There are plenty of theoretical models that people use to make sense of the world that we live in. Whether they be spiritual, religious, scientific, political or sociological; we constantly create order out of the chaos in an attempt to feel secure in our knowing. We are information hunters and gatherers, piecing together the puzzle and predicting the way that things will work, based on the images we ourselves create. Then we claim that the image we have made is an authentic reality and treat our concepts and beliefs as concrete knowledge. People feel personally offended when the simulated reality they have so carefully woven is challenged by another person's belief system. It is the rare individual who can repeatedly tear a hole in the fabric of the simulated reality and catch a glimpse of what lies behind the veil. We have always been challenged with the question of what is real but in our search for truth, we consistently identify with the simulation instead of our immediate experience. The simulation is only an approximation of the real, a fabricated myth we use to quell our sense of insecurity in the face of the great unknown.
"Religion says: --- 'Believe and you will understand.'
Science comes to say to you: --- 'Understand and you will believe.' - J De. Maistre
We in the Conspiracy research community are constantly playing with models of reality, but how can we tell if they are fact or fiction? We often believe in theories that we ourselves can not verify to be true except through textual referencing. When it comes down to experiential reality, we can not know if there is a Planet X, if there are extra-terrestrials and what they are like, what will happen in 2012, what is being discussed behind closed doors by secret societies or who is at the top of the Illuminati pyramid. We can not claim to know these things the same way we can know how the flower in our yard looks and smells (and only to us) by going outside to look at and smell it. There is, and should be, an important distinction between these two very different kinds of knowledge. Yet when it comes to these models, many of us are not playing with them, we are all too seriously fixated and static in our beliefs.
Our society is plagued by conflicting belief systems, that harden the mind, in an attempt to avoid confrontation with the unknown. We choose a false sense of security over the “wisdom of insecurity.” One of the most prevalent conflicts arises out of our various religious traditions and modern day Atheism. The religious and atheistic are the most unwavering in their attachment to their particular simulation and the most volatile when their belief systems are challenged. Their certainty is unwavering and essentially limiting. Any intelligent researcher of physics knows that the Newtonian model gave way to Quantum physics, which will eventually give way to another model. Any intelligent biologist knows that natural selection is an incomplete theory and will eventually lead to a new and more accurate theory of biological evolution. Any intelligent theist knows that religious views change with time and will continue to change as we learn more about God’s creation. Blind faith in any belief system is a dangerous thing because it can restrict a person’s ability to verify knowledge through direct experience. If we read a book on how to ride a bike, we can not claim to know how to ride a bike until we get on one and start to pedal. Even then we may be able to ride from one point to another but what else can we do? Can we ride with no hands? Can we do tricks? Intellectual knowledge of a religious text does not predicate a person’s ability to have a spiritual experience. Without direct spiritual experience, one’s claimed knowledge is shallow. Religious texts are inherently deep and can be understood on increasingly complex levels. If, as many claim, these texts are in fact the word of God, then they should be infinite in depth. Strict literal or surface interpretations are offensively anti-God as they collapse the infinite mystery into the finite.
Our senses limit what we can know and technology can amplify our senses, so the amount of knowledge we can gain grows as technology advances and becomes more available. The same holds true for intellectual or spiritual pursuits because technology can increase the amount of knowledge we have access to. Religion and Science are not irreconcilable but instead are two simultaneous dimensions of human evolution. With the development of international travel and communications technology we now have the ability to spread cultural knowledge beyond a country’s borders. Our beliefs limit us but our understanding of the world grows as we gain more understanding of other belief systems. No longer can we claim cultural superiority since, whether we like it or not, we are part of a new international culture that transcends but still includes all the cultures of the past. Few people can maintain a meta-belief system because it requires the ability to identify one’s Self as being outside the realm of belief. Beliefs become like interchangeable lenses in a pair of glasses, varying ways of seeing the mystery of creation. It is a terrible intellectual mistake to be certain that one’s cultural belief system is the only valid belief system. When we release our identification of Self from our opinions and beliefs we will most likely feel a sense of extreme discomfort and anxiety, as if there were no ground to stand on. Without direct experiential knowledge of the ultimate Ground of reality, it feels like we are floating in Chaos. But when we limit ourselves to what we are comfortable with, we limit our ability to feel compassion and limit our intellectual understanding of the variety of existence. Without taking the leap into the unknown, giving up our false sense of grounding in the simulation, we can never come to know the ultimate Ground that is Spirit. In this sense, those who claim spiritual superiority through blind faith are resisting experiential contact with God. Some will say that experiential contact with God is not possible, but if there is evidence that it is possible and a person claims to love God, why not give into the possibility? Only by giving up one’s certainty in their idea and image of God can they experience God’s Truth. It is important for us to not stop growing as people. Do not merely feel comfortable being who you are, feel compelled to always be in the process of becoming who you are. Stasis is not real; life is in constant motion, everything is always changing. Stasis is an illusion. Our resistance to change will drain our batteries dry because we are fighting a losing battle.
God is just a name. There are many different names for the same thing. A person does not have to believe in the name God to believe in God. As soon as a thing is named it loses a part of its essence. If God is, as we are told, eternal and infinite then we can not even begin to describe what God is or is not. All characteristics attributed to God are restricting us from experiencing what it means to be eternal and infinite. It is a common misconception that eternal means “going on forever” instead of timeless or outside of time. Similarly, the infinite means outside of space or without space. Without having experienced the eternal and infinite, most religious follows hold tight to their image of God. What we imagine God to be like can not possibly be true. Consequently, without this particular spiritual experience, no holy scriptures or religious texts can be interpreted as they are meant to be. Every passage of every authentic religious text can be interpreted from the finite and temporal perspective or from the infinite and eternal. One interpretation has depth and the other examines only the surface. We must peel away the layers or we will continue to fight over appearance rather than embrace substance.
How can a person claim to be moral or ethical when they relinquish their responsibility to a religious moral code or social institution? Their morals and ethics then become restrictive and belong to the group, rather than the individual, losing any real authenticity. Resisting an action out of self restraint is not authentic because the desire to act in contradiction to one’s rules is the primary re-action. An authentic moral action is not a resistance to one’s initial desire; because of one’s moral system, that initial desire to do opposite of what they consider good, does not arise. There is a difference between not killing someone because you are told that it is wrong and not killing someone because you place great value on human life. The religious moral codes provided by religious institutions are for those who have yet to come to this realization. They are not an end-all or absolute. It’s easy to follow a rule or regulation but much more difficult to know why we have it, when it should be followed and when it should be broken. We always have the potential to be more than we are.
