Experiments in Faith

guest post by Alec Crisman

Experiments in Faith

by Alec F. Crisman on Saturday, December 8, 2012 at 9:51pm ·

It’s very odd timing.

 

In the final month of the shittiest calendar year in my memory, after the worst run of romantic luck in my life, after getting sick and losing my job due to it, after dropping my medication and the return of the mood swings, and smack-dab in the middle of my recent irreligious awakening….

 

…Amuma dies. Early morning on the 3rd.

 

For those of you who haven’t heard my stories, my Amuma (grandmother in Euskadi) was my first best friend. Now, you could have said that about her by any standard of a true friendship, but she excelled in the category by which I judge the term; she was the first person in the world to whom I could tell absolutely anything. The summers we spent together could be argued to be the best moments of my life, and certainly feel that way now, bathed as they are in the golden glow of nostalgia. She saw me in my worst moments too, my playground scuffles and my childish tirades. When my grandfather died, and I realized death was real, she was the one who talked me through my first existential crisis as I lay, aged seven, curled up sobbing on the floor of the room we shared.  She helped me with my first feelings of suicide, taught me the virtue of living without gods, and maintained through a love for me so luminous that I… well, I took it for granted.

 

Losing her has felt like losing a limb. Not seeing her before she left is like having it torn off. And I would give most anything to have her back. Which brings me (as with so many others) back to faith.

 

Those reading may or may not know that I am a fairly proficient lucid dreamer. I have an inter-brain adventure about once or twice a week, so I’m extremely comfortable with navigating the corridors of my subconscious. But I’ve also talked with many people recently who believed that dreams can be a glimpse into another realm, where the numinous can contact and connect with us. Over my studies this year I’ve read up on dream experiences and NDE’s and every supposed form of communication with the unknown I can think of. My logical mind dominates the conclusions I draw from these studies, but I have always (now more so than ever) wanted to believe.

 

These are the thoughts that were on my mind when I talked to Amuma the night of the 6th.

 

To see someone that’s been on your mind in a dream isn’t incredibly odd, I grant you. What made this time different from most, however, is that, midway through the conversation we were having, the dream became lucid (realizing the person you’re chatting with is dead can do that for you). Suddenly, all my research about dream visits comes flowing back to me. This phenomenon has been reported. People do think their loved ones talk to them in their sleep from beyond the grave.

 

And then… I can’t say if it was the dream-state I was in or just a wave of hope and need, but I began to believe it. Suddenly, before I realized it, I had actually taken the leap of faith so many of the faithful had advised for me. I was in with both feet. My entire mind said “This isn’t just a self-generated image; this IS my Amuma. I’ve read that she might come, and she’s here, and I finally get to say the things I missed out on saying.” In that moment Iknew this to be true, more firmly than I’d known most anything. It was a dizzying feeling, and as it was so contrary to my worldview we can upgrade dizzying to terrifying, but buoyed by it I decided to ask her a real question.

 

”Amuma”, I said “I know how you’re doing, but how are you?”

 

The words froze her, and dream-time (a malleable construct if there ever were one) seemed to stop. Suddenly her manifold creases and wrinkles were thrown into stark relief, and I was struck then as during her last week with how skeletal she looked, how her skin hung off her bones like an ill-fitting suit. But what arrested me most were her eyes; the look in them after my question was one of sheer animal terror, as if I’d reminded her of something she’d wanted, no, needed to forget. That look is in my mind’s eye right now, and I don’t think it’ll ever go away.

 

Especially since, a microsecond after all this registered, the color bled out of her skin and she crumpled sickeningly to the ground, cold and lifeless. Her fetal position on the imaginary floor mirrored her pose in the hospital bed she died in. Hard reality had re-asserted itself with a vengeance. I awoke screaming.

 

Now what do I take from this? The answer was clear from the moment my eyes shot open that night; false consolation isn’t for me. I may study it, I may pine for it, and I may even need it, but it isn’t forthcoming. This model brain can’t run that software. However I cope with the death of my best friend, I must do so in MY world. I cannot borrow the hopes and dreams of others to soothe the pain; I must celebrate her life as opposed to trying to deny her death.

 

So please; I know most of you disagree with me on these matters, and I know you wish to ease the ache, but please don’t tell me Amuma’s “in a better place”, or that she’s looking down on me (as several well-meaning people have done). After my metaphysical misadventure those words ring cruelly hollow, and overall I’d be better off without them.

 

Because now I know better.

Weak “god” escapes the clutches of an atheist argument

Image

chart via https://www.facebook.com/NonbelieverNation

This is a powerful flowchart of refutation against the modern “christian” authoritarian rationalization. It is practical and I commend its creator.

Have other nonbelievers ever considered what a “god” that is not all powerful could look like? It clearly escapes the clutches of this chart; omnipotency has always seemed self-contradictory anyway. 

I am about to say things that the vast majority of you will misunderstand. Have you ever experienced the “sacred” or “numinous” ? Have you reached the understanding that consciousness is a representation? Do you appreciate that technological development is accelerating exponentially? What’s your understanding of the relationship of the three preceding questions?

Someone shared the documentary, “The Trouble With Atheism” with me and this is what I commented

[http://documentaryheaven.com/the-trouble-with-atheism/]

If you liked the above, you’d probably enjoy:
What Is Reality? http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-is-reality/

I feel like the most fundamental point to keep in mind is that either way, the only type of God that can be justifiably believed in, is absolutely and fundamentally incompatible with all the major western religions. It is an egregious error to use uncertainty and the logical impossibility to disprove God as an excuse to continue to believe in any of the traditional Abrahamic incarnations of God [with all the dogmatic doctrines they entail].

“If everyone became atheist tomorrow, would the world be a better place?” Absolutely, the least religious countries are demonstrably better places to live.

Dogmatic, anti-dogmatism, is the least dangerous form of dogmatism.

I found the false equivalencies in this documentary to be disturbing. Here’s an example why:
http://imgur.com/VxXd5

I find the fine-tuning explanation, as a justification for most concepts of God to be rather unpersuasive. And do in fact think multiverse-like theories to be more likely.
Quantum Computers and Parallel Universes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH4BH231d2Y

His handling of memes is simplistic and misleading (feel free to ask for more).
His framing of new understandings of evolution as somehow undermining evolution itself is also simplistic and misleading (feel free to ask for more).

Of course science can’t know everything, and can’t claim to.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/05/cato-hypocrisy.html

It’s similarly irresponsible to use historical scientific mistakes (which only have been shown to be such with better science) as somehow evidence that science itself is criminally suspect.

Not surprisingly Rod Liddle also confuses descriptive morality with rational normative prescriptions.
“there are at least three projects that we should not confuse:
1. We can explain why people tend to follow certain patterns of thought and behavior (many of them demonstrably silly and harmful) in the name of “morality.”
2. We can think more clearly about the nature of moral truth and determine which patterns of thought and behavior we SHOULD follow in the name of “morality.”
3. We can convince people who are committed to silly and harmful patterns of thought and behavior in the name of “morality” to break these commitments and to live better lives.”
“Because most religions conceive of morality as a matter of being obedient to the word of God (generally for the sake of receiving a supernatural reward), their precepts often have nothing to do with maximizing well-being in this world. Religious believers can, therefore, assert the immorality of contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, etc., without ever feeling obliged to argue that these practices actually cause suffering. They can also pursue aims that are flagrantly immoral, in that they needlessly perpetuate human misery, while believing that these actions are morally obligatory. This pious uncoupling of moral concern from the reality of human and animal suffering has caused tremendous harm.”

It’s also rather ridiculous to blame atheism for Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Those examples are clearly examples of dogmatic belief; not based on science and reason, but rather state worship. Believing that the ends justify the means will always be dangerous.

Studying human nature without assumptions about what we are can only help us better understand what we are, and how to live better as humans. And in fact has.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/qa-with-steven-pinker

These are things I’ve said with links I recommend:
https://thinkahol.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/my-comment-on-enjoy-the-next-3-months-judgment-day-may-be-coming/
https://thinkahol.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/on-new-age-spirituality-consciousness-and-reality/