Positive and Negative

We are conditioned to accept that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that positive and negative are held in equal balance. But such a situation would not yield a sustainable universe, since the negatives would always cancel out the positives before anything got off the ground. I think therefore it is more logical to think of a universe that is being sustained by a bias towards positivity. We see evidence of this all around us: programmed as we are for survival, adaptability and procreation. Therefore, I would suggest that for every perceivable negative in the micro, there must be a greater positive in the macro, whether or not we are able to see it. This answer makes sense of a benevolent creator creating a world that contains disasters, crises and wars.

Anti-sceptic Solution

Excerpt from "Know Who You Are" by Rabbi Manis Friedman.
http://www.chabad.org/generic_cdo/aid/807781/jewish/The-Story-of-Life.htm

Rabbi Friedman had just discussed cultivating a Jewish identity in children. He went on to discuss the doubtful or sceptical mindset that creeps into adult minds....

So let's speak for a moment about what happens to adults. How does an adult lose that security? We lose it because we start to doubt. What is this thing called "doubt"? Somebody asks you, "do you really think G_d split the sea and drowned the Egyptians in it?" What are you supposed to say? What you're supposed to say is, "What, are you asking me? You're asking me about what happened three thousand years ago? Why do you expect me to know this? So if somebody says, "do you really think G_d split the sea?" If you say "Yes", where are you coming from? If you say "No", what are you talking about? The only correct answer is, "How am I supposed to know? What kind of question is this?" So do I think G_d split the sea? Crazy. They say he did, so, he did.

People who want to feel sophisticated will say, "Well, I doubt it." You doubt it? What does that mean? What's a doubt? You think maybe yes, but then again, maybe not? Huh? What are you thinking? You can't know whether it did or didn't happen so how can you be in doubt? So either you simply don't know, and that's for sure, no doubt about it. Or, it's written and they say it happened, then it happened and there's no doubt about it. Where does doubt come into it? Now, if you say, "Yes, G_d split the sea and the Egyptians were drowned in the waters. Absolutely, definitely." A person would say to you, "Oh, you have a very strong belief. Your faith is a very strong faith." Don't confuse me, I have no faith. Faith is a whole different subject. I know for sure that G_d split the sea and drowned the Egyptians because that's what people say what happened. People say something happened, then it happened. Not because of faith. Because of ... I mean, that's life ... somebody comes from Australia and says there are weird animals there, they hop around on their back legs. If you say "Don't be crazy, I can't believe that." You're just not intelligent. They came from Australia, yeah? And in Australia there are funny animals. Do you have to have faith to believe that? Must you go yourself and check it out before you can accept it? People who were there came back and said, "there are these animals there." Fine, so, there are those animals, I have no doubt. I have no REASON to doubt. Does that mean that I'm taking a leap of faith? No. Faith is a whole different thing. This is not faith, so we're confused with these various functions. There's intelligence, there's faith, there's fact, and there's doubt. We've got to unravel this.

... If somebody says that G_d created the world in 6 days, do you believe that? It's not a question of belief. Either He did or He didn't. So whether I believe it or not won't make any difference. Torah says, my Grandfather says, Jews have always believed that G_d created the world. So - that's the way it is. It's the status quo, not a leap of faith. So when a Jew says "we received the 10 commandments at Mt. Sinai, out there in the Sinai desert, that's a factual statement. Was I there? No. Can I prove it? Why do I need to prove it? If somebody comes from Australia and tells me there are kangaroos, then there are kangaroos. I have to prove it? How am I supposed to prove it? I was never in Australia. So if people tell us that G_d gave us the Torah at Mt. Sinai, on the 6th day of the month of Sivan 3,315 years ago, that's fine. That's true, it's factual, has nothing to do with faith, and there's no reason to doubt. Now a person would say "but wait a minute. G_d spoke? C'mon." What is the problem with G_d speaking? What's the problem? The problem is I never heard Him speak. In fact I don't know anyone who did hear Him speak. ... [but] the fact that I've never heard G_d speak, I don't know anyone who has heard G_d speak... it only happened that one time. So? That doesn't make it a subject of faith. It was a weird event. There was a Tsunami. Really? Hasn't been one in years. True, but there was one a few years ago. So it was an unusual event, it was a one time event, but it happened because people were there and they say that it happened. Do I need to have a leap of faith to trust what people experience? I don't. If I say I doubt it then ... I'm neither here nor there. What do you mean "you doubt it"? "Well you know, G_d speaking - that's weird!" G_d creating the world? I doubt that." What do you mean you doubt it? If it's so weird that you can't relate to it, then you reject it, you don't doubt it. If it's not that weird, then why are you doubting?

So, where does faith come in? G_d created the world. That's not faith. G_d gave us the Torah. That's not faith. G_d split the sea? That's not faith. G_d made a flood and an ark.. and Noah survived in an ark, that's the fact.... unless you have proof otherwise. But you can't say it didn't happen because you don't know anyone who was there. That's not intelligent. So if all of that is simply fact, then what's faith? Faith applies to subjects that can't be known. CAN'T be known. Can't be experienced. For example, G_d is deeply affected by how we behave. When we do a Mitzvah it gives Him great pleasure and when we do a sin it gives Him great pain. That's a matter of faith. Because - I don't understand that. How can what I do affect G_d? And how am I expected to know that? So if a bunch of people saw G_d split the sea? OK - so now I know. But how do we know how G_d feels? That's a matter of faith. So it's not something I can explain, G_d is infinite - why should He be affected by what I do? So it doesn't make sense. Nobody ever experienced it, 'cause we're talking about how G_d feels, not something He did. So there was no experience and it doesn't follow logically that that should be, therefore I have only one choice: believe it or don't believe it. But doubt? What's doubt?

In a class once we were talking about the subject, there was a woman there who was having a hard time with certainties. So everything that was discussed, her reaction was "but how can you be sure? Maybe not. But how do you know? But maybe not!" So finally one time I said to her "You know, this 'maybe not' is not a good argument. You're just torturing yourself. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe you're not really your mother's daughter, maybe you got switched in the hospital... I meant to be ridiculous, she said "aaahhh!! Oh my G_d!!" (Rabbi Friedman Laughs) Another thing to worry about. The maybes are not doubts, they're insecurities. So doubt really is an unnecessary and unhappy state of affairs. When you're in doubt, you don't know anything more than you did before, but you're less happy. Because doubts drain your enthusiasm for life. If you live with doubts, you're not a happy person.

And that's why when a person gets really intense about life, or life becomes intense, and there are difficulties, we naturally return to the simple facts of life. Who am I? Who am I? You've got to get back to the fundamentals when things gets tough. And the reason things are tough is because they're too complex. You've got to go back to simple facts. I am me, you are you, this is what we do. Simple.

... happiness comes from certainty. When things are certain, even if they're difficult, it's easy to take. When I know who I am and I know what I ought to be doing, then doing it becomes a lot easier, even if there are difficulties. So, raising a child without doubts, that is the foundation on which a healthy life can be built.

Afterword by Joanna:

I recently wrote the following on another blog:

.... a skeptic refuses to believe anything that cannot be proven. So if you reject objective moral standards on the grounds that they are unprovable or at least have not yet been proven, you have no moral standards as yet to live by.

This is why I’m skeptical of skepticism — I think it is unproven as an effective, consistent or even workable way to live. In fact I think it to be unsustainable — every skeptic I have ever talked to seems to apply their skepticism selectively.

I see no reason to replace my Judeo-​​Christian value base, which I think has proven itself, with a void. If someone tells me something, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I think I have reason not to do so. Yes, this does make a virtue of trust. If I feel compelled to do research and after researching whatever their statement was I find conflicting opinions, I might choose to be agnostic about it, but I could not assume to be negative about the issue until the positive is proven. That is a negative bias, which is not balanced. I’m neutral rather than nihilistic. In a court of law, lack of evidence is NOT in itself evidence of lack and circumstantial evidence is still viewed as evidence. That’s a workable system, but it is at least neutral rather than skeptical. In fact you could describe it as positive since an alleged criminal is considered innocent until proven guilty. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt reflects a positive basis.

The problem with skepticism is that it is deeply self-​​absorbed. If someone tells you something, they might well be sharing real wisdom with you. If you insist that they prove their statement, they might wonder why they should bother. They might not care much whether you believe them or not, or, at least, might not see it as their role to have to prove themselves to you. So you potentially shut yourself off from wisdom by insisting that the world owes you an explanation for everything.

A religion is a way of life - you live it. If you are part of a society and there are laws you don't agree with, so what? What makes you so important you can pick and choose which laws to abide by? If everyone just observed the laws they felt like observing, society would fall apart. We don't have the time or the space for bespoke cultures. Society is not about the individual, at least, not while he is thinking only of himself. The more a person harmonises his or her will with the will of G_d, the less conflict there will be between his will and that of the Creator. The closer a person gets to holiness, the better he or she will understand that what is best for G_d, what is best for the greatest good of all is also what is best for him or her as an individual. That's incidental, but it is also true - don't doubt it.

Read the Debate So Far...

I wrote my last post in response to a debate I'm having over at the Young Australian Skeptics blog (after stumbling across their article on a martial arts forum). Anyway, I thought my readers might like to read the debate that promoted the posts so here's a link to the original article and the latest comments. Please feel free to go back and read the earlier comments too to get everything in context.

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/the-catholic-church-itd-be-good-for-a-laugh-if-it-wasnt-so-serious/

EDIT - OK - it looks like the debate is over now - they look like they have closed it (edit edit - actually they haven't so I got in a goodbye, but it's fairly clear they'd like to close it). Over the course of it I argued against abortion and contraception in my first instance and had a mind to challenge anti-Catholicism along the way as and when it emerged, which it was always likely to given the initial subject matter. That said, I tried to keep the debate on track and limit it to the abortion issue to start with. As time went on though, I felt that the abortion and contraception argument had been won and so let the debate move on to the question of the proof of the existence of G_d. My main angle here was to argue through the logic of the arguments and to try to present logic along with philosophy, theology and religion as worthwhile mental pursuits and indeed other avenues for finding truth. As the debate neared its end, I tried to point out that science also requires faith, that faith is not such a bad thing anyway, that people shouldn't jump to conclusions, that people should avoid prejudice, that religion is not just a force for evil and that atheism can be... hopefully the readership of the blog will have been given some food for thought, even if just one point goes in - they might become freer thinkers for it, instead of turning into jeering atheist thugs. There is a dangerous trend in our current popular cult of secularism to recruit and cultivate a kind of "Hitler Youth" that do their best to raise up the modern atheist fuhrers and drown out any opposition by clashing cymbals and blowing whistles.

I think it's "funny" how the atheists so often start gibbering meaninglessly and calling on pagan gods when they want to shut out your words, seemingly losing all ability to spell or say anything other than random chaos at the time - a reason I'm also wary of xenoglossia. "DISEMSOCKETED" is a new word on me - I can't even make out what it's meant to be.

EDIT Mk II
Actually they kept it open after all - it seems to be fizzling out though, and in reasonably good spirits (though they still haven't answered my main argument).

Evidence of G_d

What does science - what does experience and evidence tell us about the essential nature of the universe?

Firstly we can say that we have never experienced anything bringing itself into being by itself. Everything we see being created is created or caused by something else. That is significant because rationally speaking it suggests very strongly that the universe itself cannot logically have brought itself into being.

Let's take as a basis the idea of a finite universe because science currently understands the universe to be finite. Where is the universe? When is the universe? It cannot be anywhere finite because that just creates the problem again of where and when within infinity a different finite entity might exist. Of course, if the universe is finite, as we suppose, there must be something outside of it and beyond it in terms of time and space precisely because a finite universe has edges - it runs out. What is beyond that? You might say "nothing" OK - so there is an infinite nothingness outside of the universe.

Now this infinite nothingness is the setting for our finite universe.

Returning to the original question, what was the catalyst that brought our finite universe into being? It cannot logically have brought itself into being because in order to do so it would have had to have existed before it existed in order to be able to bring itself into being and that is a contradiction. So the finite thing must have somehow been brought into being from outside of itself by something outside of itself. If we decide that the entity that brought the universe into being was another finite entity, we have to keep going back until we get to an uncaused cause - a prime mover - an infinite entity. Given that it brought the universe into being, it is fairer to perhaps call this infinite nothingness a somethingness but it doesn't matter a lot - it is infinite and we are not. Religious folk call this uncaused cause God. He has many names, not of all of them male. A Hindu saying states "there is only one truth but the wise speak of it in many different ways". We know He cannot be more than one because if He was more than one, none of them would be infinite - each would have limits of some kind.

Now let's quickly address the concept of an infinite universe. Personally I think this is another reasonable proposition, at least theologically. We know that all matter is energy moving at a given speed. The faster energy goes, the closer it is to light and the slower it goes, the closer it is to matter. Light energy alone is both wave and particle. It is the stuff of the universe. This tells us that everything - everything is light. Everything is energy. Nothing is really ever created or destroyed it only changes into something else. Such an infinite universe has simply always existed and will always exist, changing ad infinitum. Everything in such a universe is part of one big energy field manifesting in all manner of permutations of finite distinct entities including ourselves. In such a universe everything is the same as God is the same as the universe. We are one and distinct at the same time but ultimately there is nowhere and no when for us to go outside of the universe because it goes in forever in all directions ad infinitum. Such a universe is in itself at least as sentient as the sum total of the beings it manifests itself as, and possibly more so, perhaps having the benefit of collective as well as individual simultaneous consciousnesses. Even if we decide that there is a finite amount of energy or matter in such a universe, it is set within an infinite space and so we just need to include that space within our definition of what constitutes the universe.

Believers in a finite universe have a theological problem with the second thesis because it proposes that the universe itself breaks the rule of nothing being able to bring itself into being. This would be a problem if the universe was finite but if the universe is synonymous with G_d it wouldn't, which is why I don't have too much of a problem with it.

Evidence of Lack...

A statement I heard this morning got me thinking.

That statement was "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."

The implications of this statement are profound, significantly challenging the myth of secular objectivity.

Were I to say to someone "I had 6 corn crackers for breakfast today - 3 with peanut butter and 3 with strawberry jam" they would probably believe me, even though I could provide them with no evidence at all. Because it wouldn't challenge their world view in any way, they could probably just accept the statement as a fact.

However, were I to tell the average person that I saw an angel this morning, most people would say "no - that did not happen". I might even be able to produce an eye-witness - a friend who saw the angel too, but the sceptic would in all likelihood still say "no that did not happen."

I'm not suggesting that every statement that anyone could make is equally credible. Nor am I suggesting we should not exercise discernment when trying to ascertain truth. What I am saying is that this fact strongly calls into question the often accepted objectivity of the secular materialists.

Not that I can prove it, so you'll just have to trust me.

Proof Of God

You want proof for the existence of God?

You're looking at it and you're thinking with it.

There is no other explanation for existence.

Note that I do not say there is no other credible or acceptable explanation.

There simply is no other explanation.

Those who deny the existence of God, merely evade the issue since evasion is the only option open to them. Denial of God is a deliberate act that flies in the face of reason.

Another One Bites The Dust

Tragic to say that another relative has just died - this one aged 17 months - a case of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Those closest to her are keeping pretty quiet about the cause of her suddenly stopping breathing but I know the statistics. 81% of SIDS cases are connected to smoking in some way - whether the mother smoked during pregnancy or the child was subjected to smoke inhalation subsequently.

It is important people know the truth so that future similar events can be prevented, but from my dealings with them in recent years, i know that our customer-centred health service is very disinclined to tell people things they might not want to hear.

How many more innocent children will have to die before tobacco is banned completely?

Incidentally, I was raised in a smoke filled womb and a smoke filled house after that and now need supplemental oxygen 24 / 7. My prognosis due to parenchymal lung disease is rather pessimistic. I remain hopeful, but despite being just 41 years old, the chances of my ever living without oxygen and permanent steroid treatment are very slim (medically considered impossible).

Big Brother.... or Facebook

Haven't written for a long while - life has been busy. Mostly I haven't had as much time to sit at my computer over the summer - too many other things to do!

Some junk mail today made me think. It seems like on Facebook, people are revealing a lot of information about themselves. Ironic isn't it then how much fuss people make about ID cards and how often people complain about being monitored by the state. It seems like "Big Brother" (whoever he is) can rely on plain old vanity publishing - the cult of EVERYONE is a celebrity - to get people to reveal their whereabouts and actions minute by minute.

And I've just added to it :O

Must go walk dog... then I'll be... oh, you know where to find me...

tnx 4 lstnng

Aim High and Expect Nothing

I've been struggling a bit recently with some health problems that may possibly be related to the treatment I received over 25 years ago for a lymphatic cancer that almost killed me. I am nonetheless extremely grateful for that treatment. It is pretty much a miracle I am here at all - I really was brought back from the brink. I remember at the time people called me brave which used to annoy me tremendously. "How is it that someone with cancer automatically becomes brave?" I would snap. "I didn't choose this - if I had, I might be brave!" To this they might respond "but you cope with it - I don't know how you manage to cope with it" to which I would reply even more grumpily "and what's the alternative? Not coping? What would I have to do to not cope? Die presumably - well that's not an option. I put up with it because I have no other choice". I saw things very simply when I was 13 years old.

But it got me to thinking this morning about how we have to be grateful to God for all the good things we have. Even if, as one doctor suggested, ANY part of my recovery were down to me and how well I "coped", none of that is actually my doing because I didn't make me. But I know how atheists might retort - if that is the case how can I ever condemn a wrong action? If everything is predetermined anyway - God must be responsible for everything. Yet we know that is not the case - we know we have free will that we can use for good or ill.

The top and bottom of it is that if we "aim high and expect nothing" as I used to say, we can be happier, more productive and more useful people. I know there are many hedonists who would ask why we have to try - why can't we just seek pleasure? Why can't we just be totally selfish?

But the truth is we know that we can do BETTER. God has put on our hearts the knowledge and ability to aspire to something greater than that. If we are grateful for every blessing sent our way AND attribute all of our successes to God rather than to ourselves, this process produces the kindest and most helpful people on the planet. The world becomes a more benevolent place as a result. In this sense, we can be said to be made in God's image. We know what we are capable of and this removes any excuses we might have had for not trying to be good.

Now there will be those who say that this is what makes us distinct from animals, but I am not such a person. I would say that human beings are the only species we can speak authoritatively about in this regard. It is like, the Catholic Church does not say that only Christians will get to heaven. They recognise that there are truths in other faiths and sincere believers in those faiths who surely do get to heaven. But the Church can only speak authoritatively about Catholics. In much the same way we can only speak authoritatively for ourselves. We should not expect animals to live in the same way we prescribe for ourselves.

This probably also teaches us that we can only really speak for ourselves as individuals - we should not condemn humans who behave badly because we do not know their motives. But this somewhat contradicts the call to "rebuke the sinner".

Well, we are told to forgive each other "70 x 7 times" which is a poetic way of saying we should be indefinitely forgiving. But I suppose we also have to recognise that we are free to speak up and if we didn't make people aware of how they could live, then they are not going to know. The messages that liberal, pleasure-driven consumer culture sends out are to be selfish and greedy, and we have to present an alternative. We are as free to live our lives as they are to live theirs. We can no longer assume that people will know what Christian values are.

Of course in this respect we have to lead by example. We have to live lives others will be inspired by for them to listen to us at all. As St. Francis put it, we should "Proclaim the Gospel and when necessary use words".

Who's To Say?

A popular batllecry of the cultural relativists - those who say we should all live and let live and not criticise the habits of other cultures, no matter how abhorrent - is "who's to say?" "who's to say what's right and wrong?". (I blame Star Trek and their "Prime Directive".)

Here's a good retort. "Who are you to say who's to say and who's not to say? I say I'm to say! What do you say about that? Are you going to tolerate that, or not?"

That should get them thinking. Hopefully.

The Reformation Legacy

Secular society quickly reverts to paganism - with no sense of ultimate purpose, people feel pointless, life becomes superficial and self-absorbed. When we cease looking upwards and onwards and outwards stretching out into infinity to the greatest good imaginable (and unimaginable), we look inward and listen only to what our hungry senses ask for. A life lived sating these sensory pleasures becomes increasingly ensnared, enslaved and commanded by them.

A post-Christian culture buys the lie that we are doomed to live a wholly material and temporary existence. Selves become fleeting bit parts in an endless cycle of life, death and rebirth.

Our culture increasingly embraces deconstructionism, denial of reality, relativism, drug taking, nihilism, hedonism, temporal pleasure rather than lasting joy. Such pleasures cannot last because the more they are fed the more ingrained those hungers become. Thus people cultivate - nurture - their weaknesses and they grow ever stronger until they take over the whole person. Even if they do not take over the person's whole life immediately, they will take over as much of it as they can and will strive to extend their grip at all times.

I had a conversation today with someone who likes to smoke dope because he says it relaxes him. He does not realise that 10 spliffs are evil and that makes one spliff evil too. Such things are truly evil because they make the smoker immerse in themselves and forget others.

I have known many marijuana smokers in my time. Some were and I'm sure many still are are drug dealers - that is how they spend their time, paying for and feeding their habit. That is their whole existence. Quite a few are now dead, whether because they took a lethal cocktail of drugs or were murdered by other drug users. Some went to prison for murder. Many have settled into addiction to harder drugs such as the white powders, or sunk into alcoholism and habitual dope smoking. Even one spliff is evil (yes I genuinely use that word in an informed and considered way) because it makes the smoker immerse inwards into their own sensory gratification and that is the start of big problems. It leads to neurosis and even psychosis. The biggest mistake people make is thinking they can flirt with dark things and win. Pride invested in that myth can only grow into ever greater levels of prideful self-centredness.

Darkness is bigger, more intelligent more adaptable and more deceitful than any individual can know. The more a person allows their head to be filled with the pretension that they can handle their weakness, the more ensnared by its hold they become as they grow oblivious to its power. And thus the drug user says "I could stop any time I like." But they never do, until they turn their life around and stop completely. The only solution is to focus outwards - on the greatest good of all. Don't settle for anything less. We can all achieve ever greater levels of benevolence and goodness, but not while we fool ourselves into thinking that a little of what we fancy never does us any harm. It already has done us harm by making us believe that lie. We fool ourselves into saying things like "you've got to die of something" or "everything is harmful" or "in moderation, everything is OK".

These statements are factually inaccurate. All you have to do is think about it.

A healthy diet with lots of fresh fruit and vegetables is better for you than a diet of junk food. The times you lapse and eat junk food does not do your body good - it only harms it. Ten grease-ball burgers bad, one grease-ball burger bad.

Ten cigarettes are bad, but having just one is bad too. Having just one cigarette could potentially kill you or someone you make breathe in your smoke. The poisons it contains will certainly harm your health - they can do nothing else. There is no such thing as a healthy cigarette.

Medical opinion is a little divided on small amounts of alcohol, but the truth is that those small amounts that are said to beneficial are only said to be so because something in wine can help counteract cholesterol. Drinking is not getting to the root of the problem - lowering your cholesterol intake would be. And the low levels are much lower than most people who drink do drink. Getting drunk is decidedly unhealthy.

There is no such thing as "a healthy line of speed" or "heroin in healthy moderation". I personally don't believe in alcohol in moderation either: it is far too habit-forming and character changing. It clouds judgement. Anyone who has ever done something silly or something they have later regretted while drunk knows this. I know of several murders that have taken place because someone had sexual relations with someone they shouldn't have while they were both under the influence of drink and / or drugs. And then the drink and drug fueled boyfriend has murdered her or him or both - I know of each such instance...

Don't buy the lie that to be a so-called "free spirit" is a good thing. All too often people who fancy themselves to be "free spirits" are really just slaves to their temporal pleasures. There are more useful things to be and usefulness to the greater good is why we are here.

I truly believe that the Reformation began a major cultural decline.

From Calvin through Darwin through Marx through Freud... our actions have been said to be predetermined by God, by biology, by the state, by our upbringing...

These determinist, defeatist philosophies go against the reality of free will and personal responsibility. We are told that we are not responsible for our actions. We kid ourselves that the responsibility lies elsewhere. (Thanks to Fr. George Rutler for pointing this out.)

I know full well how hard lives can be, but the truth is universal. How we deal with whatever it is that life throws at us is down to us. We should not allow ourselves to get hysterical or emotional when we hear these words. Yes of course some people never get a chance, but we cannot allow that to blind us to the fact that the rest of us have at least some degree of control over our destinies and are able to make a great many choices. Most people reading this are in pretty fortunate circumstances considering the quality of life of all peoples and animals in all nations. So many good things that our modern culture takes for granted are the fruits of Catholic Christendom.

Let's pledge to make good choices. Let's strive to make each action as benevolent as possible, for goodness own sake.

Put down that spliff. Put down that rebellious record. Push aside the politics of scapegating and hatred. Say "no" to the new controversial philosophy. Put that shocking book back on its shelf. Don't be disaffected, don't be daring, Just be Good.

Try to remember what that means - it has almost become a dirty word. But goodness can only be a dirty word in a dirty world.

The Good News

The Good News is that Jesus gave his life in one great final sacrifice - ending animal sacrifices and scapegoating - sacrificing the only life he had a right to sacrifice - his own.

He did this in atonement for the sins of the whole world, for all peoples in all times, past, present and future. His was a transcendental sacrifice. By doing this, the world was finally liberated from the pagan cyclic world of life, death and rebirth - from fatalism, karma, magic and neuroses - from false, human-devised paradigms that are only pale imitations of the complete reality. If we let our pride fool us into investing belief in such false models of the world, they will rule us through our fear.

All we have to qualify for this grace of atonement is be genuinely sorry for our shortcomings and strive to overcome them. We need to put our remorse into action - as James put it "faith without deeds is dead". A meaningful apology leads to a permanent change of behaviour. If no change follows, we were not sorry enough. Confession can heal the soul, knowing that God forgives you and loves you anyway however many times you fail. We need to know that He is endlessly forgiving so that we never give up on ourselves - we never believe the lie that it is too late for us. It is never too late.

I know someone who contacts me who is immersed in the Occult. I spedn time trying to help him in any way I can but of course he is totally closed to Christianity - it is "anything, ANYTHING but that" for him. Such revulsion is so very telling if peope could only see it. He feels he is under constant attack from spells, targeting his chakras and making him ill. I sometimes wish he could divert the magic that he feels is pointed at him and his so-called chakras and have it pointed at me instead where it could not take root, for I have no chakras. Like when people send a chain letter to be destroyed by someone who doesn't believe in bad luck.

A friend of mine in America has had people try to "disrupt his qi" and all that nonsense and it has had zero effect, the excuse being either that he has too much or too little qi. From my friend's perspective, he has never spent a moment cultivating qi - he doesn't believe in it. Consequently, he is unaffected by it. I've heard time and again qi-believers admit that a student has to be conditioned to be able to feel their "Master's qi" - they have to be conditioned into being qi-sensitive. They give themselves over to that hypnosis because pride tells them they are becoming special, deep, internal, elite, whatever... really they just willingly let down their guard and allow the brainwashing to commence.

A book I found genuinely useful on suh matters was "The Demon Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan, the only rather large snag being his atheism. I also watched a TV programme by Richard Dawkins and found myself agreeing with 95% of it. He was focussing on the new-age alternative health culture. But he felt that he had to throw in digs about religions too which were out of place and wholly unnecssary. Crucially they were just not relevant.

In a sense I do think atheism is a natural progression of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Prophets like Daniel and Elijah were the qi-busters of their day. But by rejecting God as well, people revert quickly back to pagan self-absorption. Without a sense of the objective benevolence - the greatest good of all - without a sense of purpose people once again allow themselves to be sucked into blind orbits of despair and fatalism. In such a world, self-gratification becomes the only thing a person lives for. They have ironically forgotten that how unimportant the individual is. Even self-loathing and suicidal thoughts are just self-absorption. Faith so lifts the heart that it must be True - the Greatest, Truest Truth of all. Faith works where atheism doesn't. We need to reject hopelessness, superstition and fatalism but we must replace them with faith, hope, charity, love...

That's the Good News, from my perspective.

Music, Art and New Beginnings

Confucius said that you can tell the morality of a nation by its music. I think I know what he means. Although I grew up on a broad diet of popular music from the classic to the psychedelic and the progressive to the punk, there is little joy or hope to be found in any of the lyrics of the multiple music collections I have acquired, abandoned or rediscovered over my 40 years.

I often try to listen back to tapes and CDs only to find gut-wrenching misery in those lyrics. It is so disproportionate how many popular songs are about heartache, heartbreak and vengeance. If the subject matter is of a more political bent, it is amazing how much of it is cynical. Popular singers are largely just a bunch of critics.

The thing is though that I still like some of the sounds of popular and rock orientated music. We really do need more wholesome, happy, God-centred music to come and replace all the gangster rap and lusty broken relationship songs.

The thing is that I used to be a singer and a songwriter - I wasted many years pursuing that dream and when I finally had the opportunity of a record deal, my backing band pulled out. I tried to throw a new band together in time, but failed and decided ultimately that the music business was too fickle and uncertain a place to be putting all one's hopes and dreams. I decided then to do something where hard work guaranteed success and got into martial arts as my new career.

Several years ago I took a drastic step. I destroyed all of my own music recordings on the grounds that it had nothing positive to offer. Every word and every chord struck deep into the heart of the listener and offered them only bleakness, sadness, melancholy, hopelessness... my music was vast and spacious, ambient and crazy and had a negative power to influence and move people towards something wholly bad. So I felt. Recently (after a long absence) I bought a new guitar in the hope of creating something more positive, uplifting and devotional. I won't be pursuing any kind of musical career again, whatever the result.

I rarely wonder whether or not I did the right thing by destroying my own musical back-catalogue - anytime I think it through, with a slight shudder I feel glad that it has gone. If some might see my musical history as therapy (I was clearly not a very happy soul), I'd be inclined to answer that it was a part of the problem rather than the solution.

We CAN dwell on bleakness, or we can snap out of it and go and do something useful. Musicians and artists can be a self-indulgent lot and I genuinely wonder how useful such "art" is, if it can really be called art when it is not inspired by anything divine and speaks only of being entrenched in worldliness. Popular music caters to a niche of angst-ridden teenagers who are trying to get to grips with the world, but I think that all too often the musicians get stuck in that angst-ridden teen mindset and just stay there because their careers are built on it. Our teens surely need some more positive role models than the popular music world ever delivers. Hopefully those of us who grew up listening to those rock stars will grow out of it.

It isn't that I particularly wrote about the things that others would see as worldly. In fact my lyrics were quite philosophical in their own way. But they were still hugely self-indulgent. It is an easy trap to fall prey to in the world of performance where personality has become such a thing of status.

I had a rather animistic, Daoist or perhaps Hindu sense of Godness back then inasmuch as I did not really recognise the otherness of God. I saw God in everything and struggled to differentiate between Creator and creation. I had never been taken through Aquinas' logic concerning the un-produced producer and how a finite universe needed a separate and distinct creator.

Nothing can produce itself because to do so it would have to exist before it existed in order to bring itself into existence. I suppose the counter-argument would have to be that everything is part of the infinite and finite existence is just an illusion, but how are things which are inherently infinite fooled by such an illusion and why? It doesn't answer the fundamental question of HOW something infinite can manifest as something finite either. How do you create linear progressions of time within a single point of infinity with no beginning, middle or end? Surely you can't and the finite matter would have to be separate and distinct from its creator.

I'm sure God knows how it all works As for the rest of us, whether we're Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christian or Sikh, we'll each have our own ways of trying to understand it, but I do believe that it is possible and probable that some of us are closer to The Truth (for such a thing truly must exist,) than others. It is pretty clear that none of us are gods, or we'd already know.