THREE ESSAYS ON THE MEANING OF LIFE
“Out of intense complexities, intense simplicities emerge”
– Winston Churchill.
These three essays have been an exploration for any ultimate purpose and special meaning there may be to our existence by searching for the Truth of the human condition. Our working definitions being: “T” Truth – that which is true for everybody all the time; “ultimate” purpose – being purpose beyond the obvious and ultimately meaningless purposes of our mortal animal bodies; “special” meaning – being that which all our lives have (i.e. beyond the individual meanings which most of us construct).
Essay 1 examined the House of God to find out why it is emptying. We determined that while said House had some Truths for us (mainly those brought by Jesus: love, forgive, do unto others) its Biblical foundations were largely unsound. The Old Testament’s primitive, human, male, sexist, brutal, jealous, parochial Abrahamic god leaving the idea of any God incredible; the New Testament’s contradictions and doctrinising leaving the baby of Jesus’ Truths drowning in doctrinal bathwater; its incredible meaning and purpose of life turning many against the belief that life has any such.
Essay 2 examined the House of Disbelief and found that, while its foundations were sound (the Truths of our sciences), its disbelief in any ultimate purpose and special meaning to life was supported by unsound philosophical pillars. Pillars like: the Problem of Evil; scientism; determinism; reductionism; physicalism; neuroscientism; behaviourism; natural selectionism; Darwinism; atheism; relativism; post modernism; nihilism; existentialism – all basically materialist fundamentalisms which would have us believe that the human condition can be fully explained in terms of the physical atoms and electrical impulses of our naturally evolved animal body.
Essay 3 then set out to explore for Truths outside the walls of both our blinkering Houses – Along the Road to Truth. Although I am not a Buddhist (nor I like to think an “anythingelseist”) the title for the third essay was taken from one of Buddha’s sayings: “There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth – not going all the way, and not starting”. So, by starting we managed to obey one of Buddha’s injunctions, but whether we managed to obey his other, harder, one to go all the way along it is, ultimately, for you to decide. All I can say is that our expedition stopped at nothing – we explored for the “T” Truth of the human condition in the unnatural as well as the natural; the metaphysical as well as the physical; the paranormal as well as the normal. And out of the “intense complexities” of the big existential questions: Purpose, Meaning, Life, Death, Love, Happiness, God, Everything – the following “intense simplicities” emerged:
The purpose of anything is what it does and this, our relative reality, does creativity. Relativity “does” creativity by allowing the existence of things relatively good, better, best – whereas the absolute is absolute – therefore non-creative. Such existence of good, better, best forces/allows creativity by selection for best – nature forces selection for best to create our bodies – we have the opportunity to select for best to create our selves.
Our physical bodies – comprised of atoms and energy and mechanically selected by nature – are meaningless. But we are not our bodies – we are our nonphysical selves which we create through our choices – over many lives. Which self-creation makes our existences meaningful.
Life, while often testing, is not a test that we can pass or fail – but an opportunity (which we can fail to take). Life is an opportunity to create/evolve our selves. We do this by firstly being our true self; which allows us to know our true self; which allows our lives’ ultimate opportunity to grow our self – until we are happiest about our self.
Our bodies allow us to feel passing animal contentment/happiness, but being lastingly happy is only available through our self. We have bodies, but we are our self and happiness with true self, if achieved, is lasting because the self is the only source of happiness totally within our control.
Being able to love our (truly known) self is the key to happiness – we are our own harshest judges, and the strongest evidence we allow that we are worthy of our own love, is if others love us (our self, not our power, money etc.). Love from others is only truly achieved by truly loving them. “Romantic” love is Darwinian, not spiritual.
Death is just the end of one opportunity for self creation/evolution. There is no “Law of Once” – the fact that our spiritual self exists here with an animal body, once, is only proof of one thing: that such can happen – not that it must never happen again.
The fact that our religions have incredible human gods does not disprove the existence of any real God. There is observably an intelligence higher than us behind this finely-calibrated universe written in an intelligent mathematical language. While the nature of God/Absolute must remain ineffable to our animal brains/minds (born of, and only experienced of the relative) our spiritual selves experience a wordless “D” Divine whenever we (our selves) – are spiritually “moved”, “lifted” (by the experience of beauty, for example).
The everything of this relative reality rests in its creativity.
So, is the above the “T” Truth, or just our expedition’s comforting “t” truth?
Let’s see – this philosophy of meaning relies on four things being so: 1.) the existence of our nonphysical self; 2.) that our self can spiritually evolve; 3.) that we have many lives; 4.) that there are higher realities beyond this Earthly one, for our selves to evolve into.
The three essays listed at the beginning of this Conclusion considered enough credible evidence to be able to reasonably conclude in the affirmative to the above propositions. To reprise a little of their arguments from evidence for those who may have started with this Conclusion:
1. THE EXISTENCE OF OUR NONPHYSICAL SELF?
Is it the Truth of the human condition that we have both an animal body and a spiritual self? Let’s ask the man who wrote the book on evolution (literally) – Charles Darwin:
“In my journal I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a Brazilian forest ‘it is not possible to give an adequate idea of the higher feelings of wonder, admiration and devotion which fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the breath of his body.”
Charles Darwin, “Autobiography” (my emphasis).
This quote from his autobiography refers to Darwin’s time as a young man aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, sailing around the world on a voyage of biological discovery. On a stopover in Brazil, he explored the jungle, and at one point found himself standing and admiring its beauty – which led him to consider one of the mysteries of the human condition: that we can recognise and admire beauty – even in things inimical to our body’s survival. Further, he was moved spiritually by such beauty, experiencing: “higher feelings of wonder, admiration and devotion”. Darwin’s youthful consideration of this mystery led him to conclude, as we did in Essay 3: that the human condition is to be more than just an animal body: “I well remember my conviction that there is more in man than the breath of his body”.
But, it needs to be remembered, that Darwin was spiritual as a young man (originally contemplating a career in the ministry) – so we also need to consider: what were his thoughts towards the end of his life – especially after his discoveries that our animal bodies physically evolve through the blind, mechanical process that is natural selection? Did he still think that there was “more in man” than just our bodies?
To answer this we will consider his answer to our second necessary proposition, above – whether our self (our “more”) can evolve?
2. CAN OUR NONPHYSICAL SELF EVOLVE?
Towards the end of his autobiography we get this from Darwin, speaking now as an older man:
“By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which rendered habitual may be almost called instincts.”
Charles Darwin, ibid. (P. 94)
We’ll ignore Darwin’s sexist language, which was common for the era, (by “him” and “his” he was referring to humanity) and consider that: “by degrees” is slowly/evolvingly; that behaviour “rendered habitual” is behaviour which has become your usual behaviour (in this case, to obey our “higher impulses”); and that such higher impulses are spiritual impulses (because above/higher than our base, animal “sensuous passions”). So, “By degrees … higher impulses … rendered habitual” is spiritual/self evolution – our self evolving to the point where we usually choose to obey our higher spiritual impulses rather than our body’s baser sensual passions – because the reverse has now “become intolerable”.
In Doubt? Consider “intolerable” to what?
Certainly obeying our “sensuous passions rather than [our] higher impulses” could not be intolerable to our body – which gets much contentment from meeting its sensuous passions (and spreading its selfish genes). Rather it could only be intolerable to our self/soul/spirit/consciousness (call such what you will).
So, all up, we have support from the Master himself for propositions 1.) and 2.): that there is evidence of separate physical and self/spiritual factors in the human equation; that self/spiritual evolution can happen in the course of a human life. As well as Darwin’s opinion, Essay 3 also considered other considerable evidence which supported these two propositions.
But Sceptics would say: “Fine, say we accept the evidence which an examination of the human condition offers: that we have a nonphysical self, and even that life offers said self the opportunity to evolve – but life’s still meaningless: you evolve your self, and then you’re dead! – where’s the meaning there!?
Our body will be dead – but the essays considered plenty of evidence to create/support the other two propositions, above: 3.) that we have many lives (in which to complete our self/spiritual evolution); 4.) that there are higher realities beyond this Earthly one (for our sufficiently evolved selves to evolve into). We will reprise from Essay 3 a little of the supporting evidence for these two propositions, and consider such evidence together.
3. EVIDENCE FOR MANY LIVES & 4. HIGHER REALITIES
While we found plenty of evidence to support propositions 1. and 2. just from an intellectual consideration of normal life experiences and behaviours, to create and support propositions 3. and 4. required consideration of evidence from paranormal life experiences and phenomena. Basically, we were required to have the courage to take Faulkner’s challenge – issued at the Introduction to these essays:
“You cannot swim for new horizons until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.”
We needed to swim for new horizons beyond sight of our present, hostile shores. Those “new horizons” being of a land offering hope of some evidence for our ultimate purpose and special meaning; “the shore” being that of our present hopeless land dominated by the diametrically opposing (and constantly warring) House of God and the House of Disbelief – both “hostile” to any special meaning and ultimate purpose to our existence.
The new horizons belonged to the land of the “paranormal”, and exploring such did take plenty of Faulkner’s courage – because of their dangers – especially to the credibility of our expedition. We will look at evidence from the paranormal for many lives and for higher realities in a moment, but first – why did we find both the House of God and the House of Disbelief “hostile to any credible special meaning and ultimate purpose”?
We spent an essay each on these two Houses – examining their ideas on the Truth of the human condition and the existence, or absence, of any special meaning/purpose of life – to broadly conclude the following:
THE HOUSE OF DISBELIEF?
Our examination of the philosophical House of Disbelief found it to be built upon the solid foundation stones of our successful physical sciences. Said physical sciences, by definition, cannot contemplate anything “metaphysical” – literally: beyond what is physical. And, anyhow, our physical sciences see no need for contemplating anything spiritual, believing that physics, chemistry, and Darwinian biology are on the verge of unifying together into a “Theory of Everything” – which can successfully describe everything about the human condition. “There is only physics, all the rest is stamp-collecting” – Rutherford; “Physics can explain everything” – Hawking.
While it must be agreed that any system of belief, any philosophy, based on our physical sciences has sound foundations, any philosophical pillars built thereon must also be sound. Essay 2 did not find this to be the case.
Philosophy, over the years since Aristotle wrote his “Metaphysics”, came to be slowly dominated by the rising power of our monotheistic Houses of God. Most academies and universities were originally founded by, thus subsequently controlled by, religions – meaning religious metaphysics dominated the philosophy of meaning (hence the “Dark Ages”). Eventually, in the West, the Enlightenment loosened the religious shackles from academic philosophy, but the burgeoning successes of our physical sciences in explaining our universe just reshackled it – although no longer “a footnote to Plato” and/or a prop for the Bible, philosophy now became the handmaiden of science – the academically-correct philosophical position gradually becoming variations of atheistic physicalism/materialism. Hume, a leading philosopher of the Enlightenment era (an Empiricist, and one of the saints of the House of Disbelief) averred that any text of metaphysics should be: “committed to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion”. After Darwin’s later discoveries concerning natural selection, evolutionary theory then gradually dominated philosophy into the modern era – reaching full flowering in the post-modern era when Neo-Darwinian biology formed a triumvirate with physics and chemistry in an effort to develop a “Theory of Everything”. While this theory is not complete, many presume it is (or shrink from challenging it) – to the point where any academic taking the metaphysical seriously is now up against academic correctness (and risking any hope of tenure). Under the above physical science materialist triumvirate the default position regarding the human condition is that we can have no separate soul/self, no physical plus nonphysical duality – “we” can be fully describable as a physical machine – and there can be no “ghost in the machine” (Ryle); no ghostly self in our machine/body which was created mechanically by nature selecting for best amongst mutations which had happened randomly to matter (which matter was not only accidentally alive, but accidentally occurring in the beginning – from nothing!). Further, because “we” are only atoms, we must only have one life because our atoms break up when the body dies – further still, any talk of the existence of other realities than this one must be just the wishful thinking of weak people.
The philosophic implications of such materialism is nihilism – a total denial of the nonphysical/metaphysical and any special meaning or ultimate purpose – we must only have our personal meanings and the animal purposes of our bodies.
However, our Houses of God allow the metaphysical – further, the existence of such is crucial to them. And they insist that they have a complete knowledge of all things spiritual direct from God – and, from the same immaculate source, complete knowledge of the human condition and the special meaning and ultimate purpose our life.
THE HOUSE OF GOD?
Essay 1 examined religion and found that while it had some Truths for us (mainly in the words of Jesus), its metaphysics was mainly concerned with devising and supporting the doctrine necessary to build, then sell, a religion – rather than was it concerned with seeking spiritual Truths.
To build a religion with power over people, its main tenet has to be that we must have only one life. Which single life is a test of us – our character, our belief in the primitive god the House of God invented thousands of years ago, our faith in what said House is telling us – and to pass that one-off test you need the help of religion (a “pass” allowing the gaining of heaven and the avoidance of hell). However, the House of God’s necessary “one life” theory comes up against the problem known in philosophy as “The Problem of Evil”. Basically this is the observation that: if life is a once-only test, it is surely a meaningless one – because life is not a level playing field and not everyone has the same experience/test. In fact, because some are so terribly disadvantaged, and because children, even babies, die – some people have no “test” at all. Many people, not only lose their faith in the existence of any God after the death of a child (Darwin was one), but also lose belief in any special meaning to life. Religion has various answers to this Problem of Evil (little children who die have been specially selected by God to go straight to heaven to be gathered unto Himself; parents who lose children get them back in heaven; God works in mysterious ways; etc. etc.) which the majority have found uncompelling (evidenced by the empty pews).
Considered with all its other incredibilities: its incredible “B” Book with its needy, sexist, parochial, brutal, human male “g” god and its frequently incorrect astronomy, biology, history, etc.; its past and present evils committed in God’s name; its unbelievable doctrines (Salvation, Trinity, Original Sin); its Gospels’ frequent contradictions – all serving to obliterate in people’s minds that there could be a real “G” God (whatever Her/His/Their/Our Nature), the good works that the House of God has done and is still doing, and the undoubted “T” Truths that Jesus brought us of loving, forgiving, doing – unto others. All up, for our purposes of seeking any special meaning and ultimate purpose to life, Essay 1 found the House of God’s metaphysics incredible.
(It is interesting to note that the belief we must only have one life is a tenet crucial to both the House of Disbelief and the House of God – and the only one they share – and we found both Houses to be unsound).
There is, of course, “New Age” religion – which also claims the metaphysical within its remit. With the dwindling credibility of our ancient Book-based religions, there has been a gap left in the meeting of our spiritual needs – and a growing quantity of best-selling New Age material generated to fill it. Various New Age gurus have proffered imaginative answers to metaphysical questions, however, our expedition found that although the New Age has some wisdom and apparent “T” Truths about the human condition, its lack of serious research, over-dependence on assertions, and its fuzzy logic – leave it difficult to be useful for any exploration of the human condition hoping to be rational.
So, in our search for new horizons, we were left with – and entered – the paranormal. Ever a fertile field for claims of metaphysical knowledge.
While some of the above about the New Age can be said to apply to metaphysical information from paranormal sources, the paranormal field has attracted much more in the way of credible and rigorous researchers than the New Age. But still, while the paranormal is a fertile field for metaphysical information, it is equally fertile for fraudulent weeds – throwing seeds of poisonous misinformation and dangerous disinformation. There is no doubt that paranormal is fraught with dangers – mainly from fraudulent operators who seek to exploit those who go there – usually vulnerable folk, typically recently bereaved and/or in need of comfort and reassurance.
Given the uncertainty presented by the undoubted presence of fraudulence, should this exploration which is trying to be a rational exploration for the “T” Truth of the human condition, enter the paranormal at all?
SHOULD THE PARANORMAL BE CONSIDERED?
Paranormal experiences, whether you personally believe them or not, are part of the human experience – many sane and credible people have them. And, having accepted Buddha’s injunction to go all the way along the road to Truth, we had to consider all human experiences for any Truth. Not only that, but, as above, we had concluded that no path to Truth was possible through our two main belief systems: the House of God or the House of Disbelief – diametrically opposed fundamentalisms who were only concerned to protect their own “t” truths, rather than to explore for any “T” Truths which could prove to be inconvenient to their own power and comfort (yes Virginia, while atheists have long accused theists of seeking comfort, there is also comfort in “D” Disbelief). And we came to believe that humanity needs to break this logjam between fundamentalisms which is preventing the flow of Truth, in whatever way works – to survive as a species. I say “to survive” because, as the essays observed, our spiritual evolution needs to catch up with our tearaway technological evolution – we presently have atom bombs in the hands of countries which have primitive, brutal gods, or none at all.
So, to the paranormal Essay 3 was forced to go – but with a healthy scepticism (as opposed to fundamentalist “S” Scepticism) – wide awake to the potential for fraudulence.
THE PARANORMAL AND HOW WE APPROACHED IT?
Given that the paranormal contains plenty of fraudulent operators (not only because vulnerable, recently-bereaved people go there – but because paranormal information is attractive to ordinary folk as well) the credibility of any conclusions our expedition drew from the paranormal experiences and research we examined must depend very much on how we approached the material – i.e. who we allowed as reliable experiencers or researchers, and what we allowed from them as credible evidence. All up, we approached our exploration of the paranormal in Essay 3 with an open mind but also a healthy “s” scepticism (as compared to a fundamentalist, shut-minded “S” Scepticism). We were also careful to confine ourselves to researchers and experiencers who mainly had professional experience and academic qualifications, and who had already achieved much in life – successful careers, personal status, professional respect – i.e. they had much more to lose, than gain, by being fraudulent. Frauds, on the other hand, starting with nothing, have nothing to lose but plenty to gain (usually money, power over people, fame etc.).
So, while it was agreed that there was still a risk of our expedition for Truth being derailed in the paranormal (not only by those operators therein who are fraudulent, but by those who are genuine but misguided, deluded, and/or incompetent) such risk was considered much reduced by our criteria for whom we chose as guides therein. And a risk worth taking because we only have to find one true paraphenomenon for classical physics’ entirely physical (and hope-less) model of the universe to be broken. Even if only one past life can be verified, if one experience of a next reality beyond this one (say via an NDE) is true; even if only one communication with departed but surviving selves/souls in another reality (say via a medium) is true – then the existence of many lives, higher realities, and our self’s/consciousness survival of bodily death are true. In this we were encouraged by the words of the father of Psychology as a science: William James – who said: “If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, you mustn’t seek to show that no crows are; it is enough if you prove one single crow to be white.”
ONE WHITE CROW?
So how did we go?
Our expedition found, in fact, several “white crows” – credible evidence from rational, already successful, qualified and respected academic professionals – and in different areas of paranormal research (e.g. NDE’s, past life recall, mediums, ITC). Such researchers were people of the calibre of Professor David Fontana, Professor William James, Professor F. W. H. Myers (séances and mediums); Professor Ian Stevenson, Dr. Brian Weiss and Dr. Helen Wambach (past lives); Dr. Sam Parnia, Dr. Pim van Lommel, and Dr. Kenneth Ring (NDE’s); Professor Ernst Senkowski and Anabela Cardoso (ITC) – to mention just a few in each field. And general researchers and experiencers over the past years of the calibre of Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Dr. Robert Crookall, Lord Dowding, Sir William Barrett, Professor James Hyslop – and many credible and academically qualified researchers who were/are members of the British and the American Societies for Psychical Research. These researchers confirmed each other on the main points which were most salient for our above conclusions. Those points being: the existence of separate self and body; the survival of self/consciousness after bodily death; that we have several lives; there are other realities beyond this one.
And what also must be considered is that there are degrees of “paranormality” (to coin a word) in the paranormal studies we allowed as worthy of consideration.
DEGREES OF PARANORMALITY
For example, the work concerning many lives conducted by Dr. Helen Wambach, Professor Ian Stevenson, and Dr. Brian Weiss (all academically qualified) is more science than paranormal. NDE’s, likewise, have been/are being approached scientifically by Dr. Sam Parnia, Dr. Pim van Lommel and others, and ITC (Instrumental Transcommunication) allows objectivity and repeatability – thus study by scientific method (it also uses common electronic equipment affordable and accessible to anyone; the methods used to experiment are open to anyone interested (i.e. mediumistic “powers” are not necessary); present and past researchers freely share “how-to” expertise rather than keep it to themselves to make money or gain fame.
The lines between paranormal and normal are not as distinct as members of the House of Disbelief need to believe – especially when quantum mechanics is employed. This from neuroscientist Dr. Mario Beauregard (Assistant Professor at the Neuroscience Research Centre, University of Montreal):
“Materialist scientists and philosophers are also led to consider certain [paranormal] phenomena such as psi, NDE, and mystical experiences as anomalous. These phenomena are anomalous only to the extent that we cling to the false assumptions of scientific materialism. Seen and understood through the lens of quantum mechanics, most of these phenomena do not appear anomalous at all. So-called paranormal events are, in effect, perfectly normal.”
“Brain Wars”, Mario Beauregard. P. 212
We will have a bit more of a look at the implications of quantum physics in a moment, and a little look at just what we have come to accept as “normal” and/or “paranormal”.
But first, what is the evidence that Sceptics rely on to “disprove” all things paranormal?
OF SCEPTICS AND SCEPTICISM?
As stated, an open but sceptical approach is essential for any honest exploration for “T” Truths in the paranormal field, however, reading the prominent sceptics of our time reveals that there are many who are fundamentalist “S” Sceptics. Such fundamentalist Sceptics are almost always philosophical materialists who, believing all must be matter/energy, have to shut their minds to the possibility of any Truths of the human condition existing outside of our physical bodies and their mechanical evolution by natural selection. Such materialutionists (to coin another word), believe that the human condition can be, must only be, described in terms of matter/energy and any honest researchers in the paranormal fields that there may be, must have been victims of confirmation bias. But Sceptics have such a fundamentalist Disbelief that they must always approach the paranormal looking for the necessary fraud, and find proof of it in the slightest possibility – their analysis of the remarkable Scole séances being a good example. It must be seriously considered whether this is disconfirmation bias?
All that said, we need to seriously consider the evidence against accepting any paranormal information.
GOOD EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PARANORMAL?
We examined the evidence most commonly put forward by “S” Sceptics as disproof of paranormal phenomena, and found that there are four good arguments upon which they rely:
1.) Some operators in the paranormal have been proven to be fraudulent – claiming to be genuine mediums but caught using such methods as “cold calling” techniques etc. to bluff people into thinking that they are communicating with the “other side”.
2.) There have been different descriptions of what happens after death and what the afterlife is like – if the “afterlife” is true, then every account of it should be exactly the same.
3.) Some of the information received from even the best mediums is sometimes wrong.
4.) There is no physical proof of paranormal phenomena.
These arguments are fair and genuine – and need to be considered to see whether they can stand as disproofs of all paranormal information. Let’s have a look:
Argument 1.): while it is a fact that there are plenty of fraudulent “mediums” and “psychics” must this necessarily prove that all paranormal mediums and mediumistic phenomena are fraudulent, especially those accepted as genuine by the qualified and experienced researchers which we investigated? Most fake psychics using techniques like cold calling (starting off with a series of broad statements, some of which are bound to be true for some people in the audience, then focussing in on those: “I’m getting a message from someone called Bob, I can feel chest pains, etc., etc.”) – are actually cynical performers, not the spiritual mediums they claim to be – making a lot of money from needy people by supplying them with simple, longed-for messages (“I have just spoken to your departed husband and he survives and is OK – he sends his love and is waiting for you.” etc. etc.) The sometime “hits” of such performers are remembered, their “misses” wilfully forgotten by those in need of comfort. However, the information received by those mediums who were accepted as genuine by the researchers we used as guides into the paranormal, went way beyond such simple stuff – into arcane, complex, spiritual and metaphysical content – often conveying very personal information unknown to anybody other than the (often anonymous to the medium) séance sitter. Most of the more highly regarded mediums sought no fame/notoriety (and often charged no money) – and were in a trance (i.e. not being able to question – thus elicit any information from the sitter – through cold calling or any other trickery). The séances which our researchers accepted as genuine and credible evidence for survival of self/spirit and the existence of other realities, were closely watched for fraud by experts – for example, the scientifically qualified observers from the SPR (Society for Psychic Research) at the remarkable Scole séances (a magician was also used to look for any tricks). Some other mediums tested by the SPR, and eventually accepted as genuine, were closely watched 24 hours a day to see if they were indulging in any fraudulent information-gathering (one of the best, Leonora Piper, was closely watched for long periods over some years – even to the extent of being made to live in the investigator’s house during the course of a series of séances (often with sitters anonymous to her); being followed when not in séance; and having any mail she received opened. It must also be remembered that in Piper’s day there was no such thing as the ready information about people we have these days via the internet etc. Despite all this Piper was able, for years, to pass on lots of arcane, secret, highly personal information from people who had died and were now in another reality. For Professor William James, Piper was his “one white crow”. All up, our researchers were not fools, nor recently bereaved – but highly educated and much too experienced to mistake charlatans for genuine mediums.
Argument 2.) stems from the fact that Sceptics accept and include all weird/mental experiences as “paranormal” – if the experiencers claim them as such – e.g. “I’ve just had an NDE!”. Many experiences claimed/supposed to be Near Death Experiences are actually experiences caused by epilepsy; anaesthetically induced mental phenomena (e.g. especially from the drug ketamine); frontal lobe seizures; hallucinations; party drugs; carbon dioxide; endorphins; etc.. These are mental experiences of the body/brain, not paranormal phenomena, and such experiences vary widely – accounting for many of the discrepancies in experiences wrongly lumped together as NDE’s. Sceptics see any discrepancies between alleged NDE’s as proof of fakery – arguing that, if they are to be regarded as true, all NDE’s should be the same. An international association comprised of NDE experiencers and researchers – IANDS (International Association for Near-Death Studies) – has developed an authentication scale of key determinants of a true NDE, and those NDE’s which rate highly thereon, agree on the two main points pertinent to the conclusions of our investigation into the Truth of human condition: 1.) survival of consciousness/self after bodily death; 2.) realities beyond this one. Commonly, those NDE’s accepted as genuine also describe a next reality of great beauty; intense feelings of non-judgemental love; a life review; higher beings. Reports from NDE’s accepted as genuine are also bound to vary to a degree because, commonly, experiencers have great trouble in finding earthly words to describe such unearthly experiences – and experiencers have different educational levels and cultural expectations – higher beings encountered during NDE’s are usually given different earthly names from the religious expectations of the experiencer (e.g. Jesus, Buddha, etc.).
It has also been found that reports from genuine experiences of the next reality can vary especially if said experience was brief (the experiencer revived from bodily death more quickly than others). Researchers have found that, in the early stages after bodily death, the experiencer can encounter that which he/she expected to find after death – for example: nothing, hell, conventional heaven – etc. Such differing expectations leading to differing reports of “the other side”.
Argument 3.) stems from the fact that some of the information received through even the best mediums is wrong. But such mistakes are vastly outweighed by the sheer volume of correct information which has no explanation – as above, private, personal, and/or arcane information known only by one of the sitters in the examining group – and from a medium in a trance (i.e. not able to speak to the sitter in order to get information from them through cold-calling techniques). Also Essay 3 considered a phenomenon in paranormal research called the “cross correspondences” – where bits of information are sent to a séance sitter through different mediums not in contact with each other, which information is known to be true by the sitter true and only make sense when compiled with the other bits.
It must be remembered that even mediums, although necessarily sensitive to the spiritual, are human beings with only human brains/abilities – some communicators from “the other side” complain that getting information to even good mediums is difficult at times – one described it as often being like trying to dictate words to an obtuse secretary through a shut, frosted-glass window. It must be considered that not every piece of information conveyed to such “an obtuse secretary” has to be proven correct to prove survival of self/consciousness – again, as Professor William James noted, just as there only has to be one “white crow” to disprove all crows are black – there only has to be one genuine message from a surviving spirit/soul/self in another reality to prove survival of spirit/soul/self after bodily death; and subsequent realities to this Earthly one. There certainly has been way more than one such white crow in the volumes of arcane and intensely personal information passed on by mediums – about/from deceased people totally unknown to the medium – supplied to sitters unknown to the entranced medium throughout and after the séance.
Argument 4.) stems from the assertion of materialists that if anything cannot be proven, nor disproven to exist – by physical science methods – then it cannot exist. This is a fundamentalist viscous circle – insisting that the nonphysical cannot exist because it is not empirically provable by physical means? However, while we can’t produce a lump of the self to be measured or felt – we can feel our said self being “moved”, “lifted”, “inspired” by beauty, for example (which beauty we also can’t run a tape over). Sceptics usually disparage such mystery with dogma like: “beauty is only in the eye of the beholder”. Essay 3 considers the mystery of our understanding and appreciation of beauty at some length – here, in our consideration of this argument, we just need to consider again Darwin’s reflections, quoted earlier, that some nonphysical part of us can be affected by something nonphysical (in his case, the beauty of a dangerous jungle – i.e. inimical to the survival of his body) establishing in him a “conviction that there is more in man than the breath of his body.”
Let’s look more closely at the claim of materialist ideologues that the paranormal can’t be real because it can’t be measured with their ever-so-normal ruler. We need to closely examine the reality of their “normal” ruler.
HOW REAL IS THE NORMAL?
Just how real is “normal” reality – the ruler by which the reality of everything must be measurable to exist – as our physical scientists and materialists claim?
For starters, has it even been proven that such normal reality, itself, actually concretely exists? Matter – once seen as so “solid, massy, hard, impenetrable” (in Newton’s words) has been shown by quantum physics to be largely illusory – overwhelmingly space. Further, even those subatomic particles of matter which are not space are actually a chimera of energy fields and quantum potentialities which can resolve/collapse as physical matter rather than waves through our nonphysical consciousness of it.
So, what’s more “normal” – the apparent normality/concreteness of this life in this physical world (which needs our nonphysical self’s consciousness of it to exist as concrete matter) – or the apparent paranormality of the “afterlife” – similarly existing because of our nonphysical self’s consciousness of it?
Quantum physicists Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner recount an argument between four fellow quantum physicists, during a physics conference they attended – about the weirdness of quantum theory and its implications for the “reality” we live in:
“A fourth summarised the argument by saying, ‘The world is not as real as we think.’ Three of these arguers have Nobel Prizes in Physics, and the fourth is a good candidate for one.”
“Quantum Enigma” (2011), Rosenblum and Kuttner. P.9
More from Rosenblum and Kuttner in a moment, but the above accords with information received by paranormal means (Professor F.W.H. Myers reported from “the other side” after his bodily death that the next reality which awaits us is the actual real one – being “the original of the earth” – the Earth being only “an ugly smudged copy”.
Shades of Plato’s cave!
But some will continue to insist that the information which our expedition has gleaned from paranormal research, just seems too bizarre to be taken seriously. “Too bizarre” – compared to what – compared to our real world perhaps?
TOO BIZARRE COMPARED TO THE REAL WORLD?
You want bizarre? – I’ll give you bizarre – consider what our physical sciences are telling us about this real, normal, non-paranormal world that we seem to be in:
· This present material reality is of matter which accidentally became matter at the big bang – from existing energy – which itself came accidentally into existence even though the laws of physics tell us that energy cannot be created.
· That all the fine settings of the forces, ratios, constants, etc. which allow the universe to exist must also have been accidental (even though they are written in an intelligent language – mathematics).
· Because physics can allow no “First Mover/God”, our universe can only seem “intelligent” – it must actually have been one of an infinite number of universes which came (also accidentally) into being – such that one (ours), with its apparently intelligent mathematical laws, could exist by chance (such “chance” being trillions of trillions of trillions to one – against). Do I hear someone sharpening Ockham’s Razor?
· That inert/inorganic matter which emanated from a sterile, billion degree, big bang became accidentally organic – alive – chemically, spontaneously.
· That the original single physical cell(s) of spontaneously living matter should develop nonphysical factors like consciousness from accidental, random physical mutations of physical matter.
· That we should evolve to be able to speak the mathematical language that the whole accidental thing was accidentally written in – when such ability is not necessary to survive (no other animal can).
· That one bunch of accidentally living, accidentally existing, matter should be writing this, and another bunch should be reading it?
But if you want truly bizarre, we should consider what quantum physics is telling us about our normal, non-paranormal, physical world – and ourselves:
“In chapter 15 we describe several contending views, interpretations, of what quantum mechanics is telling us about the physical world – and, perhaps, about us. These are all serious proposals developed with extensive mathematical analysis. They variously suggest observation creating a physical reality, the existence of many parallel worlds with each of us in each of them, a universal connectedness, the future affecting the past, a reality beyond physical reality…”
Rosenblum & Kuttner, ibid. P. 10.
Let’s see – that’s:
· “a reality beyond physical reality” (isn’t that what the researchers into the paranormal are telling us about: a reality beyond this physical reality?)
· “observation creating a physical reality” (our consciousness creates this our present reality! – why can’t it create the next?)
· “many parallel worlds”?
· “each of us in each of them”?
· “a universal connectedness”? (more evidence of universal consciousness and the unity of everything which we received from paranormal evidence).
Through our understandings of quantum physics we have entered, not only an era of post-classical physics, but a post-materialism era as well. Again, it is actually “concrete” matter which is the chimera, not the much more real and normal nonphysical spiritual phenomena which we experience and live with every day – for example, our almost daily experience of being spiritually moved by beauty (as Darwin was in the Brazilian jungle) and our constant experience of our nonphysical consciousness. For a physicalist, a materialist – something nonphysical like consciousness must always be a mystery:
“…most contemporary experts admit a mystery, usually one encountering consciousness. Although it is our most intimate experience, consciousness is ill defined. It’s something physics can’t treat, but can’t ignore.”
Rosenblum & Kuttner (ibid. P. 10)
And it seems that, instead of our physical brain/body being ”us”, as materialists claim – we are our self/consciousness – the brain is just a tool, a transceiver for consciousness. This from scientist Dr. Bernado Kastrup:
“Your physical brain and body have been just tools of your consciousness: a highly-sophisticated, semi-autonomous transceiver…somewhat analogous to any other tool you may have used to interact with the material aspects of reality…From this perspective, your body is not you; you are just its user.”
“Rationalist Spirituality” – Bernado Kastrup, P.101.
What are the implications for our expedition towards the Truth of the human condition if “your body is not you”? This:
“It is inescapable to conclude from our argument that nobody ever truly dies and nobody is ever truly lost to others.”
– ibid. P.103.
Evidence from a physical scientist which supports the key finding from the “paranormal” field that we, our consciousness, our real self – survive bodily death.
So, after all that – what’s normal, and what’s paranormal? Dr. Beauregard’s comment, quoted above, come: “Seen and understood through the lens of quantum mechanics, most of these phenomena do not appear anomalous at all. So-called paranormal events are, in effect, perfectly normal.”
And where does that leave God?
The main aim of this expedition was not to find or deny God – but rather to explore for the Truth of the human condition and, through a consideration of such Truth, to determine any special meaning and ultimate purpose that our existence may have. While Essay 1 did examine the House of God and its god for “T” Truth, finding any God was not its aim. However, all that said, a “D” Divinity has been quietly implied many times by some of the evidence we have been considering in these essays. For example: all the forces necessary for our universe to come into stable, enduring existence are finely set and are in delicate ratios to each other; the odds of the universe and the life within it existing by chance are vanishingly small; the universe is written in an intelligent language (we know it is intelligent because we, an intelligence can speak it); NDE experiencers frequently speak of encountering a Divine beyond anything imagined by our primitive religions (commonly returning spiritual rather than religious).
Because our religions have primitive, incredible, human-shaped “g” gods does not mean that there can be no “G” God. But what of the nature of God? A complete understanding of such is most likely beyond us, but surely our present speculations can more closely approach the Divine than those of our prescientific ancestors – who could only manage a human male with all “His” usual failings: jealousy, parochialism, vanity, anger, cruelty, sexism, and more – a primitive and incredible speculation which has emptied our Houses of God of all but the timid and the angry.
So what can our sciences provide?
For starters, we know that “in the beginning” there was a big bang which was energy becoming matter. So we can know that energy existed because physics tells us energy is uncreatable and indestructible. Thus it is also absolute/eternal – basically the prime characteristics we ascribe to God. So, maybe that should be “E” Energy – which became the universe – rather than “created” it? This has implications for the human condition, of course, making us (and every living thing) – of God. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Matthew 25:40) comes to mind (to quote one of the better parts of the Bible).
And there is also the mystery of consciousness.
In Essay 3 we examined consciousness and concluded that our consciousness seems to be an individuation of something larger – a universal consciousness – which may be Divine. Meaning that we, and everything that has consciousness, are part of how God is conscious of/experiences all that was created – body and soul: bodily through the physical senses of our bodies (both pleasurable and painful); spiritually through our nonphysical self/soul. We, mysteriously for a supposedly natural animal (“supposedly” just of accidentally existing matter which is chemically alive and mechanically evolved by nature), seek things like beauty and the spiritual experience it gives us (when we are “moved”, “lifted” by the experience/consciousness of beauty) – which we often seek at the expense of our body’s survival (and that of our selfish genes).
The following purports to be direct from God – or at least from Neal Donald Walsch’s conversation with God:
“ ‘... what I am seeking is to know Myself experientially. I am doing this through you, and through everything else that exists.’ ”
“Conversations With God”, Neale Donald Walsch – Book 3, P.11
While I don’t know whether to place Walsch in the paranormal or the New Age, his books are worth reading with plenty of new ideas about what a real God may be. Certainly our investigations of consciousness and the continuing discoveries from quantum mechanics are backing him up.
While a complete understanding of the nature of God is beyond us, these essays conclude, on the balance of evidence, that through the bodies and souls/individuations of Divine consciousness of every living thing – a Divine experiences everything the universe has to offer – every thing we experience, and everything we cause others to experience. Which brings us neatly to heaven and hell.
HEAVEN AND HELL?
Heaven and hell are, apparently (from information received through paranormal means), the one place. One of the most consistent reports from experiencers and researchers who met our criteria for honesty and credibility – is that, after we (our self, soul, consciousness) cross over to the next plane of existence, we eventually must have a past life review if we are to progress. During which review we re-experience all of our last life – but through the eyes and experiences of others – suffering all the sadness and pain we caused, and all the joys and pleasures we created for them as well.
Now that’s Divine justice: heavenly for those who have been heavenly to others; hellish for those who have been hellish to others – a bit of both for most. So, while there is no eternal hell in a sea of fire, for some it must seem like it (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al – whose experience of the millions of painful lives they caused others to suffer on Earth must end up seeming like eternal hell). The information from the next reality is consistent in that we do reap as we sow – basically, what you do to others, you do to your self. There are presently some dictators, despots, religious leaders, oligarchs, and the like who need to reconsider the Faustian pacts against their souls that they have entered into on Earth – of trading one brief life of power and privilege on Earth – for all the suffering which awaits them. After the past life review we are reunited with our loved-ones (even loved pets according to some accounts) – in a reality beautiful beyond our present experience. And the beauties continue into the succeeding planes beyond – into which we can evolve – beauties which communicators from the higher planes find hard to convey because there are no entirely suitable Earthly words, but some have talked of music which is too exquisite for us to tolerate at our present, lowly level of spiritual evolution.
Sceptics say: “show me the evidence – this material world is so real, and on the other hand any next reality is so unreal – give me a lump of your supposed next reality so I can feel it and measure it, and then I’ll believe you!”
But how real is our present relative reality? Quantum physics, as we saw above and in Essay 3, is beginning to doubt that our basic reality is at all “real”.
In short, there is no proof nor disproof for meaning or meaninglessness – these essays have only found enough credible evidence that our existence can rationally be held to exhibit sufficient purpose such that our lives can reasonably be said to have special meaning (beyond our individual, personal meanings) – but only on the balance of probabilities. However, if we had evidence sufficient to know life’s purpose and meaning beyond reasonable doubt – it would not work as well as it does in the above contemplated spiritual/self evolution department.
Hmmm. But there is an elephant in the living room of all philosophies of meaning – “WHY?”
WHY? – THE ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM
Why the universe; why life; why is all this happening?
If your answer is the beauty and joy in living – there is just as much ugliness and pain.
We found that there is, most likely, a God – but if your answer is God – then why is God doing this? This is commonly called the “Mind of God” question – and probably best avoided if you only have a mind of man. The sensible answer is: “that is just how it is” – and our exploration for meaning and purpose could stop there – because just how it is, is purposeful and meaningful. And that is where Essay 3 (Along the Road to Truth) stops, but we’ll plod on here because we have taken Buddha’s injunction to go all the way along the road to Truth. And also, as we have seen, the House of God and the House of Disbelief both have proffered dangerous speculations on this WHY question – “dangerous” because both leave us drowning in the sea of meaninglessness which we encountered in the Introduction. If we hope to survive as a species, we have to do better (“this species could do better” – sounds a bit like my old report cards!?).
All speculations are only as good as the evidence they rely on, and the essays found both of our Houses had poor evidence for their speculations. Our House of God bases its speculation (that God made the Earth as a testing-ground for us – his prime creation) on an ancient, contradictory and unreliable “B” Book written in a brutal era – which Book contains Abraham’s very human god who is not adverse to slaughtering disbelievers by the multitude, and also contains that god’s approval of an end-of-day’s bloody apocalypse. Whereas the House of Disbelief bases its speculation (of the accidentalness, therefore meaninglessness, of our existence) on the evidence which is our physical sciences’ almost complete understanding of the physical world (and those sciences’ totally complete inability to comprehend the nonphysical world).
So, what is our speculation, and what is the evidence for it?
WHY? FROM THE WHAT!
We will attempt to approach closer to a credible WHY? speculation of the universe (which the energy of God became) by looking closely at the WHAT! of the universe.
OK – “what” does the universe do?
What the universe does is creativity.
As we said at the start of this Conclusion, the purpose of anything is what it does – and this relative universe does amazing creativity (out of the initial seeming chaos). The absolute is absolute, thus necessarily uncreative (everything just is – immutable, unchangeable) but, as we also considered, relativity is highly creative because it allows the existence of things relatively good, better, best – thus allowing/forcing creative choice/selection for best (“forcing” by natural selection and “allowing” by our unnatural selection/choice – we and nature are both creative agents of this universe). Nature mechanically selects for best from the various lifeforms which proceeded from the original life, to form all the various animal bodies, and we select for best from our behaviours which make us happiest with/able to love our self – thus creating/evolving our self.
Overall, the fact of the creativity of the original energy and the creativity of its creatures (consider the beauty of some of our creations – especially of our arts) allows an answer to the WHY? question, but the creation of our selves allows an even stronger one, because our nonphysical selves are eternal – strengthened more by the evidence that there are further, higher planes of reality beyond the immediate next – upon which succeeding planes of existence our self/spiritual growth/evolution continues.
CREATIVITY AND GROWTH IN THE NEXT REALITIES?
Essay 3 considered credible paranormal phenomena and communications from “the other side” which indicated that the beauties and experiences which await our self/soul/consciousness on the planes to come are more amazing than we can imagine here on this basic plane – limited as we are by our restricted experiences inherent in this reality. According to them, our situation here on Earth is much like the restricted reality described by Plato’s story of cave dwellers, whose vision (hence experience) was limited to just shadows thrown onto their cave wall – just shadows of what was really happening outside the cave – in the real world. Highly evolved souls who have experienced even the higher planes of the hereafter – and who are concerned enough about humanity to try and communicate with us – inform us that we apparently evolve our self through several, ascendingly higher planes/realities of ultimate beauty (the source of our knowledge of archetypal beauty and/or of Plato’s “forms” perhaps?) towards our self/consciousness’s eventual reunion with God/Universal Consciousness.
In such ultimate Union (reunion?) with universal consciousness we exist beyond the strictures of time and space, able to experience (like time lords?) the creativity of the entire universe(s) and the creations of its creatures – anything, anywhere, anytime. Able to experience through the individual consciousness that all living things have – know what it is like to be them – to feel and experience all their feelings and experiences: what it is to fly like an eagle; swim like a porpoise; run like a cheetah; witness and/or participate in any event, great or small, of human history – what it was like to create, perform, witness: the great music; sing the great songs; paint the great works; pen the great poems; rock the great concerts; win the grand prix; kick the winning goal in the World Cup; drive the great cars; drink the great wines; eat at the great tables; make love with the great lovers?
Golly! Got a bit carried away there – but, according to some credible reports, not so silly. All conscious experiences last forever beyond time and space.
But, for some, this brings up another WHY? question: if existence on the next planes/realities is so fantastic – why continue to live on this often barbaric one?
WHY SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO EXIST?
Life in this reality can be hard, often unfair – too hard and too meaningless for some at times – and suicide (and suicide bombing) is becoming a bigger and bigger issue for humanity. As stated in the Introduction, more and more of us find ourselves drowning in a sea of meaninglessness – between the shores of two lands, both hostile to meaning – the land of Belief (upon which the House of God is built) and the land of Disbelief (accommodating the philosophical House of Disbelief). If we have credible evidence that we have many lives in this world – and, eventually, an existence in more beautiful, peaceful, and loving realities – why not shuffle of this present, often unpleasant and hazardous mortal coil and move on?
One of the things paranormal evidence is definite about, is that suicide, while not leading to hell, as most religious traditions hold – most often leads to another life on Earth where we will have to face similar issues to those challenging us now – if we are to grow/evolve into the next realities. Suicide in the face of dire illness is apparently a different matter. There are also reports from the paranormal that there is an in-between existence, similar to religious traditions of purgatory but not a place of torment – rather of rest, stasis, and decision – where we can remain as long as we will; but where, usually, glimpses of the beauties which await our spiritual growth eventually spur us on to take another life’s opportunity for such. Might as well face our present challenges/opportunities to know our self – and take the opportunity they present for growth?
So, that’s about it, folks – have we found the purpose and meaning of life; have we obeyed Buddha’s injunction to go all the way along the road to Truth – beyond reasonable doubt?
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?
But I think it fair to say that we have, on the balance of probabilities, established that there is more credible evidence for special meaning and ultimate purpose than there is evidence against. However, if such special meaning and purpose to our existence was obvious and provable “beyond reasonable doubt”, then, as William James noted, life would not work to such an end. Life would have no mysteries, everything would be clearly understood and our path laid out to follow, we would not be asked to make difficult choices for our self (we become our choices, after all) – life would be just a tour through a theme park – pleasant enough but, offering no self growth, would therefore be essentially meaningless. Whereas, how life presently is, is redolent of special meaning and ultimate purpose – we are given no plans or instructions to follow, but must make our own way through life’s dangers and delights, its thrills and spills, which constantly ask/force us to come to our own decisions and make our own choices – becoming them when habitual (as Darwin noted). In this process of self creation “S” Sceptics are actually more doing God’s work than I am – by telling people that life is devoid of special meaning and any ultimate purpose (because we are just accidentally existing physical matter, spontaneously alive and mechanically evolved) – they are inviting people to “just do it”, to create their own meaning and purpose, in other words to be their true selves. Being our true self is the necessary first step before being able to know your true self, thus the start of the immaculate self-creation process that is in our self’s existence(s) in this relative reality with an animal body. “Immaculate” because a complete and honest life (lives, if necessary) leaves the Truth of us – our self – revealed.
What we do with such revelation – grow/evolve, or not – is our free choice to make and is usually driven by whether we are happy (with/can love our life-revealed self) or not.
But some would say that the philosophy of meaning developed in these essays is just like religion, asking us to give up the only thing we “know”: the here and now of this immediate and certain reality for a future comprised of potentially better, but unseeable, untouchable, therefore uncertain realities beyond this one. Not so, this philosophy doesn’t ask us to “give up” anything; doesn’t ask for any sacrifices in the “here and now” – but, firstly, indicates a way to live best in the here and now by being happiest about our self: through being, knowing, and growing our self and so gaining the love (not fear or envy) of others. When others truly love our self (not our body, fame, power, money) such is the strongest evidence we allow that we are worthy of our own love – which is the key to lasting happiness.
Even if the other tenets of this philosophy are wrong, and the death of our body is the end of everything, there is no downside – we still live this, one and only life, best – because happiest. However, if this philosophy is right about life being an opportunity for self growth/evolution into higher, even more magnificent realities than this one – then it will not only allow us “to live best” in this reality but also lead us best into a next reality way more heavenly than those imagined by our ancient religions: singing “sweet hosannas” to a needy god?; keeping 72 virgins happy? (what do the females get?) In this way, we are offered a win-win wager – much better than Pascal’s Wager – which wager involved losing a Sunday, getting all dressed up and going to hear unbelievable sermons from an incredible Book – just in case the Abrahamic god was real.
But Pascal and evangelical fundamentalists will reply that there is a downside: I will end up in hell for eternity – their idea of God must be right – because their ancient Book says so. But our exploration for “T” Truth found their “B” Book written by God is actually a “b” book written by man (it is obvious no woman had a hand in it) – which gets astronomy wrong, biology wrong, history wrong, Jesus wrong, and God wrong (envisaged as a misogynistic, parochial, male brute). Such Abrahamic “g” god was/is a failure – failing the Hebrew tribes who invented “him”, time after time; is failing the Muslim tribes now; and over the centuries drew the “Christian” tribes into some of the worst behaviour known to man (in “his” name!). While these essays imply a “G” God/Gods/Higher Agency, we can’t know the nature of such Divine – but we can know what God is not – and such jealous, vengeful, murderous Abrahamic god is definitely what God is not.
As someone once tried to tell us (before his religion killed him) – to live life best, and to take its opportunity fully – we should love, forgive, do unto others. However, life, in its immaculate way, asks you to decide for your self – literally.
Graeme Meakin – last revised 15th November, 2017.