The Dogma of Atheism

and the theology of superiority

On my post of YOU are the Christ, I had a long discussion with Everything Voluntary Jack who writes Jack’s Responsibly Free News Letter. I like and respect Jack and we’ve had many good exchanges. He’s starting a forum in the New Year of Free Friends, a term that he says is redundant because the origin of both friend and free is love!

In this exchange, Jack describes himself as an atheist and humanist while describing me as ‘believing’ in the transcendental and supernatural of A Course in Miracles. In our dialogue, I look at atheism as another form of dogma that doesn’t question the ‘skin-encapsulated ego’ and therefore sees all shared perception as objective reality.

The third paradigm I present is the possibility that we’re OneMind Dreaming, in which case shared perception could be the subjective illusion of a dream. This opens up the possibility that Reality, aka God, exists outside our sensory awareness. But this isn’t a belief, this is considering the possibility.

I’ve presented this thinking in other videos like Kali & Ultimate Reality and What is the Matter? on Iain McGilchrist. Our discussion also illustrated some communication truncators I’ve touched on in other episodes, that I think are important for clarifying our co-thinking in the New You Year. So let’s delve in.

---

The root of conspiracy means to breathe together, to share the same spirit. We need to think together, to share the question as a quest for the truth. And that requires analyzing our preconceptions, the paradigms in which we think before we think we’re thinking. And to be deliberate in our habits of debate.

My first principle is to enthusiastically love the person and relentlessly challenge their ideas. This can be misunderstood, especially when someone’s identity is tied up with I Am statements rather than I Think. For instance, I’m often perceived as critical of Jews and Christians when, instead, I’m critical of their ideology and the behaviors it condones.

My basis for criticism is always the same: superiority. My only dogma or belief that I won’t raise to question or debate is that I’m no better than anyone else. And so my challenge to ideas and behaviors, including techniques of debate, is that they are ways of disguising a belief in superiority, not of ideas but of people.

This is often perceived as trying to make my self superior when, instead, I’m arguing for the superiority of my idea that all people are equally good, equally wanting to love and be loved. Superiority is the obstacle to considering that we’re OneMind. If I believe I’m superior to others, the last thing I want to see in them is me in another form.

So with respect for Jack and his courage to challenge my ideas in my own forum, I’m going to quote from his points and my responses. I think it’s important to come to agreement, not on the answers, but on a process for discussing the questions. Jack and I agree on rejecting the God of the Bible, who is based on the superiority of some to rule over others who are cursed to be their slaves.

But if we allow the Bible to define God, and then decide to accept or reject their God, are we allowing them to win the debate? Should we first define a God whose possibility we’d be willing to entertain, and then look at how that could be true?

I hope that viewers and readers will point out if I’m contradicting my own principles and not being fair.. And let me know if you disagree with my methods of productive dialogue or have facts or logic that challenge my views. Let’s do this!

---

Everything Voluntary Jack wrote Dec 25:

Thank you, Tereza, for your heartfelt Season’s Greeting and A Course in Miracles poem.

As your opposite wearing my Atheist and Humanist Hat, I consider we share a Voluntaryist Halo and so in the New Year will be inviting you and others to join our new Forum, tentatively titled:

“Free Friends Forum: Abandoned To Ourselves—a Voluntary Humanism, Naturalism, Individualism”

Looking forward to having your “Voluntary Transcendental, Supernatural, (mostly?) Individualism” (close?) thoughts/feelings.

“The serious study of Man, of his natural faculties and their successive developments . . . . research into political and moral life. . . . considers what we would have become, abandoned to ourselves.” Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

“It [the final, complete, breakdown of the bicameral mind] said in a word that there is no authorization from outside. Behold! there is nothing there. What we must do must come from ourselves. The king at Eynan can stop staring at Mount Hermon; the dead king can die at last. We, we fragile human species at the end of the second millennium A.D., we must become our own authorization.” The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

“Therefore, if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty—by ceasing to exist. A jealous lover of human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.” God and the State by Michael Bakunin

HAPPY NEW YOU YEAR

With interest and care, Jack

Tereza Coraggio replied:

Haha, I think that would be a false dichotomy, Jack, to put us as opposites ;-)

We share a belief in the goodness of other people and the courage to face the truth. That's my dogma and all the rest is just speculation, open to new experiences. Looking forward to continuing the conversation in the New Year. I love that! HAPPY NEW YOU YEAR back atcha!

Everything Voluntary Jack answered:

Only opposites in those two beliefs, god and homo sapiens sapiens—which are not important compared to Everything Voluntary where I believe we share the same belief? My Dog is a Ma and I have her on my leash lest we transpose our ends and she becomes my God and leads me. Happy, Hippy, New You Year of Upstream Peaceful Parenting! See you soon, I hope, in our new Forum: Free Friends (btw, earliest etymology of free and friend both are "love").

Tereza Coraggio wrote:

I don't believe in God, Jack. I don't believe there's no God. I don't believe in believing, which is making up your mind ahead of your experience or new facts. God, purpose, meaning are all synonyms. So the real question is whether purpose and meaning exist, other than what we make up. My experience of synchronicities and happy coincidence leads me to suspect they do. But that's not something I'd see if I wasn't leaving open the possibility of a God worth having around and being willing to question the existence of the world and myself.

Lovely phrases, New You Year of Upstream Peaceful Parenting! Great time for starting this new forum!

Everything Voluntary Jack posted:

Looking forward to conversing with you and others on these topics in the Free Friends Forum.

For me, we need to begin with definitions and I side with Voltaire

“Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another.”

And agree with Szasz:

“In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or be eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined."

One man’s dog is another woman’s god (smiling).

Get free and stay free. HAPPY HIPPY NEW YOU YEAR!

Tereza Coraggio wrote:

Oh! I've been saying that defining terms is the first step for years but never had those excellent quotes from Voltaire and Szasz to back it up!

Everything Voluntary Jack answered:

A favorite, must read of mine for many years has been a book few seem to know exists, unfortunately for us all: “The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power” by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad.

For me, it has always been about “Power-Control-Authority”—and the only Homo sapiens sapiens who live up to their double wise names that I want to live with are those who have claimed themselves as their sole and ultimate Authority (no gods, gurus or governments, thanks).

I note you are a follower/fan/believer? in “A Course in Miracles”? Joel and Diana (I knew them by email a bit, he is now dead, she still living) have a chapter on it I hope you will read. Here is a quote from it:

“It [Course] calls the world we live in an illusion to be transcended and is specific about calling all separation an illusion. It likewise denigrates the self and self-centeredness with such statements as “Either God or ego is insane.” Its central message is that through surrendering to God’s will, which is pure love, illusions will evaporate and one will be eternally at one with God. The essential methodology used to achieve this is forgiveness.

“Of more interest to us is its claim of not being authoritarian. It is overtly stated that it is not necessary to believe any of the Course’s assertions to experience the promised transformations.

“This claim is worth examining because under the guise of presenting objective truth that any seeker can find, what is actually going on is the age-old ploy of authoritarian indoctrination: A worldview is presented by an unchallengeable authority as the truth to be found. Then practices are given that reprogram and condition the mind to that viewpoint.”

We will discuss such perspectives in our new Free Friends Forum.

These quotes to leave you with:

“Contra Buddha, it is not attachment that causes suffering, rather it is lack of mature attachment that causes it.” Anonymous

“How much easier is self-sacrifice than self-realization. The urge to escape our real self is also an urge to escape the rational and the obvious. The refusal to see ourselves as we are develops a distaste for facts and cold logic. There is no hope for the frustrated in the actual and the possible. Salvation can come to them only from the miraculous, which seeps through a crack in the iron wall of inexorable reality. They asked to be deceived. The substitute for self-confidence is faith; the substitute for self-esteem is pride; and the substitute for individual balance is fusion with others into a compact group. The short-lived self, teetering on the edge of irrevocable extinction, is the only thing that can ever really matter. Thus the renunciation of the self is felt as a liberation and salvation.” Eric Hoffer

Tereza Coraggio replied:

How could I be a believer in the Course when I don't believe in believing? The Course is my daily practice for the last 20 yrs, and I'd describe myself as a practitioner. It would be a strange sort of authority since there's no leaders, no group, no organization, no money, just a book with no author. To whom am I giving away my power? How do you define authority and to whom would a challenge be directed?

It's funny, though, it's like you're asking me to take Joel and Diana's authority over mine for their interpretation of a text I've studied for two decades. It seems like, to do that, I'd need to abandon my own authority as a person who knows how to read and think as well as they do.

[To accept their authority] I'd have to say—despite my own experience that the Course continues to be worth my time and study—silly me! Obviously I've been brainwashed. I'm too dumb to realize when I'm being manipulated. The World Wars, the Bible, Ukraine, Israel, the CovidCon, the Constitution, those are just little power plays that anyone could see through, and most people do, right? But I'm still a gullible fool asking to be deceived, with a distaste for facts and cold logic. I think that's how most of my readers would describe me.

Joel and Diana’s interpretations of the Course are not how I'd phrase them so let me take the one direct quote, "Either God or the ego is insane." Would you logically disagree with that? You take as dogma that the idea of God is insane. So your faith is in the flesh-encapsulated mind, aka the ego-self, the self as separate from everything outside the skin. There is no meaning other than what the ego creates. The ego created itself and it is its only purpose.

So there's no basis to decide what's true because it's different for every ego. If your purpose is superiority and mine is forgiveness, they're both equally true. If your purpose is to inflict the maximum pain and mine is to heal, they're both equally valid. There's no purpose, no meaning, no reality other than what we create. We are our own gods. Yes?

Everything Voluntary Jack posted:

Much to reply to here—I think I will make this into a Substack "Chat" to bring it more into the public area as a preface/practice to my new Free Friends Forum coming soon.

Thank you for sharing your feelings—which it seems I have hurt, which was not my intention, my apologies.

Quickly, going on definitions to give us a stable base, can we agree on this one regarding "BELIEF"?

“What I mean by a ‘belief system’, then, is simply a set of propositions held to be true, to which some emotional charge (affect) is attached and which gives more or less cogent expression to a general sense of how the world is.” “Towards a Science of Belief Systems” by Edmund Griffiths

You have a "belief" in A Course in Miracles as I have a "belief" in reason and the scientific method to which I think we are both passionately attached.

Agree?

I invite you to read that chapter on ACIM by Joel and Diana and as I will be referencing it when/if I move our exchange here to a public chat on Substack.

I hope that will join me and others and we can continue this discussion there?

For as Eric Hoffer whose words might have offended you wrote:

“There are no chaste minds. Minds copulate whenever they meet. The wise learn from the experience of others, and the creative know how to make a crumb of experience go a long way.” Eric Hoffer

Let us see what kind of responsibly free children our best thoughts might foster.

Tereza Coraggio answered:

This is, of course, my forum where I've been training readers in the techniques of productive dialogue. The first step is framing the question, the second is defining what you mean by all the terms in the question. The third is enthusiastically loving the person while relentlessly challenging their ideas. The fourth is identifying rhetorical devisives, as I call them, that are ways that logically lead away from answering the question and instead into 'winning'.

Here's how I'd frame the question: Is it more open-minded/ useful to believe dogmatically there is no God or to define the kind of God whose possibility you'd be willing to entertain?

My definition of belief is making up your mind about something in advance of knowledge in the form of facts or experience. But we can go with Griffiths. As I thought I stated clearly (and maybe so insistently you thought my feelings were hurt) I don't believe in the Course. I don't believe in believing, other than my sole dogma that I am no better than you.

You do have, on the other hand, "a set of propositions held to be true, to which some emotional charge (affect) is attached and which gives more or less cogent expression to a general sense of how the world is.” This is a belief that your mind is separate from all other minds, so whatever you see that someone else sees must be outside your mind, objective rather than subjective, reality.

I entertain the possibility that there's a third paradigm to reality. If our minds aren't separate, then what we see in common could be our shared delusion. I don't believe this, but I see it as a third hypothesis alongside creationism and evolution. In that case, it's possible that Reality exists outside and not consistent with our illusion, which is the only way that a God consistent with my dogma of everyone being equally lovable and loved could exist.

I know you think highly of me and like me, Jack. I'm not easily offended and I don't think you could if you tried. But here are the rhetorical devisives you used:

One which I often get is characterizing my logical arguments as an emotional response, of hurting my feelings. I'm certain that women get this more than men. It deflects away from addressing the logical fallacies I pointed out in your argument and instead makes it about how I feel. Certainly when I took quotes from Joel and Diana and applied them to me, they were pretty insulting. And that's why I did that, to show that theirs was an attack on the character of the person studying the Course, asserting their own superiority, not a debate of the concepts.

Two, it's contradictory that in your argument against authority, you're using an argument of authority. Several actually, with all your quotes. You've never read the Course but are taking Joel and Diana's secondhand interpretation of it as fact. You want me to essentially argue with people who are irrefutable authorities—because they're not actually present, living or dead—standing in for you. What would be the purpose of that other than you 'winning'?

Third you're looking to change the venue away from the context that prompted it and those for whom my ideas have enough credibility to read them. I've worked hard to keep my comment threads free of insults and bullying, even in 'nice' forms. I don't mind reposting my response on a note but the internet is full of people (okay, mostly men) looking to win debates and show off. I'd rather do a post quoting you, if you wanted to open it up to more people.

Last, I don't know Eric Hoffer so he couldn't possibly offend me. But your inclusion of his quote in your former comment seemed like you were meaning that people who studied the Course had an urge to " escape the rational and the obvious. The refusal to see ourselves as we are develops a distaste for facts and cold logic. There is no hope for the frustrated in the actual and the possible. Salvation can come to them only from the miraculous, which seeps through a crack in the iron wall of inexorable reality. They asked to be deceived. The substitute for self-confidence is faith; the substitute for self-esteem is pride; and the substitute for individual balance is fusion with others into a compact group. The short-lived self, teetering on the edge of irrevocable extinction, is the only thing that can ever really matter. Thus the renunciation of the self is felt as a liberation and salvation."

Perhaps you should preface your quotes with what you mean to say by them, so I will know what's relevant to your argument. Always a pleasure to engage with you, Jack!

Everything Voluntary Jack wrote:

This will be a response to just one topic of your response here. I wrote: “It is obvious you have much “emotional charge” on this topic of “A Course in Miracles” (ACIM). This was in response to your statement on The Guru Papaers (TGP)

“Obviously I've been brainwashed. I'm too dumb to realize when I'm being manipulated.”

Now I think it would be obvious to any neutral reader than your words carry an “emotional charge” and you seemed offended by the quote.

You continue and amplify your emotional charge in your latest response here:

“I'm not easily offended and I don't think you could if you tried.

But here are the RHETORICAL DEVISIVES [sic] you used:

One which I often get is CHARACTERIZING MY LOGICAL ARGUMENTS AS AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE, OF HURTING MY FEELINGS. I'M CERTAIN THAT WOMEN GET THIS MORE THAN MEN. IT DEFLECTS AWAY FROM ADDRESSING THE LOGICAL FALLACIES I POINTED OUT IN YOUR ARGUMENT and instead makes it about how I feel. Certainly when I took QUOTES FROM JOEL AND DIANA AND APPLIED THEM TO ME, THEY WERE PRETTY INSULTING. And that's why I did that, to show that theirs was AN ATTACK ON THE CHARACTER OF THE PERSON STUDYING THE COURSE, ASSERTING THEIR OWN SUPERIORITY, NOT A DEBATE OF THE CONCEPTS.” [CAPs my emphasis]

Again, I think it obvious to any neutral reader your words are very emotionally charged and you were/are offended and felt “attacked” by the TGP quote, which I put part of here:

“It [Course] calls the world we live in an illusion to be transcended and is specific about calling all separation an illusion. It likewise denigrates the self and self-centeredness with such statements as “Either God or ego is insane.” Its central message is that through surrendering to God’s will, which is pure love, illusions will evaporate and one will be eternally at one with God. The essential methodology used to achieve this is forgiveness.”

Contrary to your emotionally charged rhetoric, you did not use your logic and reason to point out any inaccuracies of the above summary of the ACIM. I have verified the quote in Chapter 11. And their paraphrasing of its “central message” seems to me, new close reader that I am, to be accurate. Why would these words upset you so much?

And further, why did the rest of the TGP quote stir such strong anger in you?:

“Of more interest to us is its claim of not being authoritarian. It is overtly stated that it is not necessary to believe any of the Course’s assertions to experience the promised transformations.

“This claim is worth examining because under the guise of presenting objective truth that any seeker can find, what is actually going on is the age-old ploy of authoritarian indoctrination: A worldview is presented by an unchallengeable authority as the truth to be found. Then practices are given that reprogram and condition the mind to that viewpoint.”

This claim of authoritarian indoctrination applied to ACIM to me is a worthy challenge to believers in ACIM and I consider it worth a reasonable, respectful discussion.

I will leave it here for our discussion and will invite you to my new Forum to discuss more from TGP which I hope will attract you and other believers in what I term “Ghosts” of the subjective mind—which, to me, is exactly what ACIM is hosting in abundance in their book.

As the TGP repeatedly establishes, persons are attracted to “feel good”, “security blanket” tracts/practices like ACIM because they do not trust themselves to be able to cope with life’s vicissitudes:

“In times of upheaval the appeal of gurus and authorities, whether “spiritual” or secular, is really reaching for an anchor of stability. The following chapters aim to show how and why any person, ideology, or structure that in the short or long run undermines a person’s self-trust is part of the problem, not the solution.”

I hope you will take up my offer and get a digital copy of TGP from me or a print copy somewhere and actually read it.

Bring it with you to our Free Friends Forum where I will be going through its relevant wisdom that I consider will help us establish a Voluntaryist planet of individuals who trust themselves to be their sole Authority and wish to help others do the same.

“As you come to trust yourself, you will know how to live.” Goethe

Tereza Coraggio ended with:

Haha. Nothing like doubling down, Jack. I guess I'll need to amend my statement that you couldn't offend me if you tried. Okay, since you insist, I'll turn this into an episode so that neutral viewers can weigh in, unless you think my audience consists of "other believers in ... ‘Ghosts’ of the subjective mind."

Not that any of us should be offended by being told we're "attracted to “feel good”, “security blanket” tracts/practices like ACIM because [we] do not trust [our]selves to be able to cope with life’s vicissitudes." There's certainly no assumption of superiority in that!

Jack, I'm not angry at all. Why would I be? But it's curious that you don't recognize what you're quoting as a secondhand insult, which is a more cowardly way to insult someone through another person's words that have the ring of authority. I think it's a good illustration of what I intentionally call rhetorical devisives because they use language to divide and conquer, not to come together to answer a question.

So let’s analyze the rhetorical devisives in this convo.

---

the toxic tilt: you’re emotional, I’m rational

Women will likely be familiar with this devisive, which is often cited in relationship counseling. Saying “I’m sorry you were offended” is different than “I’m sorry I offended you.” Likewise, “I’m sorry you felt attacked” or “I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings” is not “I’m sorry I attacked you or hurt you.” One puts responsibility on the receiver for their response, the other takes responsibility for the action.

And Jack’s “Why would these words upset you so much?” takes this even further in asking me to justify my clearly irrational and emotional response, deflecting any responsibility for his quotes denigrating me as a person rather than him debating the idea using his own words.

you’ve been framed! framing the debate

Three times (before the cock crows) Jack goes back to his original frame of the debate: my belief in the Course vs. his belief in humanity without authority, guru or government. Three times I deny that I have beliefs, other than in the equal goodness of all people. So I’m left arguing for something that I don’t believe.

On the other hand, Jack belies his lack of belief in authority by consistently quoting them rather than using his own words. He takes the cleverest wordsmiths in literary history and sets me up to have to argue with them. In another episode, I do cover Davids Graeber and Wengrow in their critique of Rousseau, something that took them a full chapter to dissect. But that’s not the question we’re debating.

throwing the book at it: the appeal to authority

Repeatedly, Jack holds the Guru book in front of his face and asks me to argue with it. When it characterizes the Course as an “age-old ploy of authoritarian indoctrination,” I either need to accept that as fact or go point-by-point through the 1500 pp. text and explain why I differ from their interpretation. For Jack, “their paraphrasing of its ‘central message’ seems to me, new close reader that I am, to be accurate.” Well then, unless I can refute that in a soundbite, that beats my 20 years of study!

I need to read their chapter on it, which would show why Jack’s right and I’m wrong. What would be the point? I’m not debating the deceased Joel or Diana. Jack already accepts their authority. So it’s substituted an unwinnable argument with a ‘ghost’ authority who can’t be challenged for a true dialogue, for which the precondition is that both sides are willing to change their minds.

---

changing the question

The question on which I’m willing to change my mind, I framed as:

Is it more open-minded/ useful to believe dogmatically there is no God or to define the kind of God whose possibility you'd be willing to entertain?

It is certainly possible to believe there is no God and believe dogmatically in your own superiority. I’m not saying Jack does but Darwin definitely does, as I write about in When Words Die, Worlds Die. Atheist Yuval Noah Harari certainly does. In Alien Nation, I plot six atheists and four theists on a Y-axis of their belief in superiority. I show that superiority and equality are both bipartisan and a greater predictor of behavior than a belief in God.

I’m willing to consider the possibility that there is no God, no meaning, no purpose, in which case we are all equal and the product of our circumstances. I’m willing to consider a God to whom we are all equally loved, loving and lovable. But I reject any ideology of superiority, which includes the Bible and the survival of the fittest. Both justified slavery and colonization; the supremacy of the most ruthless is more like it.

If there is no God, the supremacy of the most ruthless is Ultimate Reality. The ability to inflict the maximum amount of pain will always win, creating docile servitude through fear. It’s foolish for me to be talking about the things I do and the people who do them. I should be cowering in fear and shutting up. It won’t make any difference, they own the money system and have greed and violence on their side.

To Jack’s gurus, the Course is a ‘security blanket’ for those who don’t trust themselves to be able to ‘cope with life’s vicissitudes’. They aim to show “why any ideology that … undermines a person’s self-trust is part of the problem, not the solution.”

Do I trust myself to stand up for the truth in the face of torture and the loss of everyone I love? No. Do you? I don’t believe in the Course but if I knew for certain that we were on our own and there was no purpose to life, I’d focus on protecting my family and forget about everyone else.

That’s why I describe what I do as socio-spirituality: taking a hard look at the reality IN the world while questioning the reality OF the world. Two feet of the same body. If you move one without the other, you go in circles. Jack and his sources look at the Course and see spirituality without the courage to look at the world: navel-gazing. In my experience, immersion in the ‘reality’ in the world is paralyzing, without a spirituality that you can sink your teeth into and shake.

I don’t trust myself but I do trust in all of you. That’s my only faith.

---

For more, here are the ones mentioned above on Darwin, Rousseau and Alien Nation:

Sticks and stones may break bones but words kill the imagination. In this episode, I cite Paul Hawken's book, Blessed Unrest, in a chapter called Indogene that talks about the language of the Yamana people, who Darwin thought the lowest form of humanity. I dissect an FDA campaign that uses colloquialism to ridicule. A critique of Mattias Desmet on Unlimited Hangout looks at the sanitizing language that neutralizes atrocity. And Glenn Greenwald looks at how atrocity is used to ban the use of words.

In The Dawn of Everything, Davids Graeber & Wengrow tell the story of Kandiaronk, or the muskrat, the Wendat stateman who ran circles around European politicians. They also show why Jared Diamond and Yuval Noah Harari are unduly pessimistic about the ability of humans to invent and reinvent their own social structures. I add Chris Hedges to this doom and gloom trio and explain why blind obedience has it backwards. The three essential freedoms are listed, that every person NOT trained in obedience took for granted. My theory, that money has been 3500 years of obedience training, is expounded. I end with Kandiaronk view of money and the question from the Daves of 'when did we stop imagining that we could reinvent our social relations?'

'Connectualizes' Russell Brand's interviews of six atheists: Yuval, Yannis Varoufakis, Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & Edward Snowden, with four theists: Iain McGilchrist, Alister McGrath, Ben Shapiro & Sadhguru. Looks at moral superiority as a more important dividing line than religion. Quotes Yuval in saying that money is the most successful story ever told, and Yannis that democracy is a fig leaf for oligarchy. Explains the 'truthish lies & legal fictions' of nations, corporations & money as stories that normalize both physical and economic violence.