For this reason, positing the existence of the Divine as a scientific argument is inappropriate. Belief is not scientific in its nature. How one believes and why we believe can be investigated by science, but that we believe does not depend on scientific evidence for the believer. I say “scientific evidence” because the evidence offered by the mystical texts of various traditions say that evidence for the Divine is “spread on the Earth and people do not see it.” Any evidence that supports one’s belief in anything (the Divine, one’s country, your school, or even in your feelings for your spouse), is never interpreted scientifically. The interpretations of this “evidence” is idiosyncratic; what convinces one person may be laughable to another. (FOOTNOTE: belief does not just apply to religious and spiritual things, we “believe” in our country, for example.)

Anyone who has read any mystical texts (most atheists i know have read none) know they rarely make logical statements. If the existence of the Divine could be logically proved, then the Prophets would have used logic and reason. Instead, they used riddles and parables (“Let those who can hear, hear”). To use logic when discussing the Divine is to miss the point. Belief comes from the heart, not the head. A translation of the Tao te Ching says it best: “The more you know, the less you understand.” C.G. Jung makes a similar assertion: “In view of the fact that in principle, the positive advantages of knowledge work specifically to the disadvantage of understanding, the judgment resulting therefrom is likely to be something of a paradox” (The Undiscovered Self, 10).

I saw an interview with Dawkins once where he said that a universe with a “supernatural god” is very different than a universe without one. Since our universe is what it is and we cannot compare it to another, I find this to be an untenable position. The universe IS. Arguing what the universe would look like “if” something that we cannot prove one way or another is a futile exercise in philosophy that cannot yield any useful conclusions.

The best work i have read discussing the nature and characteristics of the Divine is the Corpus Hermeticum. i suggest atheists pick up a translation of this text and read it for themselves. See some of the quotes on the page “The Divine.”

The concept of “belief” does not apply to things we know are real. You don’t “believe” the sun exists, you know it exists. Belief, by its very nature, is therefore not logical and is antithetical to knowing. If you know something exists, you don’t need to believe it in any more. Therefore, believers in the Divine have nothing they need to prove to atheists. The existence of the Divine cannot be logical proved, and those that try to do so end up sounding silly in the end.

For this reason, positing the existence of the Divine as a scientific argument is inappropriate. Belief is not scientific in its nature. How one believes and why we believe can be investigated by science, but that we believe does not depend on scientific evidence for the believer. I say “scientific evidence” because the evidence offered by the mystical texts of various traditions say that evidence for the Divine is “spread on the Earth and people do not see it.” Any evidence that supports one’s belief in anything (the Divine, one’s country, your school, or even in your feelings for your spouse), is never interpreted scientifically. The interpretations of this “evidence” is idiosyncratic; what convinces one person may be laughable to another. (FOOTNOTE: belief does not just apply to religious and spiritual things, we “believe” in our country, for example.)

Anyone who has read any mystical texts (most atheists i know have read none) know they rarely make logical statements. If the existence of the Divine could be logically proved, then the Prophets would have used logic and reason. Instead, they used riddles and parables (“Let those who can hear, hear”). To use logic when discussing the Divine is to miss the point. Belief comes from the heart, not the head. A translation of the Tao te Ching says it best: “The more you know, the less you understand.” C.G. Jung makes a similar assertion: “In view of the fact that in principle, the positive advantages of knowledge work specifically to the disadvantage of understanding, the judgment resulting therefrom is likely to be something of a paradox” (The Undiscovered Self, 10).

I saw an interview with Dawkins once where he said that a universe with a “supernatural god” is very different than a universe without one. Since our universe is what it is and we cannot compare it to another, I find this to be an untenable position. The universe IS. Arguing what the universe would look like “if” something that we cannot prove one way or another is a futile exercise in philosophy that cannot yield any useful conclusions.

The best work i have read discussing the nature and characteristics of the Divine is the Corpus Hermeticum. i suggest atheists pick up a translation of this text and read it for themselves. See some of the quotes on the page “The Divine.”

Dawkins and others i have read and heard confuse a belief in the Divine with religion. Religion is a system of dogmatic memes and rules. Belief does not have to adhere to these rules. There are plenty of people i have met in my life that believe in the Divine, but don’t care for a particular religion. (realizing of course that one’s personal experiences do not represent a statistical sample.)

So far, and i may be wrong about this, atheists in the west at least, mostly rant about western Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism versus Greek and Russian Orthodox) and more recently Islam. This seriously degrades their arguments in my estimation. It seems to me that atheism is more of a reaction to the Religions of the Book, than an actual thought out argument against belief in the Divine in all its forms.

Additionally, when reading and listening to atheists, i have noticed they are fond of citing philosophy and the news media with the occasional peppering of the scriptures from, most typically again, the Christian Bible. When one quotes the Diamond Sutra, I will pay them more heed. It is apparent to me that most atheists are profoundly ignorant of the religions of the world. If they are content to not make such a fuss, then so be it. But one would think than an atheist like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris would at least be respectful to learn about what they are arguing so vehemently against.

All religions have symbols. Symbols are a common way for people to communicate ideas that are typically beyond human understanding. When people see the symbol, they are supposed to think of the thing beyond it. To use a mundane example, the word “tree” is not supposed to conjure the image of four letters T R E E, but an image of a tree. Each person will have a different image, but we can be reasonably sure they are not thinking of a cat.

An idol is when the symbol is worshiped as the Divine it is supposed to represent. In this case, any symbol can become an idol. This can be as a result of the religion: Assigning Divine value to an object or image. For example, if the Deity is a stone statue. The statue is not supposed to represent the concept of the Divine, the statue is worshiped as THE Divine. This is certainly an idol.

However, people can turn symbols into idols as well. If someone worships the symbol of Jesus on the cross, then that symbol becomes and idol. Remember that the image, drawing, sculpture, or whatever is a representation and has no meaning itself.

So how do you know you are not worshiping and idol? Try this, literally not figuratively: Draw the symbol of your religion or some sacred text on some toilet paper and wipe your ass with it. If you can do this without flinching, it is a symbol and not an idol. (Hey high-brow people, sorry for the crass example but you know it works.)

You go up to a river and cast your line. You fish all day but catch nothing. But, you realize that you are just starting out so that is okay, and you are undaunted. So you go up again, and still catch nothing.

Frustrated you return to your teacher and ask for help. This time he/she shows you a few more tricks. Now you feel confident again so you head back up to the river to try your new skills. This time you catch a small fish. You are excited. You rush back home to tell your family and your teacher about the little minnow you caught. They smile and laugh at you and your excitement.

This spurs you on, and you try to fish in a different river, but you catch nothing. Still, you are motivated by the little fish you caught so you keep trying.

This goes on for years. Every so often you will catch a small fish or two but you are still waiting for the really-big-fish. You see your teacher occasionally but you have learned many of the skills you needed, and you even make up a few of your own.

You fish like this for 40 years, but you never catch the big one. However, you still strive to find the really-big-fish and keep honing your skills. People who are new to the hobby come to you for teaching and advice. You tell them that you have never caught the really-big-fish but they are not concerned about that; they can see your skills as a fisher and want to learn from you. They to hope to catch the really-big-fish, and you wish them good luck but tell them it is difficult and not to give up.

All your life you never catch the fish you were seeking, but you have become one of the best fishers ever known, with the most highly developed skills, and quite a following of new apprentices. Some of your students even caught the big fish you were hoping to find. You realize that even though you never achieved your goal, you are happy.

“Those who have ears, let them hear.”

I will say my sources up front:

All the texts mentioned in the traditions, and:

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Miller, J. (???). The atheism tapes.

Harris, S. (2006). Letter to a Christian Nation. New York, NY: Random House.

This is all i can muster for a blog. In the meantime i will continue to read and work on a longer discussion, perhaps a book.

The fundamentals

Atheists often use logic and philosophy to argue against religion and the existence of the Divine. When the believers argue against them, the believers often make the mistake of trying to use logic to support their arguments. This is an incorrect strategy. Philosophers and scientists are trained in logic, and butting heads with them on their terms is often futile. Make them come to our level: Use mystical arguments to counter their logic. Stories of creation, the teachings of many Prophets, and the poems of the mystics of many religions don’t use logic: Their writings and stories are symbolic, riddle-like, and read like dreams. So bring the atheists into this world and have them see what they can do.

Whatever propositions are made by logic are no [true] propositions,

For they stand in no intrinsic relation to my inner Light.”

(Yoka Daishi’s Song of Enlightenment, D.T. Suzuki, trans.)

An additional problem is that of language. Atheists always want a linguistic description of a believer’s concept of “God.” If a believer is able to describe the Divine using language, he or she has lost the meaning of the Divine. Ask an atheist to give you a complete verbal description of the Mona Lisa that does justice to the image. Then use their description to logically argue how no image could possibly live up to their description.

This will be a series of posts and i will try to use both some logic and some mysticism to explain myself. The term “atheist” is pretty broad and i realize it is not fair to lump everyone together under the same generic umbrella. That said, i don’t want to use thirty words to describe them. Suffice it to say that when i use “atheist” i am referring to those people who do not believe in the existence of the Divine, and/or actively oppose the notion of a “God,” and who do not believe in religion or spirituality of any sort. Conversely, when i use the term “believer” i mean the opposite of atheist. A believer is someone who believes in the Divine, even if they do not adhere to a specific religion, or cannot articulate exactly what they believe. By “believers” i do NOT mean just Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Thank Jesus for Christianity

Thank Krishna for Hinduism

Thank Elohim for Judaism

Thank Buddha for Buddhism

and so forth.

If you have chosen a religion to follow and use its tenets to guide your life, then praise be to the Divine! It is not an easy thing to devote oneself to a faith. Each come with restrictions and required changes of behavior. If you have chosen to take this way, you should be driven by love of the Divine, not fear of “satan” or “hell.” If your heart honestly and sincerely seeks Nous, then give thanks for your religion for it will guide you toward what you seek!

If you are in a religion and do not feel this. Take a step back. Become a “heathen,” “pagan,” or “infidel” for a while. Lose all of you convictions and let your self run wiled. This is a right of passage for American college students. Detach yourself from law and authority and let your passions break from their circle and take over.

After a while, for some a long while, you will start to feel a calling for the Divine. A calling for something more meaningful than drugs, sex, and sin (in the Astrivian sense) in this loan of life. The symbols of the Divine will call you back: the Tao will call you back like you were a river seeking the lowest point.

The Divine calls us all. The words and acts of the Divine are written all over this marveolous creation we call a universe. To bring you here, reading this passage and observing this period. To do this, the Divine first had to create the universe, then all of history to bring you here now. Is this simply chance? How would you have stumbled upon this site without a bit of Nous.

There are stories like this everywhere, in couples meeting, in avoidance of a sudden accident, turning on the radio to find the right song to cheer you up.

“Those who can hear, let them hear.”

“Those who have eyes, let them see.”

Blind and def are those who live in this world and do not see the handiwork of the Divine. How complex, how unpredictable, how marverlus. By looking at the craft of the Divine, we begin to understand the Craftsperson.

So then, when you are called to a religion, as i hope you will be soon, you should be sure you feel it in every part of your body. Like an illness, really; an illness for the mundane. Read, discusses, seek, “knock and the door shall be opened.” But the first step is from you. You must make the sincere attempt to knock, then take the final step and knock. When the door opens you may be frightened, worried that it was a mistake. If you hang in there, your fears will abate and you will feel peace. Then, you will thank the Divine for your religion.

peace be upon you, so mote it be

Consider the existence of satan within the context of an omniscient and omnipotent Divine.  By definition the Divine is all knowing and all powerful, how then could Satan really exist? If Satan tried to do anything against the Divine Will, the Divine would simply not allow it to happen. Satan has no power. If Satan tempts us it is because the Divine allows it to happen. If there were a Hell that Satan controlled, and in which were all the truly evil people of the world plus a horde of evil demons, why doesn’t Satan, who wants to fuck up the Divine plan, release all of them onto Earth? Surely a wrath of demons would disrupt the Divine plan.

But Satan cannot do this because the Divine does not allow it. Again, Satan has no real power. If this is true, then what is Satan exactly? I believe Satan to be a projection of our own internal temptations and immoral desires. Satan is within us, and created by us.

On Earth, for every force there is a counterforce. This is how we understand the world. This is not how the Divine understands the world. To think of the Divine in human terms is to describe a bolt of lightning by the effects it leaves on the ground. To see it face to face is to die. There is no counterforce to the Divine. The Divine is One, All, the “alpha and omega,” the beginning and end, the good and the evil. The Divine is the complete unity of all opposites. It is where the universe will return when it collapses in on itself.

If this is true, how can Satan be anything but a figment of our own mortal imaginations? Satan, as tradition has it, “tempts” us. Temptation is the desire to do something that we know is wrong. This is purely a human characteristic. If we give in to temptation, the desire is satisfied briefly, but then we must return to the world and acknowledge what we did. If we don’t, we carry the guilt with us. This is what Satan is: The desire we all have to do things that may be fun and satisfying but that in our hearts we know are immoral and unethical.

When we are “tempted” by Satan we are tempted by these desires. Consider the prophets. Jesus was tempted by wealth and power, but turned them down. Abraham was tempted not to sacrifice his son, but resisted. These temptations are the easy way out of a complex situation. They knew the temptations were “against God” or not consistent with Nous. The temptations satisfied the mortal creature but not the Divine Being within us.

When we are then “lead astray” it is by our own fault, not because of some external force. When you throw stones at the pillar of Satan you are throwing stones at yourself. Realize this and you will stop hating external things and realize that which you think is of Satan is really a reflection of the doubt and temptations within you.

I have been debating what it mean to live as an Astrivian. Would I somehow stand out as being some saint or visionary? Certainly not a prophet of any kind, i have my vices as much, if not more, than another. But should adopting what i have read on this site so far somehow change the way i act toward others, myself, and my environment?

Personally, i don’t think so. Perhaps i will memorize some of the quotations i like (my personal favorite is the first one under Sapientia from Lao Tzu), and recite them to myself every so often. But i don’t see any major change here, and i hope that is okay with you all. I have nothing special to offer, and any of my friends could tell you i have no gift for creating lasting and inspirational quotations. It is difficult enough to communicate that i need a cab ride home after drinking (very) heavily.

One thing i think i can take away from all this is the desire to live more in the present. I have found myself living in what i guess is the future most of the time. I keep thinking about what is up ahead. You all should add the awesome quote from Yoda: “Always to the future he looks, never his mind on where he is, what he is doing!” (or something like that). This can be dangerous when i get myself all worked up over something that might happen. Take recently about this job i was hoping to get. I heard about it randomly even before it was officially posted and got all kinds of excited about it. I assembled my resume, references and had what i thought was a kick ass fucking portfolio. When it was posted, i applied in the first day. I had plans to sell my house and move when, not if, i got this thing. And guess what? I didn’t get it! I was crushed and mostly pissed. In retrospect they gave it to the right person (don’t know who, someone with tons of experience and a non-bullshit resume). It wasn’t until a week or so later i realized that all my emotions were my own damn fault. I was the one who got all worked up about this and set myself up to get knocked down.

That is what living in the present, and i guess living as an Astrivian, means to me. Just thought i would drop this rambling email and let you know.