Church of the Churchless

The answer to "Does God exist?" must be "No"

I'd expect better from a professor of philosophy than William Irwin's poorly reasoned essay in the New York Times, "God is a Question, Not an Answer." 

I really have no idea how he can defend statements such as this:

Dwelling in a state of doubt, uncertainty and openness about the existence of God marks an honest approach to the question. There is no easy answer. Indeed, the question may be fundamentally unanswerable.

Huh, unanswerable? 

Here's how the question of the existence of God is answered: with the best evidence available. This is how we humans answer all questions. There's no other way. 

Yes, the history of science, indeed the history of everything, shows that answers often are wrong or incomplete. Aristotle famously thought that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. People believed this for a long time. 

Until Galileo came up with the bright idea of experimenting to see if the evidence fit the supposed fact. It didn't. So Galileo provided a better answer to the question of gravity. 

Which also was wrong in certain ways. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was a further advance in our understanding of gravity. So it would have been absurd for someone to say that "Gravity is a Question, Not an Answer."

Gravity is a question with different answers, depending on the state of knowledge and evidence at the time. Ditto with the question, Does God exist?

Except in this case the answer has always been the same: there is no demonstrable evidence that God exists. Likewise, there is no demonstrable evidence that fairies or goblins exist. Sure, there are myths about fairies and goblins, just as there are myths about God. 

Yet would any philosopher seriously argue that "Fairies are a question, not an answer"? We can be pretty damn sure that fairies are nonexistent, so there is no point debating any other questions about the nature of fairies. 

The only reason Irwin can have his essay published in the New York Times is that so many more people believe in the God myth, compared to the fairies myth. But a myth without any convincing evidence that it is true is still a myth, no matter how many people believe in it.

I enjoy reading the top-rated "readers' picks" comments on NYT essays like this one. They're always well-written and thoughtful. Here's #1 and #2 on Irwin's piece:

This atheist has no doubts. I don’t spare a thought for Zeus, or Baal or that Old Testament genocidal monster or any other fairy tale creature conjured up by illiterate iron-age tribal collectives to cement their authority and frighten the peasants.

The current trend is for atheists to say that we don’t claim that there definitely is no god, but that we have examined the evidence for god and find it unconvincing.

Sorry, but I say there is no god. It’s not merely about lack of evidence. It’s because the stories of miraculous visitations and resurrections and invisible worlds full of superbeings are patently absurd. If any of these things were true the world would have the consistency of a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Everything we know about physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology and every other science would be wrong.

The appeal to agnosticism as the only logical position is insidious. Agnosticism has been a boon to theists because it raises the epistemological floor from “you must be kidding” to “you might be right” with no more effort than making an unprovable claim.

History is strewn with discarded gods that weren’t even there to receive the prayers of the faithful or the sacrifices that they made, sometimes at gruesomely high cost. It is an insult to our integrity as rational beings to sacrifice our self-respect on the altar of mindless credulity and superstition.

-----------------------------
"Any honest atheist must admit that he has his doubts, that occasionally he thinks he might be wrong, that there could be a God after all - if not the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, then a God of some kind."

This atheist has no doubt that God - of any kind - does not exist.

Why do believers feel they can speak for non-believers? (They don't.) It's a common, but empty, tactic when debating an issue - suggest your opponent doesn't really believe what he says.

Of course atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist. But that doesn't lessen our certainty. As Christopher Hitchens said, if something is asserted without evidence, it can be rejected without evidence.

The fact is, there is no evidence that a God of any kind exists. Maybe one day humans will dispense with belief in imaginary beings, and use the time they spent worshipping for more productive activities.

If words sound like spiritual drivel, they probably are

We've all heard lofty sounding spiritual phrases that initially seem like they mean something, but on further reflection are recognized as empty words.

In one of his Scientific American Skeptic pieces,  "The True Meaning of BS," Michael Shermer uses Deepak Chopra as an example.

Example: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.” This is an actual tweet composed by Deepak Chopra, as quoted by University of Waterloo psychologist Gordon Pennycook and his colleagues in a paper published in the November 2015 issue ofJudgment and Decision Making.

The scientists set out to determine “the factors that predispose one to become or to resist becoming” a victim of what they called “pseudo-profound” BS, or language “constructed to impress upon the reader some sense of profundity at the expense of a clear exposition of meaning or truth.”

I was cited in the paper for describing Chopra's language as “woo-woo nonsense.”

For instance, in a 2010 debate we had at the California Institute of Technology that was televised on ABC's Nightline, in the audience Q&A (http://bit.ly/1PQqk6s), Chopra defines consciousness as “a superposition of possibilities,” to which physicist Leonard Mlodinow replies: “I know what each of those words mean. I still don't think I know….”

The entire essay is well worth reading.
Download The True Meaning of BS - Scientific American

Since I also can't understand what “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation" means on any level besides the obvious superficial one (to type that sentence, I needed to intend to do so while paying attention to where my fingers are on the keyboard of my laptop), this additional quote from the essay made me feel good.

In four studies on more than 800 subjects, the authors found that the higher the intelligence and analyticity of subjects, the less likely they were to rate such statements as profound. Conversely, and revealingly, they concluded that those most receptive to pseudo-profound BS are also more prone to “conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.”

Not everything that is said refers to something that is true. Words can be empty of meaning beyond the mind of an individual who considers them meaningful.

Religions thrive on this: getting believers to accept that words in a holy book, or uttered by a holy person, point to an objective actually-existent divine reality.

In his book, "Failure: Why Science is So Successful," Stuart Firestein says:

If science is to produce something more than trivial knowledge it must be hard, it must be susceptible to what the late philosopher John Haugeland called the collision between the theoretical and the empirical -- what we thought to be the case and what the experiments indicate is in fact the case.

...T.H. Huxley famously quipped that there is nothing so tragic in science as the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.

Well, the same is true of beautiful spiritual words. If they don't point to a demonstrable fact about reality, they're attractive to hear but useless as a guide to living. 

Profitable spiritual investing: do nothing extra in tough times

My churchless "sermon" this Sunday is based on an article in TIME magazine's March 28 issue, "In a turbulent stock market, the best investment move is the least obvious."

This non-sacred secular scripture ends with a paragraph that has deep meaning for those of us -- which means all of us at some point -- who face difficult choices about how to deal with tough times in life.

You can't avoid all the dangers that lurk in the global economy, but you can minimize their impact. Timing any market remains a fool's game. Another mistake, says Moskowitz, is that when stocks fall, many investors try to regain some sense of control by selling. 

That's a bad idea because it keeps them from benefiting from the rebound that will eventually follow, as happened after the Great Recession.

"There are things you really can't do anything about," he says. "It sounds defeatist and pessimistic, but doing something might be the worst thing."

T. Rowe Price notes that less than 2% of its 401(k)-plan participants made any moves during the January rout. The safest move, in other words, may be no move at all.

Excellent investment advice. It fits with my previous blog posts about spiritual investing.

"Spiritual investing takes nothing."
"Profitable spiritual investing"
"My 100% guaranteed spiritual investment scheme"
"Spiritual diversification, a sound salvation strategy"

Let's be clear that in my current godless frame of mind, the word spiritual doesn't mean anything otherworldly or supernatural. It just refers to a deeper outlook on life, a more philosophical perspective, an attempt to find meaning and purpose.

As the TIME article says, often people try to over-control circumstances. When shit happens, when tough times pop into their life, they make several sorts of mistakes. 

(1) They don't see what is happening clearly. Almost always, what goes down, comes back up. Better times follow worse times. Feeling bad will be replaced by feeling good.

(2) In an attempt to fix by themselves now what likely will naturally fix itself later, they engage in unwise actions rather than accepting the wisdom of flowing along with what is happening -- which eventually will change course on its own.

(3) And if something can indeed be done to effectively ameliorate the tough times, instead of just doing that, they turn to useless religious practices like prayer.

The last mistake, of course, is a big part of what allows religions to prosper. Well, the first two mistakes also. But I think #3 is central to why people embrace religious supernaturalism when they're faced with a misfortune: disease, disability, danger, distress, or such.

Being thoroughly godless now, yet having previously embraced an Eastern form of religion based on a belief that the guru was God in Human Form, I can understand the appeal of making a prayer or petition to some higher divine power.

But since there is no evidence that such a power exists, I'm now convinced that it is not only useless to pray during tough times, it is harmful -- if the goal is to make those times less tough.

We have two choices when life doesn't give us what we want, one good and one bad. 

Good. Accept the reality of what is happening. Do whatever you can to improve the situation. 
Bad. Feel "this shouldn't be happening." Pray to God or some other divinity to change things.

Now, I realize that some people do what they can to change things in a worldly sense, while also appealing to a godly being to jump in and change things supernaturally. 

This may appear harmless, but I disagree. Praying to God, or hoping God will intervene in a troubling situation, takes energy, attention, and focus away from actually doing something effective.

If a tree is about to fall on top of you, the best thing to do is get out of the way fast, not stop and pray that you'll be saved.

There isn't any situation, not one, where engaging in some religious or prayerful appeal will help make things better beyond engaging in some concrete worldly action. Religious believers may believe it will, but all of the evidence points to them being wrong. 

So doing nothing, meaning nothing extra from what the situation demands in a practical sense, is the best way to deal with tough times. 

Meaningness site well worth an (uncertain) read

Back in 2011 I discovered David Chapman's "Meaningness" writings. In a blog post I praised Chapman's dizzying thoughts about what life is, and isn't, all about. 

And shared what I said to the person who turned me on to the Meaningness site.

Thanks a lot for the link. I've read several posts/chapters and am blown away by this guy. He's like a more intelligent, more scientific, more coherent, more wise version of me who also can write a heck of a lot better. And has a great sense of humor. I'm an instant David Chapman fan.

Since, I've gotten Meaningness updates as Chapman continues to work on his online work in progress. It is vaguely Buddhist'y, but in a pleasingly non-dogmatic sense.

(Yes, Buddhists can be dogmatic, sometimes irritatingly so; Chapman isn't.)

A recent update resonated with me, "The Promise of Certainty." Here's some excerpts.

What we want most from meaning is guarantees.

Life is nebulous: chaotic, risky, and confusing. Efforts that should work fail. The good suffer and wrong-doers prosper. The world does not make sense. Each of us is torn by uncertainties, conflicting desires, and impossible decisions.

We want assurance that this is all just an illusion. We want to hear that the real world is—somehow—orderly and consistently meaningful. We want answers—sometimes desperately.

Eternalism promises to deliver those answers, and to guarantee them. It cannot; and so it lies.

...Eternalism is at its most glorious in a conversion experience, during the honeymoon after you have first committed to a system. That can last for a few weeks to a few years; for as long as you can silence your internal voices of doubt.

Eventually it becomes impossible to not-see the evidence against the system. You may remain committed, but it can only be a wavering commitment. The honeymoon turns into a warm memory, cherished on Sunday mornings but increasingly distant from everyday experience.

Alternatively, seeking renewed certainty, you may search for a new system. Some people become serial conversion junkies.

But as with opiate addiction, it becomes harder and harder to recreate the first high. And the periods of doubt between commitments, like heroin withdrawal, turn increasingly into nihilistic anxiety and despair.

...The complete stance recognizes that certainty is impossible, but that meaning is real. If we set aside the futile hope for absolute answers, we can find patterns of meaning that are usually good enough to navigate our lives.

No ultimate, perfectly reliable foundation for morality or purpose is possible—but we do regularly solve problems of ethics and direction; and therefore we can!

Science's "faith" is very different from religious faith

Great timing, Steve. Your comment today on my "Why 'man of faith' is an insult" post came soon after I'd come across a perfect reply. But first, the comment:

Brian, thank you for taking a moment to respond to my post. I understand and agree with both of your references (although I have a special affinity for chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream).

Still, I'd like to understand your perspective on faith just a bit more. You indicate that neither of your examples require religious faith, and I agree with that premise.

My question is this (and expanding upon your examples just a bit): Do self-discoveries based upon personal experience ("I like vanilla ice cream") and scientific discoveries based upon proven methods of objective analysis (evolution, gravity, physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.) negate faith?

Thanks again.

Steve referred to my comment-reply to his previous comment-question, "Are you a person of beliefs or a person of opinions?"

Steve, we all believe in some things that are only subjectively true. Like, I believe that I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate, based on a lot of previous personal experience.

I also aspire to believing in objective truths, such as those known to science. Like, a big bang brought the universe into being 13.7 billion years ago, and evolution has guided life on Earth.

Neither of these sorts of beliefs requires religious faith. Hopes this points at an answer to your question.

So, yes, I do consider that both self-discoveries based on personal experience and scientific discoveries based on methods of objective analysis negate faith. More exactly, "faith" as it is used in personal experience and science is very different from how this word is used in a religious context.

Jerry Coyne, a biology professor who runs the marvelous Why Evolution is True blog, is able to explain this much better than I can. 

Check out his recent post that I noticed a few days ago, "Another misguided believer claims that science is based on faith." Here's how it starts out.

I guess it was too much for me to hope that my 2013 Slate essay, “No faith in science,” would once and for all dispel the claim that science is just like religion in depending on faith. My point was simple: what “faith” means in science is “confidence based on experience,” while the same term in religion means “belief without enough evidence to convince most rational people.”

It’s the same word, but with two different meanings. Yet religious people mix up those meanings regularly—and, I expect, deliberately. I wish they’d read my goddam essay.

So someone’s done it again: Matt Emerson, a Catholic whose blog says, “I teach theology and direct the advancement office at Xavier College Preparatory in Palm Desert, CA.” He’s also written the book Why Faith? A Journey of Discovery, to be published by Paulist Press this May; it apparently aims to help people maintain and understand faith.

At any rate, Emerson published a short essay in the March 3 Wall Street Journal—”At its heart, science is faith-based too“—that, as usual, conflates the meaning of “faith” as applied to science (but we scientists avoid that word!) versus as applied to religion. Rather than go into detail, I’d recommend you read my Slate piece, and Emerson should have, too!

This got me to read Coyne's Slate "No Faith in Science" essay. It demolishes the argument that "faith" in science, or everyday life, is anything like religious faith. Here's the first part of the piece:

A common tactic of those who claim that science and religion are compatible is to argue that science, like religion, rests on faith: faith in the accuracy of what we observe, in the laws of nature, or in the value of reason.

Daniel Sarewitz, director of a science policy center at Arizona State University and an occasional Slate contributor, wrote this about the Higgs boson in the pages of Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious science journals: “For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.”

Such statements imply that science and religion are not that different because both seek the truth and use faith to find it. Indeed, science is often described as a kind of religion.

But that’s wrong, for the “faith” we have in science is completely different from the faith believers have in God and the dogmas of their creed. To see this, consider the following four statements:

“I have faith that, because I accept Jesus as my personal savior, I will join my friends and family in Heaven.”

“My faith tells me that the Messiah has not yet come, but will someday.”

“I have strep throat, but I have faith that this penicillin will clear it up.”

“I have faith that when I martyr myself for Allah, I will receive 72 virgins in Paradise.”

All of these use the word faith, but one uses it differently. The three religious claims (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, respectively) represent faith as defined by philosopher Walter Kaufmann: “intense, usually confident, belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person.”

Indeed, there is no evidence beyond revelation, authority, and scripture to support the religious claims above, and most of the world’s believers would reject at least one of them. To state it bluntly, such faith involves pretending to know things you don’t. Behind it is wish-thinking, as clearly expressed in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

In contrast, the third statement relies on evidence: penicillin almost invariably kills streptococcus bacteria. In such cases the word faith doesn’t mean “belief without good evidence,” but “confidence derived from scientific tests and repeated, documented experience.”

You have faith (i.e., confidence) that the sun will rise tomorrow because it always has, and there’s no evidence that the Earth has stopped rotating or the sun has burnt out. You have faith in your doctor because, presumably, she has treated you and others successfully, and you know that what she prescribes is tested scientifically. You wouldn’t go to a shaman or a spiritual healer for strep throat—unless you want to waste your money.

Disturbing Radha Soami Satsang Beas land grab in New Delhi

Here's some news items from 2013 and 2014 I've learned about for those who like to keep up on what's happening with an Indian guru-led spiritual organization, Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB).

RSSB has been appropriating land from a wildlife sanctuary outside of New Delhi. The Hindustan Times reported on this in an April 2014 story,"Forest dept accuses spiritual body of land grab."
Download Forest dept accuses spiritual body of land grab | india | Hindustan Times

The Delhi centre of Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) has occupied 123 acres of forest land, the forest department has alleged.

The department has alleged the philosophical and charitable organisation, with several national and international centres, has occupied 72 acres of land in the Asola-Bhatti wildlife sanctuary in south Delhi and 51 acres of the adjoining Ridge or reserve forest.

Destruction of the Delhi ridge, of which the sanctuary is a part, means desertification of Delhi, fall of its water table and more pollution.

Deputy range officer of Delhi’s lone wildlife sanctuary, Dharam Singh, on Monday filed two complaints - HT has copies - with the police and made these allegations.

“It seems the head of RSSB, with help from his supporters, has occupied land and is trying to occupy more land. It seems on his directive, one Chandan Sharma is obstructing the survey work being done by us.”

Also, in an apparently related issue RSSB has been involved in the takeover of a school that is in the vicinity of the wildlife sanctuary property. Here's a June 2013 story from The Times of India, "New management trying to close school, alleges staff."
Download New management trying to close school, alleges staff - Times of India

NEW DELHI: Insecurity has gripped the teachers and other permanent employees of Sawan Public School, Bhatti Mines Road, after Sitaram Jindal Trust (SJT) took over the management. They have alleged service of contract employees has been terminated and many permanent employees have also been asked to leave. The employees also allege that the operations of the school are being carried out by Radha Soami Satsang and it is planning to close the school.

On Thursday, the teachers said, the management asked a permanent non-teaching employee, who had been working for over 25 years, to resign and vacate the campus within 48 hours. On Saturday, the school placed six employees - five teachers and another from the accounts department - under suspension. According to teachers, they are being harassed because they witnessed the "forced resignation". The authority wants to close the school and "transfer the land to the Satsang", alleges the staff.

..."On June 23, 2012, we were told by the principal in-charge that the management was transferred to SJT. However, no one from SJT cared to address us. The school is currently run by people who speak to us on behalf of Radha Soami Satsang," said a senior teacher.

These sorts of sleazy goings-on are quite common in the money-making world of commercial real estate deals. I guess this just goes to show that so-called "spiritual" organizations also are prone to cut ethical corners in order to get what they want. 

In a way, though, it is even more disturbing when a religious group like Radha Soami Satsang Beas engages in coercion and intimidation.

I find "honest crooks" more appealing than "dishonest crooks."

Meaning, if you're going to rip somebody off, be upfront about your motivation -- money and power. Rationalizing your actions in the name of a guru or God makes a morally dubious situation even more so.

Our modern secular world is safer and more moral

After reading Steven Pinker's book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined," my thoroughly atheist wife recently was moved to write a letter to the editor of our local newspaper, the Salem Statesman Journal.

The claim that the 20th century was the most violent is not true.

Most other scientific information shows that although the two world wars killed large numbers of humans, in terms of numbers of humans killed versus world populations at the time, this was actually mild compared with killings by Genghis Khan and others eons ago.

Historic facts now known demonstrate that the more secular and educated societies have become, the less violent they become. Humans today are statistically far less likely to die from violence than in any other time in history. In fact, we are becoming more moral in general as time goes on (speaking statistically).

Religion is not at all necessary for a moral society. Studies on very young babies have proved that we are born with a sense of morality that emerges very early before almost any learning. This can be later distorted by life experiences, brain injury, social influences, etc.

We evolved to be moral because we are social animals. We are inherently “good without God.” In fact, religion can be divisive and judgmental and has spurred much violence and cruelty.

Our forefathers were wise in creating a secular democracy.

Laurel Hines
Salem

Here's some quotes from "The Better Angels of Our Nature" that back up Laurel's points. The less religion there is in the world, the safer and more moral it is.

“Challenge a person's beliefs, and you challenge his dignity, standing, and power. And when those beliefs are based on nothing but faith, they are chronically fragile. No one gets upset about the belief that rocks fall down as opposed to up, because all sane people can see it with their own eyes. Not so for the belief that babies are born with original sin or that God exists in three persons or that Ali is the second-most divinely inspired man after Muhammad.

When people organize their lives around these beliefs, and then learn of other people who seem to be doing just fine without them--or worse, who credibly rebut them--they are in danger of looking like fools. Since one cannot defend a belief based on faith by persuading skeptics it is true, the faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage, and may try to eliminate that affront to everything that makes their lives meaningful.”
------------------

“Why should the spread of ideas and people result in reforms that lower violence? There are several pathways. The most obvious is a debunking of ignorance and superstition.

A connected and educated populace, at least in aggregate and over the long run, is bound to be disabused of poisonous beliefs, such as that members of other races and ethnicities are innately avaricious or perfidious; that economic and military misfortunes are caused by the treachery of ethnic minorities; that women don't mind to be raped; that children must be beaten to be socialized; that people choose to be homosexual as part of a morally degenerate lifestyle; that animals are incapable of feeling pain.

The recent debunking of beliefs that invite or tolerate violence call to mind Voltaire's quip that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
------------------

“The theory that religion is a force for peace, often heard among the religious right and its allies today, does not fit the facts of history.”

Below is a video of Pinker discussing the theme of his book several years before it was published. Have a look, even if you only watch five or ten minutes of the 21-minute TED Talk.

Pinker persuasively argues that the Age of Reason -- 16th century onward -- has led to declines in violence. Yes, this goes against many peoples' intuitions, given the horrors of two world wars in the last century. 

But religions also are intuitively appealing. Which goes to show, our intuitions often are wrong.

 

A look at Radha Soami by a thoughtful sceptic

Wow. That was my thumbs-up one-word reaction to a well-written, cogent, intelligent, moving comment on a 2006 blog post, "Top ten signs you're a fundamentalist Satsangi."

The writer put so much time and thought into the comment, right away I knew it deserved to be elevated into a blog post where it would be more visible. 

So, here it is, below.

Having been devoted to the Radha Soami philosophy myself for about 35 years, I resonated with much of what this person said. I didn't grow up in a Radha Soami family as the commenter did, so it was interesting to learn how they dealt with spiritual/religious practices like strict vegetarianism while growing up.

I've corrected a few spelling errors, made additional paragraph breaks for readability, and added some links and explanations of terms [in bracketed italics.] Enjoy...

First off, this was great! Could definitely relate to pretty much all of these.

Secondly, I'd just like to comment on how I got to this post. I've never really talked about my experiences with RS [Radha Soami] with anyone, not because of shame or fear of ostracization or anything similar, but more because I never really felt the need to until now.

The past couple of days I've thought more about RS than I have in about 15 years, and I don't mind if no one sees this (since this original post was more than 2.5 years ago), for me it's just about thinking things through while I'm typing, almost like free association.

I was brought up by parents who were (and still are) devoted Satsangis [initates of a Radha Soami guru]. Now straight off the bat, I want to emphasise that my parents are good people with strong morals as human beings.

My dad is a nice, sweet man while my mother is a firm, highly intelligent woman. She was introduced to the path in her late teens and was initiated at 24. She introduced my father to the path, but he didn't get initiated until a few years later. I was brought up in Australia, where in 25 years an initially humble RS following has expanded quite significantly. As my parents are devout Satsangis, me and my sister were brought up as such. We would go to Satsang every Sunday and were strict lacto-vegetarians.

Now, when you're a kid, all you want to do is impress your parents so of course; you follow what they say, maybe even try to go over and above somehow, most likely to get positive feedback. I remember over time though, even at an early age, I started to question a lot of the principles that surrounded me.

Actually, 'principles' might not be the right word; perhaps, 'circumstances' is a better option. For one thing, I resented having to go to Satsang every Sunday, and sit in a separate room with other children while we were looked after by a designated adult who told us to remain quiet so they could hear the Satsang in the main hall via a speaker set up. But this was no different to any child who had to go to Church or Sunday school.

I started to get frustrated with having to check every ingredient of every item of food we ever ate. I understood that as lacto-vegetarians we should make sure we didn't contribute to animal cruelty, yet it still irked me that we had to always check for rennet, or "may contain traces of egg" etc.

You can chalk that one up to being a shy, Indian kid in an Australian environment which wasn't as multiculturally diverse as it is today. I just wanted to fit in, and being at school, or out with friends, or in any social situation, and asking about ingredients made you stick out like a sore thumb.

This point especially rang true if I was at a friend's house. Their parents knew I was vegetarian and did their best to accommodate, but how would they know to check for rennet? It was a question of me either staying quiet and eating the food, not sure if it was completely lacto-vegetarian and feeling wracked with guilt, or incessantly questioning the gracious host. In my opinion, if they went out of their way to make something that didn't have meat or eggs or fish in it, I thought that was very nice of them.

One of the downsides of growing up with an intelligent mother is the level of arrogance, or ego, that comes with it. Being brought up as "this is the only way" or "this is right" is not a good way to teach anyone critical thinking skills, how to ascertain right from wrong, or even how to make decisions.

And like any child with strict parents who starts to form their own opinions and thoughts, I started to rebel in my teens. I just started to go completely against RS, stopped attending Satsangs [spiritual meetings] (which made my mum furious - until Babaji [the guru] quite fortuitously said not long after that parents shouldn't force their kids to attend), and just basically opposed more and more of their ideas (ie "meditating for 2.5 hours a day", "hanging around with the same group of people and talking about life after death all the time" - i found it so depressing etc.).

There was a level of hypocrisy to it as well.

While I agree that drinking alcohol in no way is good for anyone, we shouldn't admonish people for choosing to drink it. Same goes for eating meat, if people choose to eat meat, whether or not you agree with it, it's their choice. Yet I was surrounded by Satsangis who, in public situations, would make others feel so uncomfortable about their choices because they themselves disagreed with it. It's almost like spiritual hipster-ism.

Anyway, the hypocritical part of all this is that the reasoning behind these decisions (apart from the animal harm) was that "your body is a temple, so why would you let such harmful things into your temple".

This is all well and good, except for the fact that so many Satsangis are, or were, cigarette smokers (only in the last couple years have I been told that smoking has been discouraged). I'm pretty sure smoking in a temple would be frowned upon to say the least. It was these judgmental, 'holier than thou' attitudes to others that alienated me further from RS.

All in all, I just started to feel there was more to life than all this, and all followers of RS were missing out by wasting time by devoting their lives to what comes next. After a while, to their credit, my parents stopped pressuring me about RS and came to accept that "everyone has their own path".

So now I'm 29, and a few days ago I was watching some random videos on Youtube, and clicked on to an episode of Penn & Teller's Fool Us. This is a show where established magicians come up with tricks or illusions to try and fool the hosts, Penn & Teller. After watching a few of these, I started watching some of Penn & Teller's other videos, including Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, where the duo debunk commonly held myths, beliefs and ideologies.

Their first episode dealt with people claiming to be psychics or mediums who can communicate with the dead. It showed numerous ways these people would deceive and trick people into giving them money for a chance to "contact" their deceased love ones.

After watching this, I started watching videos of famed skeptic James Randi calling out other psychics and mediums in more detail. Then all of a sudden, I started thinking about RS again. My parents are still devout followers and my sister is now as well, and while they still do talk about it consistently, I don't pay much attention to it. I respect their beliefs so I never speak against it, but I have never given it much thought since I was a child.

Now when I stopped believing in RS, thinking back it was more due to disagreements with some of their philosophies and the attitudes/egos of people supposedly following a humble path. I realised that I never really questioned, or even researched, the history and the leaders behind RS or even the organisation itself..

I'm someone now that doesn't believe in astrology, psychics, mediums, fortune tellers, palm readers, prophets, or God. A good Randi quote I heard in his videos is that, "while it's true I can't prove that God doesn't exist, I can't also prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist".

Even though I don't believe in God as such, I wouldn't identify as an atheist - which is pretty much a religion itself these days - or even agnostic. It's almost like an apathy towards these topics, most likely born from a mental exhaustion or burnout as a child. So anyway, I started thinking about the gurus of RS. Since I firmly believe these gurus aren't God in human form, I began to think that there were only two other options:

1. These gurus were deluded enough to think they were God in human form, and were either:

i) using their large following for the greater good,

ii) using their large following for monetary (or egotistical) gain, or

iii) both i) and ii).

2. These gurus knew that they were not God in human form, and were either:

i) using their large following for the greater good,

ii) using their large following for monetary (or egotistical) gain, or

iii) both i) and ii).

I'd like to believe it's 2. i), but I don't think that's the case. At the same rate, it's probably not just simply 2. ii) either. Very rarely are things black and white in the world.

I began to think that each Guru would have different motivations, and it was then that I decided to do some research. After doing a google search, I came across this site and read several posts about RS, including ones from former disillusioned members and from Waking Now.

While I am inclined to think that the truth in some of these posts may have been affected by some disgruntled former devotees, I was able to relate to and agree with many of them. Reading posts about how the current Babaji has been expanding the business side of things whereas the previous Master was against such things made me think that, just like other humans, no two Gurus would be the same, or have the same motivations, ideologies or goals in life.

Therefore, in the above scenario, 2. iii) would seem the most appropriate fit. But, taking another step back, I began to question whether any of this is still actually okay? For an organisation to be all about morality (or their version of it) and humility, and letting go of worldly possessions, it seems to be quite an immoral, egotistical, and highly materialistic way of doing things. Like teacher, like student, I guess.

But is it just the human condition to be like this? Preach ideals and live differently? Judge others by what they do, judge yourself by what you think?

In a way, it was frustrating for me to be thinking about these things again, having left them behind a decade and a half ago. But it's something I needed to question, as I clearly had unresolved feelings, thoughts and frustrations about RS. One thing I found hard to accept was how so many intelligent people believe in RS.

Apart from my mother, I knew numerous people through Satsang who were incredibly successful lawyers, doctors, or other people with brilliant minds, who were devotees to a fault. Now, I consider myself fairly intelligent, thanks probably more so to genetics than anything, but these other people were definitely on a higher level. So it was puzzling to me how they believed in these things when there was such a lack of evidence in it. Cue the old adage, "you just need to have faith".

Then I stumbled upon an article by Michael Shermer which outlined why even the most intelligent brains in the world believe, and want to believe, in such things.

Shermer said that for one thing, smart people believe weird things because they are able to defend beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. He goes on to say that our beliefs are rarely formed by logic or fact, but rather by genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experiences, life impressions, along with societal and cultural influences.

When I read this, it's like something clicked in my head, like things just started to make sense. The more I thought about it, the more I realised that nearly all the people I had encountered who believed in any religion, let alone RS, fell into one of these categories:

- my grandparents raised my mother as a Hindu who participated in many rituals and cultures required of the religion. It was her brother-in-law who introduced her (and her sisters) onto the path (parental predilection, sibling influence, life impressions, educational experiences, societal and cultural influences).

- my dad didn't have as strict an upbringing in religious practices, but after my parents got married, he fell very ill and was told he would not live past 6 months. During this time, he started to read many of the Sangat's books and soon became initiated after he recovered (life impressions)

- my sister always believed in RS yet didn't seek initiation until she was 26. This was triggered by some personal issues she was having at the time (life impressions, parental predilection).

- many, many people I've met over the years, the more I thought about them and their stories leading to the path, I came to realise that many of them were "broken" or had an "emptiness" inside them. Be it from alcoholism, drug abuse, parental issues, or other life choices, personal or professional, these people needed something to believe in, to give them hope, and were able to find it in RS (life impressions).

Hope, I've found, is a major attraction for many religions or spiritual paths. The hope that there is something for us after we die. The hope that life has some meaning. The hope that we'll be okay, to dissuade our fears regarding the unknowns of death and the uncertainties in life.

It's when you see tears in the eyes of attendees at a Satsang that you realise how much these words and feelings of acceptance resonate with some people. In some cases, religious hysteria takes over; I remember when I was young we were at one of Babaji's Satsang's in Bangkok, and as he walked in, one Satsangi two rows in front of me started violently shaking. I thought he was having a seizure, but a few seconds later I realised he was violently crying and couldn't control his emotions or his body.

Should anyone be able to have this much effect on another human being? I guess you could ask the same of politicians, movie stars, singers, and sports stars, who also experience extreme devotion. Funnily enough, I'm sure we all know of many people in each of these categories who have experienced such maniacal devotion that they get engulfed by their own hubris, are involved in some scandal, and either cover it up or are sent crashing down to Earth.

Going back to the point about hope, I've come to the conclusion that if you need something to believe in, or something to help you through tough times for whatever reasons, you have to look internally and not externally for an answer.

And by externally I mean religious/spiritual/cult organisations; of course there's nothing wrong with seeking help from a professional. But even a professional would help YOU. Other organisations would get you to help THEM, and somehow get you to feel like you're the one who's improving via feelings of accomplishment and "fitting in".

By finding a way to learn to deal with, or recover from, hard times, not only will you come out the other side a better person, but you will have learned coping mechanisms for future tough times. And in the mean time you'll be able to enjoy that thing called life. In the example of my parents, more specifically my mother, who was more shaped by her upbringing rather than any personal problems, all I can say is that others can learn from this and start to develop critical thinking skills. Avoid confirmation bias by researching both sides of a topic whatever it may be, so then you can make an informed decision. This critical reasoning will help in other parts of your life.

My family wouldn't change their mind about RS even if I were to talk to them about these things. It's a tough one because I honestly feel like they're part of something which is not as pure as they think it is.

But having said that, in the grand scheme of things, they aren't being harmed, they aren't being railroaded for money, nor are they being lured into a mass suicide. Therefore, it would be hypocritical of me to admonish others for giving their opinions on their beliefs, and to then try to push my beliefs on to them.

It's ironic that in life things are rarely black and white as I mentioned before, but in terms of beliefs, many people either believe adamantly in something, or are nihilists. Maybe the grey area in between is where the "blissfully ignorant" live? Or the "happy-go-lucky"? The people who are good human beings, nice to others, and are at peace with who they are. Occam's Razor, perhaps.

Wow, I managed to ramble on a bit there. It was good for me to type it out. It's a lot to read, so again, it's not a big deal if no one reads this. It was just more about me typing it, so thanks for having a forum for me to do so :)