Church of the Churchless

Nibiru/Planet X won't destroy Earth in 2012

Today I learned that I'm out of the loop of wacko conspiracy theories about the End of the World in 2012.

I listened to a podcast featuring astrobiologist David Morrison, who answers questions submitted to NASA's "Ask an Astrobiologist."

I'd heard about the supposed Mayan prediction that Earth ends this year (Morrison says that's news to the ancestors of ancient Mayans still living in Mexico), but didn't know that lots of people are freaked out about a large planetary object -- Nibiru/Planet X -- that they believe is on a collision course with Earth.

Of course, that isn't true.

Just like religious fantasies founded on unsubstantiated holy books, this one sucks in gullible people who uncritically accept what is said on You Tube videos and web sites. Amazingly, Morrison said that he regularly gets messages from people who are contemplating suicide prior to the cataclysm, rather than suffer through it.

One woman asked him when she should put her beloved little dog "to sleep," so her pet would be spared the fires, floods, or whatever caused by the Nibiru/Planet X impact.

Morrison said all he can do is tell people to relax and stop worrying. Since the messages to NASA contain no email address or other identifying information, there's no way for him to notify a suicide prevention agency, even if someone seems seriously suicidal.

A recent video by Morrison, "The Science of Doomsday 2012," persuasively explains why there's no evidence that a planetary object is headed our way.

 

So why do people believe such crazy stuff?

The whole Nibiru/Planet X thing clearly is a hoax, easily debunked by reputable scientists. But we live in a largely science-illiterate world where, all too often, those who really know facts about reality aren't trusted, while charlatans are believed. Worshipped, even.

Bottom line: The Nibiru tall tale is not based on a single crumb of scientific evidence. Nibiru simply does not exist; not now, not ever.

...But it’s like playing the arcade game Whack-a-Mole. You beat down one crazy idea and another one pops up.

...we live in a largely science illiterate society where the pronouncements of real experts are often suspect and derided. This is obvious in the political debates over global warming, evolution, and questionable alternative medicine.

...The Nibiru mania is the epitome of a pseudoscience: reject a huge collection of knowledge, conventional wisdom, and rational thought and come up with an ad hoc solution no matter how implausible it is.

For anyone who may think I’m being a snooty Nibiru-basher, all you need to do is post the planet’s orbital ephemeris here. I’ll get one of my amateur astronomer buddies to go out and photograph the region of sky where Nibiru supposedly is, and then I’ll gladly publish the picture.

After all, seeing is believing.

As I've said before (here and here), conspiracy theories are like religion: faith-based. On the podcast and video Morrison said there's about 100,000 amateur and 10,000 professional astonomers with access to telescopes capable of seeing Niribu/Planet X.

They're all over the world, living in countries with vastly different political systems. So the notion that the United States government somehow is keeping secret the truth about an upcoming 2012 cataclysm is unbelievable.

Yet many people believe it. Like Buffalo Springfield said in their song:

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep 

Zhuangzi's (Chuang Tzu's) delicious weightlessness

I like the idea of floating free, weightless, able to move here, there, in any direction, with little or no effort, unbound.

Even better... for this not to be an idea, but experience.

Which helps explain, as I blogged about before, why Daoism/Taoism resonates with me.

There's a freedom, a playfulness, a whatever in Daoist philosophy that mirrors the difference between relaxed Tai Chi and the hard-edged traditional Shotokan karate I spent nine years training in before I switched to what can be called Daoism-in-motion.

Daoism is difficult to put a conceptual finger on. I've been reading and re-reading various translations of the Daode Jing since my college days, many moons and suns ago.

What the Daode Jing means, and even whether it was written by somebody we know as Laozi/Lao Tzu, are open questions. Both for me and scholars.

Chad Hansen is a professor of Chinese Philosophy at the University of Hong Kong. In his book, "A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought," Hansen says that to grasp Daoism, it isn't enough to study Laozi. Zhuangzi/Chuang Tzu is the ancient Chinese man with a more mature grasp of what we have come to call Daoism.

(Hansen starts his Zhuangzi chapter with a quote from Angus Graham: "Chuang Tzu never knew he was a 'Taoist.'" True. Just as Christ never knew he was a Christian, and Buddha never knew he was a Buddhist.)

The motto of this churchless blog is preaching the gospel of spiritual independence. Zhuangzi, explains Hansen, has a wonderful image of what supports the marvelous variety of philosophies of life, religious beliefs, spiritual predelictions, life goals, and such which we humans pursue.

Absolutism is a no-no for Zhuangzi.

Let us talk, he [Zhuangzi] says, about talking about something, and about not talking about anything. Zhuangzi invites us to consider an Ur-perspective, a view from nowhere. That is the perspective from which shi [this] and bi [other] do not contrast and complement each other. 

He calls it the hinge of daos (dao-shu). This is a hypothetical, unbiased, purely nonpurposive perspective that is prior to any system of language. Each pattern of prescriptive shiing [right'ing] and feiing [wrong'ing] starts from the center of a circle of infinite possibilities. 

The view from the axis of daos [ways] is not where nothing can be said. It is rather the point from which anything can be said with equal warrant. Once we say something, we step off the axis onto a particular dao/path. From the axis, we can go out at any angle.

...Zhuangzi's metaperspective does not lead to nonperspectival knowledge of things. It is not a window on the thing in itself, but on the bewildering range of possibilities. It leads us to a conception of the limits of knowing.

...The skeptic can say nothing about reality because we cannot prove it. THe mystic can say nothing in principle about incommensurable reality. They thus say the same no-thing. One smiles more and has an awestruck look in his eyes. The other furrows his brow a lot.

I'm with the smiling Daoists. 

There's way too much seriousness in the world, much of it produced by religious fundamentalists who believe they, and only they, know what is right and wrong, good and bad, God's will and the Devil's tempting.

Following the passage above, Hansen nicely illustrates the pleasure of a Daoist outlook on life.

A parallel comparison helps to capture the similarities between existentialism (especially Nietzsche's) and Daoism (especially Zhuangzi's). Both discover the practical pointlessness of universal or absolute meaning (purpose).

Nietzche, from his perspective as a disappointed Christian yearning for absolute, transcendent, dependence on God, experiences this awareness with existentialist angst, a sensation of looking off a cliff into a bottomless abysss. The angst is caused by the vertigo impulse, the fear we will jump or drop off our perch into that nothingness.

Zhuangzi, from his Daoist sense of the constraint of conventional authority, does not think of the cliff as a reference point. If the abyss is bottomless, then there is no such thing as falling. The cliff and Zhuangzi are both floating free. 

Leaving the cliff and entering the abyss is weightlessness -- free flight -- not falling. From his relativistic perspective, the cliff is floating away. Zhuangzi's reaction is not "Oh no!" but "Whee!"

Beautiful.

That "Whee!" reminded me of something. Dimly. A blog post I'd written... where I said Whee... about???... probably Daoism. The Great God Google quickly confirmed my intuition.

Ah, I love to quote myself.

We do our best to understand what can be understood. But some things can't be understood. Especially things that aren't a thing, as noted above.

We could follow Wittgenstein's advice: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." That isn't much fun, though. We're social, communicative creatures. So we use our imagination to detour around the roadblock of what can't be spoken of, because it can't be understood.

Whee! We're still driving on the understanding road!

As fast as we want. Even going offroad... then onroad... wherever. No problem. After all, it's an imaginary road, and we're not getting anywhere in really real reality. Just our imaginary reality.

Taoists do a lot of laughing. At themselves. At the world. At the Tao. They don't take themselves very seriously. This came through in Qiguang's entertaining talk.

Near the end of his presentation he told a story, showing an illustration from his book that he'd drawn himself in a Taoist style: people small, nature large.

A Chinese man is driving a cart pulled by a horse. There's a jug of wine sitting behind his seat. No luggage. No other belongings. Just a large jug of wine. What else does he need?

A boy is walking in back of the cart. He's carrying a hoe. Qiguang said that the man hired the boy to follow him. When the man dies and falls off the cart (too much wine?) the boy's job is to bury him where he lies with the hoe.

Confucianism, Qiguang said, has rules about how a person is supposed to be buried. The Taoist attitude is, whatever. So the man is flaunting Confucian rigidity and pretentiousness.

If we feel like imagining what reality is like, no problem. Whatever. We just shouldn't take our imagining very seriously, or expect other people to share in it.

Religious myths can be entertaining. Fun. Comforting. Inspiring. If we don't feel like remaining silent regarding what can't be spoken about, why not imagine away?

Knowing what we're doing. With a smile on our face.

Weightlessly. Realizing that there isn't a single Dao/Tao, that Dao isn't like a God who insists on One Virtuous Way of doing things. There are many ways, many paths, many daos.

Ours is ours; other people have their own.

Except ours and own aren't really the right words, since ways arise from the presence of everything, not just us. How could we follow a path through a forest if there weren't any trees?

Radha Soami Satsang Beas buys a $4.5 million office building

Must be God's will.

Contributions given by devotees of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, an India-based religious organization, aren't being used to feed the poor or shelter the homeless, but to purchase a 34,000 square foot office building in Irvine, California for $4.5 million.

Taoism isn't mystical. It is natural.

Life is a mystery. Such, for me, is a given. Don't try to argue me out of it. Hopeless task.

For about forty years I believed this meant the cosmos must have mystical underpinnings, some transcendental Absoluteness which, though hidden from everyday experience, held clues -- if not the answer -- to what life, the cosmos, birth and death, heck, everything, was all about.

Now, I'm not into that belief very much. In fact, very little. Mysticism has come to strike me as just another way of saying "life is a mystery." 

Question is: can the mystery be unraveled, understood, fathomed?

Or perhaps the best approach to living life to simply live it, accepting that us limited human beings never are going to grasp a 14 billion year old universe, made up of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars, governed by laws of nature which are, and may always be, imperfectly understood.

Taoism appeals to me.

I started to add "because..." to that last sentence.

But I'm reluctant to try to explain why I enjoy reading Taoist books and practicing Taoism-in-motion, Tai Chi, so much. When I was about twelve years old, I visited San Francisco's Chinatown for the first time. I spent my allowance on buying cheap scrolls of what I now realize were images of Taoist wanderers in Chinese nature scenes. That artwork decorated my room until I went to college. 

At the time, I had no knowledge of Taoism. I don't think I'd even heard of that term. Now, some 50 years later, I still don't know much about Taoism. Great news! I may be a Taoist sage!

Last month I blogged about how I was enjoying "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism," by Chad Hansen and Brandon Toporov. The book is filled with pithy gems that are backed up by Hansen's indepth understanding of Chinese philosophy in general, and Taoism in particular. 

I really like this passage.

Every situation, in the Taoist view, provides an opportunity for some kind of harmonious interaction with the Tao. When one has mastered the ultimate skill -- the skill of living itself -- there is no fretting or stumbling about whether or not one has the "proper" skill. One simply responds authentically at all times. But this is the skill of the sage!

For one who follows the Tao, skill expresses itself effortlessly and appropriately. Baseball star Mickey Rivers captured something of this open, trusting attitude toward all experience when he said, "Ain't no use worrying about things you control, because if you've got control over them, ain't no use worrying. Ain't no use worrying about things you can't control, because if you can't control them, ain't no use worrying."

When you think about it, you realize that each and every situation we face in life, at each and every moment, asks for some kind of response from us -- even if that response is, like Walter Cronkite's [at moment of first moon landing], an admission that we have no formal response at the moment, only ourselves.

The real question is not whether we have "mastered" all possible contingencies in advance, but whether we are wasting time and energy worrying about whether we have control over a given moment. A better course, a Taoist would argue, would be simply to do what we are naturally inspired to do, time and time and time and time again. From this kind of daily commitment, sages may emerge.

Yes. Simply to do what we are naturally inspired to do, time and time and time and time again. 

Not that we have a choice. So I understand, having been one of these people, why some are naturally inspired to seek a transcendental, mystical, heaven-ward, divine reality which is theorized to be a vast expansion (or alternative) of what physical Nature is known to be.

Since I'm liking "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism" so much, I dove into deeper Chad Hansen-writing waters and bought his "A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought." It's also highly enjoyable, though some would find it too scholarly. 

Here's a passage that resonated with my increasing skepticism toward mysticism. Hansen disagrees with those who consider philosophical Taoism to be mystical in the same way Hindu or Buddhist philosophy is. The last part is terrific.

I have challenged here the accepted view of what Daoism is. That accepted view treats Daoism as a metaphysical mysticism. The interpreters allow that what they see in the text is incoherent gibberish, but they seek to explain it by calling it deep and profound mysticism. Of course, anything they say will be incoherent, but somehow the interpreter divines that behind this screen lies a theory of reality and language.

The interpreter does not tell us how he managed to extract meaning from gibberish. But he confidently tells us that like all mystics, the Daoist absolutely claims the existence of a single dao and holds a theory of language such that language can't... something or other... the dao.

What do interpreters divine in the unspoken theory of reality and language that justifies writing this mass of contradictions? I cannot claim to know. I have tried without success to follow a number of accounts. I shall only try to mimic what I take to be what I am hearing so the reader can understand my frustration.

The most common version asserts the unity of mysticism. If we can use the word, there must be something in common among all mystics. So Daoist theory must be like that of the mystics of India and the West. That theory of language starts with the assumptions of Platonic semantics. Every term is meaningful if and only if it points to an unchanging reality.

Interpreters place that theory of language alongside a metaphysical assumption that reality consists of objects. But the objects we see are constantly changing. So language can't refer to any of these. Mysticism gets its paradoxical character, then, from claiming, again as Plato does, that there is some unchanging object.

The mystic, unlike Plato however, incoherently claims this is an object of experience -- albeit a mystical experience, which since it is unlike ordinary experience must not be an experience -- but never mind.

Now that we have this monistic and unchanging object, however we got it, one would expect that the conclusion should be relief. Language must be about that unchanging object. But no. They now conclude that language cannot pick out that object. It can only point to the ordinary objects which the theory had earlier denied that language can properly refer to. 

Now they turn the tables and insist that language can only distort the only real unchanging object there is -- the dao, Buddha Nature, Brahman, Absolute, or God.

This reminded me of what I usually say when someone leaves a comment on this blog, saying, in effect, "Brian, you think too much! You're too wordy! You're missing the divine reality that can only be known through submission, silence, surrender. Meditate. All this analyzing is keeping you from reaching God."

My response:

"Dude, you did a lot of thinking in order to tell me to stop thinking. You used a bunch of words in your advice to give up words. You weren't meditating when you got on the Internet and posted your comment. You were analyzing me, which is what you criticized me for doing. But, hey, good for you. We're the same -- human beings acting naturally, simply doing what we're drawn to do."

A fresh look at Seth Shiv Dayal Singh (Soami Ji)

Those who are interested in the history of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), a contemporary Sant Mat movement headquartered in India, will want to read the following message I received from "SM Dass" (a pseudonym).

Others won't understand much about what is being talked about, yet will be able to follow the gist of the arguments.

Since I was a member of RSSB for over thirty years, I told SM Dass that his analysis was intriguing and I'd like to share it on my blog. I've added a few explanatory terms in [brackets], and some links.

By "intriguing" I don't mean that I agree with the thoughts below, just that SM Dass seems to have put considerable effort into researching the early history of RSSB and how the organization's teachings relate to traditional Sikhism and mystics revered by Sikhs.

My favorite part of the message is how "Radha Soami" might actually mean "Lord of Radha," the nickname of Soami Ji's wife.

I told my wife that I could be called "Laurel Soami" (Lord of Laurel). Her silence potentially meant agreement. However, and this is bad news for my Lordship, I have a feeling that Laurel's non-response said too ridiculous to even acknowledge.

Here's the message. 

Let's begin at the source, i.e with the supposed originator of it all, Soami ji Dayal Maharaj ji.

1) Firstly, he had no Guru himself. There are many RS [Radha Soami] followers who believe that he was initiated by Tulsi Sahib of Hathras but Soami Ji's very own younger brother, Chacha Lala Partap Singh wrote in the Life Account of Soami Ji clearly that Soami Ji had no guru and neither did he take updesh/naam/initiation from anyone. Yes, he did attend satsangs of Tulsi Sahib Ji but did not take initiation from him. 

If you are familiar with the great Kabir Sahib Maharaj, then you may be aware that he wrote:

"Guru bin mala ferteh
Without a Guru they circle the mala/beads ,

Guru bin dehteh dhaan,
Without a Guru they give initiation

Guru bin dhono nishfal hai
Without a Guru, both are useless,

Pucho vedh puraan,
Go ask the Vedas and Puranas"

There are many accounts by every great saint that has come to this earth, all preaching the need for a True Guru. If saints like Kabir Maharaj or Guru Nanak Maharaj didn't have Guru's themselves, then that would make them hypocrites!

2) Secondly, Soami did not start off the RS faith. It was Rai Saligram. In the book Sar Bachan, you'll find an account where Soami ji says that "My path is that of Satnaam and Anami. Rai Saligram has started this. Let him continue with it". 

3) Thirdly, The word Radha Soami is not really a reference to the True Lord or "lord of the soul". That definition was concocted some time after Soami ji.  The word "Radha" was the nickname of Narayani Devi (wife of Soami ji) , whom Chacha Partap Singh and Rai Saligram used to refer to as, and when they were referring to Soami ji himself, they used to say Radha Soami, meaning Soami/master/lord of Radha a.k.a Narayani Devi.

In India, it was very commonly widespread to refer to the husband as "Soami/Swami" and people used to take the wifes name first, accompany it with Soami/Swami to refer to the husband. e.g, Shiv ji's wife is also called Uma so whenever it is written or said "Uma Soami", then it's understood that the reference is going to Shiv ji i.e. Soami of Uma. 

4) Fourthly, on many occasions, I heard a few RS followers say that a sign of a true saint is one who does not let anyone bow in front of them or touch their feet (which as you may know is a sign of great respect in India). But in Soami Ji's life account, Chacha Partap Singh writes that one of Soami ji's close disciples, Bukki, used to 'suck his toe' because she used to think that she got the same feeling as if she was drinking milk. When people used to come to Soami ji to pay their repects, he used to tell them to bow to the other foot which is not being sucked. Is this the sign of a Saint?

5) Soami ji used to smoke the pipe/hooka/tobacco. Now, some people may argue that what hindrance is smoking in spirituality. Those people obviously haven't heeded the teachings. Kabir Maharaj clearly expresses the abstination of bhaang/tobacco/hooka and says that those who do are deemed to never get salvation but more a repeat in this cycle numerous times. 

6) At the time of his death, Soami ji was more concerned about what was going to happen on earth than where he was going. He was still concerned about the welfare of Bukki for some reason. After he passed, Bukki used to remain unconscious for hours on end, and Chacha Partap singh writes that she used to see him. 

On seeing Soami Ji, she was told by him to prepare the bed, food and hookah for him, just as she used to when he was alive.  After making the preparations, she used to eat the food herself, smoke the pipe herself, and then remain unconscious in the bed herself. In other words, the spirit of Soami ji went into Bukki Ji, even though his aim was Sachkhand.  If this was the result of a so called "param Sant", what will be the result for the rest of the followers of RS?

7) If you aware of Kaal [subject to death, as opposed to Akal, immortal] then you should know that the 5 names given in RS all belong to Kaal and are up to his level only. The 5 names were actually taken from the original bani/sacred speech of Kabir Sahib Maharaj called "Santo Shabadai Shabad bikhana".  The difference being RS changed the last name from Shaktee to Satnaam. 

Now, in his book, Tulsi Sahib of Hathras writes that the 5 names all belong to Kaal. The truth is , 'Satnaam' in itself is not a mantra to repeat over and over again.  It is just an indication of what the Name is. Sat means true, naam, means name so its just a reference to say the Name is True or True Name. Soami refers to 'Satnaam' as being the Name of the Lord, the place where He resides, the name of that Shabad. That's like saying the wheels of a car are called car, the driver of a car is called car, and the petrol of a car is called car, everything is called car. 

Actually, Satnaam is made up of 2 mantras, 2 words, which we are advised to recite.

In the Guru Granth Sahib, Kabir Maharaj Says 

"Kehai Kabir akshar dho bhaak
says Kabir speak/say those two words

hoega kasam tho laega raakh.
if he is authorised then he shall protect you"

Even Guru Nanak has written

"Soee Guru poora kehaavai jo dho akshar ka pedh butaavai"
That Guru is called complete who TELLS  the identity of the two words. 

The latter quote was taken from Sant mat prakaash  vol. 4 as written by Sawan Singh ji.

Both Guru Nanak and Kabir Maharaj talk about 2 words and yet RS give 5??? 

The Bhagavad Gita says "Om, Tat, Sat, iti nirdesai, brhmnai, trivdidai, simritai" meaning Om+Tat+Sat is the final decision/ final for that Lord which should be recited. Tat and Sat are coded words and not the real words to be recited.  Om+Tat = Satnaam and Sat= Saarnaam, its the One word that will lead to salvation.

Guru Nanak writes

"Ek akhar jo Gurmukh jaapai,
One word that the Gurmukh (one's who face is towards the Guru) recites, 

Tis ki nirmal hoi"
they shall be purified. 

This one word is the final Saarnaam which leads to salvation.

I have seen the proof myself that this satnaam made up of two words, is the same naam that Guru Nanak used to recite. Kabir Sahib Maharaj also writes about the same two words, made very clear in His Granth/spititual text. 

8) Meditation will not lead to salvation. RS advocate the need to meditate as much as you can, close your eyes and ears and look inside. See the lights, hear the sounds etc, focus at the eye centre.  What they fail to realise is that everything within this body is of Kaal's, all the lights, sounds etc, are of Kaal and not of the ultimate reality. 

Maya made a false creation within this body and imitated the true regions/abodes. Kabir Maharaj says that the true abode is way beyond this body, it doesn't even exist in the body. None of the Saints which I've mentioned herein meditated for hours on end. What they did do is recite, (simar/simran) with each breath. They did Jaap whenever and wherever. There were no resrictions or rules. When you wake, when you sleep, when you get up, when you sit down, when you eat etc. They recited the naam with each breath and morsel of food, not restricted to 2.5 hours or more a day [the length of time RS disciples are supposed to meditate daily].   

Kabir Sahib Maharaj says

"with each breath recite the naam, 
don't let any go to waste, 
for who knows when it shall come or when it will go"

9) Do you know of any true Saints who were multimillionaires who actively took an interest in generating millions? 

Kabir Sahib Mahraj used to say

"Oh sahib, only give me that much so that I may survive. 
Let not myself, my family go hungry and neither my guests"

Also, I have never known any true saint to sing contemporary songs of their time, whereas the current so called Baba of RS [Gurinder Singh Dhillon], revels in singing contemporary songs. 

It's been written that Kabir Mahraj cried on the account of not reciting the naam for 2 breaths/ 2 seconds, and here we have a so called saint who sings contemporary songs, nothing related to naam, for hours. 

10) Soami ji in one of his writings says that 

"Satyug, treta, dwapur have passed, nobody knew the path of shabad"
and that the true lord with his grace gifted the world with Soami ji in this age of Kalyug.

This statement completely ignores the fact that Kabir Mahraj came in all four ages, as written in his Bani. He even gives an account as to what his names were in each age. 

Religion is wrong, but it feels right to believers

So how is it that religious beliefs are almost certainly wrong, yet the vast majority of people in the world accept them? What makes religiosity so attractive? 

A central theme of my previous post, New Scientist looks at the science of religion, is that belief in the supernatural comes naturally to humans. Early on in childhood development we understand that "agents" with desires, intentions, and a consciousness like our own exist even though we can't perceive these beings.

It isn't much of a jump to divine unseen agents, gods and other entities.

But after listening to a Point of Inquiry podcast interview with Jonathan Haidt, author of the recently published "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion," I got some additional insights into why people believe.

Both Haidt and his host, Chris Mooney, agreed that the stance of so-called New Atheists is too simplistic. "There's no demonstrable evidence for religious beliefs, so anyone who believes them is a fool." 

Maybe that sentiment isn't stated quite so bluntly by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and their fellow New Atheist advocates, but it's close to their basic attitude.

By contrast, the New Scientist articles about the "why religion?" question point to causes that are deeper and more complex than a simple failure by people to comprehend that what they believe is factually wrong, untrue, out of touch with reality.

Haidt said that religions appeal for many reasons, not least of which is the pleasing sense of community that believers enjoy. For example, they assemble in a church, mosque, temple, gurdwara, meditation hall, or wherever with like-minded people, sharing a common view of what life is all about.

This does indeed seem to be more of a motivation for sticking with a religious organization than a purely cognitive sense of theological truthfulness.

For over thirty years I was an active member of an India-based spiritual group, Radha Soami Satsang Beas. I gave lots of talks ("satsangs") at RSSB meetings, almost always observing that the attention, enthusiasm, and energy level of those in attendance rose markedly after the talk was over and we turned to chit-chatting -- either at the meeting place or a coffee house.

Sure, if asked why we had joined the group, and continued to stick with it, we'd offer up "politically correct" reasons relating to the marvelous sophisticated mystical teachings which were so obviously reflective of how the cosmos truly was. 

In truth, though, we all liked the feeling of being part of something bigger than ourselves, a community which shared an appealing belief system and supported its members in navigating through life with the aid of a certain religious compass.

So since religions are popular for reasons other than their truth-content, atheists and agnostics aren't going to be very successful in deconverting true believers by merely pointing out the unreasonableness of what is believed. 

I've come to accept that insight, partly by reflecting upon my own experience. I don't think I ever was really convinced that the spiritual beliefs I held were true. And I also don't think I ever was convinced that the system of meditation which purportedly would confirm the truth of those beliefs was capable of doing the job.

Jonathan Haidt said, matter of factly, that of course he's an atheist, along with almost all of his fellow psychologists and other researchers who study religiosity/morality. His gripe with the New Atheists isn't that God exists and religions are right. Rather, Haidt seems to go so far as to look upon scientists as having a belief system which isn't all that different from the religious variety.

I haven't listened to all of the podcast. But I could tell that the host, Chris Mooney, disagreed with Haidt on this point. As do I. And other listeners. (Check out comments about the interview on the Point of Inquiry web site.)

Haidt said our intuitions and emotions are the "elephant" on which the "rider" of reason sits. He implied, and maybe stated directly, that science is as prone to this neuroscientific fact as religion is. In response, Mooney asked him whether truth is one of the criteria people use to arrive at intuition and emotion laden moral judgments.

I didn't hear a straight answer from Haidt, which was surprising. After all, Haidt must accept that some truths are truer than others. If not, why has he written several books? Why does he carry out the scientific research that he does?

Indeed, Haidt said that the community of science is effective in distinguishing truth from fiction, reality from unreality. He thinks, though, that individual scientists are as prone to truth-shading as religious true believers are.

I don't agree.

The examples he gave were unconvincing, like researchers who refuse to acknowledge that behavior differences between men and women are driven by hormones, or that physical differences (like "white men can't jump") between the races aren't real.

Sure, scientists have blind spots, biases, unexamined beliefs that cloud their view of reality. However, secularists are much more willing to change their minds than religious true believers. Just look at how much the Catholic Church has changed in the past few thousand years or so, compared to how much scientific knowledge has advanced.

Take me, a subject of considerable interest to myself. 

For about thirty-five minutes today I listened to Jonathan Haidt explain his viewpoints in the interview with Chris Mooney. That was enough to cause me to change my mind about some issues that, previously, I'd been pretty confident about. Such as, demonstrating that a religious belief almost certainly isn't true should be enough to prod someone into questioning their devotion to a belief system.

I'm open to new ideas, fresh perspectives, evidence I hadn't considered before -- and more so now than when I was deeply entrenched in a guru-based, supernatural-embracing, just-have-faith religious organization.

So, yes, I accept Haidt's contention that religiosity is founded on much more than a simple "I believe in X." But I can't equate religious belief with scientific belief, or morality that's capable of providing good utilitarian reasons for why something is right/wrong with a "thou shalt" morality.

New Scientist looks at the science of religion

Why do so many people believe in God or in other sorts of supernatural beings? Most religious folks would have no trouble answering that question. "Because God is real," they'd say. 

Well, that's highly debatable. And I'm being generous to religion. That's ridiculous is closer to how I really feel.

The most recent issue of New Scientist dives into these "Why believe?" waters. An editorial does a good job of summarizing core themes in the following articles. It ends with:

Secularists would also do well to recognise the distinction between the "popular religion" that comes easily to people's minds and the convoluted intellectual gymnastics that is theology. Attacking the latter is easy but will do little to undermine religion's grip.

This is not an apologia for god. Religious claims still wither under rational scrutiny and deserve no special place in public life. But it is a call for those who aspire to a secular society to approach it rationally - which means making more effort to understand what they are dealing with. Religion is deeply etched in human nature and cannot be dismissed as a product of ignorance, indoctrination or stupidity. Until secularists recognise that, they are fighting a losing battle.

Meaning, it isn't enough to point out to true believers that their beliefs aren't true. Belief in God and the supernatural is almost (if not actually) hard-wired into the human brain. Justin L. Barrett describes why in his "Born Believers" article.

Drawing upon research in developmental psychology, cognitive anthropology and particularly the cognitive science of religion, I argue that religion comes nearly as naturally to us as language. The vast majority of humans are "born believers", naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations attractive and easily acquired, and to attain fluency in using them. This attraction to religion is an evolutionary by-product of our ordinary cognitive equipment, and while it tells us nothing about the truth or otherwise of religious claims it does help us see religion in an interesting new light.

Early on, he says, babies recognize the difference between ordinary physical objects and "agents," things that can act upon their surroundings. As humans grow up, this quality of the brain makes them receptive to the notion of gods.

Babies also seem sensitive to two other important features of agents that allow them to understand the world but also make them receptive to gods. First, agents act to attain goals. And second, they need not be visible. In order to function in social groups, avoid predators and capture prey, we must be able to think about agents we cannot see.

...This hair-trigger agent reasoning and a natural propensity to look for agents in the world around us are part of the building blocks for belief in gods. Once coupled with some other cognitive tendencies, such as the search for purpose, they make children highly receptive to religion.

So it's easy to be religious and believe in supernatural entities. This explains why the vast majority of people on Earth have beliefs about God which aren't based on evidence, fact, or reason. From childhood on, our brains intuitively lead us in directions pointed toward religiosity.

Barrett writes:

My contention is that these various features of developing minds - an attraction to agent-based explanations, a tendency to explain the natural world in terms of design and purpose, an assumption that others have superpowers - makes children naturally receptive to the idea that there may be one or more god which helps account for the world around them.

It is important to note that this concept of religion deviates from theological beliefs. Children are born believers not of Christianity, Islam or any other theology but of what I call "natural religion". They have strong natural tendencies toward religion, but these tendencies do not inevitably propel them towards any one religious belief.

Instead, the way our minds solve problems generates a god-shaped conceptual space waiting to be filled by the details of the culture into which they are born.

However, the same scientific method that enables us to understand how religiosity arises in human cultures also can be used to answer the all-important question, "Does God exist?" So argues Victor Stenger, a physicist. 

I'm a fan of Stenger, having read several of his books. I've blogged about him before:
"Quantum Gods" debunks spiritual pseudo-science
Does God exist? Science says no.
Possible and impossible gods
Science shows God does not exist 

In his New Scientist article, Stenger does a good job of pointing out the absurdity of a god who supposedly plays a role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans, yet leaves no trace of his/her/it's divine existence.

A majority of scientists at all levels do not believe in any god. Yet most are unwilling to challenge the religious beliefs of others. I am a physicist who, along with others dubbed the New Atheists, is willing to challenge religious belief. The gods worshipped by billions either exist or they do not. And those gods, if they exist, must have observable consequences. Thus, the question of their existence is a legitimate scientific issue that has profound import to humanity.

...If a properly controlled experiment were to come up with an observation that cannot be explained by natural means, then science would have to take seriously the possibility of a world beyond matter.

Such experiments have been attempted. Scientists have empirically tested the efficacy of intercessory prayer - prayers said on behalf of others. These studies, in principle, could have shown scientifically that some god exists. Had they found conclusively, in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial, that intercessory prayers heal the sick, it would have been difficult to find a natural explanation. They did not.

Similar tests have been done on near-death experiences. Some people having an NDE during surgery have reported floating above the operating table and watching everything going on below. Whether this is a real experience or a hallucination can be tested easily by placing a secret message on a high shelf out of sight of the patient and the hospital staff. This has been tried, and no one reporting an NDE has yet to read the message.

Just as science can design experiments to test the existence of God, it can also seek evidence against a god's existence in the world around us. Here we must be clear that we are not talking about evidence against any and all conceivable gods. For example, a deist god that creates the universe and then just leaves it alone would be very hard to falsify. But no one worships a god who does nothing.

...Most religions claim that humans possess immaterial souls that control much of our mental processing. If that were true, we should be able to observe mentally induced phenomena that are independent of brain chemistry. We do not.

...Finally, I would like to comment on the folly of faith. When faith rules over facts, magical thinking becomes deeply ingrained and warps all areas of life. It produces a frame of mind in which concepts are formulated with deep passion but without the slightest attention paid to the evidence. Nowhere is this more evident than in the US today, where Christians who seek to convert the nation into a theocracy dominate the Republican party. Blind faith is no way to run a world.

Amen to that.

Nine essential qualities of mindfulness

Here's a good overview of what mindfulness is all about. Nine qualities are listed in the Psychology Today piece by psychologist Melanie Greenberg.

Great advice for living. Read the whole article to feast on the full mindfulness meal.

Focus on the Present Moment—When your thoughts get lost in thinking about the past or worrying about the future, you bring them back to what you are experiencing right now.

Being Fully Present—You are spaciously aware of whatever you are experiencing in the present moment as you go through your daily life. 

Openness to Experience—Rather than dreading and shutting out your own feelings and experiences because you think you can't handle them, you welcome with curiosity any thoughts and feelings that naturally arise, knowing they are merely sensations in the moment and the next moment can be different. 

Non-Judgment—You don't categorize your thoughts and feelings as good or bad, try to change them, or feel compelled to act on them.

Acceptance of Things as They Are—You don't try to force or change reality to fit your vision of what it should be, feel like a victim, or bemoan the unfairness of life.

Connection—You feel connected to all living things and nature in being part of a larger whole. 

Non-Attachment—You do not try to hold onto things, people, or experiences, knowing that life is in constant flow. 

Peace and Equanimity—You maintain an even-keel, not getting too swept up in life's highs and lows. 

Compassion—You deal gently, kindly, and patiently with yourself and others.

Mystical experiences. What's the big deal with them?

Mystical experiences were on my mind today, after someone left a comment on a blog post inquiring about whether I'd gone inside while meditating or heard sacred sounds.  

I replied. But then I thought, "What's the big deal with supposed mystical experiences?"

Most religions, forms of spirituality, and philosophical systems don't pay much attention to them. Most Christians or Buddhists aren't out to see fantastical scenes of the astral plane, or bliss out on a supernatural light and sound show.

Their goals are to become better people; to learn what reality is all about; to be of service to humanity; and other thoroughly non-mystical aspirations. 

I don't agree with most of Christian dogma, and much of the Buddhist viewpoint. However, I've come to appreciate that if any good is to come from pursuing an organized form of spirituality, it should manifest as evident goodness in how the practitioner relates to other people and the outside world.

For many years I was a member of an India-based organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB), which emphasized meditation aimed at hearing divine sound and seeing divine light. Quite a few other offshoots of the Sant Mat movement preach the same gospel.

I had a few experiences along those lines, but I can't say they had any spiritual significance.

Lots of people hear bell tones, ringing, and such inside their head. They're tinnitus sufferers. And even if inner sounds or lights arise from some other source, like sensory deprivation via lengthy meditative withdrawal from perceptions of the outside world, what's the big deal with them?

When I was in college during the 60's (decade, not my age), I had many mystical experiences. You can too. Just find some LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, peyote, or other psychedelic substance, ingest it, and wait a little while.

I experienced amazing insights into the nature of existence. (See here and here.) So what?

Did those experiences have any lasting effect on my personality, my character, my relationships, or anything else? No. Likewise, do non-drug-aided mystical experiences have any similar lasting effects? Sometimes, it seems, judging from the number of "I almost died and saw Jesus" books on the market. 

However, those almost died and went to heaven purported experiences are much different from meditating and hearing some sounds, or seeing some lights. In my thirty-plus years of talking with lots of fellow RSSB meditators, I can't recall anyone who said he/she had become a markedly different person after a mystical experience(s).

My observations of high-ranking RSSB disciples bore this out. Those who had been in the organization the longest, and who presumably had the most meditation to their karmic credit, didn't demonstrate laudatory qualities lacking in ordinary people.

This included the guru himself, who is considered to be the very essence of divine light and sound. I found him to be an interesting, charismatic guy, but not any wiser, ethical, or compassionate than countless other human beings.

Again, what's the big deal with mystical experiences if there's no sign that those who purportedly have had them are any different from, or better than, ordinary folks?

David Chapman makes this point in his typically creative fashion in "Wholeness, Connection, and Meditation: Competing Visions." Excerpt:

      And as for connection:

• Monism promises “total connection with the Absolute Infinite” (or with “the whole universe,” as though that were a single thing). But meaningful connections can only be made with specific, finite beings in this here-and-now world.
• To achieve unity, internalizing meditation deliberately cuts you off from everyday reality, which is supposedly a distraction and not spiritual enough.
• You are supposed to “turn inward,” to find a “profound inner experience” that connects you with the divine reality. This is nonsensical. Experiences are not connections; connections aren’t inside you; you can’t connect yourself with all things by cutting yourself off from them.
• In practice, monists’ relationships with other people, and with their physical environment, usually become godawful messes. Monist practice makes you self-obsessed, unreliable, and unwilling to deal with mundane practicalities. 

Einstein was right. Neutrinos don't travel faster than light.

Love it. Another triumph of the scientific method. Which does so much better at revealing the secrets of reality than religions do.

An experiment to repeat a test of the speed of subatomic particles known as neutrinos has found that they do not travel faster than light.

Results announced in September suggested that neutrinos can exceed light speed, but were met with scepticism as that would upend Einstein's theory of relativity.

A test run by a different group at the same laboratory has now clocked them travelling at precisely light speed.

Now, this doesn't conclusively settle the question of whether it is possible for something to travel faster than the speed of light. Science never is settled. It always is open to fresh findings, new revelations, deeper insights.

But since last month bad wiring was considered to be a likely reason for the anomalous light-speed-shattering observation, and now Einstein has been proven right, the Theory of Relativity (which says nothing can surpass the speed of light) is on firm ground again.

This will disappoint those, like conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who hoped that a discovery of faster than light neutrinos would undermine confidence in other firmly held tenets of modern science -- like human caused global warming.

Krauthammer doesn't understand how the scientific method operates. Recently I heard a noted climatologist talk about how scientific knowledge is like a gigantic partially completed jigsaw puzzle. 

Finding out that one piece of the puzzle has been incorrectly placed doesn't mean the rest of the picture put together by science is incorrect. It just means that what was previously considered to be a reliable bit of knowledge now has to be removed and replaced by a blank spot, a scientific question mark.

This is why I said that even if neutrinos had been proven to travel faster than light (which they haven't, given the most recent experiment), the Theory of Relativity would still be valid.

It just would need to be recognized as having exceptions in certain circumstances, just as Newton's laws of motion remained valid after Einstein came up with his explanation of how time and space behave in circumstances far removed from everyday human experience.

What's so admirable about the scientific method is how truth is valued as the highest goal.

A team called Opera made the initial finding that neutrinos appeared to go faster than the speed of light. If this claim had held up, the Opera scientists would have been credited with a marvelous scientific discovery.

Yet here's how a member of the Opera team reacted to the latest experiment:

Doubts about the Opera results were heightened last month when researchers said they had found a flaw in the technical setup that could have distorted the experiment’s figures.

Antonio Ereditato, a member of the Opera team and the head of the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, said he welcomed the latest results.

“These results are in line with our recent findings about the possible misfunctioning of some of the components of our experimental setup,” he said.

Asked whether he was disappointed, he said: “This is the way science goes. What matters is the global progress of scientific knowledge.”

Yes. Kudos to Dr. Ereditano.

He recognizes that the overall jigsaw puzzle of knowledge is what's important, not getting pats on the scientific back (even a Nobel prize) for having expanded the bounds of the completed picture of reality.

Imagine if a religious believer had made a corresponding spiritual "discovery." Well, I don't have to imagine it, because on this blog true-believing commenters frequently talk about their supposed discoveries of higher realms of reality.

They don't demonstrate the humility and openness of scientists. When questioned whether their supposed knowledge might be wrong, usually they say "I know what I've experienced." 

Well, the Opera team also knew what they experienced: evidence of faster than light neutrinos. But they realized that experiments can be faulty; observations can be unreliable; what seems to be true may be erroneous.

I'll end with some quotes from Richard Dawkins' "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True."

And atoms are far far smaller than bacteria. The whole world is made of incredibly tiny things, much too small to be visible to the naked eye -- and yet none of the myths or so-called holy books that people, even now, think were given to us by an all-knowing god, mentions them at all!

In fact, when you look at those myths and stories, you can see that they don't contain any of the knowledge that science has patiently worked out.

They don't tell us how big or how old the universe is; they don't tell us how to treat cancer; they don't explain gravity or the internal combustion engine; they don't tell us about germs, or nuclear fusion, or electricity, or anaesthetics.

In fact, unsurprisingly, the stories in holy books don't contain any more information about the world than was known to the primitive peoples who first started telling them! If these 'holy books' really were written, or dictated, or inspired by all-knowing gods, don't you think it's odd that those gods said nothing about any of these important and useful things?

 

 

Update on my enlightenment (in brief: going great!)

About seven years ago I bloggishly announced, "My satori is near at hand." I seems time for an update on how my enlightenment is going, even though it should be obvious to anyone who regularly reads my Church of the Churchless musings.

Great! 

Thanks for reading. On to next subject...

Ha-ha. Just kidding.

Not about my enlightenment. About great! being all I have to say concerning it.

What's the point of being enlightened if its kept secret? If I were a world-class pianist, would I be content with only playing by myself at home?

In line with the Buddha's own enlightenment (I enjoy keeping good spiritual company), my core realization is that enlightenment doesn't exist, mostly because neither do I. Not as an enduring self or soul, at least.

One of my sacred scriptures, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism," proclaims:

Sudden enlightenment is sudden because there is no process to a goal. It is the realization that we are already at the goal. We find enlightenment in everyday activities and practices. 

...A Zen koan is a riddle transcending logic that forces the student to abandon the search for enlightenment, so that he can become enlightened.

...Real meditation, the total absorption in what you're doing, is also enlightenment (satori).

...Another famous story tells of someone who asked the Zen master Joshu for the secret of enlightenment and received the following answer: "I have to go take a pee now. It's silly, isn't it? Such a little thing. And yet one must do it in person."

Yes, looking back upon my always-enlightened life, I see that even when I was watching cartoons as a kid, the Buddha's message was being transmitted to me. I've talked about the wisdom reflected in Wile. E. Coyote's rock wall crashing.

Enlightenment is like Wile E. Coyote running into a rock wall while chasing the Road Runner, something he did a lot of in the cartoons that I avidly watched in my childhood.

He'd get flat as a pancake. Then slowly peel himself off the wall and pop back into his three-dimensional self.

Existence is that wall. Enlightenment is that pancaking. It's the realization that, in the end, there's nothing to realize.

Existence is. Just as we are. Existence always is.

Though 100% enlightened (maybe 1000%, I seem to have lost my digital enlightenometer), now and then I continue to pick up the book that stimulated the "My satori is near at hand" post, D.T. Suzuki's book, The Zen Koan as a Means of Attaining Enlightenment.

My favorite part is Suzuki's discussion of what I call mantra meditation, though Zen might look upon it differently. I talked about "Mu" (or "Wu," in Chinese) here, including some quotes from Suzuki's book. 

The basic notion is to still the intellectual, rational, analytical, conceptual aspect of the brain, allowing whatever is left over to shine in one's consciousness. Bingo! Enlightenment! Here's another passage from D.T. Suzuki's book on Zen that I re-read today.

In my view, the reason [to repeat a mantra like Namu Amida Butsu] is to be sought not in the magical effect of the name itself, but in the psychological effect of its repetition.

Whenever there is an intelligent meaning, it suggests an endless train of ideas and feelings attached thereto; the mind then either becomes engaged in working a logical loom, or becomes inextricably involved in the meshes of imagination and association.

When meaningless sounds are repeated, the mind stops there, not having chances to wander about. Images and hallucinations are less apt to invade it. To use Buddhist terminology, the external dust of discrimination covers the original bright surface of the inner mirror of enlightenment.

For many years I followed a spiritual path that emphasized repeating a mantra that had a lot of meaning. The "five holy names" supposedly pointed to actual supernatural realms of reality, each with a divine ruler, sights and sounds, special characteristics, and such.

Holy? From the above-mentioned Idiot's Guide:

A famous Zen saying describes the sacred sutras as "useful only for wiping puss from your boils." 

Holiness can go to hell.

Along with religions, gurus, masters, mystic practices, spiritual paths, and every other purveyor of metaphysical crap that sells the "meshes of imagination and association" and "images and hallucination" Suzuki mentioned.

Understand: there's nothing wrong with words, ideas, thoughts, understandings, theories, hypotheses. But they should be seen for what they are, emanations of a human brain, not something godly to be bowed down to.

Last Tuesday my wife and I went to the sixth of an eight-week Hustle class (danced to disco music) that we've been enjoying a lot. The moves have been getting more challenging from week to week.

As the leader, it's my job to get our hands, arms, legs, and feet in a moderately correct position, while keeping time to the infectiously happy disco beat. At first, I have to think about this with a newly taught move.

"Jeez. From the two hand hold, I'm supposed to drop my right hand, not my left. Damn! And after the woman's one and a half turns I've got to keep to her right side in order to lead her in the opposite direction." 

That sort of stuff goes through my head. But at the end of the class, when our instructor said, "I'm going to put a few songs on you can practice to; run through everything we've learned so far," I was pleased to see how I found myself doing a new move correctly without knowing what I was doing.

Meaning, I could do it without thinking "I'm doing it." I'd be halfway through a complicated Hustle move before I realized what I was doing.

Enlightenment! 

Not what I thought enlightenment would be like why back when, before I knew I was enlightened. But what I think, and what is -- those are two very different things. 

Being mindful of mindfulness: Zen crap, or enlightened wisdom?

Through the magic of my Twitter feed, where occasionally pearls can be found amidst the social media junk, I came across a "Thich Naht Hahn is wrong" post on Brad Warner's Hardcore Zen blog.

I was attracted to the title because I've tried to read some of Hahn's writings, but they end up seeming too Buddhist'y preachy to my increasingly churchless mind. (Yeah, I'm becoming so turned off to religion, even godless Buddhism seems too doctrinaire to me.)

At first, Warner's piece struck me as making some good points about mindfulness. Basically he doesn't agree with the notion that something called "mindfulness" is going to bring us closer to reality. This is at odds with a tweet from Hahn's account which said: 

When you contemplate the big, full sunrise, the more mindful & concentrated you are, the more the beauty of the sunrise is revealed to you.

Warner says:

But there's another way to take this statement. And I honestly believe it's the way most people would take it. They'd look at it and say, "Gosh. I'm not mindful enough. I'm not concentrated enough. Because when I look at a sunrise, I just shade my eyes so that I can get through this traffic jam on West Market Street without running over any of the kids from Our Lady of the Elms. Sunrises kind of annoy me. They give me a headache. I better get more concentrated and more mindful so that I can be more like Thich Nhat Hanh and let the beauty of the sunrise be revealed to me."

In other words, the concept of "mindfulness" gets in the way of the sunrise. It becomes a big obstacle between what we think of as our self and what we think of as the sunrise. And we make our efforts to try to overcome the obstacle we've placed in our own way. Most of the time I hear or read the word "mindfulness" it sounds to me like an obstacle.

Pretty much all of our religions and our various self-help practices are based on the idea that what we are right now is not good enough. We then envision what "good enough" must be like and we make efforts to transform what we are right now into this image of ourselves as "good enough." We invent in our minds an imaginary "mindful me" and then try to make ourselves into that.

Yes, true enough.

But Mark Warner says he is a Buddhist monk. He's written quite a few Hardcore Zen books that he advertises on his web site. Why would Warner do this if he didn't also embrace the idea that "what we are right now is not good enough"?

I skimmed through the many comments on Warner's post. Some supported Warner's perspective; others, Hahn's. Still others, some other way of looking at mindfulness, meditation, and other Buddhist practices. 

Interesting how looking at a sunset can get so complicated, when spirituality/religion becomes part of the seeing. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this -- given how much crap I've written on this blog during the past six and a half years, there's no way I can criticize someone for analyzing the Zen of sunset watching.

Still... 

In my beloved "Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism," this morning I read in a section on Buddhism:

Mahayana's doctrine grew out of a famous paradox at the heart of Buddhism. It encourages us to eliminate our desires, first for inessentials like wealth and status, then for sex, then for food, and eventually even for breath. 

When these desires are extinguished, one is nearly ready for nirvana, but one desire remains. It's the desire that motivated the entire exercise -- the desire to enter nirvana. 

...It's easy to see the path to Zen from here. Why make the desire to get to nirvana the last desire you extinguish? Make it the first!

It's also easy to see the Taoist contribution from this viewpoint. How do you extinguish the desire for nirvana? Simple. Abandon the distinction between nirvana and samsara, accept that we all have the Buddha nature (are all already Buddha), and return to living everyday life!

OK. But wouldn't it be even better to not have to return to living everyday life, because the notion of nirvana or enlightenment never entered your mind? 

Or to not write what I just said, for the same reason? But if there's no nirvana and no samsara, it doesn't matter what I do or don't do, because it's all the same. 

Glad I cleared that up. But what is that? (Note to self: resolve all this confusion in future blog post, once and for all. Then seek psychiatric help for delusions of grandeur.)

Scientific news flash: People are different!

OK, this isn't a surprising discovery -- that "people differ so widely in their emotional responses to the ups and downs of life."

So say psychologist Richard Davidson and science writer Sharon Begley in their recently published book, "The Emotional Life of Your Brain."

But in the opening lines of their One Brain Does Not Fit All chapter, Davidson points out how there's a common assumption that people are predictable.

If you believe most self-help books, pop-psychology articles, and television therapists, then you probably assume that how people respond to significant life events is pretty predictable. 

Most of us, according to the "experts," are affected in just about the same way by a given experience -- there is a grieving process that everyone goes through, there is a sequence of events that happens when we fall in love, there is a standard response to being jilted, and there are fairly standard ways almost every normal person reacts to the birth of a child, to being unappreciated at one's job, to having an unbearable workload, to the challenges of raising teenagers, and to the inevitable changes that occur with aging.

These same experts confidently recommend steps we all can take to regain our emotional footing, weather a setback in life or love, become more (or less) sensitive, handle anxiety with aplomb... and otherwise become the kind of people we want to be.

But my thirty-plus years of research have shown that the one-size-fits-all assumptions are even less valid in the realm of emotion than they are in medicine.

This passage made me think about how true this is in spirituality, religion, and mysticism also. Usually teachings in these areas also assume that every devotee, disciple, or church member will have similar reactions to the same influences. 

Such goes against the core tenet of this here Church of the Churchless, where we're into preaching the gospel of spiritual independence. So it's nice to see scientific research coming to the same conclusion.

I've only just begun to read ""The Emotional Life of Your Brain." However, I've already learned that cognitive and emotional processes in the brain aren't as distinct as was once thought. So how one thinks and how one feels are tightly linked. 

The result: amazing variety.

Each of us responds differently to emotional triggers, and to talk about "most people" or "the average person" completely misses the mark. 

...We now know that this picture of a static, unchanging brain is wrong. Instead, the brain has a property called neuroplasticity, the ability to change its structure and function in significant ways. That change can come about in responses to the experiences we have as to the thoughts we think.

...There is no ideal Emotional Style...Civilizations couldn't flourish without different emotional types, including the extremes.

I used to give talks to members of my spiritual group that were decidedly heretical to traditionalists in the organization. Afterward, often someone would come up to me and say, "I'm so glad you said what you did. I thought I was the only person who felt that way."

I'd think, "That's unfortunate. Individual dIfferences should be embraced by religious/spiritual groups, not downplayed or disapproved of."

Be yourself. Enthusiastically. As if you have a choice. 

Free will is a limiting, destructive belief

Free will. Who could be against this seemingly wonderful notion? The opposite idea seems to be a depressing downer: Unfree determinism. 

After I'd read the first part of Sam Harris' new book, "Free Will," I shared my enthusiasm with my wife about giving up the belief that I can freely decide what I think, feel, or do. She wasn't nearly as enthused, perhaps because of her lengthy experience as a psychotherapist.

"But wouldn't people then use I've got no free will as an excuse for doing whatever they want? And wouldn't this take away people's motivation to change, to improve themselves, to pursue difficult undertakings?"

I had a ready response. 

"Anyone who reads Harris' book will simply have more information dumped into their brain, an additional experience that will combine with all the other influences which currently determine their brain states. How they change as a result can't be predicted. Giving up a belief in free will might be highly positive for them, rather than negative."

Here's some quotes that illustrate how Harris approached this subject. 

Speaking from personal experience, I think that losing the sense of free will has only improved my ethics -- by increasing my feelings of compassion and forgiveness, and diminishing my sense of entitlement to the fruits of my own good luck.

...Losing a belief in free will has not made me fatalistic -- in fact, it has increased my feelings of freedom. My hopes, fears, and neuroses seem less personal and indelible. There is no telling how much I might change in the future... A creative change of inputs to the system -- learning new skills, forming new relationships, adopting new habits of attention -- may radically transform one's life.

Absolutely.

If who we are and what we do is up to us, we're confined in an exceedingly small cage of individualistic selfhood. We can only move in directions that are apparent to our conscious free will. Fortunately, this isn't the truth known to modern neuroscience and psychology. 

Psychologist Shimon Edelman discusses how the illusions of free will and selfhood are being replaced by the scientific truths of determinism and extended "virtual" selves. Here's how he puts it in a book that nicely complements Harris', The Happiness of Pursuit.

Insofar as the extended system -- the effective and narrative Selves planted in the great web of cause and effect -- can reach deep into geographical and social space, the computational need for such focusing of behavioral feedback is pressing. By taking responsibility for the processing and use of this information, the phenomenal Self gives rise to another useful illusion: that of free will.

In the West, it has been known since at least the time of Voltaire and Hume that the concept of uncaused cause, which is a prerequisite for free will, is logically incoherent: if my "free" decision to do a particular deed arises absolutely independently of any of the existing circumstances, including my own prior actions and states of mind, then in no sense can it be considered free, or, indeed, mine.

...I do not obey a code of conduct that is implicit in the web of cause and effect; rather I am part of the web. The ultimate reach of this web is universal -- and within the boundaries of physical law the universe is, of course, free.

...The bottom line, then, is this: the Self, along with all of its perceived and remembered attributes -- anything and everything that is included in the feeling of being you -- is a product of the brain's virtual reality engine. This virtual Self is computed and put in charge of the situation purely for reasons of good governance, that is, efficient and purposeful control of the brain's life support system -- your body.

So here's another reason why my wife doesn't have to worry much about people giving up their belief in free will and turning into irresponsible there's no reason to do anything couch potatoes: evolution has led to a virtual/illusory sense of self being front and center within human consciousness.

Even if I intellectually know that I have no free will, it sure seems like I'm able to choose what words I'm going to type in the next moment. (Yet as every writer knows, what's going to be written isn't known until the words appear on paper or a computer screen.)

The inward feeling of free will isn't much of a problem. What's culturally destructive is how this illusory feeling gets translated into social policies which assume that individual human beings are capable of freely deciding their thoughts and actions.

Harris talks about how our justice system is founded on this assumption.

Retribution becomes the main goal, rather than rehabilitation and prevention of future crimes. Often it will be necessary to lock people up to keep them from committing additional offenses. However, there's no scientifically defensible reason to believe that a criminal freely chose his/her unlawful act.

Would we punish hurricanes or earthquakes, if this were possible, berating them for the destruction they bring to humans? Or if ways to prevent these natural occurrences could be found, wouldn't we simply implement them without considering that a malevolent motivation lies behind 150 mph winds or 8.0 Richter Scale shakings?

Harris writes:

Viewing human beings as natural phenomena need not damage our system of criminal justice. If we could incarcerate earthquakes and hurricanes for their crimes, we would build prisons for them as well. We fight emerging epidemics -- and even the occasional wild animal -- without attributing free will to them. Clearly, we can respond intelligently to the threat posed by dangerous people without lying to ourselves about the ultimate origins of human behavior.

Then there's sin (or the Eastern version, bad karma).

Sin can't exist without free will, which is why earthquakes, hurricanes, and rattlesnakes don't have to spend time in a confession booth. A belief in sin or freely willed bad karma has decidedly destructive consequences, as Harris notes.

Despite our attachment to the notion of free will, most of us know that disorders of the brain can trump the best intentions of the mind. This shift in understanding represents progress toward a deeper, more consistent, and more compassionate view of our common humanity -- and we should note that this is progress away from religious metaphysics.

Few concepts have offered greater scope for human cruelty than the idea of an immortal soul that stands independent of all material influences, ranging from genes to economic systems. Within a religious framework, a belief in free will supports the notion of sin -- which seems to justify not only harsh punishment in this life but eternal punishment in the next.

And yet, ironically, one of the fears attending our progress in science is that a more complete understanding of ourselves wil dehumanize us.

No, truth can't be dehumanizing. Which includes the truth, free will does not exist. 

The dizzying joy of being freed from "free will"

Free will is an illusion.

We're full of wants, desires, thoughts, emotions, and such. But we can't want our wants, desire our desires, think our thoughts, emote our emotions, or freely choose anything.

This is the convincing central message of Sam Harris' "Free Will," a short book that I read halfway through today and am enjoying as much as I thought I would.

It's only 66 pages long.

Yet it could have been even shorter, because Harris necessarily repeats his no free will theme in various ways -- getting his point across from different perspectives. I say "necessarily" since the illusion of free will is so strong, most people resist the scientifically defensible conclusion that it doesn't exist.

I'll write more about the book after I finish it. For now, I mostly wanted to talk about the joy of embracing the no free will reality. 

Not that I have any choice in feeling that joy. Your results may differ if you read the book. Heck, they almost certainly will. Each of us is different. Yet we all share certain facts, nicely summarized by Harris in the passage below that I liked a lot.

Recently I heard someone talk about Victor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning." Frankl argues that we have the freedom to choose our psychological reactions to situations, even those as extreme as being in a concentration camp.

Not true, says Harris. He writes:

One of the most refreshing ideas to come out of existentialism (perhaps the only one) is that we are free to interpret and reinterpret the meaning of our lives. You can consider your first marriage, which ended in divorce, to be a "failure," or you can view it as a circumstance that caused you to grow in ways that were crucial to your future happiness.

Does this freedom of interpretation require free will? No. It simply suggests that different ways of thinking have different consequences. Some thoughts are depressing and disempowering; others inspire us. We can pursue any line of thought we want -- but our choice is the product of prior events that we did not bring into being.

Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn't choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain.

And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime -- by your genes, by your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas.

Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from?

...What I will do next, and why, remains, at bottom, a mystery -- one that is fully determined by the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature (including the contributions of chance). To declare my "freedom" is tantamount to saying, "I don't know why I did it, but it's the sort of thing I tend to do, and I don't mind doing it."

I love the notion -- more, the reality -- that free will is an illusion. It's difficult to explain the dizzying enjoyable feeling I get when I realize there's no exit.

Wherever I turn, whichever way I go, always I'm in a maze of causes and effects not of my own making, because there's no separate "me" apart from those causes and effects. We're all in this maze together; no man or woman stands alone; individual human islands are an impossibility; it's all one big continent of interacting influences, a beautiful natural ecology of determinism.

Here's my favorite Harris passage from the part of his book that I've read so far.

Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions, and you would need to have complete control over those factors. 

But there is a paradox here that vitiates the very notion of freedom -- for what would influence the influenced? More influences? None of these adventitious mental states are the real you.

You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm.

Wonderful. Love it! You are the storm. Nothing scary about a hurricane if you are the hurricane. Nothing bothersome about the brain's workings if you are those workings.

Unauthorized photo of Gurinder Singh Dhillon

Ah, this feels so deliciously tabloid'ish. I received a photo of Gurinder Singh Dhillon, guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, from an utterly anonymous source.

This wouldn't be newsworthy if the guru wasn't so camera-shy. To my knowledge there are only a few authorized photos of Gurinder Singh Dhillon (he's at the top left in the Google Images search).

When I did security volunteering for RSSB in the 1990's, I was more than a little astonished to observe the guru waving "no, no!" at someone who was taking a photo of him in a public place from quite a ways off.

The poor guy was asked to surrender his film (what cameras used back then), which almost certainly was an illegal request. This happened in Hawaii, which so far as I know is subject to the Constitution of the United States.

Anyway, here's the photo. Photos, actually, as I got an altered one and the original showing others at the funeral Gurinder Singh attended a year or two ago.

Sam Harris' "Free Will" arrives today

Ooh, ooh, I'm so excited! Amazon tells me my pre-ordered copy of "Free Will" by Sam Harris should be delivered today.

Can't help my excitement. I have no free will. Harris gives away the plot line of his book in The Illusion of Free Will. In that short piece he ends with a great question:

How can we make sense of our lives, and hold people accountable for their choices, given the unconscious origins of our conscious minds?

His new book is just 96 pages long. Good. I want to learn Harris' answer.

Aging is upward ascension of the human spirit

As an old geezer respected elder who now is on the Social Security gravy train, I'm always on the lookout for reasons to look upon age 60+ as the "golden years."

Yes, right now I'm enjoying life.

But at the beginning of the video below, Jane Fonda correctly says that our culture has tended to look upon aging as the downward cycle of a human lifespan. From middle-aged vigor, it's a steady slump into decrepitude.

Fortunately, her central eleven minute message is a heck of a lot more positive. Bodies may decline in various ways, but the "spirit" (which I don't view as metaphysical or supernatural, and Fonda doesn't speak of it in this way either) is on a rising staircase.

Not to heaven, most likely. Toward increasing wisdom, happiness, satisfaction, contentment, creativity. Heaven on earth.

Have a look. My wife emailed me a link to the video this afternoon. I watched it when I got home and then wanted to share its uplifting theme -- for young and old alike.

My letter to a supposed Godly guru

As noted in my previous post, devotees of various Indian "Sant Mat" movements believe that the gurus who head up these groups are GIHF -- God in human form. If such were true, Jesus is alive and well in various bearded, turbaned male bodies.

Including that of Gurinder Singh, guru of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB). I was an active member of RSSB for over thirty years. Near the end of my involvement with the organization I had quite a bit of personal contact with Gurinder Singh. 

I had several private interviews with the guru, and met with him in some other group sessions. We also corresponded by mail about several books that I wrote under the auspices of Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

Recently I've been resonding to emails from someone who is highly interested -- perhaps "mildly obsessed" is a better way to put it -- in learning details of how and why I de-converted from the Sant Mat belief system.

I've told him that why? is a problematic question when it comes to complex human behavior. None of us is privy to the unconscious workings of the brain. Yet neuroscientists know that most of the why's behind the what's of our actions and thoughts aren't available to conscious awareness.

I can give reasons for what I do, as can you.

Whether those reasons bear much resemblance to brain-based reality is a whole other matter. So I've told the guy to read the posts on this blog in the "Radha Soami Satsang Beas" category to understand my viewpoint on the "why?" question, realizing that it's impossible for anyone (including me) to know exactly why I do the stuff that I do.

However, another question I got asked is easier to answer: what was the last communication I had with Gurinder Singh before I departed RSSB for other spiritual locales? Rummaging through my Return to the One files yesterday, it didn't take me long to find the April 17, 2003 letter to Baba Gurinder Singh ("Baba" is a term of respect). 

Now, I realize that the letter won't be of much interest to anyone other than those who are curious about how my book about Plotinus ended up being published by me, rather than RSSB, or are into the whole guru-disciple thing and want to see how a disciple (moi) speaks to a guru about a volunteer task he's taken on.

I hadn't read this letter for many years. Perusing it yesterday, I was impressed with myself. I'd forgotten how generous and respectful I was right up until the end of my relationship with Radha Soami Satsang Beas.

In the letter I talk about how files of two books have been given to RSSB: Return to the One, and a rewrite of God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder -- which was distributed by RSSB until the publisher went out of business and new copies of the book became unavailable.

Brian-bashers, who are heard from regularly in disparaging comments on this blog and emails to me, have this notion of my Enormous Ego firmly in mind. They like to believe that I left Radha Soami Satsang Beas because the organization wouldn't go along with my egocentric efforts to have the Plotinus book published exactly as I wanted it.

Not true. 

After about seven years of research, writing, reviewing, and copious re-writing, the letter to Gurinder Singh shows that I happily gave RSSB Return to the One to publish, or not, as they saw fit. After this book was put on hold by RSSB for nine months, and didn't show any sign of coming back to life, I decided -- entirely reasonably -- to go ahead with publishing the book on my own.

But I fulfilled my commitment to the guru, and organization, which I was still a part of at that time. I had agreeed to write a book about Plotinus, a marvelous Greek philosopher, as part of a "Mystics of the West" series.

No pay. No royalties. Just for the satisfaction of learning about Plotinus' teachings, and sharing that knowledge in a readable fashion with people who wouldn't find the scholarly books about Plotinus comprehensible.

Radha Soami Satsang Beas was invited to publish its own version of my book, editing as desired the draft I'd sent to India. However, I told the guru that I wasn't willing to dilute or misinterpret Plotinus' philosophy in an attempt to make his teachings match up with the spiritual worldview of RSSB. 

So kudos to me. Re-reading the letter, I come off sounding even better than I'd remembered. I love me! (If that's a sign of ego, so be it. Long live ego, and long live love.)

Here's the letter:
Download April 2003 letter to Gurinder Singh 

Sant Rajinder Singh: "godman" revealed as ordinary guy

Christians might be surprised to know that Jesus is alive and well, right here on Earth. Not the historical Jesus who died on the cross several thousand years ago, but other humans who share Jesus' divinity, his "son of God" status.

Such is the teaching of Sant Mat movements.

They're based in India and have an affinity with Hinduism and Sikhism. A central Sant Mat tenet is that God-realization requires initiation ("baptism") by a perfect living guru who is considered to be God in human form.

Just like Jesus!

Which makes these Sant Mat movements appealing to people who want a personal relationship with a Jesus figure, but prefer someone they can physically interact with, not a son of God who has departed heavenward.

Sant ("Saint") Rajinder Singh is the purported godman who heads up the Science of Spirituality (SOS) branch of Sant Mat.

He's billed as a spiritual master "dedicated to helping people realize themselves as soul" who "grants seekers a firsthand experience of their soul by putting them in direct contact with the Light and Sound of God."

Sounds like a highly elevated dude. If you were a disciple of this supposed modern-day Jesus, you'd expect that Rajinder Singh would demonstrate divine qualities -- such as exceptional love, compassion, wisdom, understanding.

Heck, probably even omniscience, since Rajinder Singh is a manifestation of God's creative power.

However, below is the story of someone who experienced a disappointingly ordinary Rajinder Singh. This person emailed me a few days ago, recommending some books I might like, and mentioning three and a half years of Rajinder Singh discipleship which ended after a shocking encounter with the guru.

Here's the tale:

Hello there Brian. About Sant Rajinder Singh Ji:

The feeling or belief that has been cultivated in these spiritual paths/organizations is probably familiar to you. That Indian guy is supposed to be a Perfect Master! A living Jesus Christ!  Am I right?

I don't want to speak at great length about how and for what reason I was initiated, it is not relevant. The NEGATIVE shock for me came 3 years ago. It was a incident that put Rajinder Singh's godman properties to the test and opened my mind for good. This guy is the clown of the town.

May 2009.  My late beloved father is sick. He has been diagnosed with lung cancer. I bought a ticket and visited the "living Christ" in Prague, Czech Republic, for some advice (chemo or alternative ways of healing, etc).

In the usual satsang setting Rajinder Singh meets with every one of the satsangis [disciples] at the end of the meeting. I was waiting for him to come in front of my seat. Beside me there was a young German couple with a bunch of photos of their new car. Right next to them I was holding a tiny photo of my dear father. My mind was in a storm.

Now watch this sequence in your mind:

-- The "master" came in front of the Germans.

-- They were flooding him with silly questions about the purchase of their new car and were asking him dozens of questions about their new house!!!  PATHETIC waste of about 7 minutes. Rajinder Singh, the Indian 'master', gave them some replies and dealt seriously with them. I was saying to myself: "What the hell am I doing here?"

-- Finally "He" finished with them, and greeted me as he was passing quickly to the satsangis next to me. I called out "Master, wait!"

-- I stood up. I passed him my father's picture, saying that my father was sick. I didn't have a chance to describe my father's medical situation.

-- As a supposed god-embodied and partially omnipotent guru he could have spent more than 20 seconds with me. He could have asked me more questions about my problem, if he had really understood my critical situation. From the pain in my eyes any good psychologist would be curious to ask me more questions!

My heart was aching like hell. As a living Christ he could have said something more divine or insightful or spiritual to someone who was intended to feel death in his family.

Do you know what he did say during the 10 seconds he stayed with me and looked at the picture? "HE WILL BE/FEEL BETTER!"  He said that my father would feel better or something like that. My personal Jesus devoted 10 minutes blessing the German car, and gave me a shitty FAST FOOD answer, full of generality and emptiness. 

Because my father was not in terminal stage at that time, he was driving, eating etc. He was feeling good.

December 2009.  My dear father died. As a family we gave death a great battle. I discovered that my father was a saint/martyr who endured pain and suffering. Probably I lost precious time with mind trap by believing in promiscuous miracle working. But now I feel more free and powerful than ever. 

It was nice to have a word with you, Brian.

Sententiously: In my darkest hours, Rajinder Singh, my personal godman, that well-fed jerk, uttered a sentence of four words and left. A three year long misconstruction had finally collapsed to pieces. 

"I think the world has had too many perfect masters, and popes, and mahatmas, and other such pretenders. Finding a perfect master is ideal only if your desire is to become a perfect slave."
      --Robert Anton Wilson

Now, I'm sure devout Sant Mat followers will excuse Rajinder Singh's behavior in various predictable ways. (For over thirty years I was a devoted member of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, another Sant Mat group, so I'm familiar with these rationalizations.) 

Which include...

No one can judge a guru's actions.
The guru was testing this person's faith.
Gurus act like ordinary human beings to mask their divinity. 
Expecting attention from the guru is an act of ego which won't be rewarded.
God, and gurus, behave in mysterious ways.
The father did "feel better." After he died. 

Here's the common denominator of these excuses for a guru acting like a jerk: there's no way to know whether a Sant Mat godman is a divine being from his outward behavior or statements. Well, this is the same as saying "the existence of God must be accepted on faith."

It turns out, then, that Sant Mat and Christianity indeed are much the same. But not in the way Sant Mat says -- that both religions are founded on teachings from a Son of God. 

Rather, the divinity of gurus like Rajinder Singh is supported by just as much evidence as exists for the divinity of Jesus: zero. These gurus are just ordinary guys who sometimes act like jerks.

Like the rest of us. 

Jeff Bethke says "I hate religion," but he loves organized Christianity

Not being clued in to the latest Christian YouTube trends, until I read the latest issue of TIME magazine last night I'd been unaware of the super-buzz surrounding Jeff Bethke -- whose Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus has gotten almost 20 million views.

(The TIME article is only available online to subscribers, but here's an earlier piece about Bethke.)

It's a slick video.

So slick, it seems likely this wasn't solely produced by a Jesus-loving young guy whose only motivation was to draw people away from organized Christianity. But before I say more along this line, have a look yourself.

 

Now, I'll admit I found this video appealing at first. I didn't like all the Jesus talk, but Bethke's rhyming rapping against religion resonated with me. 

However, the TIME article said:

His fans on YouTube -- on which he has more than 130,000 subscribers -- might be surprised to know that Bethke likes church. He attends a Seattle megachurch called Mars Hill and strives to practice what it preaches.

Hmmmm.

That raised some fundamentalism alarm bells. Which began sounding even louder after some Googling of "Mars Hill." It turns out that this church promotes a conservative Christian message wrapped in a hipster vibe to suck in the unsuspecting.

Mars Hill does the shunning thing on church members who engage in forbidden sex. Like the 25 year old man who, horrible sinner that he is, had sex with his fiancee. And Pastor Mark Driscoll preaches against homosexuality. Even yoga is "demonic."

So Jeff Bethke hasn't really given up organized religion. In his video Bethke is just pretending that he has, so his Mars Hill church can expand its fundamentalist talons to capture additional prey.

In fact, Bethke has publicly disavowed himself in a response to a religion-loving blogger, saying that he agrees "it's biblically inaccurate to say Jesus hated religion when, in fact, he preached a religious doctrine, prescribed rituals and worshiped in a temple."

Zinnia Jones nails Bethke to a truthful wall in her right-on YouTube response to his video: I hate religion, says man praying to God. Nice job, Zinnia.

 

Not surprisingly, many Christians -- who supposedly are compassionate, loving, good-hearted, and humble -- left nasty comments about Zinnia's video, some of which she shared here. I also enjoyed Zinnia's make-up tips, a subject I'm abysmally ignorant about.

(Never really knew what "concealer" was until today. Ah, the secrets women know, and men are clueless about.)

On her blog, Zinnia has a transcript of her video response to Jeff Bethke. Good stuff. Here's an excerpt.

Religion's often seen as being hate-filled and judgmental
To have that name hitched to your faith would be so detrimental
So let's just find another word - let's call the whole thing "Jesus"
And maybe it might actually change how the world sees us.

Yes, I see what you did there, Jeff, but nobody's impressed
When one religious movement claims that only they are blessed
It's nothing new when churches paint all others as a blight,
As sheer demonic heresy - for they alone are right
From doctrine, dogma, sin and Hell, you give us no relief
It's just a crafty strategy to market your belief.

So who is Mr. Bethke, and from what was he inspired?
He says it's just a home-made film. Is that how this transpired?
We know that he's a member of a church that's called Mars Hill
Where thousands gather every week to hear the holy spiel.

Mark Driscoll is their pastor, a self-styled rebel cleric
Whose stances, theologically, are really quite generic
This macho, hardcore preacher never hesitates to tell:
If you haven't heard of Jesus, then prepare to burn in Hell!
To him there's no salvation in benevolent behavior
Being nice won't help you - you need Jesus as your savior.

And no doubt Pastor Driscoll thinks himself rather volcanic,
When he tells his parishioners that yoga is Satanic
On women in the clergy, we're assured that he's no advocate
If they can't bring in manly men, that means they're inadequate.

Instructing people on how they should live their married life,
He tells a tale of how he wished to leave his pregnant wife
What would prompt a Godly man to make this declaration?
He found out that in high school, she had sexual relations
And when he goes on Facebook to mock "effeminate" preachers,
There's little to distinguish him from other Christian teachers.