We aren’t advanced enough as a species to declare that science as the study of objects is able to definitively assert the non-existence of a creator being. The truth is we are an infantile warring exploitive, coercive species led primarily by our reptilian inheritance. I see little hope for humanity until it implements and enacts higher frontal lobe behavior especially within the field of economics and ethics.

What science can do is deconstruct religious assertions and dogmas and it has done an admirable job at that, IMO. Here is what we know about the Abrahamic religions and to a lesser degree, other religious dogmas and I’ll do this in point form:

-the universe was not created about 6000 years ago.

-there has been no worldwide flood but there is mounting evidence for some type of cataclysm around 12,000 years ago.

-there is no archeological evidence for The Exodus.

-there is little evidence for the Grand Solomon Kingdom.

-there is minimal evidence for a historical Jesus and the specific events surrounding him. No other field of historical study would accept non-existent first-hand accounts of these myths. All accounts are well past the chronology of actual events and are second-hand contradictory narratives of said events. This is true of Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, and other religious icons, too. These figures may have existed as historical figures but the narratives surrounding them seem to be mainly myth and dogma.

-reason dictates that good parents don’t scapegoat their children; they don’t make examples of their children; they don’t set siblings against each other in millennia age bloody violent death marches. We know this about parenting for a fact! It’s indisputable what makes a good parent.

-good parents don’t dictate that you eat your children as punishment for wrongdoing (Leviticus).

-good judges don’t punish people unduly or unreasonably for a crime. Good reasonable judges consider all the evidence and circumstance and judge according to the principle of fairness.

-no reasonable person kills animals as an atonement for human sex acts. No rational person would do this.

-all evidence points to higher I.Q’s leading to the rightful abandonment of irrational and illogical religious assertions.

-all evidence is pointing to the probability that humans don’t have free will.

-all evidence points to the probability that there is next to zero efficacy of prayer and anything that does happen along this line is most likely coincidence.

-there is no evidence that quantum mechanics has anything to do with God per se.

-there is no evidence that meditation can tell you anything about the universe writ large as meditation is solely limited to the study of the mind and the human mind has limitations (see Immanuel Kant, et al). What I’m suggesting here is that meditation is a local phenomenon as far as we know.

Now, what there is and may be:

-there is evidence for the efficacy of yoga and meditation.

-there is a mountain of anecdotal evidence for the near-death experience.

-there is a mountain of data within the field of abduction and ufology but few of the researchers in this field take the data literally, or they wouldn’t assert definitively that E.T. is interacting with humanity in the popular folk sense. See John Mack and Jacques Vallee.

-there is interesting speculation within the field of subtle energies and morphogenic fields should be studied further, IMO. Along with ideas like involution and Bohm’s implicate order. This goes to teleology which as it stands is rightfully materialistic at this point, IMO, which doesn’t mean the materialists are correct; it means new theories and new study and data is needed.

Now, I’ll finish up by pondering whether God could still exist? Yes, indeed, IMO. Here are some ideas on how that could be:

-it’s possible there is a big lie among the elites about something but that big lie can’t contradict all of the aforementioned. A Flat Earth wouldn’t change archeology in the middle east within the last 5000 years, it doesn’t eradicate reason and logic either, IMO. Although true, it would alter considerably most of the above but it still wouldn’t tell us one damn thing about God! And for the record, I reject flat earth theory after a considerable investigation into the claims. If there is a big lie it’s about something else, IMO. Could it be that an overwhelming amount of people on this planet today are not human but rather angels or aliens in human form? If that were true it would be a fact that they are lying about who they are. If they are angels are they being instructed by God to lie about their identity? What else are they lying about? Does it account for all the contradictions within religion and the abysmal condition of civilization? Search out various Nephilim theories and then imagine that indeed, your particular religious tradition has been THOROUGHLY tainted by them; that they use religion to control humanity.

-that God although existent is simply not relevant to humans and that humanity is dealing with lesser manifestations. I call these archons and as a Christian Gnostic, I believe that this is what we are dealing with. Unlike most other religions this particular narrative is congruent with science, rationality, logic, and the historical record; or non-historical contradictory record within this context. Please consider that this earth is a monster cosmic meat grinder with two humans dying on average per second and where life eats life to survive. Please note the fact that everything you love and care about here will be taken away from you. This condition is completely consistent with Gnostic cosmology and the speculative assertion of a demiurge. Please note also that most all religionists have transferred this brutal exploitive animal condition into their economic models. Something that should never have happened if religion were true, sincere, and honest, but is consistent with religion being a primary control mechanism of lying archons.

In this post, I’m going to try and flesh out my stance on the problem of subjectivity as it relates to the question of how shall we live? And what should a civil society act like if we concede that a civil society is worth pursuing? Yes, some of this may come across as ridiculous.

I need you to imagine that Fairies, Pixies, and Trolls are very real! That they exist independently of whether we think they exist or not. Now let’s further imagine that they very much dislike technology and all the negative consequences of technology especially as it relates to ecological systems. Perhaps these beings are even able to see into our future and are aware of all the bad things that are going to happen as technology outpaces human wisdom and empathy. Perhaps these kindred folk are even correct in their assessments of the human condition and the trajectory of human civilization as it relates to machines and technology.

If we’ve enacted this thought experiment we may now intuit a quite serious problem.There is no way to know for certain if the fairies, pixies, and trolls are correct in their assessments of our condition. Now let’s further imagine that the fairies, pixies, and trolls have made a pact amongst each other for reasons we can only speculate about NOT to show themselves to humanity.

We should be getting a sense by now of the conundrum. When humanity rejects subjectivity outright it could very well be rejecting some of the most important aspects of life and survival; yet the fairies, pixies, and trolls are agreed not to share their knowledge and wisdom with us, yet humanity very much needs their insight and dismisses it at their own peril.  But the double bind is that it would be foolish to have civilizations template patterned on unprovable imaginings especially when the little folk have their own reasons for not enlightening us. What to do, eh?

Well, back in the ‘real world’ the conundrum does get a bit easier to solve. We know that we can’t model civilization solely on metaphysical speculation as that is inherently irrational–no sane society would do this. We know from history that doing so can lead to hysteria like witch burning and inquisitions and committing every manner of violence against the unbelievers and infidels. This is clearly an intolerable condition from any rational objective standpoint. The main point to take though is that the threat of supernatural violence and retribution acted out via humans and not by supernatural entities becomes a pathetic folly. In our thought experiment, we used goodness as a measure and it would seem that this position is far less problematic. Humans acting out acts of kindness via supernatural injunction is not really a problem for a rational society and in my opinion, this aspect of spirituality should not be dismissed or disregarded. I think this delineates a clear way forward on the issue of subjectivity especially as it relates to spiritual claims viewed from the perspective of an objective rational civilization.

Of course, we would still have the disputes about the authenticity and realness of the little folk but in a rational society this would end up in a stalemate as the believers wouldn’t be able to prove their claim while the objectivist wouldn’t have to be subject to negative irrational behavior on the part of believers. One of the most important aspects of this working, though, is that the objectivists have to show respect to healthy subjectivism and not dismiss and pooh-pooh it while the subjectivists have to learn to abandon every aspect of their supernatural claims that are destructive and irrational–claims like privileged access and special chosenness would have to go on the part of the subjectivists; as would lying to hide ulterior motives to protect hidden delusional supernatural agendas.

On the other hand, the rational objectivist would need to double down on honesty and ethics within their own domains so as not to overreach their own positions as we’ve seen enormous destruction in the past century during the death of god. Reducing humanity to objects of material financial exploitation hasn’t worked out too well either! So a compromise and a balance needs to be reached or so it seems to me if we are to navigate human interiors and their surrounding objects in a healthy constructive way.

It should be noted here the ultimate meanings and nature of reality haven’t been settled or established within these parameters but rather a compromise for a societal way forward could be reached by thinking like this. What I don’t have an answer to is how to stop the snake oil salesmen within a civilization where profit by any means is accepted as the norm. I have offered a solution to that issue in my previous post here

Please note that none of this solves or settles the question of whether the Gods are good or evil; I’m only trying to tackle the question of how we should live.

This post will tackle what I think are some of the myths woven into the hive mind of humanity which I think are counter-productive and fallacious. I need to first go over the schema of premodern, modern(around 1500 A.D.), and the postmodern era which really cemented itself during the ’50s and ’60s. The first thing I need to say is that not everything premodern was irrational and illogical and in fact, their way of keeping time via 30-Day moon cycles was more coherent than our fractured Gregorian calendar. Having a direct relationship with the earth was in no way irrational either. So any corrective post-postmodern integration, at a minimum, would need to discuss these particular issues.

As far as the Enlightenment and Industrial Capitalism: the sad truth is that there was a worm in the center of that apple and it was the sleight of hand of control of the money supply as the new covert method of controlling populations seemingly replaced the traditional Monarchy, Divine Right, or Church Authority. I’m sure humanity is stuck until we implement a corrective like www.positivemoney.org.; a basic income; a citizens dividend, and perhaps even a complete overhaul of where and how to tax. The fact of the matter is that unnecessary coercion, exploitation, and force would need to be removed for a civilization to call itself post-postmodern, or integrated. One of the primary concerns here is to make sure that humanity’s culture is voluntary and not built upon a foundation of forced coercion. A new model for education is needed…

Education in a post-postmodern economy shouldn’t be for-profit and one of the primary areas of study needs to be in the field of spirituality. But for this to be successful it would need to have the issue of financial corruption removed as a possibility. We would also need new ways to test for non-bias and open objectiveness so a metric would need to be devised so that faculty don’t skew results; so we don’t get pseudo-science as we have now in this field; with one of the goals in this area of study to be the end of the possibility of quackery. This would also prevent Hindu’s from doing Hindu science, and Buddhists doing Buddhist science and fundamentalist’s doing Bible science, etc.  Now I get the modernists aren’t going to like this idea but the sad truth is that humans are spiritual beings whether God exists or not and the impulse towards spirituality is never going away so a wise civilization would concede this truism and deal with it maturely and professionally. Moreover, one of the complete failures within the current malaise is trust and that trust has been broken between the elites and common folk and a sincere academic attempt to study honestly with integrity humanities most important queries is about one of the only things I can think of that would restore trust to a broken civilization; in fact, no future progress is possible without something like this happening. But perhaps modern academies consider the resurgence of Flat Earth theories and such a success? Please let me assure the academies: they’re relevant and are proof enough that you’re doing something WRONG!

It’s hard for me to imagine a more fragile civilization than the one late modernity has created all built upon the near absolute need for electrical power and to have the financial system dependent on this seems like incredible folly to me. A post-postmodern corrective would be to teach humanity to become food self-sufficient again and by every means possible. Whether technical urban hydroponic farming or a return to educated homesteading laws and more; everything possible needs to be done to mitigate the horrors of the lights going out for an extended period. To not do so is folly, IMO., especially given predictions of climate instability in the coming century.

I’ll add this from an earlier post on The New Earth Commons as the ideas couldn’t be more timely or relevant:

We need to build what I call a New Earth Commons Society which uses a non-inflationary Commons-Non-Debt means of exchange; this culture could live ‘side by side’ to a scaled-back capitalist system– one where the focus was commercial and industrial/technical.

The merit of my idea is that it would allow as many people as much choice as possible as to which system they want to live under. The present worldwide financial monoculture is reaching all natural limits and cannot be sustained– 2 billion practitioners is the likely limit. In all likeliness, this system reached its limits in and around 1950. I think the postmodernists grokked this and are in part what they were getting at.

So this new emerging New Earth Commons culture would have to have a guaranteed dividend for all its people. There are boundaries that would be legislated into the present system: Real-estate would be limited to a one home per person initiative and the present speculation on personal real-estate would end ( it would be allowed commercially in a stripped-down capitalist system ). Health-care, education, ecology would all be traded in the N.E.C system with the stable mode of a new commons currency. I figure that by 2100 the two economies might divide into 2 billion participating in the reformed capitalist economy and about 8 billion partaking in the N.E.C. economy. A large part of the N.E.C.economy would be using the current recreation infrastructure; also the voluntary aspect of the N.E.C. would mean most people in that economy would commit to living simple ‘green’ environmentally sustainable lifestyles.  A very large part of the culture would be having the infrastructure and education aimed towards mastery in any given interest. I concede the mindset of misanthropy would need to replaced with true philanthropy and not the phony kind the billionaire oligarchs reap today.

A new emerging N.E.C.civilization needs to have four pillars that are off-limits to capitalist exploitation:

1-food.

2-housing: with a one house per person initiative put in place ( end the casino speculation on homes). Everyone is allowed one piece of private property. And yes, you can own as big a house as honest merit allows; but you only get to own one!

3-health-care.

4-education.

Implied in the new Four Pillars is the end of usury; especially usury as a tool of economic predatory behavior.

These four areas need to be the foundation of a New Earth Commons Non-Debt Currency Civilization.

Please note the private property rights are paramount to this vision as is the means of trading goods and services via capitalism. I’ve suggested four areas that need to be altered if we are to progress into a healthy post-postmodern civilization.