Thoughts on Easter

The Easter season always brings out the religion in people who make, for all to hear, statements of outlandish belief. The most prominent for this time of year is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. It is a bold statement; one made by people who wouldn’t otherwise be saying something as extreme but they have successfully put reason and science aside, suspend disbelief, and state firmly and without doubt that this is the case. And they are not talking about a figurative resurrection but a physical return from a state of complete and final death.

This year I thought about it again, as I have for as long as I’ve been a reasonable person, since about the age of 7 or 8 when my beliefs were solely based on what others told me was the truth; almost all of which turned out to be fiction and not fact. But there was a difference this year that has been brewing in the background for quite some time. It is a realization of just what is religion.

The statement to which it boils down is this: religion is a delusional emotional refuge when one can’t cope with reality. People in extreme emotional stress find religion to be a way of coping with that which can’t be controlled, that which is outside of their emotional and/or physical capacity. When there seems to be no possible solution, they put their trust in God and let the chips fall where they may. It brings peace of mind and let’s them off the hook so to speak. They don’t have to deal with it, a higher power will somehow make it all ok, where ok is whatever is the outcome. They can then simply say, "I did all I could"; "I put it in God’s hands."

The ability to do this is no minor feat. It is the result of conditioning that either takes place from little on, or is suddenly seized upon by a desperate “soldier in a foxhole”, harking back to the saying that there are no atheists in a foxhole.

This is not my way of admitting to being an atheist. What I believe or don’t is not the issue here. I am looking out in the direction of what others say they believe, and must admit that what I said above summarizes it for me. It is a mentally rewarding escape from reality, like any other delusion. It allows one to go on with the activities of the day, one day at a time, and not be bothered, distracted, or otherwise impacted by enormous implications of dire results.

People pray for luck at the gambling table, the lottery, that the traffic lights will stay green for them, that their team will win, that they will make the shot, that their loved ones won’t be killed in war; in general that the outcome of events will be favorable for them or their loved ones. It is a way of coping with uncertainty.

There is a secular formula for the same thing. What is the worst thing that can happen? Accept that possibility and try to improve on it. This works as well for the lay person, or when the situation is not completely beyond one’s ability to influence. Prayer is reserved for that which is seen to be completely out of the sphere of one’s influence.

Calling upon gods is not a new thing in our history. It predates history, it is part and parcel of every civilization of which we know. This in itself offers some proof of a spiritual or “other” existence. And I don’t dispute any of that; as a matter of fact, I believe that there is a spiritual world and that we are influenced by it/them. The basis of Christian religions is the suspended belief of many scientific principles and observations. Arguing the point with a “believer” would be as futile as arguing the existence of the Olympian gods with an ancient Greek or Roman.

When examined, at least seemingly objectively, the belief system of the RCC is a sophisticated revision of pagan gods and their hierarchy and one that I completely reject. The utility of it lies in the social aspect of a congregation of like minded people and the emotional respite described above, and there is much to be said in favor of both aspects.

There is a parallel in our system of government where the ideals of the constitution are sound but many of those who are elected to govern in accordance with those ideals succumb to excesses of power and become corrupt. This same thing has occurred in the RCC, and perhaps in many other religions, where the ideals of Christianity or Islam are good but the humans who interpret them are “whitened sepulchers” who are prone to error and contrive ways to satisfy their personal desires within the hierarchy of a church. The problems arise when what they do impacts our personal and daily lives. At least in our system of government we can elect others. The only recourse in the RCC is to quit supporting it financially and any other way. The impression I have is that some religions allow for the ouster of leaders but I’m not familiar enough to speak to it.

The Islam phenomenon is interesting because it is so extreme. It binds government and religion together officially, making it impossible to live without being under the control of those who would have you believe a certain way; control so extreme that I would be punished severely for writing these thoughts. It could be concluded that where the Christian faith offers delusion to adherents, Islam is all about controlling the thinking of its masses.

The real freedom is to be able to take off the clothes of organized religion and find the truth through inspired thinking; never accepting any conclusion as final, never writing a system of belief because as understanding deepens that which was absolutely clear yesterday is enhanced, seen to be incomplete.

An Unpublished Diatribe

When a file is corrupted it won’t read, when a CD is damaged it will skip and eject, when a vinyl record was damaged, one either heard scratches, or it tracked through the same several grooves and the same music was heard over and over again. This is the genesis of the phrase, he/she sounds like a broken record and I’m afraid you’re in for a bit of a broken record tonight.

I’m into one of the Great Courses, The Alternative Christianities of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries. There were several varieties of Christian belief in vogue before the 4th century when Constantine said he wanted it standardized and voila, we have New Testament, which is, like the Old Testament, an agreed upon set of books/ writings.

Historically and scientifically the myths of the RCC, and consequently the other flavors of modern Christianity, don’t pass the test. The RCC made heroic efforts to suppress scientific research and advancement because they could see it was to have the effect of nullifying things like virgin birth, water walking, resurrection, ascension, assumption, and a second coming.

The fall back position is to say, well it was allegory, it had spiritual meaning and was not to be taken literally; tell that to the people who were burned at the stake. The truth is, but up to and including now it is hidden and has been replaced with imperfect human interpretations.

It starts with the word “God.” Press anyone on a definition and you’ll get theirs but it won’t be the same as anyone else. It turns out that in the early days of Christianity, before the aforesaid standardization, there were some who said there was one God, two Gods, on up to 365 Gods, (I suppose one per day?) Each proponent had good sound arguments as to why he was right. It is reminiscent of the many Christian sects that exist today, each purports to be the “one true” and each has a good argument.

The difference between what is preached by the RCC today and fifty years ago is night and day. Priests in StL had people going to hell for not attending Sunday services, eating meat on Friday, going to see Jane Russell in a movie, and (ahem) not giving enough money to them. You see there were 10 commandments of God and 6 commandments of the Church. You could go to hell for breaking them; times were good for old brother Satan. Then that started changing, probably around 1960 or so when Pope John XXIII decided that something had to be done to stop the hemorrhage of membership; so Vatican II was convened. The Nicene (circa 300 AD) creed is still being said; the one that includes some of the above myths. So while the church became “more reasonable” they held on to the basic party line.

It is delusion at best. People are conditioned from infancy with regard to religion; a person will not take the chance with his/her immortal soul to think about in what they say they believe. It’s easier to go along with it, learn it, profess it, participate in it than not and besides, one feels more comfortable in a crowd of worshipers of like mind.

Churches in general have the capability of doing much good, and they do. The members’ hearts are in the right place, the hierarchies and the finance committees are often another story. A $10 million house for Rev. Wright; a $25.5 million lawsuit settlement for protecting Louisville sexual predators, and no one really knows how much more money is spread around by finance committees for irreligious purposes.

A book entitled “So You Want to Become a Philosopher” started with a statement that I understood to say, “If it can be put into words, it can be proven true.” I threw the book away. If that is philosophy you can have it. When I listened to sermons, especially about some of the basic beliefs of the RCC; I had the same reaction. There is a basic tenet of ethics that says the end doesn’t justify the means. Yet this is broken over and over again by do-gooders who defend all of the crap that’s going on. The basic philosophy is for you to profess belief in this preposterousness so you will live happily ever after in heaven; and by the way don’t forget to give us enough money to pay the bills.

There have been some notable agnostics throughout history; generally they are condemned. I can see now their frustration and disillusion with the RCC. Starting their own version of it didn’t really get them anywhere except in a position of power that they couldn’t have otherwise achieved. Now some several hundred years later there is a confusing array of Christianities. And just over there is a large number of Islamists who would take over if they could. Talk about your basic struggle between good and evil, and you can take your pick as to which is which.

And yet, what would it be like if everyone shared my view and the churches dried up like over ripe fruit left on the tree. It won’t happen because so many have the need to believe in something bigger, something spiritual, something dreadful, and a further need to belong to/adhere to a group of like minded individuals. In many ways belonging to a church is a cop-out, taking the interpretation of someone else instead of thinking about it until you clarify it. A glib preacher can make it sound so compelling; and yet it can be so wrong.

What I believe is ok for me but I won’t bother you with it; go figure out the truth for yourself and then don’t bother me with it. It’s there, you can do it and you don’t need a Pope, Bishop, or Priest. You won’t find it in one book or even one set of books and you won’t find it after one episode; it takes years and years of thinking, reading, challenging, verifying through experiment and observation and even then, as in my case anyway I know I’m still not there. But I will persevere. I am an imperfect being in search of Truth.