Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word

[Barry]

Here's a video that has gotten almost 20 million views on Youtube!

What do you think? Do you "hate religion" or do you think religion is helpful? I'm particularly interested in responses from those with a Christian background.

[Valley Oak]

Religion does a great deal of harm to civilization. We should shrug off religion because of the substantial social encumbrances that it generates. Right now, religion is the motor that people like Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and Romney are using to perpetuate hatred and discrimination against the LGBT community and women in general. The hate campaigns against these two groups of people have their "moral root" firmly and deeply anchored in religion.

Right now, women all over the United States have to be concerned with whether or not they will be able to easily access birth control and abortion, depending on who will be the next president of the US:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/centrist-women-tell-of-disenchantment-with-gop.html?pagewanted=all&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Furthermore, Romney and the rest of the typically intolerant cabal of Republican presidential candidates have made it crystal clear that they are against same-sex marriage. This panders to the religiously motivated mentality of most American conservatives and their highly prized votes. (Paul even goes as far as to say that the question needs to be left up to the public in every state to decide for themselves. This worst-case scenario, which is unenforceable and clearly anti-constitutional, would condemn same-sex marriage to never being legalized in many, if not most, states throughout the US.)

People have the right to marry and no state has the constitutional right to deny it to anyone, much less based on the bigoted and ignorant view that it is only between one man and one woman. In the case, Loving v. Virginia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia), the US Supreme Court decided, UNANIMOUSLY, in 1967 that people of different races have a constitutional right to marry one another. If the federal government had not intervened, these racist laws would still be in the books in many states. Yet, many irrelevant religious arguments were used and many churches, religious leaders, and legislators defended the racist law in the State of Virginia.

Religion needs to be dumped asap. It is constantly exploited, very effectively, to perpetuate institutionalized sexism and racism and many other forms of hatred, bigotry, and discrimination. Not only that, but religion is also used to perpetuate ignorance, such as forcing the teaching in public schools of creationism as a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution. There is NO scientific evidence supporting creationism or "intelligent design;" there is only strong, religious faith asserting it as true. Too bad we live in a country that allows itself to get pushed around by well-monied and well-organized religious movements that pollute the minds of our children with religious dogma, in tax-payer funded public schools .

God does not exist. It's pure fantasy, like children believing in Santa Claus. I was raised catholic and catholicism is another christian denomination, as are all of the protestant sects and the mormons.

Edward

Here's a video that has gotten almost 20 million views on Youtube!

What do you think? Do you "hate religion" or do you think religion is helpful? I'm particularly interested in responses from those with a Christian background...

[NathanSW]

Dear Edward,

The thing is, religion is inseparable from those who adhere to it. Religion only has the power that it has because of the people who give it that power. If we had the ability to "shrug it off," it wouldn't have the destructive power that it does. By the time a population gets to the point where it can let go of its ideology (good, bad, or indifferent) that ideology is no longer strong enough to make much of a difference. So the issue isn't religion, it is people. People who have hate in their hearts will use whatever tools are available to express that hatred; same goes for those who are desperate for power. Religion is just one such tool. So was atheistic Communism under Stalin and Mao, feudalism under the European aristocracy, slavery under the Confederate South, and capitalism under the Robber Barons. We don't need to change the ideology, we need to change ourselves, invite as many people as possible to join us, and take our power back from those who choose not to.

While I respect your religious non-belief, I also do not agree with it. I was raised atheist, and using the critical thinking skills that my parents and my college education gave me, I have personally come to the conclusion that atheism doesn't tell the whole story. But I don't go around telling atheists that they are fools for believing what they do, because what I always hated about religious folks was the arrogance and condescension with which they treated people, and to me it looks no more attractive on atheists than it does on people of faith.

With love,
Nathan

Religion does a great deal of harm to civilization. We should shrug it off like the social disease that it is.

Religion needs to be dumped asap. It is constantly exploited, very effectively, to perpetuate institutionalized sexism and racism and many other forms of hatred, bigotry, and discrimination.

God does not exist. It's pure fantasy, like children believing in Santa Claus. I was raised catholic and catholicism is another christian denomination, as are all of the protestant sects and the mormons.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

Thank you, Nathan. That was pretty sharp!

I apologize if I came off as arrogant as the religious folks do (although I have never taken rights away from anyone nor have I ever taken a person's life in any context).

I'm curious to know what your thinking has evolved to since you are no longer atheist, if this question is not too personal? What is the "whole story" for you? Do you have a christian background as Barry, the initiator of this thread, spoke of?

I really liked the accurate explanation about how it's not religion but people. And that religion only has as much power as people give it. And so on. Very astute.

Best,

Edward

Dear Edward,

The thing is, religion is inseparable from those who adhere to it. Religion only has the power that it has because of the people who give it that power. If we had the ability to "shrug it off," it wouldn't have the destructive power that it does. By the time a population gets to the point where it can let go of its ideology (good, bad, or indifferent) that ideology is no longer strong enough to make much of a difference. So the issue isn't religion, it is people. People who have hate in their hearts will use whatever tools are available to express that hatred; same goes for those who are desperate for power. Religion is just one such tool. So was atheistic Communism under Stalin and Mao, feudalism under the European aristocracy, slavery under the Confederate South, and capitalism under the Robber Barons. We don't need to change the ideology, we need to change ourselves, invite as many people as possible to join us, and take our power back from those who choose not to.

While I respect your religious non-belief, I also do not agree with it. I was raised atheist, and using the critical thinking skills that my parents and my college education gave me, I have personally come to the conclusion that atheism doesn't tell the whole story. But I don't go around telling atheists that they are fools for believing what they do, because what I always hated about religious folks was the arrogance and condescension with which they treated people, and to me it looks no more attractive on atheists than it does on people of faith.

With love,
Nathan

[Dixon]

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg

My perspective is that of one who has been a Mormon, then a Christian fundamentalist, then dabbled in New Age spirituality, and is now a rationalist/atheist.

The term "religion" includes thousands of different belief systems, each including hundreds of claims. Making generalizations about something that broad requires us to qualify our statements very carefully. Religions have motivated some of the kindest and some of the most brutal actions of history. There are some brutalities that almost certainly wouldn't exist without religion (nonconsensual circumcision--i.e., nearly all circumcision--comes to mind), while I can't think of a single type of good action that wouldn't exist without religion. For that reason, and keeping in mind some of the examples Edward gives above, I lean toward the conclusion that religion taken as a whole does more harm than good and we'd be better off without it. If I could snap my fingers and make all religion disappear from the planet, I'd do so as quickly as possible. Two caveats: 1. It's impossible to accurately quantify the good and bad caused by religion, so no one, including me, can make a very solid case for the net effect of it being either good or bad. 2. Even if, as I suspect, the net effect of religion is very bad, there may be some particular sects that have a positive net effect.

[Dixon]

BTW, here's a song I wrote a year or two ago which is germane to this thread. It's my version of gospel music, and it's based on a true story--mine! I hope y'all enjoy it:

"Gospel According to Dixon"

1. I was young and so naïve; I fell in with the wrong crowd,
led astray to a den of iniquity,
where the music was seductive and dancing wasn’t allowed.
We couldn’t resist the temptation of righteous piety.
Every mind was closed just as every head was bowed.
We groveled on bended knee
before some cracker preacher by whom we were all cowed,
saying slavery to dogma is the way we can be free.

But now I’m saved, Hallelujah! I’m saved!
Nevermore to be a Bible-thumpin’ slave!
I believe in gods no more,
Jesus, Isis, Mars nor Thor!
Now I’m saved, Hallelujah! I’m saved!

2. They said their magic book would tell me how life should be led.
It would lead me through the darkest night.
And when I left this vale of tears, I’d really not be dead.
Instead, I’d live forever in a land of endless light.
They taught me not to doubt or think or question what they said.
They called that “faith” and said that it was right.
They said that it was my fault that a perfect savior bled,
all because I was a sinner, filthy in God’s sight.
`
But now I’m saved, Hallelujah! I’m saved!
Nevermore to be a Bible-thumpin’ slave!
I made that great decision
to abandon superstition!
Now I’m saved, Hallelujah! I’m saved!

3. They told me many tales, like the one of Jericho,
where the army of God’s chosen went hog-wild,
and with the sword and with the fire, the arrow and the bow,
they slaughtered all the innocents, woman, man and child.
These righteous heroes plundered all the treasures of the foe,
a holy enterprise on which God smiled,
like he smiles on the wars we start for dominance and dough,
as we erect our crosses on the lands we have defiled.

But now I’m saved, Hallelujah! I’m saved!
Nevermore to be a Bible-thumpin’ slave!
No holy war I’ll fight,
now that I’ve seen the light!
Now I’m saved, Hallelujah! I’m saved!

4. Atheists and heathens, commies, lesbians and gays
must all repent or burn in Hell, they say.
I wonder where the love is in this loving God who slays
the innocent and those who choose to walk a different way.
Women are degraded in this patriarchal craze,
but goddess avatars come out to play.
I talk in tongues to the burning bush that sets my heart ablaze.
I still get down upon my knees, but now it’s not to pray.

‘Cause now I’m saved, Hallelujah! I’m saved!
Nevermore to be a Bible-thumpin’ slave!
I’d much rather kiss a lass
than to kiss Jehovah’s ass!
Now I’m saved, Hallelujah! I’m saved!

[Valley Oak]

I would love to hear you play your song! Publish it on Youtube; who knows!

Edward

BTW, here's a song I wrote a year or two ago which is germane to this thread. It's my version of gospel music, and it's based on a true story--mine! I hope y'all enjoy it:

"Gospel According to Dixon"

1. I was young and so naïve; I fell in with the wrong crowd,
led astray to a den of iniquity,
where the music was seductive and dancing wasn’t allowed.
We couldn’t resist the temptation of righteous piety.
Every mind was closed just as every head was bowed.
We groveled on bended knee
before some cracker preacher by whom we were all cowed,
saying slavery to dogma is the way we can be free...

[Shandi]

Warning: If you don't want to read the entire story, you may just scroll to the part identified as "the Crux".

I'm happy to share my personal story about how religion has affected my life. As a child of 6, I had a fascination with a "group" that met in my neighborhood. I really don't know what their religion was, but
I saw that the girls wore lovely light blue veils, and I wished I could have one of those. I was also fascinated with a group of gypsies that lived in a building that I passed on my way to school. They were colorful and alive, compared to my dysfunctional, alcoholic, and violent parents in our one room home. My parents weren't religious, but my father was a bigot with demeaning names for any person of a different culture. My mother was born in Louisiana, and I'm sure she had her prejudices, but she never voiced them. She was compassionate to those who had even less than we did, and gave sandwiches to the hungry "bums" who came to our door. I had the honor of bringing them out to those who were waiting, and it was an exciting thing to see the joy on their faces. This was in the Height district of San Francisco.

My mother left when my brother was about a year old, and I was 7. My new role as substitute mom was one I took seriously, as I cared for my bi-polar brother. My childhood was taken quickly and cruelly. No more thoughts of blue veils or gypsies, as adult responsibilities of care taking, cooking, cleaning, laundry took their place. My little brother exhibited a lot of rage, which I didn't understand or know how to cope with. My father worked at various jobs, and was drunk most of the time he was home. I could see that when he drank, he became crazy and enraged. Even at that age, I knew something was wrong with him, and with my brother. I wasn't physically abused until later, but that's another story.

When we arrived in L.A. he only had $2, so he immediately went to the social services offices, and was given some cash so we could eat. After we got settled in a make shift garage apt, he decided that he wanted me to go to a Catholic school, so I could get a better education. Somehow he got me in, and got my brother in a Catholic nursery school close by. My brother was so violent that I was called out of school numerous times because the nuns couldn't control him.

So, now to the part about my involvement with religion. I don't think that anyone who goes to Catholic elementary school escapes the programming and indoctrination. I was no exception. My best friend's parents saw to it that I was baptized, along with my First Communion, and later on Confirmation. It all seemed like a nice thing to me, with the exception of my bouts with low blood sugar when fasting for communion, and the feelings of nausea from the heavy incense. I have to admit that the very best thing about religion for me, at that time, was that it kept me "chaste". Yes, I was a virgin when I got married at 19, at a church wedding. I was so thankful that I hadn't become an unmarried mother, as so many of my friends had, even the Catholic ones.
I was truly "saved".

I was excited at the prospect of having "legal" sex with my childhood friend and fiance. I actually tried to get him to have sex on the night before our wedding! He was very adamant, and although I had moved into his mom's house, for the period he was going to be on overseas duty with the Navy, he said "No way, we've waited this long, and we're not going to spoil it." He slept in another room to get away from me.

Previously, in confession, I had admitted to "kissing passionately" and to "becoming aroused" which I knew were sinful. The priest advised me to stop seeing him, and I said "he's my best friend and I won't stop seeing him" . So, even then the signs of rebellion were present.

I became pregnant during the first month of our marriage, but didn't know until after he was gone. It was almost a guarantee, since I wore him out with the "joy of sex" every night. We never spoke about how my letter informing him of the pregnancy was taken. Nine months later, after serving 4 years, he was honorably discharged, and came home to a woman with a huge belly, that he hardly recognized. Our first baby boy was born only a couple of weeks later. That part was quick and easy, and although I'd taken care of my brother, it was an extremely emotional and physical challenge. I felt crazy at times, and suicidal, possible what many new mothers experience. I had no help. He was working in a tire store for $50 a week.

I decided I didn't want another baby, especially right away, so I did the only "legal" thing I could, by using the Rhythm Method which utilizes a thermometer, to take the mother's temperature in the morning. These readings were based on a woman having a full night's sleep, which was impossible with a newborn. After 2 months, the dreaded color indicated that I was pregnant again! Even though I didn't want another baby, I wouldn't consider abortion or adoption. So, I braced myself for the next 9 months, having just been through it. The second birth was also very easy, and for that I'm thankful. Having 3 hours of labor was a real blessing, as I listened to the screams of women who had been laboring for 12 and 14 hours, then succumbing to C sections. I decided that I would get on the "Pill" as soon as I could, which I did.

The good part is just ahead, and the real crux of my true "religious" awakening. My baby boys were 1 and 2 years old, when I had a serious solo car accident, in which I shattered several bones in one arm, and had complex fractures in a leg. I was hospitalized for a month, during which time my children were not allowed in the hospital, and were taken care of by various people. This separation was a traumatic time for them and for me.

Although I was in a Kaiser hospital, since I was a Catholic, I was visited by a priest. He was an older man, who looked to be in his 60'. He asked if I wanted to receive communion, and I answered "No father, I'm on the Pill, and living in sin." He made the sign of the cross over me, and said "Bless you my child" and left without another word.

The next day, another priest came in, this was a younger man, maybe 30 or 40, asking if I wanted communion. I asked " didn't the other priest tell you that I'm living in sin?" He sat down on my bed, and began to speak of the changes going on in the Church, but the only thing I remember is that he said "You must use your own conscience." and then he left.

Something powerful happened to me in those moments after he left. It was as if someone had released me from chains! I felt it in my body and in my mind, as I repeated the words "Use my own conscience......" Yes, that was the key that released me from the need to have anyone tell me how to live. I didn't need the Church or any other religion to dictate what I should and shouldn't do! I'm so very thankful for that experience at such a young age, and for the insight that quickened in myself, as a result.

My children weren't raised with religion, but when they were curious, they were allowed to investigate their friend's religions. The main thing I stressed was "love" of self and others. We had very few rules, and no kerfew as they grew into young adults. They were responsible for getting themselves up for school, with the aid of a radio alarm. I didn't take responsibility for making sure they were on time, (I used timers for everything, so I didn't have to nag). We lived only a few houses from the elementary school, which was a blessing. Fortunately they were both healthy and hardly ever missed because of illness. I did allow them a day now and then to take a "well" day off.

They now have their own children, who are being raised without religion, but with lots of love and freedom. I guess you could say that's my religion.....Love and Freedom, or Loving Freedom.

If you read through all of this, I appreciate your patience in getting to the crux of the story. I hope that other people will share their experiences with how religion has helped or hindered their lives.

Here's a video that has gotten almost 20 million views on Youtube!

What do you think? Do you "hate religion" or do you think religion is helpful? I'm particularly interested in responses from those with a Christian background.

[NathanSW]

Hello Edward (et al),

My evolution from atheism to what would best be described as "panentheism" started with the realization that as an atheist child of atheist parents, my common argument of "You're only Christian because your parents indoctrinated you to be so" could just as easily be applied to me and my atheism, so I decided to investigate my beliefs more deeply, with an eye toward finding my own reasons to be an atheist. To do that, I looked at the one major flaw that I perceived in atheism -- that, in the absence of a Creator, somehow a universe managed to pop into existence. How could we be here absent anything that could be labeled "God"?

So I thought about what should be here, absent a Creator-God, and what should be here is nothing. Absolutely nothing. But this is more (er, less!) than just a complete vacuum; the pre-universe, non-god nothing would also be subject to no laws of physics, because those would be a "something" in some way, as would be all the seemingly arbitrary (yet somehow life-fostering) constants in the universe (like how much voltage it takes for electricity to arc through a vacuum). Take all that away, and you have a nothing that is so profound, it would seem that anything goes -- after all, there are no natural laws to get in the way, so why not spew out a universe, or infinite universes?

This all fit well with what I read in Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," and that became the basis of my non-theistic cosmology. What should be here is nothing, and indeed that is what was here, and over the span of infinite time, eventually a universe that could support life would eventually pop out. And so here we are.

I was very content with this explanation, and I thought that was that. But then a college roommate exposed me to some Eastern spiritual/religious concepts, and eventually I read his book about a Taoist monk. I was struck by how *scientific* Taoists are, in that their practices include observing nature and using those observations to alleviate human suffering. They weren't as rigorous as the scientific method, but they also put more of an emphasis on living harmoniously with nature, rather than forcing nature to adjust to us (a serious flaw in the way science is applied in Western culture). They also tested their theories in the world of martial arts, where an accurate understanding of the subtleties of how the body works is a matter of life and death -- a very Darwinian situation, where literally only good ideas tend to survive. Most importantly, I could tell that they got what I could only describe as "spiritual nourishment" from their beliefs, whereas I recognized that I got no such nourishment from my beliefs -- only the ability to look down upon those stupid enough to believe in anything but science (which was my first clue that I may have been using my atheism in the same unsavory way that others often use their religion).

But what really got my attention was a passage in which the monk's teacher explained that the only thing that could possibly explain the existence of our universe was *nothingness*! I was flabbergasted! According to these religious folks, it wasn't a nonsensical deity that supposedly created everything, but nothingness itself. This was exactly what I believed, but again, they got spiritual nourishment from their approach, and I got none. As it turned out, I didn't have to abandon my beliefs or my critical thinking and skepticism to be spiritual -- quite the contrary. I could walk through that door with only a minor expansion of my overall paradigm, and once I did so, it became easier to see and appreciate the positive, core message that all religions promote -- when they are operating at their best (which admittedly isn't nearly enough of the time).

Since then, I have spent many hours in meditation and other spiritual practices, and here are a few of my (still evolving) conclusions:

* The manifested universe is just the flip-side of emptiness. The two are inseparable.
* If nothingness could create a whole universe, it isn't so unlikely that it could also create awareness and intention, and some form of over-arching intelligence. My experience is that awareness and intention are aspects of emptiness, not the human brain -- although the brain certainly affects how awareness and intention manifest through the human form.
* The universe is a place where aware, formless Mystery can express and explore Its nature, most commonly by playing the game of separateness and individual ego.
* Emotional suffering arises from the misperception of being separate from the Whole; in breaking down this sense of separation in myself, my experience of life has changed dramatically and I am much happier as a result.

And yadda yadda yadda. That's it in a nutshell, though I could go on and on if given the chance. I hope all this makes sense on some level; thanks for reading.

Thank you, Nathan. That was pretty sharp!

I apologize if I came off as arrogant as the religious folks do (although I have never taken rights away from anyone nor have I ever taken a person's life in any context).

I'm curious to know what your thinking has evolved to since you are no longer atheist, if this question is not too personal? What is the "whole story" for you? Do you have a christian background as Barry, the initiator of this thread, spoke of?

I really liked the accurate explanation about how it's not religion but people. And that religion only has as much power as people give it. And so on. Very astute.

Best,

Edward

[Dixon]

I would love to hear you play your song! Publish it on Youtube; who knows!

Thanks for the kind words, Edward. Unfortunately, I don't play an instrument, so as far as playing any of my songs goes, there'd have to be an instrumentalist involved. (My voice isn't so great that anyone would be thrilled to hear me sing my songs a capella.) And I don't have the gall to ask any instrumentalists to back me up.

[Dixon]

Thanks for your interesting account, Nathan. FWIW, I substantially agree with you, except for the part where you attribute awareness and intention to nothingness, which I think is nonsensical. The consciousness of the One, of the universe as a whole, including all awareness and intention, is manifest through the organ of consciousness, the brain in all its forms. One of these days I'll explicate my position on that and related issues more completely in one of my monthly columns for Wacco, but meanwhile, I have to get busy writing the one that's already late!

[Dixon]

I just got around to watching the video Barry started this thread with, and I'm pissed off. Why? Because I hate being lied to, and this guy's claim to hate religion is a flat-out lie. His rhapsodizing about how great Jesus, God and the Bible are constitutes a bunch of unarguably religious claims, by any honest definition of the word "religion". He doesn't hate religion; he just hates religious beliefs that differ from his. This isn't the first time I've encountered dishonest proselytizers misrepresenting themselves as anti-religious to sucker people into listening to them, then spouting religious claims. It's a truth in advertising issue. In fact, it's fraudulent. Whatever happened to "Thou shalt not lie"? Don't fuckin' lie to me, Bible-thumper!!!!! :cussing:

[NathanSW]

Yep, I know that what I'm talking about is a hard one to swallow -- for the theist, their God is seen as a really big "something," not a "nothing;" and for the atheist, ascribing awareness and intention to anything non-biological would seem nonsensical. But what can I say? Once your identity with the body drops away, the experience of awareness is no longer so steadfastly local. This is my personal experience, and I don't expect you to accept the notion on my say-so, but having lived through what I've experienced, aware Emptiness seems downright ordinary.

Cheers,
Nathan

Thanks for your interesting account, Nathan. FWIW, I substantially agree with you, except for the part where you attribute awareness and intention to nothingness, which I think is nonsensical. The consciousness of the One, of the universe as a whole, including all awareness and intention, is manifest through the organ of consciousness, the brain in all its forms. One of these days I'll explicate my position on that and related issues more completely in one of my monthly columns for Wacco, but meanwhile, I have to get busy writing the one that's already late!

[Dixon]

Once your identity with the body drops away, the experience of awareness is no longer so steadfastly local.

Yes, I know how it feels to have the ego boundaries melt and to identify with the Whole Thing. Nevertheless, note that this experience is occurring within a physical body, specifically within your brain, and is in fact shaped by your brain's structure and chemistry in the moment.

This is my personal experience, and I don't expect you to accept the notion on my say-so, but having lived through what I've experienced...

Let's not confuse our interpretations of our experience with the experience itself.

[NathanSW]

I never said that I identified with the Whole Thing. That's just trading one identity for another. I'm talking about the permanent loss of identity. Period.

I agree that we should not confuse our interpretation of our experiences with the experience itself. But what you are describing sounds pretty interpretive to me. It's just an interpretation that is more compelling to you, and I understand and respect that. But I never thought it was a good idea to give over one's perception of truth to the priest-class, and I feel the same way about the science-class. I believe we should each investigate for ourselves, and that is what I have done, including extensive research into what science has to say about the way the brain operates. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, but so far awareness-from-Emptiness is still the most compelling to me. As I respect you and the conclusions you've come to, I hope you will respect me and the conclusions I have come to.

Yes, I know how it feels to have the ego boundaries melt and to identify with the Whole Thing. Nevertheless, note that this experience is occurring within a physical body, specifically within your brain, and is in fact shaped by your brain's structure and chemistry in the moment.


Let's not confuse our interpretations of our experience with the experience itself.

[Dixon]

I never said that I identified with the Whole Thing. That's just trading one identity for another. I'm talking about the permanent loss of identity. Period.

We may have some semantic confusion here. If by "identity" you mean what the word is commonly understood to mean, I don't think it's possible to be permanently without one and still function. And if you have no "identity", who is NathanSW and what does it mean that you associate yourself with that identity? In fact, when I or anyone addresses some comment or question to you and you answer, you're showing that you identify with this NathanSW and not so much, for example, with someone who isn't in the discussion. That sure looks like an identity to me.

I agree that we should not confuse our interpretation of our experiences with the experience itself. But what you are describing sounds pretty interpretive to me.

Note that I didn't say there's anything wrong with interpreting things. We couldn't function without interpreting our experience. My point is that interpretations can be accurate or inaccurate. If we tell ourselves that our conclusions come directly from our experience without interpretation involved, we miss the opportunity to question our interpretation and see if maybe we're mistaken.

It's just an interpretation that is more compelling to you, and I understand and respect that.

For me it's not about what's more compelling to me or you; it's about what's likely to be true. I engage in discussion with people I disagree with to see if they might be able to show me I'm mistaken by making a good argument against my position/for their position. Thus I hope to be corrected in those cases wherein I'm wrong.

But I never thought it was a good idea to give over one's perception of truth to the priest-class, and I feel the same way about the science-class.

I hope you don't think I'm suggesting that you give over your responsibility/right to reach your own conclusions to some authority figure (though having said that, I'll add that the science-class is waaaaay more likely than the priest class to reach true conclusions, because science is systematically self-correcting, and that's not nearly as true for any spiritual tradition).

I believe we should each investigate for ourselves, and that is what I have done, including extensive research into what science has to say about the way the brain operates. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, but so far awareness-from-Emptiness is still the most compelling to me. As I respect you and the conclusions you've come to, I hope you will respect me and the conclusions I have come to.

Nathan, I respect you and your right to your beliefs, but I do not respect your particular conclusion about nothingness having awareness and intention (nor, if I understand it correctly, your claim about being without identity) because these appear to be false claims. If you make a compelling argument for any of these claims, I'll respect them then. The closest I can come, so far, to agreeing with you is to acknowledge that nothingness and somethingness are two poles of a Yin/Yang polarity, thus are mutually co-creating, and that somethingness is sometimes manifest as awareness and intention. But that's not the same thing as attributing awareness and intention to nothingness.

[NathanSW]

We may have some semantic confusion here. If by "identity" you mean what the word is commonly understood to mean, I don't think it's possible to be permanently without one and still function. And if you have no "identity", who is NathanSW and what does it mean that you associate yourself with that identity? In fact, when I or anyone addresses some comment or question to you and you answer, you're showing that you identify with this NathanSW and not so much, for example, with someone who isn't in the discussion. That sure looks like an identity to me.

Experiencing "Nathan," and believing that fundamentally I AM Nathan are two very different things. As a convenience, I am perfectly capable of responding when people call my name. For example, if I'm an actor in an improv play, you might address me as "John," and I would respond without missing a beat, to keep the play going. That doesn't mean that I believe I am "John." Or let's say you see a beautiful statue in my house, and assume that it is mine. If I know it doesn't belong to me, but I don't feel like getting into a long discussion about how I'm holding it for my ex (long story!), I may just nod and smile, and let you talk about it as if it were mine -- as a convenience.

But this is the point that I am making -- as someone who buys into the idea of the separate self, all of your fundamental assumptions are different from mine. The same is true of pretty much every scientist, and that assumption colors the conclusions that they will draw from their research in a way that is obvious to me, but would largely go unnoticed by those who also assume that the separate self is real.

For me it's not about what's more compelling to me or you; it's about what's likely to be true. I engage in discussion with people I disagree with to see if they might be able to show me I'm mistaken by making a good argument against my position/for their position. Thus I hope to be corrected in those cases wherein I'm wrong.

This is what I mean by "compelling" -- that a premise or conclusion seems likely to be true to you. An argument that is compelling for you might not be so compelling for me, based on our differing personalities and life experiences.

I hope you don't think I'm suggesting that you give over your responsibility/right to reach your own conclusions to some authority figure (though having said that, I'll add that the science-class is waaaaay more likely than the priest class to reach true conclusions, because science is systematically self-correcting, and that's not nearly as true for any spiritual tradition).

I agree in many ways, but not in others. As I mentioned earlier, scientists operate with certain fundamental assumptions that I have to correct for when I read research studies. As for spiritual traditions, the ones I have followed have urged me not to believe anything they say, but to investigate the truth for myself. So that's what I did -- I inquired into my true nature, not for just a minute, a day, or a year, but relentlessly, and I continue to do so today. Somewhere along the way, my sense of personal identity fell away, and without a "me" to identify with and try to protect, life got a lot easier and less painful. You don't miss it nearly as much as you might think. That is my report to you; you may believe or not as your truth-o-meter sees fit.

Nathan, I respect you and your right to your beliefs, but I do not respect your particular conclusion about nothingness having awareness and intention (nor, if I understand it correctly, your claim about being without identity) because these appear to be false claims. If you make a compelling argument for any of these claims, I'll respect them then. The closest I can come, so far, to agreeing with you is to acknowledge that nothingness and somethingness are two poles of a Yin/Yang polarity, thus are mutually co-creating, and that somethingness is sometimes manifest as awareness and intention. But that's not the same thing as attributing awareness and intention to nothingness.

Well, I've done my best, but I know there is no argument I can make or evidence I can give you that will actually convince you, because your experience of the separate self is entirely self-consistent and reflected back to you by the vast majority of human culture. What I am talking about is a paradigm shift that typically only comes after years of personal investigation into the nature of the self, an investigation that would get really boring if you don't have a burning drive to see it through to the end. This is why I respect your position -- I understand it, and I can see why it makes sense to you. My experience, however, has shifted, and all I can do is report what I have seen. Barring having seen it yourself, I honestly don't expect you to believe me.

With love,
Nathan

[Ice Queen]

I was raised a Catholic - loved the Art, Music - swallowed it whole to the point of being a nun for 6 years. After leaving that part of my life @ 30 I went to confession for having SEX outside of marriage. Leaving the confessional I realized that there really was no SIN in the act of SEX and dropped out.The values instilled in me, compassion for others, following rules to take care of the everyday stuff so I can go on with the work of life are valuable but can be instilled outside of religion. I still miss the close sisterhood I enjoyed with the other Sisters (60 of em) who joined at the same time Idid in 1961 but have not been in touch with any of them since.

Some of the things that touch our souls leave us changed forever. We don't need organized religion for that. Community, a full moon or other natural experience can move us as deeply, can instill values in us. I am moved by Native American traditions at a Pow Wow. Our religion is in the personal values we live by and is not to be used to beat other people over the head with. (or to bomb them with)

[Sara S]

A new book, "Religion for Atheists," by Alain de Botton, was reviewed in the Books section of last Sunday's Chronicle; it's certainly relevant to this thread, and sounds excellent. Here's a quote from the review:

"Those who read this book blithely accepting either the mysteries of religion or the supposed rationality of secularism are going to find the rug constantly pulled from under them. In the end, this makes (it) a wonderfully dangerous and subversive book."

[Dixon]

Nathan, I understand more than you may think I do your conception of the self-identity issue, especially now that you've clarified your ideas. And I'm in tune with it to a degree. Where we differ is that I see your apparent belief that the separate self is illusory or unreal as mistaken. I would argue that the polarity defined by, on one end, our separate selves and, on the other end, whatever you wish to call the opposite of the separate self ("nothingness", "pure awareness", "oneness", or whatever term you prefer) is a Yin/Yang polarity like up/down, right/left, good/evil, etc. So saying that one end--let's call it nothingness--is real while the other end ("the separate self") is illusory makes no more sense than saying left is real and right is illusory, up is real and down is illusory, etc. I see this as imbalanced and inaccurate. I'd be happy to consider evidence that I'm mistaken about this, but so far your rap has been short on evidence.

This is what I mean by "compelling" -- that a premise or conclusion seems likely to be true to you. An argument that is compelling for you might not be so compelling for me, based on our differing personalities and life experiences.

But my interest is not in what's subjectively "compelling" for any particular person, even myself; I'm interested in what's likely to be true. When I invoke the concept of compelling evidence, I'm not talking about evidence which is subjectively compelling to you or me--perhaps because we're swayed by wishful thinking, mistaken interpretations of our experience, or just plain logical fallacy. Obviously anyone who has strong emotional, social, financial or other reasons to believe something will find it subjectively "compelling". But I'm talking about evidence which is objectively compelling in the sense that it meets reasonable logical criteria which can help us discern true from false conclusions. That's one reason I try to engage with articulate people who disagree with me, so we can point out each other's logical fallacies and get past our distortions and biases to conclusions which are more likely to be true.

Well, I've done my best, but I know there is no argument I can make or evidence I can give you that will actually convince you...

On the contrary, if you presented some evidence that made sense rather than just referring to conclusions you've reached based on experiences which you've thus far been unwilling or unable to articulate, I'm convinceable. My unwillingness to accept conclusions you haven't made a case for doesn't represent any lack on my part; it represents my recognition that your argument has thus far lacked support.

What I am talking about is a paradigm shift that typically only comes after years of personal investigation into the nature of the self, an investigation that would get really boring if you don't have a burning drive to see it through to the end.

This kinda sounds like you think I haven't engaged in "years of personal investigation into the nature of the self" too. News flash: lots of us have. I get the impression that you think that anyone who properly engages in such investigation will reach the same conclusions you have.

My experience, however, has shifted, and all I can do is report what I have seen.

But Nathan, you haven't reported what you've seen; you've only reported a couple of conclusions you reached (that the individual self is illusory or unreal, and that nothingness has awareness and intention). I have no way of knowing whether the experience which led you to these conclusions was, for instance, an internal voice telling you these things, or a subjective feeling of certainty so strong as to seem self-validating, or a line of proper reasoning from whatever premise, or a line of fallacious reasoning leading to a false conclusion, or... No reasonable person would believe your conclusions (or mine) on the basis of your simply saying "I know this from my experience". If you were to describe the experience(s) that you think imply those conclusions, and maybe explicate the line of reasoning that took you from the experience to the conclusion, we other folks would have something to work with, and then could say "Oh yes, I see you're right. Thanks for showing me that!" or conversely "No, your conclusions don't follow from the experience you describe; here's where your logic went wrong." That can be a growthful process.

Blessings on ya;

Dixon

[NathanSW]

But my interest is not in what's subjectively "compelling" for any particular person, even myself; I'm interested in what's likely to be true. When I invoke the concept of compelling evidence, I'm not talking about evidence which is subjectively compelling to you or me--perhaps because we're swayed by wishful thinking, mistaken interpretations of our experience, or just plain logical fallacy. Obviously anyone who has strong emotional, social, financial or other reasons to believe something will find it subjectively "compelling". But I'm talking about evidence which is objectively compelling in the sense that it meets reasonable logical criteria which can help us discern true from false conclusions. That's one reason I try to engage with articulate people who disagree with me, so we can point out each other's logical fallacies and get past our distortions and biases to conclusions which are more likely to be true.

While I am all about engaging with those with diverse viewpoints, and there are pitfalls in thinking that we can all fall into, my personal belief is that it is impossible to come to an objectively true conclusion about anything, as long as there is a subject (i.e. you, me, anyone) making the judgment. You cannot get out of your own perspective, no matter how hard you try. We are all making evaluations based on incomplete knowledge and unconscious assumptions, so the notion that we could know what the truth with any objective certainty is quite impossible. There's just no way to know what you're missing, or what you haven't even thought to inquire about. The assumption that we are all separate is one such assumption that most people make without even knowing it, and for most of my life I have done the same. Now the picture is quite different. In any case, I believe you can only do the best that you can, and then live with the inherent ambiguity.

Nathan, I understand more than you may think I do your conception of the self-identity issue, especially now that you've clarified your ideas. And I'm in tune with it to a degree. Where we differ is that I see your apparent belief that the separate self is illusory or unreal as mistaken. I would argue that the polarity defined by, on one end, our separate selves and, on the other end, whatever you wish to call the opposite of the separate self

Okay, I can appreciate your willingness to continue engaging the conversation. I agree that everything in the manifest universe is composed of polarities, which is why Taoism was so interesting to me. But even within Taoism, there is a recognition that the manifest universe comes from the unmanifest, and the unmanifest is not ruled by polarity. Formlessness (another word for nothingness or the unmanifest) could have no opposite, because opposites require form; a line has to be drawn that indicates, "Here this, there that." As soon as you have drawn that line, you are talking about form, and are no longer talking about the formless. So there is an inherent lack of polarity in formlessness. Eastern teachings often point to the fallacy of "dualistic thinking," where the first fallacious thought is "self vs. other."

In my early investigation into the nature of self, I spent a lot of time feeling into my sense of "I" -- my individual self-ness. I could feel it centered in my heart, and it permeated my entire field of consciousness. My practice was to feel that sense of "I" and to surrender as deeply as I could. It was a very frustrating process! However, one day I looked for that sense of "I," and it was gone. Not replaced with something else, just nothing there. With that sense of self gone, awareness became more present, more crisp; colors appeared to be in technicolor, as if someone had turned up the color knob on a television set. The more I felt into the emptiness where "I" used to live, the more awareness came into focus.

Once the self had been seen through, it became clear that I had a whole constellation of assumptions that were no longer coherent, given that their basic underpinning of separate identity no longer held sway for me. When I observe other people, I can see the personal self that they are trying to project, but behind that facade there is no one there. This isn't a mental concept I've developed, it is a direct experience. I know that they would never believe me, so I usually keep my mouth shut, but it's what I see. In another sense, I see myself in everyone and everything -- but not my personal "self." I see a singular presence that animates all forms -- mine and everyone else's -- and it's freaking hilarious! It's like watching a small child play a game of sock puppets, pretending with great gusto to be each character, each supposedly unaware of the other's thoughts or intentions and getting into all kinds of fights and conflicts, but all animated by the same playful intelligence.

Of course, all of this could be an experience that comes through the neurons that are still firing off in my head, and I accept that this is still a possibility. I claim no actual knowledge, just the best understanding I can come up with based on my experience of life. So this next piece is where I am even more hesitant to go into detail, because as a former atheist, I know how it sounds. But in a nutshell, being less bound to my own form by identity, it has become much easier to connect to the non-local awareness that is within all of creation. I can feel what another person feels, or what a plant feels, even what inanimate objects "feel." No longer being identified with this body, I no longer subconsciously limit my awareness to this body, and so awareness is just awareness, not mine or anyone else's. And then if you think about it, you realize that awareness has no form. Objects do, and even consciousness has different "flavors," but awareness is just the capacity to observe; everything else, including sleeping states, are just things for awareness to observe. If you are identified with the body, then when it shuts down sensory perception and mental activity, you will go along with the experience and believe that "you" have no more awareness. But one quirky thing that I have observed is that unconsciousness is just a state, and I often experience "conscious unconsciousness," or awareness of my state of unconsciousness. All of this, in addition to the philosophical notions that I have explored, lead me to believe that awareness is not a function of neurons, but instead that whatever experience the neurons are creating is what awareness is aware of.

This kinda sounds like you think I haven't engaged in "years of personal investigation into the nature of the self" too. News flash: lots of us have. I get the impression that you think that anyone who properly engages in such investigation will reach the same conclusions you have.

I don't think you'll come to the same conclusions, because I recognize that my conclusions are mental interpretations of experience. But having spoken with quite a number of people who have had an experience similar to mine, there are remarkably consistent themes regarding the lack of personal identity, even though the flavor, circumstances, and mental conclusions might vary widely.


Okay, off to bed with me. I actually really do appreciate the conversation and the challenges you are posing to me. As I mentioned before, I am a bit reticent to go into a lot of details because I really don't expect anyone to believe me -- I wouldn't have believed myself not all that long ago. But it's good to just put it out there, let the chips fall as they may, and see what I can learn in the process, so we'll see what comes of all this. So again, thank you.

Kind Regards,
Nathan

[Sara S]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Nathan, I understand more than you may think I do your conception of the self-identity issue, especially now that you've clarified your ideas. And I'm in tune with it to a degree. Where we differ is that I see your apparent belief that the separate self is illusory or unreal as mistaken. I would argue that the polarity defined by, on one end, our separate selves and, on the other end, whatever you wish to call the opposite of the separate self ("nothingness", "pure awareness", "oneness", or whatever term you prefer) is a Yin/Yang polarity like up/down, right/left, good/evil, etc. So saying that one end--let's call it nothingness--is real while the other end ("the separate self") is illusory makes no more sense than saying left is real and right is illusory, up is real and down is illusory, etc. I see this as imbalanced and inaccurate. I'd be happy to consider evidence that I'm mistaken about this, but so far your rap has been short on evidence.


But my interest is not in what's subjectively "compelling" for any particular person, even myself; I'm interested in what's likely to be true. When I invoke the concept of compelling evidence, I'm not talking about evidence which is subjectively compelling to you or me--perhaps because we're swayed by wishful thinking, mistaken interpretations of our experience, or just plain logical fallacy. Obviously anyone who has strong emotional, social, financial or other reasons to believe something will find it subjectively "compelling". But I'm talking about evidence which is objectively compelling in the sense that it meets reasonable logical criteria which can help us discern true from false conclusions. That's one reason I try to engage with articulate people who disagree with me, so we can point out each other's logical fallacies and get past our distortions and biases to conclusions which are more likely to be true.


On the contrary, if you presented some evidence that made sense rather than just referring to conclusions you've reached based on experiences which you've thus far been unwilling or unable to articulate, I'm convinceable. My unwillingness to accept conclusions you haven't made a case for doesn't represent any lack on my part; it represents my recognition that your argument has thus far lacked support.


This kinda sounds like you think I haven't engaged in "years of personal investigation into the nature of the self" too. News flash: lots of us have. I get the impression that you think that anyone who properly engages in such investigation will reach the same conclusions you have.


But Nathan, you haven't reported what you've seen; you've only reported a couple of conclusions you reached (that the individual self is illusory or unreal, and that nothingness has awareness and intention). I have no way of knowing whether the experience which led you to these conclusions was, for instance, an internal voice telling you these things, or a subjective feeling of certainty so strong as to seem self-validating, or a line of proper reasoning from whatever premise, or a line of fallacious reasoning leading to a false conclusion, or... No reasonable person would believe your conclusions (or mine) on the basis of your simply saying "I know this from my experience". If you were to describe the experience(s) that you think imply those conclusions, and maybe explicate the line of reasoning that took you from the experience to the conclusion, we other folks would have something to work with, and then could say "Oh yes, I see you're right. Thanks for showing me that!" or conversely "No, your conclusions don't follow from the experience you describe; here's where your logic went wrong." That can be a growthful process.

Blessings on ya;

Dixon

[Dixon]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Of course. In fact, there are way more things in "heaven" and earth than are, or could possibly be, dreamt of in any possible philosophy. But what's the relevance of stating that obvious fact in this context, Sara? Surely you don't think it tells us anything about whether this or that particular claim is true.

[wildflower]

Dear Dixon...
If I understand what Nathan is writing about .. there is no way to "prove" it nor evidence to support it as you require. It must be experienced directly and then and only then can you maybe understand it. It cannot be actually "grasped" by the mind....which is kind of the whole point of it.
It's an idea put forth by non-dual practitioners/teachers like Ramana Maharshi, HWL Poonja, Nisargadatta, Adyashanti & Gangaji and others. Their writings are widely available on the internet and elsewhere and they articulate it so much better than I.
I think (without reading EVERY word of this) I may be understanding this argument a little.
Best
Karin

[wildflower]

Just Sit There

Just sit there right now.
Don't do a thing.
Just rest.

For your separation from God
Is the hardest work in this world.

Let me bring you trays of food
And something
That you would like to drink.

You can use my soft words
As a cushion
For your
Head.

(~Hafiz)

[NathanSW]

Thank you Karin, you have hit the nail on the head. I do like to engage in intellectual discourse (perhaps to my detriment), but what I am pointing to really is beyond the mind, so thank you for refocusing my approach here.

It is a matter of direct experience. You could never describe or argue for the existence of a particular flower's smell; either you have smelled it or you haven't. Someone who had never smelled a flower (for whatever reason) may have plenty of very good reasons -- based on personal experience -- to doubt that such a thing is possible, but that has absolutely no bearing on another person's experience of flower smells. One's experience cannot be refuted by logic.

So you can say that it is impossible to live without an identity with the separate self, and you may be able to back up such an assertion with a lot of very reasonable logic, but it doesn't matter. My experience trumps your theories about my experience. As an outside observer, you have insufficient data from which to extract a conclusion. This is why the message is to look for yourself. If you have investigated and still find the separate self to be real, you haven't taken it far enough. It's not a matter of the number of hours you put into it, it's a matter of the results you get. If I had stopped after the first year, or the second, or the 10th, I would never have the experience I am describing to you now. Some people get there in a few hours, others never get it in this lifetime. But once the veil drops away, it is clear -- not by theory but by direct perception -- that almost everyone is engaged in an illusion, one that is very compelling, but it is an illusion nonetheless. Either you feel that there is some truth to this or you don't, and there is little I can do about that except report my experience and let my words land where they may.

With love,
Nathan

Dear Dixon...
If I understand what Nathan is writing about .. there is no way to "prove" it nor evidence to support it as you require. It must be experienced directly and then and only then can you maybe understand it. It cannot be actually "grasped" by the mind....which is kind of the whole point of it.
It's an idea put forth by non-dual practitioners/teachers like Ramana Maharshi, HWL Poonja, Nisargadatta, Adyashanti & Gangaji and others. Their writings are widely available on the internet and elsewhere and they articulate it so much better than I.
I think (without reading EVERY word of this) I may be understanding this argument a little.
Best
Karin

[Sara S]

Now, Dixon, you're a lot smarter than I am; surely you can't think that there's nothing left to learn.

Of course. In fact, there are way more things in "heaven" and earth than are, or could possibly be, dreamt of in any possible philosophy. But what's the relevance of stating that obvious fact in this context, Sara? Surely you don't think it tells us anything about whether this or that particular claim is true.

[Dixon]

Now, Dixon, you're a lot smarter than I am...

Thank you.

...surely you can't think that there's nothing left to learn.

Sara, where in the hell is that coming from? If you think anything I've ever, ever said implies that, you're really confused! In fact, my engaging people in discussions like this (even though they can become uncomfortable) represents my attempt to learn something. Specifically in this case, I'm trying to learn whether the propositions put forth by Nathan are true or false.

Often I find that people are very uncomfortable with the challenging of claims that is part of dialogical reasoning. Sometimes their defense against that discomfort involves nasty defense mechanisms like ad hominem attacks on whoever is challenging the beliefs, or straw figure attacks in which they distort someone's message into something less reasonable than it really is. I urge you to do some introspection and see if your apparent desire to infer really stupid positions that I didn't really take might be such a defense mechanism.

Your friend;
Dixon

[Valley Oak]

Dear Dixon,

I owe you about 20 or so "Gratitudes" for your posts to this thread. Please consider this message a blank check for past and future grats.

Sincerely,

Edward

Thank you.


Sara, where in the...

[CSummer]

"Religion is the opiate of the masses." - Karl Marx

Some of my learnings and discoveries around religion (and thank you, Barry, for the invitation!):

When I was growing up (to some extent), my family attended a fundamentalist church - one of the many fear-based religions. When I reached mid-adolescence, I began to question this and started casually exploring other religions. At the age of 18 I found and read a book called "Brainwashing." What the author described had a familiar ring, and I recognized it as the "conversion" experience I had gone through once or twice as a child. These involved scary stories about sin and hell used to elicit fear and guilt - followed by the "good news" that I could be "saved" by "giving my heart" to Jesus/God.

Later, when I was 19 or 20, I met a fellow who was deeply into theosophy and occult philosophies and who told stories about journeys outside his body. I learned about reincarnation and the seven planes of existence, and it seemed to make much more sense to me than the religion I grew up with. A few years later I was living in the house I grew up in on church-owned property. One day an older woman came by and asked my why I didn't attend the small church. I told her I no longer believed in that, and she asked, "But aren't you afraid?"

This helped me to see that fear was the basis of this religion. It took me a long time to overcome the belief system I'd bought into and not feel the grip of fear when I thought about what would happen to me after I died. Eventually I realized that the problem was believing any of it, so at least intellectually it seemed I could simply choose not to believe and so live without fear of an "afterlife" of endless suffering. Now, religious upbringing of this kind seems like an abusive way to treat a child.

As I developed my own version of psychology or theory of consciousness, I came to see that religions of the sort I grew up with actually augment what the mind does naturally. It's what I call the "secondary survival function" of the mind. The primary function is to enable us to get our needs met; the secondary function is to anesthetize or insulate us from those experiences in which the mind failed to successfully perform it's primary function (i.e., when we were not able to get some need met).

One of the ways the mind performs this secondary function is by making up stories to "explain" why we couldn't get the need met. These stories seem designed to give us some illusion of control and understanding as a mask over our true feelings of powerlessness and confusion. They often have the theme: I'm not okay (i.e., I'm "bad"), but I can be okay if I'm "good," which usually means if I disown my true feelings and needs. So I'll try to be good - to not cause problems by expressing these not-okay truths I carry within me. The mind works very hard to distance our awareness from these unresolved experiences, using every form of distraction or attention diffuser.

Fear-based religion offers the mind help in performing this function by providing yet another story to overlay what the mind has already generated. The religion plays on that sense of "bad-ness" (being not okay), telling us - yes, you're not okay and you'll suffer horribly if you don't repent (admit what a bad person you are) and believe in our version of salvation. The church of course glorifies the "spiritual life" and may use various trappings to give itself the air of authority and divinity. And to some extent it "works;" one can - for a while at least - have a sense of being inwardly "clean" and holy. Many of us have witnessed the innocent enthusiasm of a "true believer" - especially a recent convert. (This state was described in the book on brainwashing.)

But it's no more than an example of brainwashing: I'm no longer that bad person I was; now I'm good and spiritual. In truth, I have only succeeded in distancing myself farther than ever from the unresolved experiences I carry within me. But there's always the danger of "backsliding," which usually means the brainwashing has lost its power and we've gone back to other forms of self-distraction (e.g., addictive behaviors).

It does take a lot of work to maintain our inner fragmentation - to keep our consciousness compartmentalized into what's allowed into awareness and the 'stuff I can't deal with.' Religion must be one of the oldest ways of supporting the mind in this function, devised probably by those who had gained some insights into human psychology. It's understandable that many religions consider vices such as drinking or sex (often used for distraction) sinful as they compete with the religion's true function.

Now I see beliefs of all kinds as the problem - especially any negative ones my mind has made up. What I have experienced as the most powerful neutralizer of such beliefs is to have experiences that negate them. These happen when we experience one of those deep needs being met - experiences that "fly in the face" of the core belief, which typically says: this need cannot be met; this is beyond what I can deal with. The two or three experiences I've had of this sort made a "true believer" out of me in the healing power of the caring, supportive presence of my fellow humans.

If healing is possible, what need have we of religion - or of all the other myriad forms of distraction our society offers? Beyond therapy we have each other, and beyond addictive patterns, we have presence and knowing there's nothing we can't deal with - especially with the support of others.


Clint Summer