"It surprises me..."

**I don't publish or respond to the comments I get that are just ad hominem invective. But if there's a bit of a point that gets me thinking, then I do reply to the comment, or in this case post a whole blog entry based on it. Such is the case with a recent comment.

It surprises me that you would have - as an intelligent and already seasoned adult -- found a religion and decided to devote your life to it, and then reach a point where you're trying to disprove the very premise of the religion.

Yeah, it surprised me too. I thought I was just pissed off at Tom and the other phonies who took advantage of my trust (gullibility), but in 2005 after a few months in the California sun - and several months ruminating - I realized that CS was just a more "reasonable" substitute for a deeper delusion in my life. As I've written earlier, I was raised Catholic and was pretty devoted to it - especially as a young person, which is unusual. When you're raised to believe absurdities you seldom question them. So, when I had a problem with religion, I took it as just brand dissatisfaction. I still believed the category itself was legit. After the ensuing wildness, fear zoomed to the forefront and CS appeared on my scene. It promised to make me "good" as religion is supposed to, and since it was almost diametrically opposite to RC it seemed like a complete solution. So for the next 30+ years I tried to live up to what I thought were the ideas and ideals of CS. I even became a staunch defender and apologist - and to some, an example of how liberated it could be. 

But time took its toll on delusion and little by little it disintegrated. Applying my mind to the alternatives I eventually questioned the CATEGORY itself and not just the brand. It was the belief that there is a god or principle that controls the universe, who loves his creation and can intervene when we have problems - and the rest of the 9 yards. Once free to look around at the alternatives I found a rich field of facts that satisfied every objection to the claim of a spiritual dimension and a spiritual principle. 

I can't say I feel happier or more optimistic. Sober is more accurate. I suppose part of the endurance of a delusion is the comfort it can bring at times. Having made up for lost drinking time over those 30+ years, I really do understand the comforting power of mind-altering influences. And its dangers. Happiness is no indicator of rightness or safety. Just because we all desire comfort and happiness doesn't mean it is actually attainable. So arguments for the proof of a benevolent agent based on the way it makes the  believer feel don't sway me. "Truthiness" (per Stephen Colbert) is not the equivalent of truth.

So what is life like without the narcotic of spiritual belief? Not great. But not very different either. Once you understand the totally accidental and unintentional origin of life, that there is no "creator" or "first cause" then you can begin to appreciate the awesomeness of existence - its wonder and its horror. The algorithm that impels complexification has yielded the amazing world we live in. When I look at the natural world, what wows me isn't that some supreme being created it but that each plant, animal - even mineral and gas - is a SURVIVOR! It had countless predecessors, none of which survived. Given the enormity of time and the working of that algorithm  - to make complex things out of simpler components (I'm simplifying here) - an enormity of possibilities can arise. In other words, it doesn't take a watchmaker to make a watch. It just takes time and persistent experimentation. Reading Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" really expanded my view of life. It was the second of his books that I read. The first was "Breaking the Spell." About the time I was clearing out the rubble of my so-called religious life that book had just come out and he was doing radio interviews. I heard just a few minutes of an interview and knew I had to explore his ideas. Richard Dawkins came next. And Sam Harris. And Christopher Hitchens. And Victor Stenger. And some others. 

What impresses me most about these writers is the clarity of their explanations and, except for Hitchens, a lack of (deserved) vitriol. You don't have to be an evolutionary biologist, neuroscientist or physicist to grasp the immense implications of their world view. It blows ”god” and all that ”spiritual” paraphernalia away like chaff. No, these thinkers don't claim that they or science itself has definitive answers for all questions, but the worst of their ideas demolish the best spiritual arguments. And I know the spiritual arguments well. Very well. I used to hone them for warfare on atheism. I taught them, made a career out of being a voice and practitioner for spirituality. I was even trained early in Catholic theology and Thomistic philosophy. I do know my way around these ideas, and have known or heard a great many spokespeople for spiritual belief. I proved my sincerity and my commitment. And not just for a season, but for decades. So, yeah, it's surprising, this complete turnabout. But what's more shocking is how deeply the delusions went and how long they persisted.

Ah, sweetness

**For those who don't follow the comments section, here's part of a response to a recent comment, and some expansion:

Surely you don't begrudge others from all organized religions from feeling content, even happy because of their beliefs? You can't be that bitter?

Got nothing to do with being "bitter." Just as I don't begrudge someone from getting drunk or high in the isolation of their own home or among friends, people can take comfort in their religious delusions. It's when they foist it on others - children and non-believers (think Santorum, Dobson, etc) - that makes them begrudge-able. Any bitterness is sweetened by the clear fact that this organization and its influence in the world is rapidly sinking into impotence.

The fact that a delusion offers "content, even happy" feelings does nothing to convince a true "seeker." It's "truth" we seek, not "truthiness" (as Colbert would put it). And so far, all I've been able to discern that is "true" is what I wrote in a recent song ["Choppy Waters" http://youtu.be/t15Ql0jU7x4]:

"There's no one in charge,
You're a runaway barge,
And mostly you're on your own."

At this late date, the conclusions I've come to are expressed in words at the end of the song::

"Here's a little bit of wisdom I've seen:
From time to time and storm to storm
There's a little bit of peace in-between
That's the time to float [another song]
Make love in your boat
And do it like it's gonna be your last
Next storm run-in you could be succumbin'
And nothing exists in the past."

Chronicle

**I've been asked when it was that I started blogging about my disaffection and break from Christian Science. You can start by looking at my archives from 2007. Pretty much everything I've had to say on this blog has to do with my disengagement from all beliefs in a divine principle, spirituality of all sorts and the delusion of "spiritual healing."

I'm pretty much over the ranting, but am willing to engage with others who may be sensing that the "spiritual" ground on which they stand may be dissolving into its "native nothingness." (haha.)

These days I am happily retired from full time work and spend most of my time writing and producing original music, which is the closest thing to my most natural abilities. You can chck up on that work at these websites: RamonaStGeorge.com and moppoville.com.

I also work part-time at a cool technology store that I am not allowed to identify.

Sorry about that…

** Although I get email notices about comments to this blog I have often been too busy to do the followup work of even publishing them. I took the time today and while I still can't get free to comment on the comments, I do appreciate them - even the stupid, nasty and fact-deficient ones. Hope to get back soon.

Foundations of a deluded life

** I’ve commented that my re-reading of the "Foundation" trilogy by Isaac Asimov left me underwhelmed (or only just whelmed in spots). I had read the books as a young teenager but I’ve been wondering why it had occupied a special place in my adult psyche. The re-read at this time so much later in life has cleared that up for me.

It’s all about mental power.

The trilogy posits two “Foundations” as the basis of a new world order. The First Foundation was meant to develop physical power, the evolution of “science” if you will. The Second Foundation’s purpose was to develop mental power. As much of a lover of physical science as I always was, the prospect of power that could be exercised without physical components was startling to me as a youngster. If you tend to feel inadequate, as many teens do, the idea of wielding power just by thinking has great appeal. Even so, the idea lay dormant for many years.

In my mid-30s, I came across Christian”Science,” and learned that it purported to use “mental science” (in those very words) to accomplish wondrous feats in the physical world. Of course, the idea of “healing” through mental power was enormously appealing. and the fact that one could develop this power by studying the writings of its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, seemed a way for me to get out of the grip of helplessness and hopelessness that accompanied the emotional disasters of two failed marriages and the impending disaster of a third relationship. Mix in the insecurities and craziness of my advertising career and I was caught in a perfect storm of conversion.

It took only ten years but I rose to some prominence in the “movement” and not only became a “teacher” of this “mental science” but a writer and public speaker on the subject. In 1989, following the needless death of a child under my “care,” began another ten-year period of intense denial and magical thinking. However, my own “foundations” of belief started to crumble, hardly noticeable at first, but increasingly as reality started to impinge on me. With the political shenanigans at the headquarters church where I worked, and my eventual expulsion from their employ and subsequent forced retirement, the dismantling of my life as a Christian Scientist became more visible to me and others. Much of that disintegration is chronicled here and need not be rehashed. The point of this post is to recognize a little-suspected component of the great delusion that wasted a good part of my life.

Sci-fi travels

** I’m almost finished with the third book in the “Foundation” trilogy by Asimov. I was curious to re-read these for several reasons. The first time I read them was when I was about 12-14, so I wanted to know how much I would remember. Precious little, it turns out. In fact, I wonder if I even read the “Second Foundation.”

Another reason was to compare the vision of the future from a 1950s perspective with today’s reality. Not even close. There’s still plenty of “paper,” phones (although some have video). Spaceships come and go via nuclear power and “air taxis” flit freely about cities.

Having read a bit more science fiction in the interim I was interested in comparing past visions of the future with present expectations. Of course, today’s version of the future sounds plausible enough, based as it is on present technology and social organization. But much of what I’ve read places little emphasis on physical technology but tends to deal with psychological and sociological matters. In fact “Anathem,” by Neil Stevenson, takes place in a world of primitive physical technology – a world of secular, low-tech monasteries. I think today’s science fiction is dealing more with ideas than with gee-whiz gadgets.

Along the way, I note that Asimov, though widely respected – almost revered – wasn’t such a good fiction writer, at least by the standards of other writers like Dick, Card and Stevenson. A good story, plausible, interesting characters are much in evidence compared with Asimov’s cardboard cutouts.

Granted, I’m not a voracious sci-fi reader, but I do think I’ve read some of the best. I’m about to start “Speaker for the Dead,” by Orson Scott Card and I’m in the process of reading Sherri Tepper’s “Grass.” The latter, BTW, is almost Victorian in prose style – almost poetic in fact – with little emphasis on technology.

I’ll welcome further suggestions on good sci-fi.

NOTE: I will follow up this post with some discoveries I made about myself in re-reading the Asimov books.

Guns & Revolution

** The NRA and its apologists claim that the Second Amendment has to do with citizens having weapons to fight an oppressive government. But look at what is happening in the Middle East these days. The rebellions aren't armed conflicts - well, the rebels aren't armed anyway.

In order for citizen uprisings to have a chance at armed conflict they have to be as well equipped as the governments they are trying to combat. But this is never the case. Governments always have more and better guns, more and better-trained troops, better intelligence, etc. Even with a roomful of assault rifles, Mr. Joe Rebel will be no match against even one military tank, much less against one accompanied by a platoon of soldiers, helicopters, satellite communications and observations systems and the whole panoply of stuff we have empowered the government to own and operate on our behalf. After all, we want the most and the best armaments. So if, as Second Amendment evangelists claim, the Constitution allows the citizenry, as individuals, to be armed, it has set them up to be losers in any encounter with the government in power.

That's not the kind of thinking that imbues most of the rest of the constitution. Instead, if the Second Amendment is about local militias, as it clearly states, then it would seem to be providing for states, as governing entities, to defend themselves against small uprisings - maybe by people like today's gun hoarders. It's about states, not individuals. Individuals may be allowed to be armed, but to protect themselves against other individuals, not massed attacks such as would be part of a government's oppression.

In the Middle East, Tunisia and Egypt and Yemen so far, it is not "Second Amendment Remedies" that are working. It's the UNarmed populace taking to the streets, with the aid of the social media.

Face it, people want guns because they're afraid of other people with guns - but only a few people, not whole armies. Their Constitutional arguments don't really address this basic fear.