wchap35a.html
(7/23/99)

I believe that religion can be turned into an empirical, predictive science by properly using "meaning of human life" as an organizing principle. Many thoughtful persons will stop reading at this point, convinced that this line of thinking can lead nowhere since that is what our cultural heroes have been saying for hundreds of years. If you resist this temptation to give up you will be provided a unique opportunity. If you can think outside the box I envite you to use these writings as a way to look at everything you value and see where it leads.

It is toward the creation of an empirical Science of Religion that these writing are aimed. To become an empirical, predictive science religion must be provided a well-grounded organizing principle. This must include a definition of such a science's aim and scope that can be tested empirically. This book claims to present such an organizing principle plus supporting ideas. Let me begin by appropriately defining religion.

Definition: Religion is the social institution concerned with definitive issues including the meaning of human life and how this meaning can be achieved. It provides the binding institution within a society that connects every person with every other and furnishes the shared values that guide individual and group behavior. In addition it serves to unify the individual's knowledge, drives, and goals to guide their life choices.

SCIENCE OF RELIGION: utilizes the organizing principle, "meaning of human life," in such a way as to employ the empirical, predictive elements of science. See Chapter Two of VOLUME I for the development of this idea.

But, What is the "meaning of human life"? This issue involves the most fundamental question that a human being can ask. However, because the quality of an answer tends to depend on the quality of the question, the foregoing, poorly formulated question has not been satisfactorily answered up to this time.

The usual answer to this question has a mystical or obscurantist focus so that it can tap into the genetic propensity to believe in magic and wishing. (See Chapter One, VOLUME I for more on this.) Normally it involves God, nirvana, souls, etc. Of course these concepts do not provide answers from a scientific perspective. But, they satisfy most people emotionally. It is important to recognize that emotional sustenance is what people need most. This is what keeps them alive long enough to reproduce. My goal is to produce a congruent world view that moves humanity toward its highest level and fulfillment of our ability provided by our language ability. This would nourish both the emotional and intellectual parts of all people. However, it must be recognized that every folk religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) that has accumulated followers embodies important elements that attract and give sustenance to those followers. At the same time adherents have to deal with the fact that their religion is based on magic/wishing rather than reality. Many persons attempt to ignore the childish and/or erroneous part of their religion, often with great difficulty. Most "believers" do not take their religion's theology very seriously. They don't study it. They don't understand it. They assume it's something that it is not. They take what they need from the social structures and utilize whatever practical lessons the group teaches. But those who need to understand and require congruency cannot take this approach.

Folk religions answer the question, What is the meaning of life with magic and wishing, drawing on a human genetic propensity. Other approaches are equally deficient:

Existentialists misunderstand the point of the question and say, Life has no meaning.

Atheist positions boil down to a belief that the meaning of life is that there is no God.

Tribal members standing in puzzlement can only ask, What do you mean by "meaning of life"?

Humanists frequently get stuck in Freud's approach: Human behavior is motivated by pain and pleasure. Modern persons often interpret this to mean that the goal of life is to achieve happiness.

There are many ways to produce the feeling that life is meaningful. How can we find guidance in selecting which way to pursue? For me the goal is to find paths that provide a Sustainable [1] Feeling that one's LIfe Has Meaning (SFLIHM).

If meaning of life is the most fundamental question, then I believe it must lie at the core of every deep question. Every individual concern whether recognized or not leads to this issue. As previously stated "meaning of life," properly tackled, will turn religion into an empirical science. Traditionally, religion has been a closed-minded effort. It has been dominated by authority and/or custom. There was little place for honest questioning and thoughtful answering. Usually it had great power. Often the power to kill and banish. When that was lacking at least moral power to shame and silence the critic still remained. Therefore, it appeared to be an evil structure or at least a parasitic one to skeptics who looked at it carefully and critically. Because its touted benefits were obviously only propaganda, and its true value was not recognized even by its most enthusiastic supporters, its real value has been largely overlooked by the thinkers within philosophy as well as within science, and of course within religion.

Therefore, those who labored to understand what life is all about missed the opportunity to explore the key issue. Folk religions missed the opportunity out of a committment to tradition and authority. Science and philosophy missed the opportunity because they discarded the key issue along with the obscurantist aspects of religion. All who labored to build a better world could only work on peripheral issues since they threw the key issue away along with religion.

Philosophers in their search for knowledge set aside the religious concern for "meaning of life" and pursued a different path. Out of their speculations and studies science and each of its areas of concern were spun off. One by one, philosophy gave birth to each field of study of science as mere speculation was replaced by testable theories. These depended on observation, measurement, analysis, and prediction. This process has moved us further and further toward the age of science. Of course every area of science maintains a large dose of speculation, intuition, fantasy, and all kinds of creative processes. But what defines a science is a system that moves from speculation to testable answers.

Philosophy is the knowledge system that restricts itself to the area of speculation. Folk religion provides the world view that ties together the accumulated knowledge of the group and supports their folk medicine, folk psychology, and folk music. We have now achieved enough knowledge and experience so we can make the last transition, the most needed, and the most important, and that is to move religion itself within the scientific paradigm, therefore a Science of Religion!

Part of this process requires looking more clearly at the events that produced Homo sapiens sapiens. These events would be used as the basis for clarifying the fundamental nature of humanity and using that as a guide to develop a new paradigm based on meaning of human life. This would reclaim religion and provide a unifying principle congruent with all the knowledge and experience accumulated over the past 35,000 years. This step would move us fully into the scientific age. In this new era the power and knowledge of science would no longer be controlled by superstition (magic and wishing) and ignorance.

The foregoing advance would alter entirely the circumstances that concerned Einstein in 1946 when he said, "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our mode of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." [ 2] What he was actually referring to was the mode of thinking of contemporary society. A Science of Religion would totally alter the mode of thinking of society. We would be provided with a way to tackle meaning of human life scientifically, using the tools of empirical study. When religion is incorporated into science by utilizing meaning of life as a fundamental organizing principle every question will be able to be handled within the realm of cause and effect. The foregoing approach will provide a framework that will: 1) permit many currently serious problems [3] to be solved automatically, or, 2) at least provide guidance in solving them. Also, the foregoing approach would incorporate wisdom as well as science.

This new Science of Religion will define what it means to have a Good Community made up of Good Persons [4] and provide a blue print so both can be achieved.

The foregoing reminds us that we are irretrievably stuck in our subjectivity. Not only our God/gods are us. Our atoms, quarks, photons are us. Gravity, magnetism, the strong force are us. This does not mean that there is no objective reality independent of us, but only that there is a level of interpretation between us and the reality of the universe. Some concepts like God exist only in our minds and have no external reality. Others like atoms are based on an independent reality, but are human constructs of that reality. Very likely what we call atoms are very different from our current understandings.

The above does not mean that "anything goes" and that "all positions are equal; i.e., support cultural relativism." Nor does it support the idea that science is only a culturally dependent interpretation of the universe. Rather it points out the fact that our concepts, understandings, and positions are always approximations and must be open to change. They must be constantly tested empirically for congruency with the outside world. As our knowledge grows we move closer and closer toward concepts that accurately portray reality; i.e., TRUTH [5].

Albert Einstein is reputed to have said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." However, I think it is important to realize that this statement is not actually discussing the universe, but human thought processes. When the ancients talked about Zeus, karma, divine right of kings, etc. they had the feeling of comprehending the universe. When modern scientists (and modern thinkers) talk about neutrinos, the Big Bang, and evolution they too have a feeling of comprehending the universe. Although, our current understanding may be more accurate and useful, it is no less a statement about how the human mind works!

Santiago Ramon y Cajal (c. 1898) was on the right track when he wrote: "As long as our brain is a mystery, the universe -- the reflection of the structure of the brain -- will also be a mystery." [6] In actuality, the situation is worse than Cajal thought. For no matter how well we understand the brain, there is still a wall of interpretation between brain and universe. And for that matter between brain and brain understanding brain!

Partially as a result of John's study of these manuscripts he proposes that Christianity evolved out of the Essene sect. This group was a hierarchical, Jewish messianic mystery cult that was founded around 100 B.C.E. Based on these documents as well as other lines of evidence and knowledge of this period John believed Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person. John felt that the ideas attributed to Jesus and also to Paul actually incorporates ideas and experiences of many different people that developed over many decades. Those things ascribed to Jesus came from Essene leaders who had the title, "Teacher of Righteousness."

In addition John's evidence supports a theory that Essene rituals included the eating of hallucinogenic mushrooms. Little has been known about the Essenes because they were a secret cult and only the most carefully screened members advanced to the highest levels within the group. Their secrets were carefully protected. Most were written in code. The really important ones were not even written down.

Pondering the beliefs and practices of the Essenes and of Christianity has helped me to gain insight into some key aspects of traditional religions. The element of the mystical, of the direct contact with God, and achievement of TRUTH has taken on a new significance for me.

Freud pointed out that the God concept is a natural outgrowth of human experience. All human beings are born helpless. For many years we depend on giants called parents. As a result it is easy for us to think in terms of an all knowing, omnipotent, Father in Heaven built on our experiences of the "all powerful" parent of our infancy. Very likely the alpha male drive, or propensity also is a factor here. (See Chapter One, VOLUME I for more on this.) However there is another equally important element of traditional religion. This is the mystical dimension (belief in magic and wishing). Partly this includes the mystic's understanding of TRUTH, that a person can experience TRUTH directly through some mental and/or ritualistic activity.

Why is it that any individual, or group that claims to possess non-rational paths to TRUTH so readily attracts adherents? We see the foregoing all over the world. We see it in the religions of the east (Hinduism, Buddhism [7], Jainism, Taoism, etc.). We see it in the west (Catholicism, Protestantism, Scientology, Rosicrucians, Mormonism, etc.). And we see it everywhere else in the world we look. Why are people so willing to uncritically accept the word of the fortune teller, the astrologer, the card reader, the seer, and other psychics? This is a very important question and is dealt with more fully in Chapter One, VOLUME I.

For all of human history the primary answer to the question about life's meaning involved looking beyond humanity, or at least beyond the individual. This book begins by exploring humanity's efforts to find meaning and my similar struggle to make sense of their answers. By and large, I found the answers of current and past societies unsatisfactory. However, my progress was slow, and many times I got diverted onto circuitous paths. But slowly and surely all the pieces began to come together. A RELIGION FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM: User's Manual for Homo sapiens sapiens presents this current synthesis which forms the basis for a Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom based on it.

I now believe that the essence of meaning of human life depends on a feeling state and the beliefs that support it. It depends on having a sustainable feeling that one's life has meaning. Therefore, in analyzing what it is that gives life meaning we must search for those patterns for living which can grow, develop, and build in such a way as to last over a lifetime, and for humanity, forever. They must work for any person, or at least for definable groups of persons. And they must build a society where more and more people experience the foregoing.

As we study peoples' lives we should begin to see clearly the patterns of living that are not sustainable, or only appear to work because of unique or special circumstances. Finding these non-sustainable patterns is very important. They are worth understanding in as much detail as possible. We can then better learn why such patterns should be avoided if one is to achieve a sustainable feeling that their life has meaning.

Some of society's traditional answers about the meaning of life depend upon the accident of birth (one's culture, family, or nation); others involve some special knowledge (a particular word, book, or tradition); still others require blind faith (Jesus, Allah, etc.). However, anything which cannot in principle be shared by all other human beings must be seriously questioned as an answer worth promoting.

It seems to me that there are only two general approaches for providing human life with meaning. FIRST PREMISE: There is something more ultimate than humanity that will provide our meaning. SECOND PREMISE: Any meaning for human life must come from human beings individually and collectively.

Many persons accept the First Premise as true and that God is the ultimate reference system. But extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. And, in all things related to God there is no evidence at all. Those who have made the complete journey come to the final answer. God is the great mystery! There is nothing about God that we can know. All we can know is the yearning in our heart for such a being. However, God or gods have been the primary source of the feeling that life has meaning. This approach developed after the language ability made meaning of life an intellectual activity rather than just a natural state inherent in the genes of the individuals of the species. Only with the knowledge and experience accumulated since that time are we able to realize that the path of magic and wishing has been a false path. Now it is clear that the magic/wishing assumption is an illusion. But it is an illusion that comes out of the core of our being. The thoughtful person is forced step-by-step to discard this illusion. Slowly they are moved to a position which is actually the same as what individuals come to if they accept the Second Premise. Although humanity has pursued the First Premise probably even before the evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens, an objective analysis shows that this approach has always been inadequate and unsuccessful. It has only seemed successful due to a slight-of-hand trick. The success of this approach has either depended on other human beings or illusion.

Since meaning of human life involves beliefs and a feeling state produced by those beliefs, this meaning of human life can come from any source. What separates a good source from a bad source is whether the feeling that life has meaning is sustainable or not; e.g. whether it acts to move individuals toward being all that they can be, to develop their highest and best attributes, to better and better understand objective reality to help create a social environment congruent with these goals, to perpetuate our species.

Part of the reason why human beings have so universally looked beyond humanity for answers has to do with the fact that in the pre-scientific era, people were almost totally unable to determine causal relationships in the world around them. Another part of the answer, however, as indicated above lies in how the human brain works. Human beings have an innate tendency to see and interpret the world in terms of magic and wish fulfillment. Developing our powers of reason and logic are difficult. Almost all human beings fall back on our more primitive mental processes when the pressure is on or the problem is too big for our powers of reason to tackle. See UNCOMMON SENSE [8].

Because the human brain works as it does special efforts will be required to help individuals move beyond using the magical approach. Reliance on magical thinking has been incorporated into all folk religions and is at the core of belief in God and gods, in belief in Nirvana of Theravada Buddhism, sunyata of Mahayana Buddhism, the yang and yin of Taoism, cosmic consciousness, and all the thousands of other variations made possible by the creative genius of the human mind when provided the gift of symbolic language. It even provides a strong strain in modern psychology through the writings of Carl Jung -- at least as he is normally presented. As indicated before this magical thinking has played a predominate role in the way societies have seen the world and the individual's place in it from our earliest beginnings with the evolution of the language ability. We have only emerged slowly and haltingly from total domination by this approach. However, the success of the scientific revolution has been so great that we may now be ready to take another step forward. If we can deal with meaning of human life from a rational, empirical standpoint we will have reached an important watershed.

Schweitzer's motives are commendable and the caring and concern for life he expresses appears at first glance to be a higher minded goal. However, on further study we find a fundamental weakness in his effort. Schweitzer attempts to find a higher principle. But the question remains, upon what does this higher principle rest? Why is Reverence for Life better than rape, ravage, and destroy? Is it anything more than personal preference?

Schweitzer sees that giving value to human life is a subjective judgment. He does not appear to recognize that Reverence for Life is doubly subjective. To say that a person's life is finite, but worthwhile is absolutely and completely subjective. To say that the death of an ant and the death of a human being should produce similar psychic anguish builds another subjective level onto the other. And rather than being a more objective foundation is a less objective foundation. More than that. It is no foundation at all!

But the God concept is the most popular version of the First Premise. Voltaire has said that humanity would be forced to created God, even if God did not exist. I say that even if God does exist we must of necessity deny Her [10] existence. The remainder of this chapter is an attempt to clarify the foregoing hypothesis.

At any rate understanding why people have always looked beyond themselves for sanction is the critical point when discussing the question of God's existence. Only by answering successfully this question can we be sure of the proper path to tread. Are persons foolish or are they wise to accept themselves as finite, but worthwhile objects? The foregoing is a question for which each must find an answer. I believe one of the most important goals persons may attain is to see themselves as finite, but worthwhile. I have tried my best to understand the position of those who accept the supernatural. But the supernatural answer has been completely inadequate for me.

More than that I now realize that the supernatural is one of the 5-10 challenges that an individual must resist if they are to overcome the remnants of their pre-Homo sapiens sapiens instincts. For more on this discussion see Chapter One (VOLUME I), "Humanity's Goal Can Now Be Seen."

The idea of writing a book was conceived because all the religions and philosophies which I encountered were either unacceptable (in whole or part), or were too general to be of value. I was willing to tackle a project at which so many have failed because it seemed to me to be of seminal importance and so many persons had come so close to success. But it was only the belief that humanity desperately needs better answers that kept me working on this book despite my own doubts and fears whether or not I would succeed.

I am now certain that a Science of Religion can be constructed because it is clear that each individual's religious needs are basically the same as for all other human beings. I believe this religious framework can be general enough to incorporate all person's lives, yet, specific enough to provide a foundation for each individual, and in fact to aid them in making every choice of their life. This religious perspective would bind every person to every other and allow no excuse for indifference toward the suffering of any other person. I hope that the shortcomings in my writings will not lead the reader to say, "This System also has weaknesses and therefore should be ignored." Each science exists because any interested person finds it to be a useful framework for addressing relevant problems. At the same time each individual can correct its errors and perfect its ability to explain and predict. In the end it depends not on opinion, authority, customs, and the like, but on its congruency with everything else and its ability to predict outcomes and generate useful new ideas and answers. Therefore, I hope that where my writings are wrong they can be corrected; where they are incomplete they can be expanded; where they are banal they can be enriched. My desire is that the reader will feel that these ideas have sufficient breadth and depth to be worth improving to make them better adopted to each person's individual needs. If anyone recognizes that these ideas are innately flawed and that some other approach is needed, I encourage them to lay out that alternative position so it can be promoted, disseminated, and evaluated. If it is a better way it has my support and I look forward to learning about it.

The ideas in this book are not judged as final answers, though it is believed that they point in the proper direction. These views, like all scientific endeavors, are open to criticism from many points. As Hoyle [11] mentions: "The aim [in science]...is not to build a theory that is so hedged in with protective conditions that nobody can get at it. The aim is to build a theory that is exposed to observational attack in as many directions as possible...." A falsifiable theory can stimulate research and thinking, yet, grow as knowledge grows and therefore become constantly more useful. It is useful even if replaced completely by a better formulation.

The discussion of my search will at least partially explain the conclusions that have been reached. Some theories will be presented. If they are not accepted, then I take the major responsibility for being either unclear, unconvincing, or wrong in my reasons for, or proofs of, these theories. However, if a reader is tied to some System of beliefs in a way similar to Freud's "accidental advantage through illness," I reserve the right to challenge her or his beliefs and question their reasons for dismissing mine.

Some of the following discussions of my early life will start with an idea that confused me, and will follow it through to show how as my understanding of the issues increased, I finally progressed to the point where the proposition was completely discarded. For individual discussions, the order will be chronological; however, they will greatly simplify and condense the actual events.

My goal is to show one person's search for understanding because I believe that we all go through, if not exactly the same stages, at least similar ones. As different individuals go through these stages, they arrive at different conclusions for various reasons. I think, sharing the story of our journeys would be rewarding.

My father and mother separated when I was about nine years old. I lived with my mother for roughly the next ten years. She had been married once before she and Dad were married, and was married once afterwards. Mother and Dad were married because of an "indiscretion" of which I was the result. And there seemed to be little basis for a nurturing, loving connection. As a result of their separation I grew from nine to maturity without the influence of a father in my life. This lack of a father's authority and understanding combined with the other factors of my early life no doubt contributed in shaping my independent attitude and desire for an improved society.

The organization of my family is complicated. But, roughly speaking, there were three of us children raised together. We were very poor, materially and spiritually. Mother had no advantages, except her sense of responsibility and her willingness to work. As a result she spent so much of her time trying to provide the material necessities of life that she had little time for other things. Probably she lacked the experience, mental faculties, or interest to do so even if time and money had been available.

During my childhood, Mother was like many American Protestants. She believed in God, Heaven, an eternal soul, and most of the other mystical religious concepts she did not understand. Though Mother did not feel any need to go to church herself -- and was actually anticlerical -- she felt that church was important for children. She may not have believed like so many other people that, "Without a strong Christian church, neither democracy nor civilization can survive," but she would not have argued the point. She certainly could not have realized that if this civilization crumbles it will be solely attributable to the inherent deficiencies of folk religions.

Because of Mother's limited grasp of religious concepts, she sent us kids to Protestant Sunday Schools whenever possible. We moved often; consequently, we sometimes could not attend church. However, as a result of my church experience, I started with the same misconceptions almost every other child in America begins with: i.e., I believed that God exists, Jesus of Nazareth was in some way that God, he died to atone for the sins of humanity, Christians are right all other faiths are wrong, Christians go to heaven others go to hell, one can get the ear of God by prayer and thereby influence worldly events, etc.

I still remember the experience of walking home after Sunday School around the age of ten pondering the meaning of the day's Sunday School lesson. Once more I had been told that not only non-Christians would go to Hell, but all persons other than religion "X." [12] Only Xs would go to Heaven. I was aware of the many kind, wonderful, non-Christian people all around the world. But they would have to burn for eternity because they had not accepted Jesus as their personal savior -- even though they were dutiful children and accepted the beliefs taught them by their parents. Finally, I got the message. The combination of the cruelty of that message, and the realization that every Sunday School I had attended taught the same general idea hit me. Since each denomination claimed only they were "saved" and all others were damned, skepticism began to overwhelm me. I could no longer associate myself with such an approach. This was when I stopped attending Sunday School. However, church had been unsatisfactory in various ways long before that time.

Although I stopped attending church, I still continued trying to understand. I pondered the idea that the BIBLE is the direct word of God. When I learned of the contradictions of Christian doctrine [13], I became confused by the fact that each of these groups used history to prove its own validity.

It's unfortunate that I didn't run across Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872)[14] at this time. I could have saved myself a lot of pain and effort since some 150 years ago he thoroughly analyzed Christianity and lays clear it inadequacies and errors. See VOLUME II, Chapter 24-B, which includes an analysis of Feuerbach's book.

Though I didn't have Feuerbach to guide me I began to come to many of the same conclusions. I began to realize that even if the words of the BIBLE had been the direct word of God, they would no longer be so due to the changes allowed by the oral tradition used to transmit this material for hundreds of years. And even after writing became common the many translations and rewritings allowed changes to be incorporated. (Not to mention the fact that it was people who conceived of the idea of assembling the various writings to make a BIBLE. It was they who selected which writings to include.) Thus, the writings that make up the BIBLE could be taken as little more than guides and certainly nothing written could be taken literally. As a result it became clear to me that each individual must be their own interpreter of what to make of the BIBLE and its history.

However, as John Allegro makes clear, it is just this right (assigned to the Teacher of Righteousness) to interpret God that formed the core motivation that transformed the Jewish Essene cult into Christianity. To interpret God is to speak for God and is ultimate power, no matter how humbly one does it. This is the power that has mobilized Christianity since its beginning.

Was Jesus God? My readings made me doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was God. However, as the layers of belief were stripped away, I finally learned that it is unlikely that he even existed as a real person, let alone in the role of Christ [15]. The myth, Christ, was the result of virgin birth (a blending of Greek and Hebrew myths). A bright star announced his birth and three wise men came to proclaim his birthright. He rose up after death and walked the earth for a little time. That he was a myth became more and more obvious the more that I learned of the historical period and events involved. The Dead Sea Scrolls [16] were only one example of such information.

I saw that the Jesus of the BIBLE was no closer to God than Moses or Mohammed. In some ways, the ideas attributed to him were supremely wise; others, were unbelievably harsh and ill formed.

The Historical Proof of Christianity as demonstrated by its ability to prophesy was an early victim of my rational analysis. I learned that many faiths have similar prophesies and, furthermore, all prophecies involve such flagrant stretches of the imagination, one can give them credit only by resort to blind faith and cannot use them as a source of faith. Actually, circular reasoning is used here as in most aspects of supernatural religion. Prophecy is used as a source of faith and then one falls back upon faith to explain one's belief in prophecy.

The Historical Proof based on miracles also lost its value as I learned that every faith has its own miracles. Rather than supporting each other as some would have us believe, these faiths are mutually exclusive and cancel each other out. In addition, as discussed below, I learned that there is a psychological foundation for miracles as there is for prayer.

The Historical Proof of Christianity as demonstrated through prayer began to suffer as I learned that though prayer is supposed to be a way of talking with God, the conversation is extremely one-sided. The claims for prayer are couched in ambiguity so that unlimited faith is necessary for prayer to be interpreted as having worked. We learn that we cannot pray for a new bicycle and be sure of getting it because this is selfishness, or some such thing. If we pray for a friend's sick parent, and the parent dies, we learn that, "God moves in mysterious ways Her [10] wonders to perform," or, that, "She sometimes says no to our prayers."

When I was younger, the foregoing boiled down to mean that prayer was an undependable technique for getting results. But then I found that even when we get that for which we prayed, there are problems. The foregoing is illustrated by the following experience. When I was around the age of thirteen there was a large fire a few blocks from where the family was living. It was scattering burning debris all around. Mother was not at home and I was terrified that some of the burning debris would set our apartment afire. As a result of my fear, ignorance, and helplessness I did something that many selfish, immature people do. (As Freud points out, these are the conditions under which one regresses to an earlier stage of development.) I prayed. In fact, in this time of fear, I went beyond prayer.

I tried to make a contract with God. I promised that if the house did not catch fire, I never more would doubt Her existence. The house did not burn, but my promise was made in vain. I found that "battlefield" conversions may not be permanent. I still continued trying to fit everything together. At the time of my promise I repressed the fact that there is no connection between houses burning or not burning and God. The foregoing experience demonstrates that a promise made in a moment of fear (fortunately) cannot wipe out the convictions arrived at through honest questioning. However, this process was no overnight transformation. My mind kept wavering back and forth. One time I would deny God's existence. Another time I would not be so sure. This help which was said always to be at one's elbow was not easily relinquished, particularly as it seemed to be accepted by all the rest of society.

As I grew older and became able to appreciate the isolation that an adult can feel, I saw that those who pray do usually receive satisfaction from prayer. I saw that those who deny the power of prayer are wrong; just as wrong as those who attribute the power of prayer to God. Prayer has a valid psychological explanation. The human animal is wonderfully adept at mentally altering objective stimuli. This describes not only object constancy [17], but also miracles and prayer.

We can see, also, that prayer relies on magical thinking. But in addition it is just another technique of manipulating the mind. It may be the simplest manifestation of this psychological phenomena. But if this is true it is also the least desirable. The naive explanation which supports it also limits the progress of those who use it. There are many ways that persons can empower themselves through their thoughts. When the foregoing involves self knowledge and increasing one's personal power, it is most likely to expand one as a person and permit them to better use their faculties. Self-hypnosis is one such method. Through it, persons should be able to achieve far more than they are able to without it.

Many times during the "Confused Years" (thirteen to eighteen, approximately) I wished very much that I could accept God and be one with my society. Also, certain aspects of the supernatural appeared to have the capability of bringing great satisfaction and peace of mind. However, trying to achieve this satisfying part of the supernatural was like pursuing a rainbow. It was always out of reach. Often during the Confused Years in times of solitude, I would feel that I had been wrong and there was a God. I would go to church willing to lose myself in the greatness of it all. And, boom! Back I was cast to certainly that God is among other things a veil behind which people hide their ignorance, selfishness, dishonor, deceit, desire to exploit others.

On one occasion that stands out particularly in my mind, I went to church with the plan to stop doubting. By a stroke of irony the minister's sermon was built around the idea that, "You had better repent and save your soul from eternal damnation." The alternative, "...to believe, to accept Christ as your personal savor, and be assured eternal life in Heaven." Early in life I came to the thought that eternal life was too good to be true. It seemed too much like candy given to children so they will say they love you. And if that was Christianity's best argument, the promise of eternal life in Heaven for blind faith on Earth, I would have to reserve my repentance for another day. Again I failed. I could accept Jesus of Nazareth as, at best, no more than a fallible human being.

I saw that persons must blind themselves to numerous things to accept the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, beneficent God. The way theology deals with the whole issue of good and evil is nonsense. However, the practical issues are even worse. The supernatural system has caused and allowed much cruelty, suffering, and ignorance. Although, many "good" acts religious people perform are done in the name of religion; unfortunately, so are many "bad" acts performed out of religious motivations. Religious wars, persecution, witch hunts, exploitation, suppression, are only a few examples. Religious beliefs become an excuse for all kinds of crazy acts. Psychopaths use it when they say, "I killed by spouse because God told me to." Bigots use it when they say, "If God had meant everyone to be equal, She would have made them all the same color."

I came to believe that one could not have it both ways. If one said the cruelty and weakness was in the person, not in the religion they would still be denying the validity of religion. They would be admitting that it really cannot help people. Religion is either only as good as the people who practice it, and has no value in itself. Or, it has imperfections which force or allow the worst in people to appear.

Also, the reliance on authority was an insurmountable barrier for me. The foundation of every supernatural system rests upon subjective experience and myths handed down for generations by those who have accepted them. Great truths must be provable by each generation in so far as they are true. When we are given certain actions to follow and the only reasons given are highly suspicious and such that we cannot check or experience their validity, then we must question them. If God spoke to an earlier generation, then She must speak to ours. If She gives messages to one person, then She must give messages to all. If She guides one individual to avoid errors in decision making, then She must so aid us all. If the foregoing is not true, we give God the character of a dabbler. And, we give free rein to hypocrites, tyrants, liars, exploiters, and/or persons who are mentally unbalanced, ignorant, or confused.

Below is another aspect of the social argument [18]. It consists of a conversation between James Boswell and Samuel Johnson.

We talked of denying Christianity. He said it was easy to be on the negative side. "If a person were now to deny that there is salt upon the table, you could not reduce them to an absurdity [19]. I deny that Canada is taken, and I can support my assertion with pretty good arguments. The French are a much more numerous people than we; and it is not likely that they would allow us to take it. -- 'But the Ministry tell us so.' -- True. But, the Ministry have put us to an enormous expense, and it is their interest to persuade us that we have got something for our money. -- 'But we are told so by thousands of soldiers who were at the taking of it.' -- Ay, but these soldiers have still more interest in deceiving us. They don't want you should think that the French have beat them, but that they have beat the French. Now suppose you should go over to see if it is so, that would only satisfy yourself; for when you come home, we will not believe you. We will say you have been bribed. -- Yet, for all these plausible objections, we believe that Canada is really ours. Such is the weight of common testimony."

In the final analysis, it seems clear that individuals believe what they want to believe, what they must believe, or what seems correct. Neurotic people may believe that they have the power to kill merely by pointing their finger even though one demonstrates irrefutably that this is false using both logical and sensory proof. However, since this belief is somehow very important to their current sense of self, it cannot be dislodged by either logical or sensory data. But, as psychotherapy helps them overcome the core problem leading them to this false conviction, they can be helped to give it up. Of course, neurotics are the extreme example. Most persons lie somewhere between believing everything that has been proven and nothing that has been proven.

People will usually discard any belief if sufficient contradictory evidence is made known to them and is plain enough that there is no room for them to rationalize it away. However, what seems correct consistently agrees not with reality, but with what we want to believe. The foregoing of course must be true because knowledge grows slowly, and the path to TRUTH is circuitous.

The foregoing is especially important for persons who have been raised as Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church has been very effective in instilling in its children the idea that unless one's life has cosmic significance it doesn't count. Many Catholics can reject the Church. They can reject Jesus. They can reject God. But they cannot reject the idea that life requires more than being a healthy, nurturing, effective, loving human being to totally fulfill everything essential to their well-being. They spend their life chasing butterflies -- the mystical, the obscure, the phantoms that bounce around in their well conditioned brains. Fortunately, I was not raised Catholic. Therefore, I didn't have to find out if I could transcend Catholic brainwashing.

This should remind us that there is a certain part of our being that argument cannot penetrate. It takes a different tool from discussion, logic, experience. The therapeutic process must become such a tool. In reality people do not discard their society's views only because they are wiser or more rational than other people, but primarily because these views have not been successful in answering their needs.

As Clyde Kluckhohn observes, "There will be as much continuity in any individual's life as there is serviceability in their value system. Children go on as long as their private variant of the cultural value system works. But when their environment demands change to obtain satisfaction they will change." [20]

I discarded Christianity then, because it did not fulfill for me the necessary social function. If it had, I no doubt would have proven as able a rationalizer as the next person. And it is because of rationalization that any System to be cogent must permit criticism and be open ended.

It finally became obvious to me that the supernatural cannot be accepted as true without using blind faith because it cannot bear up under an honest questioning or evaluation. Every sect depends upon blind faith even though each may differ as to where that faith is focused. Some persons question at a practical level; others at a more theoretical level. But the amount of questioning a person does before blind faith is invoked will influence which of the available sects the person chooses, or how they participate in their culture's religion.

I eventually came to believe that the way persons practice their religion reflects almost exactly their intelligence and background. I accepted the view that, "Nice people have nice gods and cruel people have cruel gods." Instead of acting as stairs to help them rise to a higher level, their religion, too often, acts as an excuse for a system of incompatible, speculative, subjective, unquestioned, immature ideas. But the foregoing doesn't change the fact that in the final analysis God is POWER. And, this ties into our alpha male propensity. If individuals speak to God there is nothing you can say to show them they are wrong. They speak from a position of infinite power. No need to argue. They have won the discussion. Helping them to grow, expand, mature is almost an impossible challenge. But it is a challenge that a Religion of Wisdom must attempt whenever possible.

Because supernatural Systems depend upon blind faith, they are to varying degrees tied to custom and history. To the extent that a supernatural System cannot question the aims or methods of the past to that extent is it constrained by the accidents of historical experiences. As a result, any System based upon blind faith will be restricted in its options. It will lag behind contemporary thinking as historical and cultural considerations are reworked to fit current realities. The foregoing is true because a System based on blind faith has to change while pretending it is not changing.

The supernatural consists of a group of ideas constantly on the retreat -- for change of a supernatural System is retreat [21]. Any appearance that "God" provides meaning for human life is only an illusion. Some farsighted people such as Kant and Hume have been able to develop for themselves a technique to search for TRUTH seemingly within a supernatural framework. However, their methods are found to move outside the supernatural System when one attempts to expand and use them. Their methods only seemed compatible with the supernatural System because these methods were unprojected, and, perhaps, by a process similar to "doublethink." [22]

Because the supernatural rests on blind faith, or unprovable conjecture, it cannot correct certain of its defects at least not until they rise to tremendous or preposterous levels -- such as those against which "Jesus of Nazareth," [23] Prince Sidhatta Bautama (Buddha), and Martin Luther revolted. Because defects cannot be corrected in a timely manner, a strain is produced that can lead to chaos. Chaotic conditions are the opposite of what a religious institution is supposed to promote. Only a System which is able to correct defects by continuously testing assumptions against reality will be able to continue an uninterrupted march toward congruency regardless of where the search leads, and still give to all its members a SFLIHM. Only a Science of Religion can find and correct such defects.

In my search for a religion I could accept I observed that often the "pillars of the church" were just those who were the worst type of human being -- authoritarian, overbearing, unforgiving, cruel, greedy, selfish, dishonest, hypocritical. It seemed to me that they would feel no discomfort in making a prayer as barbarous as the following parody on hypocrites.

WAR PRAYER by Mark Twain

O, Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the cries of the wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unbefriended through the waste of their desolate land in rags and hunger and thirst, sport of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes, who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask of One who is the spirit of love and who is the ever faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset, and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Grant our prayer, O Lord, and Thine shall be the praise and honor and glory, now and ever. Amen."

The foregoing does not deny folk religions the right to alter concepts such as that of God. Rather it proclaims the necessity to change ideas based on new data and new understanding for any who would seek TRUTH. Any line of thought pursued to its logical and necessary conclusion must lead to the First Principle [24]. This Principle incorporates the idea that human beings are the source of meaning and value and the sole interpreters of what constitutes ultimate concern.

As I pursued the Historical Proofs, I was concerned with the problem that arises because many different religions and sects fancy only themselves to be right. Since each of these religions and sects teaches blind faith; that is, persons must not question they must only accept, I was sure that they must all be praying to the same God. I wrote a prayer to this God. Almost as soon as I had committed the proposition to paper, I realized that the prayer was prompted by wish and hope, nothing more. It had no foundation. This synthesized God denied the history of all religions. However, without these histories God is meaningless. I was attempting to find meaning within the limits of the supernatural, a condition I eventually found to be impossible.

Every religion has a foundation by which it proves its validity and a structure by which it serves its members. Deny the foundation and the whole religion must crumble. These foundations are mutually exclusive. Only one revealed religion is right or all revealed religions are wrong. When I observed the ideas of God and god, of Elysian fields and Heaven, of Christ and Zoroaster, I realized that the issues were hopelessly muddled. The search for meaning and community could not end here. I could find no System here to raise myself appreciably above the position of the most perverted, wicked, and/or vile culture. I could find no standard here which could unite all of humanity and direct them to a common goal worthy of our potential. I could find no rule here which showed one folk religion to be right that would not likewise prove other supernatural based Systems to be right, a condition which is impossible.

.

.

.

.