or not, if you really believed God was telling you to kill your own child, would you do it? It is my most fervent wish that all of you will answer a resounding and unhesitating "No." If you answered otherwise, you are no better than Abraham, and no better than our more modern example of the 39 year old Texas woman, Deanna Laney, who thought that God told her to kill her three sons. She managed to succeed with two of them, sparing only the infant, who will now have a life of dependency on others, since the injuries from the attack will forever render him incapable of self care.

As a nation of ethical, loving, and compassionate people, we were shocked and disgusted by this heinous act. Why do we see this behavior as abhorrent in real life, but hold it up as some paragon of virtue when referring to faith and the Bible?*

Oh, it gets worse. This next tale is not one I ever heard before reading the Bible, and it is glaringly apparent why not. It's another example--not so summarily candy-coated--of why blind faith can be one of the most evil things in existence.

Jephthah. He made a stupid promise to God that if He would award him victory in battle, he would sacrifice the first person to walk out of his house and greet him, after returning from a mission of slaughter in war, and give this doomed candidate as a burnt offering to the Lord. **

When Jephthah returned home from the exhilarating slaughter of thousands, the target for sacrifice turned out to be his daughter. He just decided, "Oh, oops. Too bad, have to kill her. I promised."

I can mark that off to human stupidity, but then, God didn't stop him. Was God stupid? Or just unfathomably mean? God allowed Jephthah to kill his own daughter, and proves Himself again, a blood-thirsty apathetic being.

With complete comfort, I challenge God Himself to come down here and explain that one to me. But God won't do that, because though Christianity is one of the "revealed" religions, this in no way indicates that God ever reveals Himself in any real way.

Both of these stories are examples of religious zealotry, not at all contrary to what the Muslim hijackers did when they piloted the planes into the Twin Towers. They, too, were following the literal instructions given to them in their holy books, the Koran and the Hadiths, (which is second only to the Koran in sanctity, and gives more detail about the life of Mohammad).

Now, it would be cowardly of me not to think about this, and what it really means. A parent would actually kill his own child because some deity told him to-told him, apparently, by way of a voice in his head. (Isn't this similar to what murderous schizophrenics experience?) Abe didn't know God would stop him. He did it with the fullest intention of completing the hideous task. And Jephthah not only did the same thing, but came up with the wager by himself, as a way to reach his dubious goal of successful, widespread slaughter.

So. This still happens today, though not cloaked in the shroud of admirable character. Quite the opposite is true, isn't it? God didn't stop Deanna Laney, either, though she was about to kill her kids believing that's what God wanted. Why didn't God step in and say, at the very least, "No, no, Deanna. . I'm not doing that stuff anymore. I decided it was better to just kill my own son to cover all the sacrifices we might need in the future, and be done with it." (Well at least God did what he expects of others, that one time). But God didn't stop her, just like He didn't stop Jephthah. Thankfully, our judicial system did something about it, by putting her on trial, judging it wrong and worthy of punishment. Unfortunately, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and was committed to a mental facility for an unspecified period of time.

But if you are either guilty or insane for thinking that God told you to kill your kids, are either of those valid reasons to defend the virtues of Blind Faith?
Um. No.
-----------------------
*And more poignantly, there is no mention of how Isaac felt after his sacrificial test. I can't imagine that he would be able to love his father after being tricked and nearly killed by him. The two dead Laney children could not be reached for comment, and the one who survived won't ever be able to comment.
** First, I am struck by the absurdity of this deal. Why would anyone make such a vow in the first place?

Honk if You'll Kill for God

Pascal's Wager: Hedging The Bet

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


One explanation that often comes from the lips of the faithful is this: "I'm not sure, but I think I will go with the God is real thing, just in case--if I do, and it's true, I'll be covered; if I don't, and it's true, I'll burn in hell."  This is known as Pascal's Wager. [1]

First, this ideation doesn't address WHICH God you should accept or worship. This is often referred to as the "avoiding the wrong hell" conundrum.

And what if God is real, but there is more than one god? How do we know which guidelines to follow for the god of that particular faith?

And there can be a negative consequence for believing something that isn't true. Refer to the plethora of historical documents, and even current incidents where Christian Scientists believe that prayer, rather than medical intervention, will assure the safety of their children, and those children suffer and die.

At the root of this hedging mentality is a religion of fear. If God is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (the 4 Omni's) as well as the Alpha and Omega (beginning and end), Infinite, Incorporeal,[2] and Ineffable[3]....the most perfect and indeed the original being in the universe, then why does He need to be worshiped? Why would He care? A perfect, non-human being would not have a human division of consciousness like ego, much less any human emotions we tack onto him.

There's an essential point to be had here, and that is the tendency Christians have to anthropomorphize God-that is to say: personify or humanize Him. This being, as He is understood by Christians, is anything BUT human. If this deity exists, and is what Christians testify to, then he is INCAPABLE of having His feelings hurt, or being lonely; if he were, he is simply not the God Christians tout, and thus not worthy of worship anyway. An imperfect being does not warrant worship. And if the "truly inspired word of God" is to be our touchstone, then I submit God is not only imperfect, but mean, petty, cruel and, at times, evil.

It makes more sense to me that I make my decisions about what I believe based on sensible arguments, on empirical evidence, or the lack thereof. If we were not meant to use the reason inherent in our working brains, then why would we have it? If God is the Creator of us all, why would he create beings with the ability to choose to deny Him?

As previously mentioned, according to Christians, God needs us to worship Him. So creating something that was contrary to His needs, when he has complete and utter power over the process, is again nonsensical. And another example of the inherent contradiction of the Christian God.

I have had my moments of clarity over this. One came when I sincerely and earnestly asked God to show Himself to me. I told God that if He could show me he was real in a way that was undeniable to me, personally, that I would not only admit I was wrong, but would spend the rest of my life helping others to believe in Him too. This was not the first time I had had this little discussion with God. But they all garnered the same result. No sign; No message, no change at all. A silence that was cosmically deafening.

I know that Christians will be quick to say that this was because I didn't have enough faith. (Again, anther ad hoc argument that falls flat in the face of reason). But I know for a fact that my faith was larger than that mustard seed found in Matthew 17:20. And I wasn't trying to move a mountain, nor was I asking God to move one. I was asking for a clear sign. I got nada.
The absence of a sign gave me another sign. (A sin of omission by God?) The sign that said "God is not real."

At the same time, I have other moments when I wonder. But I am smart enough to recognize that any reticence I have to completely deny the existence of God is attributable to religious insemination--my fear that if I'm wrong, I might meet a horrible fate that includes the mind-numbing pain of feeling my skin melt off in the furnace He so lovingly provided for me throughout eternity. If I had no other reason, that concept alone is enough for me to turn away from this deity, even if I don't ultimately deny His existence entirely.
-------------------------------

[1]“Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics. Historically, Pascal's Wager, ground-breaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.” (Wikipedia).
[2]Having no material body or form.
[3]Incapable of being expressed in words.

Pascal's Wager: Hedging The Bet

Mibber Who?.

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")


"Mibber is loving and wise. Mibber is the essence of all matter and energy. Mibber has not limits. Mibber is all powerful."

When hearing statements such as these, it is not our first inclination to ask "What does that mean, in relation to this "Mibber"? or "how is it that Mibber can be all these things?" your first question is naturally, "What IS Mibber?"

First, we must define an object before we can even begin to examine the other questions that arise once we understand the fundamental nature of that object. The same is true, or at least should be true, of the Christian God. I find it aggravatingly fascinating how Christians make announcements and declarations about what God feels, thinks, does, and intends...but have no explanation for the nature of God. What is God? Who is God? How do they know this information?

In one breath, they say that God is mysterious and unknowable and in the other, they say that God is loving, or God is wise, or all-powerful. How can they know any of this if they don't even understand God and have never met him/her/it in person?

No one has ever had a real conversation with God. No, not even Neale Donald Walsch. Claims to the contrary have been grossly exaggerated. They have only had mental processes which they ascribe to an encounter with this invisible entity. One could just as easily-and with as much credibility-say that one has had a conversation with a tree, or a dog, or Elvis. The difference with the latter is of course that we do have actual evidence of the tree, the dog and Elvis.
But again, there is this pervasive, almost cellular habituation attached to the God-paradigm. As a species, humans have had belief in supernatural beings as part of the fiber of everyday reality. Prevalence doesn't, however, make it real.

Further, why would a person chose to believe in something impossible? If something is black, it cannot also be white. If something is square, it cannot be circular. This is akin to the statements most Christians make about God, the essence of which is, "God remains dry when immersed in water." On the face of that, unless it is trickery, this is contradiction at best, and deceit at worst.
The very first explanation that springs to the lips of the devout is some variation of "God moves in mysterious ways." I'll say! Any being who can exist but be invisible, embody the essence of love, yet be angry, and remain dry while immersed in water, is certainly beyond comprehension and so advanced as to be worthy of our attention. Except for one thing. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's almost certainly not true. And since no one can prove the existence of this god, we are left only with a choice to believe in something not only unproven and improvable, but in something that is illogical and fraught with contradiction at every turn.
Pardon me while I lean toward the more rational approach.

Mibber Who?.

The Furnace of Furniss

(from my book in progress, Supernatural Hypocrisy: The Cognitive Dissonance of a God Cosmology")

A popular booklet for children in the late 19th Century was authored by Father Furniss, an English priest who wrote "books for children." Furniss delighted in describing the horrors of hell:

"...his eyes were like two burning coals. Two long flames came our of his ears...sometimes he opens his mouth, and breath of blazing fire rolls out. But listen! There is a sound just like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling in the scalding veins of that boy. The brain is boiling and bubbling in his head. The marrow is boiling in his bones. Ask him why he is thus tormented. his answer is that when he was alive, his blood boiled to do very wicked things."

and,

"A little child is in this red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out! See how it turns and twists itself about in the fire! It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell--despair, desperate and horrible."

Father Furniss was paradoxically dubbed the "Children's Apostle."

The Furnace of Furniss

Kissing Hank's Ass

Kissing Hank's Ass