Other Dimensions (In There)


The human mind possesses three distinct aspects of operation. Not only can it sense the present, that is the existential circumstances physically surrounding it, but it also possesses the ability to ‘remember’ the past, and ‘speculate’ or ‘plan’ for the future.  This can be expressed as:

  1. Memory of past events (through the use of imagination).
  2. Awareness of present events (through direct sensory perception and cognitive interpretation).
  3. Speculate about future events (through the use of imagination).

Using this model of assessment of mind activity, the function of ‘imagination’ appears to be used at least two-thirds more than direct perception. This is because awareness of the present does not occur in a cognitive vacuum, but is dependent upon past experience (and conditioning), and on certain cultural and social ideas about what is expected as a desired trajectory of future events. The perception of the present for most people, therefore, is entirely dependent upon past experience, with the caveat that present experience also serves as a possible basis for perpetuating past experience, or indeed changing it in the future (through ‘new’ experiences). The activity that the average person experiences in their mind. i.e. light and dark, images of various kinds, feelings, sensations and emotions, as well as will-power and direction of thought, etc, are all termed ‘qualia’ and relate to the totality of the personal experience of consciousness. An interesting point to consider, is that of just ‘why’ the human mind developed the abilities to think in three-dimensions, and what its possible use. For instance, what possible evolutionary challenges in the past, served as the foundation for not only ‘matter’ becoming imbued with ‘life’, but also for that living matter to a) become ‘aware’ of its own presence, and b) extrapolate from that awareness, what the past must have been like, and what the future might be like.

Of course, the activities and experiences associated with debate, law and politics, etc, demonstrate that the agency of human ‘memory’ is not always ‘correct’, and even if past details can be recalled collectively, not everyone doing the recalling, necessarily ‘agrees’ upon the ‘meaning’, ‘intention’, or ‘direction’ of those events being remembered (as interpretation is a matter of opinion). This is where human cultures have devised various methods of arriving to somekind of an agreeable ‘consensus’, so that everyday culture and society can proceed in an expected direction, but what of other realities? Do other realities exist? Mathematics and advanced science suggests that there might well be other realities ‘out there’, but the capacity for the human mind to ‘imagine’ and ‘think’ guarantees that all kinds of different realities can exist within the human experience of consciousness. An interesting question is to the validity of these inwardly generated states of being. Are these inner states as real, for instance, as the table and chair in-front of you now?

Such a question is valid because its answer helps define ‘truth’ within a certain context. A person who believes in a religion, or some other type of explanatory mythology, will also assume a priori that what they think they know, is the ultimate (and most precious) understanding of the universe, that is made more so by a lack of corroborating evidence on the physical plane, and the ‘disbelief’ exhibited by those who exist outside of that particular thought community. The fact that there is no evidence, and that others do not experience reality in the same manner, suggests that whatever these altered states of consciousness might be, they cannot be considered the ‘only’ manner in which reality can be perceived or interpreted. Does this understanding ‘invalidate’ these altered states? Not necessarily, as the evolutionary reality of these states must suggest some beneficial purpose for humanity – beyond the usual bounds of conventional belief systems. Yes, it may be true that a particularly ‘fundamental’ religious view was relevant perhaps 500 or 1000 years ago, or that theistic religions in general operate through an ‘inverted’ mind-set (mistaking thoughts in the head for physical objects in the external world), but in reality, the modern human mind is able to operate on a number of different planes at once, sometimes exhibiting ‘inverted’ and ‘non-inverted’ tendencies in quick succession (a number of modern scientists, for example, profess a religious faith, etc). The point is that the human brain’s capacity to think in three-dimensions should not be limited to, or defined by, the logical absurdities associated with conventional religious worship, or peculiar states generated inwardly. It may be the case that subjective human consciousness could well develop the ability to directly perceive objective material reality – without the intermediary of mathematics – but such a state would be rarefied and lie outside of conventional science and religion.

Other Dimensions (Out There)


The main stumbling block with analysing the idea of witnessing another reality, is ensuring that what is experienced, is not a product of the malfunction of the human brain, and its ability to perceive, cognise or interpret. An individual could be suffering from any number of internally generated psychological and physiological conditions, that interfere with the usual process of sensing the material environment. Such divergence away from normal function in the brain (and body), obviously leads to an internally generated view of the physical world, that does not actually exist ‘out there’. If a group of people appear to share a ‘visionary’ experience, it cannot be rejected out of hand, that all concerned are suffering from a perceptual ailment, or that the group is engaging in a ‘cult-like’ activity involving peer pressure, mutual conditioning, and interpretive reinforcement (i.e. a group hallucination). From a scientific perspective, these issues cannot be ignored whilst attempting to establish the theoretical principle of the existence of different planes of reality. Of course, belief systems effect how the world is perceived simply because that is one of their primary functions, but ‘belief’ does not necessarily equate to correct perception or interpretation of reality. Although theoretical physics postulates that other dimensions may exist (i.e. ‘String Theory’ and ‘Quantum Theory’, etc), these realities are mathematical probabilities, and not the product of sensory observation in the usual or mundane sense. In other words, the only manner in which these realities have been understood to exist, is through the use of numbers as cognised by the human brain. This is very different to the structure of religious or spiritual visions of other realities, which always appear to be like this (mundane) reality – but ‘ideal’ in nature. This can be ‘ideally’ good or bad, depending upon belief ad circumstance, but there is no scientific reason why other dimensions should be in anyway ‘familiar’ to human beings and their cognitive sensory array (which has evolved within a particular environment), or even ‘perceptible’ to the human mind in the ordinary sense.

Email: Help with an Exorcism (6.5.2017)


I received today, an unexpected email from the UK entitled ‘Help with an Exorcism’. As this email contains private information from ‘D’, I will not post it here (but I am posting my email responses to it). This email explained that the individual in question (and their family), suffer from a ‘generational’ curse, which they interpret as ‘demonic’ possession. ‘D’ (who is intelligent and sincere), explained that doors open and tables move on their own, (together with other objects), and the family ‘hears’ demonic voices. ‘D’ further explained (in a subsequent email) that the family had sought medical assistance, and that as the family is open-minded, they had also consulted Islamic and Hindu practitioners – with the spirit bothering them being described as stronger than a ‘Djinn’. Of course, although I respect other people’s experiences and opinions, and listen with a compassionate ear – this does not mean that I necessarily subscribe to what they think. I do acknowledge, however, that ‘fear’ is a great motivator in human affairs, and that once a mind-set is in its grasp, the individual concerned can suffer terribly from its presence. I do not ‘believe’ in ghosts, spirits, demons or gods for that matter, and interpret such notions as being the products of an over-active imagination, often inspired and encouraged by archaic systems of theistic worship (which usually includes the ever-present threat of ‘divine’ or ‘demonic’ punishment). Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that such entities can be cleared-up by a radical transformation of the functionality of the human mind, which (providing the individual is healthy), can be produced through meditation and other forms of mental discipline and specific forms of education.  Obviously if mental illness is involved, the issue might be as simple as a chemical imbalance causing all kinds of unwanted and distressing experiences. Of course,I have never met ‘D’, but I offer here a highly ‘generalised’ response to her plight as an indicator of how logic and science can be applied to the paranormal. I very much view my approach as being one of the use of clarity of thought, as a means to over-come disturbance of thought. Below are a number of my emails to ‘D’:

Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Saturday, May 06, 2017 09:12
Dear D
Thank you for your email.
Have you considered medical help? Belief can be a powerful stimulus – but the human mind can be subject to all kinds of dysfunction. The reason other methods have not worked, may be because they are non-medical. Will power at a distance cannot affect the inner workings of a mind (or ‘minds’) that is generating certain impulses of a disturbing nature. Of course, this non-religious approach may not be what you are looking for, but I think it is worth consideration.  I suspect that science is the answer – and not theology. As for the Buddhist philosophical approach, the Buddha teaches that all experiencable states are generated by the mind of the individual – and that when a group experiences visionary perceptions – each individual in the group is internally creating the conditions for said projections. Your problem ultimately stems from the outer material conditions processed by the inner workings of the mind – change those outer material  conditions and what the mind has habitually generated will change. These are my initial thoughts and I am open to further discussion on this matter.
Kind Regards
Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Saturday, May 06, 2017 10:19
Dear D
Thank you for your interesting reply.
For what it is worth, I have studied paranormal activity for over a decade, and have not found any genuine cases of paranormal activity. Generally speaking, an individual (or group) state that they can see, hear, taste, smell, or otherwise ‘feel’ sensory stimulus that is not discernible by an objective observer. In other words, what they think is happening is internally generated and has no correlation to the material environment. On the other hand, as is easily discernible in popular entertainment, many misconstrue physical phenomena as having a non-material basis. A door opening on its own, for instance, can be viewed in any number of illogical ways – including invisible spiritual forces ‘making’ it move. However, if you are immersed in a theological view of the world, material science will seem illogical, and theology will seem correct. My scientific words will come across as ‘not understanding’ your plight, and my view of theology as being illogical, as denying an eternal truth. I can assure you that I am doing neither. I must advise you, however, that genuine Buddhism is a perceptual science and not a religion. It does not accept a god concept as being central to creation, and advocates a logical approach to the interpretation of existence. Meditation strips the mind of greed, hatred, and delusion, and allows the ‘enlightened’ practitioner to perceive a) the empty nature of the mind ground (or perceptual essence), and b) the fact that there is no eternal ‘self’ or ‘soul’. As the Buddha rejected superstition, generally speaking Buddhist monks and learned lay-follows do not recognise the theistic concept of an ‘exorcism’. However, in some places such as Thailand, for instance, on very rare occasions, a Buddhist monk might recite a Buddhist sutta at the bedside of someone who is psychologically and/or physically ill, in the hope that by hearing the words of the Buddha, the (usually very poor) person can straighten their mind and purify their karma (or ‘willed’ thoughts and activities). You sound like a very well educated and sincere person, and if we can move beyond one another’s initial differences in approaching this matter, perhaps our communication can generate somekind of benefit.
All Best Wishes
Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Saturday, May 06, 2017 10:32
Dear D
Just a thought – have you contacted the Society for Psychical Research (SPR)? This is UK based and I am a Member. This organisation studies paranormal activity and might well be able to offer you the kind of advice and help you require.
Tel: 0207 937 8984 – Email: secretary@spr.ac.uk
All Best Wishes
Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Saturday, May 06, 2017 11:18
Dear D
Thank you for your interesting email.
May I enquire as to your ethnic-cultural background? My family is Anglo-Chinese and although I look European, other members look Chinese – but we are united by a common cultural approach. We practice Chinese Ch’an Buddhism and our root teacher is Master Xu Yun (1840-1959). Ch’an penetrates the ’empty mind ground’ and returns all senses to their non-perceptual root. This clears-up all perceptual matters – as all ‘stills’ in the mind and body. As demons are linked to activity of the deluded mind – any apparent demonic possession also ceases. This is why the Buddha spoke about all kinds of gods and spirits in the unenlightened stage – but stated that they all cease to be generated in the enlightened state. Yes – any number of beings can exist in the unenlightened stage – but do not exist (in a dualistic sense) in the fully enlightened state. Certainly, once greed, hatred, and delusion are uprooted, there is nolonger any negative energy for ghosts and spirits to be created in the mind, body or environment. On the other hand, as delusion is over-come with loving kindness and compassion, even in the deluded state, demons can be struck down with the sword of wisdom. The question is ‘who’ knows this?
Best Wishes
Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Sunday, May 07, 2017 05:12
Dear D
Good idea! The SPR certainly has many decades of experience dealing with this type of phenomena and may well be able to assist or advise you in a manner applicable to your needs and situation. Perception and experience are the essence of human existence, but of course, there is a scale of sensation that spans happiness, neutrality and suffering (to varying degrees). Being stuck in any of these modes of sensation can be problematic, even more so if the perceptions and sensations are of a highly fearful, strange or unusual nature. Whatever the case, and regardless of any outcome in this matter, I think it is important to recognise that perception is as much inwardly generated, as it is a matter of external sensation.
Best Wishes

Has Britain’s Prof. Milton Wainwright Discovered Extraterrestrial Life?


Prof. Milton Wainwright’s Work

Prof. Milton Wainwright (and his research team) announced in 2013, that they had discovered a microscopic algae termed ‘diatom’, gathered from the Earth’s stratosphere, through the use of a research balloon that reached heights of between 14 miles and 17 miles. The balloon’s function was to collect samples of material from the upper-reaches of this portion of the atmosphere, a task that it fulfilled very efficiently. Although microbes in the atmosphere are not uncommon, carried up by winds and storms, etc, Prof. Wainwright argues that the microbes that his probe discovered are ‘too large; to have been carried so high up into the Earth’s higher atmosphere by any known natural means. Therefore, the conclusion of Prof. Wainwright is that these microscopic life-forms originated ‘outside’ of the Earth’s atmosphere, and are, therefore, extraterrestrial in origin.


Mainstream scientific opinion is cautious in this case, without completely denying Prof. Wainwright’s conclusions. The general opinion is that in and of itself, an exceptionally large microscopic life-form in the atmosphere does not necessarily suggest it has an extraterrestrial origin. There may be a mechanism, for instance, that can transport this large microbe into the higher levels of the Earth’s atmosphere, that has not yet been identified and understood by scientists. However, Prof. Wainwright states that there is absolutely ‘no’ vestiges of any Earth substances (such as grass or pollen), on any of these microbes. If these microbes had originated on Earth and been transported to the higher atmosphere (perhaps through a volcanic incident), then all evidence of its Earth origination would have to be ‘purged’ from its surface, without damaging the microbe itself. As matters stand, the origins of these microbes are as of yet ‘undetermined’, with Prof. Wainwright preferring the ‘extra-terrestrial’ hypothesis.  It is interesting to note that the scientific establishment has not altogether dismissed Prof. Wainwright’s conclusions – just incase it turns-out he has made one of the greatest discoveries in the history of science! Whilst humanity spends billions of dollars trying to perfect space travel (and the search for extra-terrestrial life), it might just be that we as a species are looking in the wrong place (or the wrong way), and that alien life has already found us!

Scientists Find Proof of Alien Life? Well, Not Quite

Scientists find life coming to Earth from space

Transcendent Work

The motivation to produce good and useful work should not be motivated by profit alone, but rather by the ideas of continuous self-improvement, and the manufacture of a product that is of some extra use to humanity (primarily through individual development). This is the exact purpose of translating Chinese texts into a reliable English. Of course, others may or may not offer a financial incentive for this highly-skilled and time-consuming work, but the presence or absence of this incentive should not be the defining reason ‘why’ the work is carried-out. Both Ch’an Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) and Daoist Master Zhao Bichen (1860-1942) rejected the notion of blatant and naked monetary profit as a good enough (or truly ‘virtuous’) reason to do anything worthwhile, telling or long-lasting. Xu Yun, of course, was a Buddhist monk who strictly followed the Vinaya Discipline, and although he sometimes acted as a conduit for collecting funds to renovate temples and relieve poverty amongst the people, he possessed nothing for himself. Zhao Bichen was a lay-Daoist who worked for a living (as both a salt tax-collector and bodyguard) as a means to feed himself and his family, and yet despite this economic imperative (i.e. work or starve), he chose to teach anyone regardless of their social background, wealth, status or ability to pay. Richard Hunn once explained this selfless attitude to me as providing the means for others to self-develop without the economic imperative getting in the way. Yes, others might well pay with money, time, books, precious items, sincerity, kindness, attentiveness, hard work, or any number of ways, but this should not be the reason for teaching. An economically poor person might well possess a more virtuous character than a person with easy access to wealth – either way the interaction should be toward ‘transcendence’ of current circumstances, and not concretisation through the insistence upon convention. Is this an easy task to fulfil? Obviously not, as many times such a teacher must accept a simple life premised upon living in a state of voluntary poverty. In such an existence, it is cultural knowledge and the ability to ‘see’ what others cannot see that is the common currency.

Quality of Viewpoint


How an individual carries him or herself is a demonstration of inner and outer arrangement, organisation and manifestation. This is, in effect, a balance of psychological and physical processes within an external environment comprised of various elements that may be good, neutral or bad, etc. Perhaps, at its greatest frequency of perfection, this type of co-ordinated expression may be described as ‘grace under pressure’, but grace can also be maintained whilst not under pressure. When a person sincerely holds a viewpoint, there is an assessment of ‘how’ that viewpoint is held, irrespective of the content of the viewpoint itself. For instance, a viewpoint may obviously be subject to scrutiny and judgement, but this process is very much after the fact. How an individual ‘holds’ to a viewpoint is also very interesting, and this has nothing to do with the content of the viewpoint itself. Others can be thoroughly admired for the manner in which they hold a viewpoint, even if those doing the admiring do not necessarily ‘agree’ with that viewpoint itself. Of course, the quality with which the viewpoint is held, can have a positive effect upon the opinions of others, and serve to influence and direct others in the same direction. In other words, a sincerely held viewpoint can spread a certain perspective amongst those who encounter it, but even if it does not, a good impression is left in the mind of those who encounter the holder of that viewpoint. Certainly, if the holder of a certain viewpoint sets a good example, the fertile ground is set to establish the transference of that viewpoint to others in a positive sense. A viewpoint that is ‘dignified’, is the basis of a viewpoint that is admirable to others. This is true because viewpoints that are negative, destructive, and generally demeaning toward humanity are not dignified in any way, and are full of negativity and fear. These types of viewpoints are spread and maintained by ‘force’ and not by reasoned argument or logical persuasion. Many religious cults and rightwing political ideologies function in this manner, and are premised upon the idea that humanity should not be granted ‘dignity’ or freedom of choice. However, a ‘considered’ opinion is a matter of maturity over time, and a certain ‘ease’ with the subject at hand, and not a situation where force is required, even if arguments are sometimes made with passion. Individuals that occupy the centre-ground of their belief systems are able to dominate the rhetorical (and literal) high-ground, and experience no need to react to others with unnecessary force or draconian measures – if others disagree, that is entirely their right (and their concern). When a viewpoint contains a true quality of structure, disagreement or agreement does not affect the strength of that structure, as it is self-contained and self-sustaining. Any change to such a strong and yet pliable viewpoint arises only within the mind of the holder of that view, who might evolve the viewpoint to a new level of understanding, if further reliable knowledge on the subject is attained. Of course, a viewpoint with quality does not have to kowtow to the status quo, just as it does not necessarily need to counter the status quo – as a quality viewpoint is shot-through with a certain strength in-depth that others might describe as being the product of ‘self-belief’. The point is that unless individuals hold ‘quality’ viewpoints a priori, it is doubtful whether science can be further evolved. Science (both inner and outer), requires a pristine and shining mind, unsullied by the vicissitudes of the material world. This is not a denial of the material world, on the contrary, it is the preparing of the mind to reflect that world clearly and in a truthful manner.  This is the most important aspect of the development of inner science, and comes down to a deliberate process of self-organisation. In the meantime, many individuals will arrive at this position quite naturally, and through all kinds of subjects, but there will be no over-all organisation that ‘pulls’ all this insight together. This ‘pooling’ of spontaneous human knowledge and wisdom is the next step in the development of better understanding.

A Non-Threatening Mystery


The problem with the agency of ‘mystery’ as a conveyor of meaning, is that it is premised upon ‘not knowing’. This means that in the process of acquiring certainty, uncertainty becomes a prime mover. This differs from modern science in as much as the method of knowledge acquisition is dependent upon the eradication of ‘uncertainty’, as a means to secure ‘certainty’. Of course, a scientific mystery is different from a religious mystery in as much as it indicates an area of research not yet clarified through logical investigation. A religious mystery, on the other hand, provides a type of emotional support lacking in the scientific method, but does not supply a similar robust intellectual response. Yes, theology can be sophisticated, meandering, complicated, obscure and dogmatic, but it can never be scientifically ‘proven’ to be correct or to even exist – but such is the nature of reality. For some, for instance, the prospect of space travel can appear mysterious because it is unknown, but this does not mean that it is ‘unknowable’. Religion, by its very nature, is known only through its ‘unknowable’ nature, and herein lies its attraction for many people. It is not a matter of being ‘anti-religious’, but rather a matter of understanding the difference in how the human mind functions within the two systems under discussion. The problem with theistic rapture, is that the experiencer can stay in a dark cave for decades, and end his or her life staring at what is believed to be the divine, whilst contributing nothing to the scientific development of humanity. Poverty, illness, famine, drought, illiteracy and homelessness are not resolved by this approach to self-absorption. Although somekind of inner freedom is hinted at, nothing changes on the outer plain. Science, strictly speaking, does not require religion to function, and the same can be said for religion and its relationship to science. Both systems exist in parallel, but the battle in recent centuries has been which paradigm should direct human affairs – and secular science has proven its material worth by making human life better. Of course, with regards to the technologically-led destructive nature of the arms industry, a case can be made to suggest that science (at least in part), has contributed immeasurably to the over-all suffering of humanity, quite often in some of the most brutal ways imaginable. This criticism of science (and one of its uses) is undoubtedly true. However, the monopoly upon social destruction is not owned exclusively by science, as the Christian religion has had its fair share of committing mass atrocities over the last thousand years or so (the same observation and criticism can be equally levelled at numerous other religions). Perhaps it is better to state that humanity has a thread running through its genetic programming that has the capacity for immense violence, and that this capacity has been activated and operated in a vicious manner at various stages of its evolutionary development. This being the case, it is this propensity for violence that needs to be developed out of the human system as a means to secure a better future. This is where the various peace-orientated ideals contained within most religions and spiritual paths can be useful for the further evolution of humanity. This need not clash with the scientific paradigm, but exist peacefully alongside it. Although science may pursue a non-religious narrative, this does not necessarily mean that science is ‘anti-religious’. In reality, as religion cannot be ‘measured’ or ‘quantified’, it is of no interest to the scientific method, and exists outside of it. As science does not operate through the agency of ‘faith’, religionists should have no opinion about it, and yet the world is full of individuals that purport to support religion or science from a diametrically opposing position. This is not useful or helpful for the development of humanity, but this is not the complete story, as many religionists today study science, and many otherwise hard-nosed scientists profess a religious faith outside the laboratory. An appreciation of nature, and the sheer randomness of its creation and functionality maybe termed a non-threatening mystery that does not compromise the material essence of modern science. From the scientific perspective, religion can be explained scientifically (through the auspices of psychology and psychiatry, as well as secular philosophy), and need not necessarily be an issue that requires confronting, even if it does not obviously contribute toward the scientific method.

Teaching Evolution Effectively to Transform Human Understanding


Evolution is an established academic fact, but as this is a new field of research, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection is an unfolding process that requires modification as new evidence comes to light. Unlike the ready-made teachings associated with religion, academic theories are in many ways a work in progress. Theology, with its central premise of a divine entity, does not require improving – only understanding and accepting, because such a teaching premised upon the authority of tradition, does not require updating or changing. In fact, any attempt to alter or modify theology is met by the various established churches with the charge of ‘blasphemy’. However, science is not at war with religion as certain academic or religionists would have the world believe, as each understanding of reality is distinct and not reliant upon the other. For dogmatic religion, science premised upon the collection of objective evidence is anathema, whilst for established science, religious belief is irrelevant – this is why the two realms of interpretation really have no connection. What is required in today’s progressive classrooms is a greater emphasis upon evolutionary theory, and the clarity of thought this brings humanity. This should not be a problem for religion, as such institutions teach exclusively theology in their churches with no reference whatsoever to modern learning and understanding. This being the case, it should be established under law that the school classroom is secular – whilst religious teachings remain the sole enterprise of religionists and their specialist theological centres of learning – with no confusion or conflating of the truth. Believing in religion is not a problem, but such a belief should not be used to ‘high-jack’ the secularist agenda of rational and logical thinking. A problem prevalent in the US (but less so in Europe due to Socialistic-type education systems), is that of religionists deliberately pursuing a path of conflict by attempting to infiltrate the institutes of established sciences, and through the strictures of theology, seeking to dislodge the rational agendas being taught. This is an attempt (primarily by the religious right), to replace secular ‘logic’ with theological ‘faith’. This is a battle that does not exist. Religionists are perfectly welcome to continue to pursue their theological path, and in so doing, should leave the academic community alone to pursue its rational agenda. In today’s post-modern world, it is secular science that is making the world a better place to live for the entirety of humanity – differing economic systems not withstanding. If a religionist truly believes in the theistic entity that lies at the heart of theology – then that faith should be so strong and unshakeable that systems of modern logic will not affect it at all. This principle can be seen in the lives of professional scientists that retain a religious faith in their private lives, but which keep the two dimensions entirely separate. Children and young people must understand how a rational and logical mind functions, and this must be conveyed at a young age, primarily through a secular education system. In this way, the stupidity of a lack of critical thought will be avoided. The following video demonstrates the cultivated stupidity of a young American who uses the language and conventions of a modern education to ‘attack’ evolutionary theory. The lack of understanding is palpable and reflects the current ‘anti-intellectual’ agenda being pursued in the USA. What this individual fails to see, is how his own mind is operating. He cannot help but make a fool of himself by ‘projecting’ onto Darwinian evolutionary theory, the limitations implicit in his own religious belief system. Perhaps the greatest ignorance is not understanding how our own minds work. The academic Laurence Krauss is lecturing superbly here – and his progressive performance makes a mockery of the ignorant commentator’s attempt to belittle and ridicule:


Evolution: the Weight of Evidence


Understanding evolutionary theory (through natural selection), is very much a matter of how the mind is conditioned to work. Judeo-Christian theology, at least since its embracing by the Roman State, has existed as a means of political organisation, social order, psychological control, and of temporal power. This deliberate use of the teachings of Jesus Christ must be viewed as separate and distinct from the intended meaning of the original philosophy of personal freedom existing within the construct of moral surrender to a theistic entity. Where Jesus surrendered to the god that he saw as real, the Christian State demands that its adherents surrender not directly to god, but rather to the Christian State itself. Surely, this is nothing more than human-beings being coerced to conform to a political vision imposed by others, that is falsely presented as other-worldly, whilst remaining fully in the material world. This is not to say that there is nothing useful or helpful contained within biblical teachings, but is rather stating that the views retained by many so-called Christians today, are nothing more than the trumpeting of the dictates of a Christian State – in either its Catholic or Protestant formats. This observation should not be taken to justify the extent of criminality that exists within these religious movements that has seen the death of millions over the last thousands years or so, or the epidemic of child sexual abuse that currently haunts the established church. Jesus the man would never have authorised or agreed with a politicised church that committed mass murder in his name, or tolerated priests or nuns that have sexually abused (and even killed) children in their care. My point here, is that the easily observable history of the modern church is generally treated with a collective amnesia – as if all the killing and hatred do not really matter just as long as the central myth of Jesus’s divine birth is held in place. Here lies the pathway of madness…

Whereas within Islam, a type of advanced and secular science grew-out of Quranic theology (and was even guided by it), secular science in the West emerged outside of Christian theology, with the re-discovery of progressive Greek philosophy during the Renaissance. As the politicised Christian church perceived this development as a ‘threat’ to its temporal power, it immediately adopted an antagonistic stance towards what can be described as the ‘logical’ thought associated with modern science. Whereas enlightened Islamic leaders encouraged and supported scientific study, their Christian counter-parts ordered pogroms of destruction and murder against all those who dared to speak-out in support of logical and rational thinking. This included Christian monks such as Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) – burned at the stake by order of the Vatican – for daring to entertain Copernican ideas of cosmology (suggesting that stars might be suns that had planets orbiting which might contain other life). It is a measure of the flawed logic of a politicised church that such progressive thinkers as Giordano Bruno remain ‘un-Sainted’ – whilst highly controversial figures, such as Mother Theresa of Calcutta – an arch Catholic imperialist that openly spread Catholic notions of Suffering around India was ‘Sainted’ in a relatively short-time after her death.

Today, there are two types of Christian; one which views modern (secular) academia as being from the devil and refuses to engage with it, whilst the other takes the time to study secular science (and learn all its protocols) as a means to ‘disprove’ Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection. However, the latter type does not just strive to disprove evolution, but simultaneously ‘prove’ creationism as propounded within the Judeo-Christian bible. In my view this is the misuse of secular academia, and is the product of primitive and superstitious thinking. The bible is a collection of disparate texts assembled over a long period of time, in no particular order or logic. The dichotomy between Judaism and Christianity offer yet another (and often contradictory) confusion in the constituent texts. The bible is a book assembled by men, and altered and changed many times to suit various existential socio-economic and political situations. For prime examples of politicised church editing of the bible, see the ample texts preserved within the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library, etc. Modern Christian academics that pursue the destruction of Darwinism, assume that the bible is a complete and pristine vision of the universe, its development and its functionality, when in fact it is merely a collection of incoherent and disconnected texts written at very different times, for vastly different reasons. Of course, one underlying reality to these texts, is the assumption that ‘god’ exists, and that ‘he’ created the universe by an act of divine will, and so on and so forth.

No matter what the bible says, it is not a logical or rational theory in the secular, scientific sense. It presumes the existence of a divine entity, and limits all debate to accepting this idea (whilst not being able to provide a shed of truth for it). The bible theory is regressive (because it is always pointing backwards to a divine origin), and is ‘anti-intellectual’ in essence. If the bible is taken as the ‘answer’ to all possible questions, then there is no need for the human intellect to a) exist, and b) be used to ‘think’ about reality. In this regard, the ‘religious’ organisation of the mind is self-limiting, and prevents any development of science. This is because despite its name, ‘theology’ (i.e. the ‘science of the divine’), is in fact nothing more than a collection of unproven ‘dogmatic’ beliefs – there is nothing ‘scientific’ about it at all. Therefore the theological argument cannot be truthfully used to attack secular science, as it has no basis in progressive thought. Creationists that participate within the world of modern science, do so in an attempt to prove Darwin wrong, but this ambition reveals an error in their thinking. Darwinism is a product of secular logic and reason divorced from theological speculation. At the current time, the weight of evidence is definitely toward the confirmation that Darwin was right. For Darwinism to be proven ‘wrong’, a cogent argument premised upon secular logic and reason would have to be developed, that involved the indisputable collection of empirical evidence that would suggest that Darwin was wrong – the dogma of theology does not meet this format. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that creationists are not interested in secular logic and reason, and not dedicated to furthering science. Their objective in attacking Darwin is simply to ‘remove’ the scientific edifice that is evolutionary science, so that the politicised Christian church can once again theologically dominate the world in a new era of intellectual darkness.

Pick a Bethlehem, Any Bethlehem…


I came across this gem today:

Archaeologist Believes Jesus Was Born in a Different Bethlehem

This research suggests that the Bethlehem venerated by modern Christians today, is NOT the assumed Bethlehem that Jesus is believed to have been born in – an Israeli archaeologist suggests. What I find surprising is how eager the Zionist ideologues of modern Israel are to disprove Christian belief, whilst enforcing a rightwing (and generally ‘ahistorical’) version of Jewish religious history (which has seen Palestinians killed in the past, in its propagation and protection).  As religions are mostly myth, there is no reason for any of them to possess an objective historicity such as that associated with the development of the water-wheel, or the combustion engine, for instance.  Religions, at least in there original form, have been vehicles for the exploration of ‘inner’ space, an essentially psychological device that does not require historically observable markers in the materiality of the external world. It is only through the politicisation of religions, that sees a priestly-elite abandon the inner search, and replaced it with the grasping and wielding of external political power (such as in the case of various Jewish sects and the Church of Rome, etc), that a legitimising historicity in the external environment becomes important.  Modern Zionist Israel, for example, possesses no historical legitimising in ancient Palestine, but tries to compensate for this lack of material presence through the brutal use of military arms in the area. All these issue must be taken into account when assessing the often bizarre world of Biblical ‘scholarship’.  This is a netherworld where the usual standards of objective academia are viewed as being tainted by the ‘devil’ – but I say ‘no’ to this nonsense.  The human intellect is more than capable of dealing with this subject and shining a rational light upon it.

Inconsistencies to watch-out for whilst reading this article:

a) Jesus is referred to as a ‘Nazarene’ in early Hebrew Biblical texts – meaning ‘healer’.  This was incorrectly translated into Greek as ‘Nazareth’, and mistakenly interpreted to mean the birthplace of Jesus.  However, modern archaeology has revealed that during the supposed life-time of Jesus, Nazareth either did not exist, or was a place of Jewish burial, and not a place of routine habitation. Conclusion – Jesus did not come from Nazareth.

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

b) There is no objective evidence that a man called ‘Yeshua Ben Yoseph’ (Joshua son of Joseph), was ‘born’ or ‘existed’.  His Hebrew name has been rendered into Greek as ‘Jesus Christos’ – (Son of Zeus – the Anointed One).  In other words, although discussed in this article as being proven to have existed, the historicity of Jesus remains highly suspect.

Jesus Never Existed

c) The ‘no hypothesis’.  Rational academia (and science) works from the principle that ‘nothing is happening’, or has ‘been established’ as happening, (or has ‘happened’ in the past), until verified objective evidence has been gathered, assessed and agreed to be correct.  Much paranormal and religious ‘scholarship’ is in fact, an exercise in pseudo-academia, where the subject matter is assumed to ‘exist’ and be ‘correct’ a priori. This is the inverse of the ‘no hypothesis’, and is nothing more than the attempted legitimisation of personal opinion and bias, and the twisting of objective facts to fit this imagined reality.  This article assumes too much without prior proof. Jesus could not have been born in  different Bethlehem – if he was not born at all!

%d bloggers like this: