False Prophets and Enslavement of Religion

Knowledge is power. This is why many “sociopaths” or simply just pragmatic transcenders have a natural talent for leadership. Through their understanding of the universe and its patterns they see everything in a clearer perspective and can thus better manage existence. It is no coincidence that what I call super-transcenders are referred to as prophets by the History Channel. They have the same power to enslave people to their point of view, just like religious prophets such as Jesus and Mohammed. The only difference is that what the transcenders preach is something tangible and based on real-life observations which does not require belief in something ethereal, but rather for you to simply observe the world and arrive at similar conclusions enabling you to further expand your understanding of the universe and existence itself. This breeds evolution and progress and puts us higher up the evolutionary ladder whereas religious prophets do the opposite, latching on to the past and trying to maintain the status quo by enslaving people to their beliefs. These beliefs are usually finite, putting an end to all intellectual development and encourages people to just “believe” in scripture and prayers, whereas the world of science encourages people to make their own choices and question everything. Socrates famously said: ‘All I know is that I know nothing’. This sense of humility is a key in distinguishing transcender prophets from “real” prophets, who in fact are the false ones from this point of view. While religion seemingly offers answers to all life’s questions, science rather encourages people to seek answers for themselves, to make up their own minds. The problem is that most people are too scared to find their own answers, they would rather just have someone tell them. Plus science does not hold all the answers because it acknowledges that there are still many things that we do not know. But instead of jumping to conclusions and providing lots of easy and finite answers like religion does (because I said so!), science maintains its sense of humility and armed with a natural curiosity proceeds on its quest for knowledge into infinity.

Unlike humble scientists who realize that there are still many other discoveries to be had in the future of the human race, most religions have for literally thousands of years been preaching to people; ‘Don’t look for more knowledge, everything you need to know is in this or that scripture’, ‘This is how you should live your life, not the way you actually want to’, etc. They are taking the freedom and choice away from people, and in the process they arrest any form of personal development, not only in individuals, but also, and this is much worse, on a macro scale. Religion, in fact, is holding back our entire species. This is because many countries are imposing religion on their people on a national level, effectively forcing them to be religious in order to be a citizen. This is so much worse than parents teaching religion to their children, because in worst cases it causes persecution and imprisonment for non-believers but at the very least forms social judgment and pressure to conform. So even if parents in such countries wish for their child to choose its own faith, society and culture make it harder to pass that knowledge on to their children. After all, nobody wants to be a pariah let alone be imprisoned. 

Imagine how many geniuses like Copernicus, Galileo and countless unnamed others who had the intellect to carry our species further, but was hindered by the paradigm in which they lived and thus were prosecuted and sometimes killed for trying to advance the species. Although this form of persecution is much rarer these days, it does still exist in more ancient parts of the world. But even in slightly more progressed countries, by continuously preaching these outdated dogmas to entire societies, essentially brainwashing young children into actually believing these things, religion is even today trapping the minds of billions of people, who could otherwise be well on their way to transcendence. This is when religion is no longer cute and funny, but actually becomes a serious problem. Imagine all these people, currently on the dancefloor of existence dancing away to the tunes of religion being played by their governments. They have simply never heard any other music so have never had the same opportunities for knowledge that modern transcenders like Hawking, Kaku, Krauss, Dawkins and Harris had. We could potentially have additional billions of great thinkers helping to advance our species whereas right now it’s only a small percentage of the population that has the freedom to think unhindered and uninhibited without interference from parents, schools or governments telling them what to believe. This will not stand.

That is why part of my renewed mission in life is to let these trapped souls know that there is a world without religion and it is a beautiful and wondrous place. As soon as they have that information, what they choose to do with it, is no longer my concern. I do still believe in freedom of religion, but only if you have had all the options laid out before you before you made your decision, and made it at a time when you had the experience and knowledge to do so informed. If a well-educated adult chooses to believe in any given religion, I cannot stop him. After all, religion is still so integral in human culture that it would be impossible to just go cold turkey. That would probably just spawn even more extremist fanatics and Lord knows, we do not need more of those. Religion can still do good in some forms and to some people but gradually, if infused with knowledge, such people would also start to see its uselessness.

However, it still has to exist only in voluntary form and if parents start brainwashing their children to follow the same religion, then I draw the line. Children should learn about all religions and science equally, and then when they are mature, they can decide which they want to follow, but not sooner. This is why religion is still so prevalent in our day and age. Like a hereditary disease it spreads downwards through generations because children are indoctrinated from the moment they are born. How many Christians would choose to get baptized as adults? How many adult Jews would want to be circumcised? How do you know a Muslim child would not have pork as his favorite food if he tried it as a child? And the list goes on. Children cannot make these choices, it is their parents or elders that make them for them, and this is not freedom of religion. It is the opposite, it is enslavement of religion. Generation after generation creating mindless drones to spread the word of God onwards or create soldiers to fight in his wars. Existence is a much better story than anything humans ever thought up. And make no mistake, every religion was conceived by humans, just like you and me. Religion has held back our species long enough. On a global scale it has outlived its purpose and I wonder if it needs to be put down, once and for all. 

The Sweet Bliss of Ignorance

I used to have no problem with religion. I practiced religious freedom in all its glory, people can believe whatever they want, I don’t mind. I used to think atheist fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins were wasting their energy criticizing something that makes so many people happy and content. But having finally gotten around to reading his books, Dawkins has opened my eyes to some of the fundamental problems with religion, namely its finiteness and its shielding from criticism. 

The latter issue, I hate to say, is one of the many reasons I have been so passive about my issues with religion towards others. For some reason it is not polite to question people’s religion. It is considered culturally insensitive. But Dawkins aptly asks why this is? And I started doing the same and realized it is because I feel truly sorry for religious people. They want to believe this dream world so bad, that you almost cannot bear it in your heart to tell them that it is all human invented nonsense. Same as when you don’t have it in your heart to tell a child that there is no Santa Claus. 

One of my earliest memories was when I realized my own mortality. I was just a kid when I found out that one day I would die and I was inconsolable. I cried my eyes out pleading to my mother; “I don’t want to die!” And my mother did what any parent would do, she comforted me by telling me a lie. It doesn’t matter if she actually believed the lie herself, knowing what I know today it was still a lie. She told me that when I died I would go to heaven. This super nice place where you literally walk around on clouds surrounded by all your loved ones and God himself who is there making the afterlife better than actual life. I did find comfort in that thought, I can still see the image of that God in my head. This kind loving force that took care of me when I died, and that image comforted me. But even as a child I never actually believed that it would actually happen. God was just an image in my head, I never actually met the guy. So how did I know he actually existed? 

But honestly, telling a crying child who is afraid of death that he will go to heaven when he dies, and being an adult educated person who is too scared to face the truth that there is no afterlife are two very different things. People aren’t children their entire lives and thus should be able to have an honest discussion about these issues. But for some reason it is considered improper to question people’s beliefs. And I think I know why. It was the same reason I used as a child when I really wanted to believe in that image of God in my head, or in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, even though I knew in my heart that none of them were real, it was just my parents making my childhood more enjoyable by not sharing these hard truths with me but I chose to believe it regardless. Religious people today prefer to remain in this illusion, to think that everything will be fine once they are dead. ‘I don’t have to think for myself and take responsibility for my own life, because as long as I follow God’s directions I will be safe in the afterlife.’ This I can no longer accept. Adults should know better, and with all the information available to us in this period in history I really do not see any basis to perpetuate these illusions any longer by passing them on to, and effectively brainwashing, our children. Like Dawkins also points out, the truth may not equal comfort, but it does not make it any less true. You have to take responsibility for your own life as you are living it. You cannot just pray to something you have never met and expect all your problems to be solved for you. Step up! I for one am done standing idly by and watching religion hinder human development which brings me to my main issue with these outdated institutions, their innate finiteness which will be addressed in the next post just as religion will form the topic of more posts to follow, so stay tuned. 

Sociopaths, Pragmatics and the Power of Love

Looking at the bigger picture and never completely depending on others is what some people (obviously not transcenders) perceive as sociopathic, something of a buzzword these days. In its purest definition sociopath is the same as a psychopath, persons displaying a complete lack of empathy and acting in violent and aggressive ways towards others. In my experience though, when people use the term sociopath, they use it as a lesser degree of psychopath, less violent and aggressive but still emphasizing the lack of empathy and through that, the ability to mimic emotional attachments. Not to say that there aren’t sick individuals out there who truly need to be institutionalized because they otherwise pose a threat to society and its citizens because of their innate need to do harm to others, but I also believe, and I know Sam Harris agrees with me, that there are a lot more sociopaths, in the lesser sense of the term, around than people care to realize. But I also think the term is being thrown around too lightly, creating an unnecessary negative connotation to go with it.

Just because most transcenders understand that emotional attachments may be nice on a micro-universal scale, they are ultimately always temporary as is everything in life due to the scale of the macro-universe. And because transcenders simultaneously appreciate all types of life equally instead of only their own species, because they understand that we are all equal parts in the same clockwork, does this necessarily mean that they are evil people? Does this mean they don’t possess empathy, or any emotions whatsoever? In all honesty, whilst growing up, I have at times posed these questions myself. Every time I actually feel emotions strongly it reminds me that I am in fact humane, in the somewhat negative sense that I possess emotions and that they sometimes control me. In the words of my fellow blogger, emotions tend to drag you further down the staircase, a sort of regression towards our animal ancestry. (See The Art of Transcending).

Emotions tend to be in the same category as the noises around us in that they tend to also dictate our life. Not to say that they are necessarily bad, but I think most transcenders would agree, and I certainly do, that in order to progress further up the evolutionary ladder, we need to be able to control these emotions and rely primarily on rationale and not vice versa. After all, is it not precisely our cold, hard rationale that have brought us up to our current evolutionary level? Emotions are remnants of a more primitive past where fear, libido, stress etc. were all needed to survive. Since then, with the ability to vocalize, we have developed several other terms to describe our different mindsets but all of these tend to stand in contrast to reason. 

All emotions tend to override reason from time to time, but one of the most potent examples is love. How many crazy endeavors, crimes, murders, even wars, have been caused by love? Even I have felt its effects from time to time and frankly, they scare me, completely overriding every last bit of reason and rationale which I hold so very dear. (Un)Fortunately, I have so far managed to bounce back to my happy (ironic, I know) sensible macro frame of mind, but I am sure I will succumb over and over again. Love after all is what causes us to procreate which is necessary for the survival of the species. My hope is that I will still be able to put my love for future partners into context and not let it dictate my thoughts completely. This is something that comes with experience, because as irrational as it seems, when you’re in it, you do feel extremely happy which is why you tend to accept the irrationality of your actions. In their worst manifestations, emotions can be as addictive as drugs and many great humans have fallen as a result to them. I don’t think it is a coincidence that many leading scientists and past super-transcenders such as for instance Newton or Lovecraft, were complete social recluses lacking any type of social skills, only functioning in the macro-universe. Even though in the past, as mentioned earlier, I lacked a sense of belonging, having now expanded my personal world and micro-universe I do feel a sense of belonging, and thus will eventually most likely create emotional attachments. But hopefully never forgetting that on a macro scale, emotions make you weak and that attachments can in worst cases hinder your ambitions by creating too much noise and unrest in your car as you are navigating down the infinite freeway. Lone wolf, remember? My hope is that once you are secure enough in your navigation skills, you can more easily let people into the car without them causing any deviation from your road taken.

Because if you have any ambitions besides being a monk or crazy old hermit, in the modern world you need to be able to interact socially and this involves not being too macro oriented, i.e. at times, but not always, faking social interaction in order to appear “normal”. This is something sociopaths are allegedly very good at, but I think it is something we all do regularly. Little white lies, trying not to hurt people’s feelings by not stating your honest opinions, this in my opinion all classifies as “faking” it. Transcenders might need to utilize these skills a bit more often because they don’t rely too much on emotions as compared to the people on the dancefloor, but it’s not coming from a violent or evil place, as per the definition of a sociopath, nor is it grounded in a complete lack of emotions. Rather it is caused by a higher understanding of the functions of existence, an understanding not shared by non-transcenders, which still make up the most of human populations, hence the need to “pretend”. Sometimes all this means is not sharing your ideas and just go with the conversation in the room. Although psychopaths are probably a lot more numerous than people and myself like to think, sociopaths in their popularized definition are extremely abundant, and usually very successful in whatever they endeavor to do. I know this because I think most transcenders are also this non-violent type of sociopath. I’ve definitely encountered a few, but these people should not be feared necessarily. Probably some people feel threatened by this type of sociopath, because they are not as dependent on or controlled by emotions as themselves, and thus have more freedom for individual achievements. Sherlock Holmes in his new BBC form refers to himself as a high-functioning sociopath, a character and label I certainly have no qualms being associated with. In many of the episodes, his more emotional counterpart, Dr. Watson, does specifically question the power of rationale over emotions in his sociopathic friend.

Maybe a less negative and hostile term for this so called emotional detachment found in many transcenders is pragmatism, a word that carries a lot more positive connotations and values and has in the past been associated by renowned leaders such as for instance Dwight Eisenhower. Emotional detachment is quintessential in any leader. When leaders start basing decisions on emotions rather than rationale, is when leadership degrades into tyranny basing decisions on a micro scale rather than looking at things in the larger perspective and encompassing their subjects or subordinates. Yet pragmatism denotes almost the same as sociopath in its cultural and modernized sense (not its original definition), i.e. seeing things for exactly what they are and nothing more. Isn’t this just another way of describing a macro point of view? Humans are just another lifeform on one out of a potentially infinite number of planets in one out of a potentially infinite number of galaxies and perhaps infinite multiverses and beyond. Not really more important than cockroaches or Buganawas on that scale. Our entire planet could be destroyed tomorrow and the universe wouldn’t even blink. Clearly the universe is a giant sociopath ;) 

This is the truth, but realizing it and living by it apparently puts you on the same level as a serial killer in people’s minds. I say it makes you a stronger and more mature form of life capable of rising higher up on the evolutionary scale and further expanding your own personal horizon and maybe other’s as well, not tied down or controlled by petty emotions. Don’t fear all sociopaths, they might actually be on to something. Appreciate the irony here, since being dictated by fear is part of what makes people non-transcenders.