Finding My Religion
I just finished reading Kurt Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle,” which showed me the obvious downside of founding a religion. Now, this may seem like a useless lesson to most, but in my past, I have had aspirations of starting my own religion. Now, I realize that I have not sufficiently studied all the world’s religions to find one that may fit me perfectly, so it may be a bit premature to assume that I could come up with a religion that is better. But in the end, I am not a simple follower. I cannot wholeheartedly buy into what other people say is true (strangers, “holy” people who claim to know the word of God).
One basic assumption with any religion, of course, is the existence of God, a greater being that “watches over everything,” the final judge. I have to be honest. I don’t know that I buy into that. I believe there’s something (or at least I’d like to believe it), but I don’t know what it is nor do I think it is anything so concrete as to concern itself with individuals. First of all, God does not watch football. I suppose He is all-powerful and can multitask better than the best human, but seriously, even if he did watch football, would he really make one team win because it was more religious than the other? Imagine it. “Oh, geez,” says God, “Here I was watching this game, because Joe Athlete prayed to me a lot, and whoops, I overlooked this wave and let a tsunami kill thousands of people.”
The fatalism implied in the statement “Thank God” annoys me; so much for free will, God decided that the Browns aren’t devout enough to make it to the Super Bowl. Sure, that’s one excuse. I suppose if we had a devout Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Christian Scientist, Mormon, and Buddhist starting line, we may stand a chance. Never mind if the other team may be stronger, faster, better trained, and better paid than our team; God – any, all – will surely make us succeed.
“How can God let this happen?” we ask about various atrocities in the world. Guess what. It’s not God that lets cruelty to animals and dictatorships happen; it’s fear. People are too afraid to take their heads out of the sand and mess up what is a comfortable existence to help others. We let it happen. Every time we turn our backs or throw our hands up in despair, thinking “oh, what is the world coming to?” without doing anything to change it, we let bad things happen. We are fatalistic because we don’t do anything. Nothing is God’s will. Everything is human’s will.
I once browsed the “Encyclopedia of World Religions.” In it, one “religion” was Dialectic Materialism. Karl Marx called religion the “opium of the people.” By that, he did not mean that it is an addictive drug that people blindly buy into (though he may have meant that as well); rather, he saw it as a sedative, a way for people to put up with the all the crap that life was throwing their way. “Well, if I put up with the crap with religious fervor, then my afterlife will be better.” Marx’s response to that was that if life sucks, do something about it. Don’t just take it. It’s that unwillingness to simply bear injustices that appeals to me about Marxism, a.k.a. dialectic materialism.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a communist. Philosophically speaking, on a purely theoretical level, I agree with Marx’s and Engel’s ideology. In reality, however, the final stage, that of reaching equilibrium and equality, doesn’t happen. It would be great if there were no ruling class, and that everyone worked according to their abilities and took according to their needs. However, inherent in this system is the loose interpretations of “abilities” and “need.” There are always those that abuse the system, those that do less and take more than they should. The dialectic part of dialectic materialism states that there are always two opposing parties – the oppressor and the oppressed. Eventually, the oppressed overthrow the oppressor, and themselves, in turn, become the oppressors. Human nature. Communism was the practical application of the Marxist philosophy. Problem is, someone was still in charge, and the system was abused.
Humans think. That sets us apart from other creatures. We think bigger and better. We like progress. We have ambition (because otherwise, what’s the point of thinking? If everything is supposed to stay the same, then why bother?).
“Social reforms are never carried out by the weakness of the strong; but always by the strength of the weak.” This was a quote by Karl Marx that I saw on some website. Pretty cool quote. But now, Marxism has been so maligned, so discredited as anti-American that no matter how beneficial socialism may be for the working class, it will never succeed. The Western bias is so ingrained into children throughout their education (I once took a class in high school called “Non-Western Studies.” Not Eastern Studies, but non-western. Tell me there’s no bias.).
So on a theoretical level, dialectic materialism makes sense. But I’m not particularly oppressed or of the working class. I lead a good life. And as I’ve mentioned before, I’m pretty lazy.
So I’m still looking for a religion. I believe in science. It’s something that requires proof, something that must be able to be reproduced again and again. And any religion that discounts the existence of something is absurd. Christian Scientists don’t believe in medicine. The following is from www.carm.org:
17 Evil and good are not real, S&H, 330:25-27; 470:9-14
18 Matter, sin, and sickness are not real, but only illusions," S&H 335:7-15; 447:27-28.
19 Life is not material or organic, "S&H, 83:21
So how does a Christian scientist respond to an x-ray? Or the Body Worlds exhibit where they showed the actual plastinated lungs of a smoker and a coal-miner, both blackened and much smaller than the size of normal lungs (the coal miner’s lungs were 2/3 the size of a smoker’s lungs, and even denser and blacker; the smokers lungs were 2/3 the size of healthy lungs). I mean, I believe in mind over matter; these days I don’t use any meds except Tylenol, and suffered through a cold (apparently due to sinful living) without meds. But that has to do with pregnancy; I believe they would help to alleviate symptoms. I believe they exist. I believe they have their place in this world. But what I don’t understand about Christian science and scientology is if they are so anti-medicine, so anti-science, why would they incorporate the word into their name?
A Google search for Scientology returns as many links explaining and introducing browsers to the world of Scientology as those that decry the evil religion created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, and spread by brainwashing unsuspecting disciples. Incidentally (or at least according to www.xenu.net), someone named Xenu brought overpopulated people from somewhere in this galaxy to Earth and exterminated them with hydrogen bombs. The souls of the murdered people then infected the bodies of everyone. And advanced Scientologists can “audit” out these “body thetans.” So I’m guessing that illness is just these thetans acting up inside a person’s body, and thus, since these are alien souls, even if medicine does exist and work on human bodies, they wouldn’t work on the ill because earth medicine wouldn’t work on thetans? That’s my best guess, anyhow.
When I first learned that a science fiction author had invented a religion, I decided then and there that one of my life’s goals was to form a religion. It would be a simple religion, one that led people to do good instead of evil without relying on fear of what might happen to them after they died (no vengeful god or alien possessions). I mean, people shouldn’t do good because they’re afraid of what would happen if they don’t (there’s no scorecard), or because what some book said (any book of god necessarily is contaminated by human interpretation), but simply because it’s the right thing to do.
Be nice to others
Try your best
Forgive
These are basic lessons that I’m trying to teach my kids, lessons I think they can learn without the benefit of organized religion. It’s just when people stop thinking for themselves and let their religious leaders do the thinking for them that trouble starts. Usually, it’s fine, and there are good people out there, everywhere, that are not mere drones of religion. But if you’ve never questioned anything about your religion, then how do you know you really believe it?
As it turns out, I think my religion does exist. The book “The Four Agreements” by Don Miguel Ruiz describes four simple rules to follow to simplify your life, based on Toltec-based cosmography (The Toltecs, incidentally, “were spiritual scientists and artists who explored esoteric knowledge and practices.” [New Dimensions website]. Here are the four rules:
1. Be impeccable with your word
2. Don’t take anything personally
3. Don’t make assumptions
4. Always do your best
Simple, to the point, hard to do, but everything I need to live well. I'd say I'm a Toltec, but just because I believe what I skimmed from a book I never completely read doesn't mean I'm willing to subscribe to a new identity. I'll just pick and choose what I like and follow my own little spiritual path.
One basic assumption with any religion, of course, is the existence of God, a greater being that “watches over everything,” the final judge. I have to be honest. I don’t know that I buy into that. I believe there’s something (or at least I’d like to believe it), but I don’t know what it is nor do I think it is anything so concrete as to concern itself with individuals. First of all, God does not watch football. I suppose He is all-powerful and can multitask better than the best human, but seriously, even if he did watch football, would he really make one team win because it was more religious than the other? Imagine it. “Oh, geez,” says God, “Here I was watching this game, because Joe Athlete prayed to me a lot, and whoops, I overlooked this wave and let a tsunami kill thousands of people.”
The fatalism implied in the statement “Thank God” annoys me; so much for free will, God decided that the Browns aren’t devout enough to make it to the Super Bowl. Sure, that’s one excuse. I suppose if we had a devout Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Christian Scientist, Mormon, and Buddhist starting line, we may stand a chance. Never mind if the other team may be stronger, faster, better trained, and better paid than our team; God – any, all – will surely make us succeed.
“How can God let this happen?” we ask about various atrocities in the world. Guess what. It’s not God that lets cruelty to animals and dictatorships happen; it’s fear. People are too afraid to take their heads out of the sand and mess up what is a comfortable existence to help others. We let it happen. Every time we turn our backs or throw our hands up in despair, thinking “oh, what is the world coming to?” without doing anything to change it, we let bad things happen. We are fatalistic because we don’t do anything. Nothing is God’s will. Everything is human’s will.
I once browsed the “Encyclopedia of World Religions.” In it, one “religion” was Dialectic Materialism. Karl Marx called religion the “opium of the people.” By that, he did not mean that it is an addictive drug that people blindly buy into (though he may have meant that as well); rather, he saw it as a sedative, a way for people to put up with the all the crap that life was throwing their way. “Well, if I put up with the crap with religious fervor, then my afterlife will be better.” Marx’s response to that was that if life sucks, do something about it. Don’t just take it. It’s that unwillingness to simply bear injustices that appeals to me about Marxism, a.k.a. dialectic materialism.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not a communist. Philosophically speaking, on a purely theoretical level, I agree with Marx’s and Engel’s ideology. In reality, however, the final stage, that of reaching equilibrium and equality, doesn’t happen. It would be great if there were no ruling class, and that everyone worked according to their abilities and took according to their needs. However, inherent in this system is the loose interpretations of “abilities” and “need.” There are always those that abuse the system, those that do less and take more than they should. The dialectic part of dialectic materialism states that there are always two opposing parties – the oppressor and the oppressed. Eventually, the oppressed overthrow the oppressor, and themselves, in turn, become the oppressors. Human nature. Communism was the practical application of the Marxist philosophy. Problem is, someone was still in charge, and the system was abused.
Humans think. That sets us apart from other creatures. We think bigger and better. We like progress. We have ambition (because otherwise, what’s the point of thinking? If everything is supposed to stay the same, then why bother?).
“Social reforms are never carried out by the weakness of the strong; but always by the strength of the weak.” This was a quote by Karl Marx that I saw on some website. Pretty cool quote. But now, Marxism has been so maligned, so discredited as anti-American that no matter how beneficial socialism may be for the working class, it will never succeed. The Western bias is so ingrained into children throughout their education (I once took a class in high school called “Non-Western Studies.” Not Eastern Studies, but non-western. Tell me there’s no bias.).
So on a theoretical level, dialectic materialism makes sense. But I’m not particularly oppressed or of the working class. I lead a good life. And as I’ve mentioned before, I’m pretty lazy.
So I’m still looking for a religion. I believe in science. It’s something that requires proof, something that must be able to be reproduced again and again. And any religion that discounts the existence of something is absurd. Christian Scientists don’t believe in medicine. The following is from www.carm.org:
17 Evil and good are not real, S&H, 330:25-27; 470:9-14
18 Matter, sin, and sickness are not real, but only illusions," S&H 335:7-15; 447:27-28.
19 Life is not material or organic, "S&H, 83:21
So how does a Christian scientist respond to an x-ray? Or the Body Worlds exhibit where they showed the actual plastinated lungs of a smoker and a coal-miner, both blackened and much smaller than the size of normal lungs (the coal miner’s lungs were 2/3 the size of a smoker’s lungs, and even denser and blacker; the smokers lungs were 2/3 the size of healthy lungs). I mean, I believe in mind over matter; these days I don’t use any meds except Tylenol, and suffered through a cold (apparently due to sinful living) without meds. But that has to do with pregnancy; I believe they would help to alleviate symptoms. I believe they exist. I believe they have their place in this world. But what I don’t understand about Christian science and scientology is if they are so anti-medicine, so anti-science, why would they incorporate the word into their name?
A Google search for Scientology returns as many links explaining and introducing browsers to the world of Scientology as those that decry the evil religion created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, and spread by brainwashing unsuspecting disciples. Incidentally (or at least according to www.xenu.net), someone named Xenu brought overpopulated people from somewhere in this galaxy to Earth and exterminated them with hydrogen bombs. The souls of the murdered people then infected the bodies of everyone. And advanced Scientologists can “audit” out these “body thetans.” So I’m guessing that illness is just these thetans acting up inside a person’s body, and thus, since these are alien souls, even if medicine does exist and work on human bodies, they wouldn’t work on the ill because earth medicine wouldn’t work on thetans? That’s my best guess, anyhow.
When I first learned that a science fiction author had invented a religion, I decided then and there that one of my life’s goals was to form a religion. It would be a simple religion, one that led people to do good instead of evil without relying on fear of what might happen to them after they died (no vengeful god or alien possessions). I mean, people shouldn’t do good because they’re afraid of what would happen if they don’t (there’s no scorecard), or because what some book said (any book of god necessarily is contaminated by human interpretation), but simply because it’s the right thing to do.
Be nice to others
Try your best
Forgive
These are basic lessons that I’m trying to teach my kids, lessons I think they can learn without the benefit of organized religion. It’s just when people stop thinking for themselves and let their religious leaders do the thinking for them that trouble starts. Usually, it’s fine, and there are good people out there, everywhere, that are not mere drones of religion. But if you’ve never questioned anything about your religion, then how do you know you really believe it?
As it turns out, I think my religion does exist. The book “The Four Agreements” by Don Miguel Ruiz describes four simple rules to follow to simplify your life, based on Toltec-based cosmography (The Toltecs, incidentally, “were spiritual scientists and artists who explored esoteric knowledge and practices.” [New Dimensions website]. Here are the four rules:
1. Be impeccable with your word
2. Don’t take anything personally
3. Don’t make assumptions
4. Always do your best
Simple, to the point, hard to do, but everything I need to live well. I'd say I'm a Toltec, but just because I believe what I skimmed from a book I never completely read doesn't mean I'm willing to subscribe to a new identity. I'll just pick and choose what I like and follow my own little spiritual path.
posted by BrainHickey | 2:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home