What the hell, it's been a year of nothing but curve-balls. So why should I be surprised to have my dad (the only family member not to make direct contact with me since my disassociation) make direct contact with me? The invitation was simple, just checking on welfare and sharing some family news. I couldn't help think on the numerous demands that Watchtower places on members, including how to shun your family, should they become unbelievers. "Ad Nauseum" pretty well covers it.
So when I got the invitation, I felt an immediate wave of trepidation. It was a pretty normal psychological reaction, being proximate to the most traumatic events of my life. Our relationship has been very neatly defined over the past few years. Feelings weren't really much of a motivator, so the clean delineation of behavior at least provided a reliable point of reference. But, holy shit, someone decided that the rules could be put on pause. So I was faced with the dilemma - hold the line that was agreed upon by both of us, or peek behind the curtain and see if I made a good deal.
Let's be clear on one thing - the question was not "will this hurt", but "how much will this hurt."
The conversation carried on longer than I anticipated. There were even jokes and lighthearted laughter. Conversations like these are rivers; the same kind you can't step into twice, or emerge from the same as you were when you entered. This one didn't disappoint. That trepidation I mentioned made it difficult to ask open ended questions, or answer them. I was frequently at a crossroads where I had to choose whether to advance the conversation, or let a line of discussion wither on the vine. In all, it felt like a forced conversation with an awkward coworker. Engaging someone who has made hard judgements against you, without actually knowing your side, is painful. More so when the subsequent conversation doesn't even acknowledge that rift.
So there you have it. That's the setup.
At every level, conventional wisdom says this is a bad dynamic. Leaving unresolved feelings in the warming drawer never did anyone any good, and I was chewing through my lip to keep myself from spewing my frustration. I spent a long time coming to an understanding of myself and my value system, and I feel as if I thumbed my nose at that progress while participating in this call. I frankly thought myself more resolved to stand my ground.
The end result was predictable disappointment. It's easy to put aside grudges when you are hopeful of rekindling a relationship, and hearing my dad's voice brought a level of comfort that I didn't expect. Ending the call, dad shared some loving sentiment, or at least as much as he was able. Dad isn't really the effusive type. But it still left me feeling more positive than not.
Fast forward a few weeks, and I heard from a family member that also endured abuse at the hands of a relative; not the same as I. When approaching my parents on the topic, I was met with the same apologist rhetoric. In fact, I had to ask mom to address my question, instead of redirecting the conversation. But true to form, she defended the "truth" with no regard for facts. The growing voice of abuse survivors, even within my own clan, demands to be heard. With dogged determination, however, my parents hold the organization blameless, even though it is they who enact the policies that permit this to happen.
This, as a matter of fact, is absolutely true. It's bad people who commit the crimes. It's imperfect men who investigate those crimes. None of them can be expected to always make the right decisions, however, that decision making process is handicapped by Watchtower protocol. This all but guarantees that the decision that is reached will have the least vested response possible. Let me illustrate how deeply this penetrates the thinking of elders.
Back in about '95, I was at a special-day assembly in St. Louis, Missouri. Shortly after the afternoon session began, an attendee began having trouble breathing. He quickly declined into full cardiac arrest. As he sat, immobile in his seat with people beginning to panic around him, I watched a group of elders stand around and question whether EMS should be called. In the midst of a medical crisis, they couldn't even determine basic life-saving steps. Sadly, the man passed away. And while it is likely that the severity of his coronary precluded medical intervention, it is certain that trained medics arrived many minutes later than they could have.
This is the fundamental flaw. People who are not qualified to resolve human health and safety risks are trained not to include those who are. Police, paramedics, social workers, therapists - professionals who are trained to deal with human trauma should be the ones investigating and responding to crisis situations, and yet, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, these matters are left to citizen-ministers. And how does one justify this practice?
Simple, sow distrust. Remember first that the government, and all assets thereof, are under control of the Devil. Involving secular authorities, much like their stance on post-secondary education, is expected to cloud one's view of the organization. Authorities will "misunderstand" and persecute Jehovah's people. Funny thing is, when the Catholic church was exposed for their handling of child abuse, Watchtower was quick to classify it as an attack on Babylon the Great, thus heralding the end times. But when it happened to them, it was further proof of end times since they were being unjustly persecuted.
Now here's where I'm going with all this - having a different stance for organizations that experience the same scandal as your own is hypocrisy. There are several logical fallacies that will adequately describe this but, at the end of the day, it's pride that prevents them from owning their choices. They cannot, or will not, view the scandal objectively. They are unable to accept that their scandal is every bit as bad as someone else's.
Room, meet elephant.
I have worked very hard to develop my own code of ethics. It centers around honesty, humility, and ownership. My room is filled with those things, and I only have space for those who share these values. Those who bring baggage of subjective ethics need not apply.
"Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all full here."
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Who Cares...
This has been a momentous few weeks for former Jehovah's Witnesses. We have seen the drastic increase in secular interest in Watchtower's handling of child abuse. In fact, they now go before the Supreme Court of the US to argue that their database of child abuse allegations and confessions should be protected from law enforcement under clergy-penitent privilege. New York state extended a one-year grace period to file child abuse claims (which saw 400 filings in the first day), irrespective of existing statutes of limitation. And the day before that - a newly filed civil case in New York that names the members of the Governing Body directly as defendants.
Is this a bold step? Yes. Is it without consequence? No.
The most obvious reaction from Watchtower is to claim "persecution." It has been a long-standing belief among Jehovah's Witnesses that Satan will try to wipe out God's true followers, and a lawsuit that personally names their most elevated leaders is sure to meet that internal definition. Full government bans on the activities, publications, and even meetings have been seen in multiple places around the globe. Russia is only the most recent, but also been the most transparent. Witnesses are openly declared an "extremist group" by the Kremlin, and while the ethics of the attendant penalties are suspect, they are in no hurry to hide their treatment of the group.
For decades, Watchtower has been bathing members in the rhetoric that "persecution proves providence". They have taken every instance of resistance and secular red tape as evidence that they are the chosen. Every former Witness is familiar with this, thus they will know how rattled this will leave every current Witness. Stephen Lett of the Governing Body has already called these cases "apostate-driven lies" in an address to Bethel volunteers. And while this would be a very convenient point to segue into their current Supreme Court battle to keep their database of pedophiles secret, I have to come back around to the inspiration for this article, and that's the question of "who cares?" I pointed out the problem of perceived persecution in a discussion group, and was met with that question.
To be perfectly frank, I care...
Now, I know the person asking did so to emphasize that I shouldn't, and that she didn't. From an objective standpoint, I understand that emotional baggage relating to Watchtower is best left at their doorstep, but that doesn't mean we need to be devoid of compassion. Yes, I know that having complete disdain for Watchtower and working for its end is not exactly evil. It certainly doesn't require that a person be heartless either. So why make that comparison?
Because in the November 15, 2013 edition (download the PDF) of the Watchtower magazine, it was made explicitly clear [on pg. 20] that followers may receive instructions that "may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." And it's the publication of this warning that makes me care, because this is more like a hostage situation than it is a religion. Members are being conditioned to ignore reason and logic in circumstances that the Governing Body deem sufficiently dire.
This is an appropriate time to add a reminder that Jehovah's Witnesses unequivocally believe that a literal society-ending Armageddon is on the horizon. Groups that believe in this way are rightfully called "doomsday" religions, because it is their cultivated expectation that the world will descend into chaos as the final battle between God and Satan takes place. Thus, the mandate to "obey any instructions" falls in line with their assurances that their lives depend on it. They've been trusting their eternity to the Governing Body since the days of J.F. Rutherford, and aren't prepared to give up on that lightly.
Many of us have family that are still active members. Whatever instruction that comes down from Watchtower headquarters is something they will be expected to carry out, or suffer the consequence of being shunned. Knowing the deeply held beliefs that keep us from our families, we are already aware of how willing they are to act against human nature. Knowing that I do care about this, I decided to ask myself why, and the truthful answer is that I'm afraid of what they'll do.
There have been enough examples of religious groups taking inexplicable action at the direction of their irrefutable leader(s). A long time ago, such a group moved to Guyana to practice Apostolic Socialism. Think of it as a hippy commune, but for Jesus fans. They worked together happily in a community without racism, economic classes, or poverty. By all counts, they seemed pretty happy. Then their leader, James Jones, began telling them that they were being targeted by government authorities. The group grew paranoid and reclusive. Under the perception of persecution, the group received the most impractical of instructions. On November 18, 1979, over nine-hundred members of the People's Temple (a third of them children) died of cyanide poisoning, rather than face whatever was coming.
In a lot of ways, they sounded like Jehovah's Witnesses. The kind of stuff that was in the metaphorical Jonestown brochure is the kind of stuff Witnesses peddle. No, this should not be taken for a direct correlation, but it does demand a certain scrutiny. I don't actually think Witnesses would do this. They seem to have a firm belief that suicide is not Christian, but a certain scrutiny will reveal many practices about which their policies have changed. Most of those are policies that other Christian sects do not share. Blood transfusion, for example, is accepted by society and most religions as a viable medical practice. However, scores of Witnesses have refused this proven procedure due to dogmatic beliefs, trading their lives for their faith.
Jim Jones knew his followers would die if they ingested cyanide, and so did the followers. The Governing Body knew that followers would die by refusing blood transfusions, and so did the followers. But in both cases, the indoctrination of their way of life was so complete that fear of failing in that led them to embrace death instead. As horrible as this comparison is, it is worth noting that more Jehovah's Witness have died for this belief than Jones' followers who died for theirs. The difference? Watchtower didn't have it happen all at once.
Groups like this have been groomed to respond in certain ways to aggressive challenges. Suing the Governing Body members by name is an aggressive challenge. Being cognizant of how these challenges will be taken can help us to frame them in a way that saves as many individuals as possible. Yes, it's admirable to want to remove destructive and toxic influences, but if they become convinced that Armageddon is upon us, the extremity of their actions will escalate quickly. Unfortunately, the people on the outside usually don't get a lot of chances to help or intervene, and if the first opportunity goes wrong, it may be the last.
So, yeah, I care.
Is this a bold step? Yes. Is it without consequence? No.
The most obvious reaction from Watchtower is to claim "persecution." It has been a long-standing belief among Jehovah's Witnesses that Satan will try to wipe out God's true followers, and a lawsuit that personally names their most elevated leaders is sure to meet that internal definition. Full government bans on the activities, publications, and even meetings have been seen in multiple places around the globe. Russia is only the most recent, but also been the most transparent. Witnesses are openly declared an "extremist group" by the Kremlin, and while the ethics of the attendant penalties are suspect, they are in no hurry to hide their treatment of the group.
For decades, Watchtower has been bathing members in the rhetoric that "persecution proves providence". They have taken every instance of resistance and secular red tape as evidence that they are the chosen. Every former Witness is familiar with this, thus they will know how rattled this will leave every current Witness. Stephen Lett of the Governing Body has already called these cases "apostate-driven lies" in an address to Bethel volunteers. And while this would be a very convenient point to segue into their current Supreme Court battle to keep their database of pedophiles secret, I have to come back around to the inspiration for this article, and that's the question of "who cares?" I pointed out the problem of perceived persecution in a discussion group, and was met with that question.
To be perfectly frank, I care...
Now, I know the person asking did so to emphasize that I shouldn't, and that she didn't. From an objective standpoint, I understand that emotional baggage relating to Watchtower is best left at their doorstep, but that doesn't mean we need to be devoid of compassion. Yes, I know that having complete disdain for Watchtower and working for its end is not exactly evil. It certainly doesn't require that a person be heartless either. So why make that comparison?
Because in the November 15, 2013 edition (download the PDF) of the Watchtower magazine, it was made explicitly clear [on pg. 20] that followers may receive instructions that "may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not." And it's the publication of this warning that makes me care, because this is more like a hostage situation than it is a religion. Members are being conditioned to ignore reason and logic in circumstances that the Governing Body deem sufficiently dire.
This is an appropriate time to add a reminder that Jehovah's Witnesses unequivocally believe that a literal society-ending Armageddon is on the horizon. Groups that believe in this way are rightfully called "doomsday" religions, because it is their cultivated expectation that the world will descend into chaos as the final battle between God and Satan takes place. Thus, the mandate to "obey any instructions" falls in line with their assurances that their lives depend on it. They've been trusting their eternity to the Governing Body since the days of J.F. Rutherford, and aren't prepared to give up on that lightly.
Many of us have family that are still active members. Whatever instruction that comes down from Watchtower headquarters is something they will be expected to carry out, or suffer the consequence of being shunned. Knowing the deeply held beliefs that keep us from our families, we are already aware of how willing they are to act against human nature. Knowing that I do care about this, I decided to ask myself why, and the truthful answer is that I'm afraid of what they'll do.
There have been enough examples of religious groups taking inexplicable action at the direction of their irrefutable leader(s). A long time ago, such a group moved to Guyana to practice Apostolic Socialism. Think of it as a hippy commune, but for Jesus fans. They worked together happily in a community without racism, economic classes, or poverty. By all counts, they seemed pretty happy. Then their leader, James Jones, began telling them that they were being targeted by government authorities. The group grew paranoid and reclusive. Under the perception of persecution, the group received the most impractical of instructions. On November 18, 1979, over nine-hundred members of the People's Temple (a third of them children) died of cyanide poisoning, rather than face whatever was coming.
In a lot of ways, they sounded like Jehovah's Witnesses. The kind of stuff that was in the metaphorical Jonestown brochure is the kind of stuff Witnesses peddle. No, this should not be taken for a direct correlation, but it does demand a certain scrutiny. I don't actually think Witnesses would do this. They seem to have a firm belief that suicide is not Christian, but a certain scrutiny will reveal many practices about which their policies have changed. Most of those are policies that other Christian sects do not share. Blood transfusion, for example, is accepted by society and most religions as a viable medical practice. However, scores of Witnesses have refused this proven procedure due to dogmatic beliefs, trading their lives for their faith.
Jim Jones knew his followers would die if they ingested cyanide, and so did the followers. The Governing Body knew that followers would die by refusing blood transfusions, and so did the followers. But in both cases, the indoctrination of their way of life was so complete that fear of failing in that led them to embrace death instead. As horrible as this comparison is, it is worth noting that more Jehovah's Witness have died for this belief than Jones' followers who died for theirs. The difference? Watchtower didn't have it happen all at once.
Groups like this have been groomed to respond in certain ways to aggressive challenges. Suing the Governing Body members by name is an aggressive challenge. Being cognizant of how these challenges will be taken can help us to frame them in a way that saves as many individuals as possible. Yes, it's admirable to want to remove destructive and toxic influences, but if they become convinced that Armageddon is upon us, the extremity of their actions will escalate quickly. Unfortunately, the people on the outside usually don't get a lot of chances to help or intervene, and if the first opportunity goes wrong, it may be the last.
So, yeah, I care.
Monday, November 5, 2018
The Silent Witness
Most of us embrace apostasy now that we have the title. Being afraid of the word isn't really a thing for most of us, as it's really a badge of honor; a scar that we wear proudly of that which didn't kill us. Each of us found our tipping point and said enough is enough. Few of us have looked back with any real intent of returning. More of us are hoping that those we love are following close behind.
Possibly due to a gross little head cold, the OTC medicines I'm bombarding it with, or just a general lack of sleep, I woke early this morning with the Franz brothers on my mind. It's not uncommon for me to have some random spark of consciousness greet me, but it's usually something more like "a platypus is proof that God approves of recreational drugs."
Maybe I'm bad at the apostasy thing, but I must admit to having never read Crisis of Conscience. Frankly, I started my journey before reading it, and I haven't needed to go back to it for anything other than academic interest. But I'm familiar with the story of the deep rift that it caused among Watchtower leadership, and the brothers Franz. Raymond's split from the Governing Body came after a lifetime of reflection, faithful service, and an admittedly attractive gig. How hard it must have been to walk away from family, and a lifestyle that required very little personal industry to live without relative want.
Irrespective of the integrity of the belief system, being a Witness did surround you with structure. You had no question as to what was expected of you, and what you could expect of others. Yes, we all know about the abysmal handling of child abuse, but those are symptoms of something other than the communal nature of Witnesses. If you went to an assembly of any variety, you didn't worry about who you sat next to, being kicked out of the cool-kids table at lunch, or being outcast because of something so trite as skin color. Say what you will about all their other failings, but your immediate sphere of influence was generally devoid of abject discrimination.
If you went to a quick-build, there was a meal, organized work that was individually not that hard, and people that shared your world view to hang out with for the day. Float trips always had enough beer that you didn't need to bring your own, but rarely did anyone get fall-down drunk, or let you do something that you'd regret later. But the best part was that you never really had to do much thinking or self-evaluation. Being a witness allowed you to coast as long or as far as you wanted without really having to contribute much to the system.
If you knew how to follow rules, being a Witness was a breeze. So, why leave it?
Well, like Raymond Franz, most of us experienced that itch at the back of our minds that told us not everything was as it seemed. It was only when we started asking the right questions that the superficiality of the community became apparent. Pulling back the veil, taking the Red Pill as it were, we had to face the horrifying reality that it was just a bunch of people pretending.
The heavy drinkers that you knew were the same ones you could count on at every event. The people who didn't sit next to you at lunch because of your skin color would do it to others. Everyone has their secret browser history, sex toy drawer, or private video collection. They have substance abuse problems, anger issues, and a long list of buried skeletons. All in all, they're depressingly normal.
You know what the difference is though? They don't talk about it...
Everyone in the congregation actually knows about that drinking problem. In hushed tones, it's been talked about, but never in an open manner that promoted healing. No, the fix for every ill that plagues Witnesses is shame and finger-pointing. The more people that know the secret, the fewer one can face without correcting oneself. Shame will bog them down until the either abandon the thing that no one will discuss, or they walk away from the group. Either way, the group's problem is solved, and no one had to step up.
But that's just how they deal with being victim to one's own vices and proclivities. If you're the victim of an abusive spouse, for example, well just keep that shit to yourself. The congregation benefits most from everyone's unified worship and activity. That means that the family units sit together, no matter what atrocities occur at home. The congregation needs the leadership of that Brother who goes home and beats his wife after a few too many beers. Her bruises and fear are secondary to the spiritual needs of her fellow Witnesses, so she's told to submit and try not to anger her husband.
How is this even a thing?
The bottom line is that it's not a democracy. The individual voice does not matter. The voice of the governed throng does not matter. No, a Witness is just there as a worker bee, which brings me back to my earlier point. Individual ambition is not necessary to be a member. In fact, it helps to have none. There is nothing to prove, other than your willingness to do as you're told.
The world is full of perils and pitfalls. One crisis or another is constantly creeping up. Political upheaval is brimming like an over-full pot set to boil. Managing the emotional and practical burdens of these things makes it quite attractive indeed to sequester oneself from society at large. A small conclave of co-conspirators who check their humanity at the door is easier, even attractive. Everyone agrees that they're part of an exclusive club that rewards people who are morally superior. They enjoy that smugness. It gives them comfort. But it is necessarily devoid of humility and compassion. It doesn't matter what happens to that child or wife behind closed doors. A multitude of abuses can be overlooked so long as they can be kept sufficiently quiet.
And you know what? I get it. Being a person of one, responsible for one's own agency and consequences is a lonely road. Looking into a shared framework and calling bullshit takes guts. More than most will ever have. We are social creatures who desire a troupe with shared aims, and as long as anyone who isn't getting theirs is willing to pretend that God has brought peace and fulfillment, we're willing to pretend as well.
At least, we were...
Possibly due to a gross little head cold, the OTC medicines I'm bombarding it with, or just a general lack of sleep, I woke early this morning with the Franz brothers on my mind. It's not uncommon for me to have some random spark of consciousness greet me, but it's usually something more like "a platypus is proof that God approves of recreational drugs."
Maybe I'm bad at the apostasy thing, but I must admit to having never read Crisis of Conscience. Frankly, I started my journey before reading it, and I haven't needed to go back to it for anything other than academic interest. But I'm familiar with the story of the deep rift that it caused among Watchtower leadership, and the brothers Franz. Raymond's split from the Governing Body came after a lifetime of reflection, faithful service, and an admittedly attractive gig. How hard it must have been to walk away from family, and a lifestyle that required very little personal industry to live without relative want.
Irrespective of the integrity of the belief system, being a Witness did surround you with structure. You had no question as to what was expected of you, and what you could expect of others. Yes, we all know about the abysmal handling of child abuse, but those are symptoms of something other than the communal nature of Witnesses. If you went to an assembly of any variety, you didn't worry about who you sat next to, being kicked out of the cool-kids table at lunch, or being outcast because of something so trite as skin color. Say what you will about all their other failings, but your immediate sphere of influence was generally devoid of abject discrimination.
If you went to a quick-build, there was a meal, organized work that was individually not that hard, and people that shared your world view to hang out with for the day. Float trips always had enough beer that you didn't need to bring your own, but rarely did anyone get fall-down drunk, or let you do something that you'd regret later. But the best part was that you never really had to do much thinking or self-evaluation. Being a witness allowed you to coast as long or as far as you wanted without really having to contribute much to the system.
If you knew how to follow rules, being a Witness was a breeze. So, why leave it?
Well, like Raymond Franz, most of us experienced that itch at the back of our minds that told us not everything was as it seemed. It was only when we started asking the right questions that the superficiality of the community became apparent. Pulling back the veil, taking the Red Pill as it were, we had to face the horrifying reality that it was just a bunch of people pretending.
The heavy drinkers that you knew were the same ones you could count on at every event. The people who didn't sit next to you at lunch because of your skin color would do it to others. Everyone has their secret browser history, sex toy drawer, or private video collection. They have substance abuse problems, anger issues, and a long list of buried skeletons. All in all, they're depressingly normal.
You know what the difference is though? They don't talk about it...
Everyone in the congregation actually knows about that drinking problem. In hushed tones, it's been talked about, but never in an open manner that promoted healing. No, the fix for every ill that plagues Witnesses is shame and finger-pointing. The more people that know the secret, the fewer one can face without correcting oneself. Shame will bog them down until the either abandon the thing that no one will discuss, or they walk away from the group. Either way, the group's problem is solved, and no one had to step up.
But that's just how they deal with being victim to one's own vices and proclivities. If you're the victim of an abusive spouse, for example, well just keep that shit to yourself. The congregation benefits most from everyone's unified worship and activity. That means that the family units sit together, no matter what atrocities occur at home. The congregation needs the leadership of that Brother who goes home and beats his wife after a few too many beers. Her bruises and fear are secondary to the spiritual needs of her fellow Witnesses, so she's told to submit and try not to anger her husband.
How is this even a thing?
The bottom line is that it's not a democracy. The individual voice does not matter. The voice of the governed throng does not matter. No, a Witness is just there as a worker bee, which brings me back to my earlier point. Individual ambition is not necessary to be a member. In fact, it helps to have none. There is nothing to prove, other than your willingness to do as you're told.
The world is full of perils and pitfalls. One crisis or another is constantly creeping up. Political upheaval is brimming like an over-full pot set to boil. Managing the emotional and practical burdens of these things makes it quite attractive indeed to sequester oneself from society at large. A small conclave of co-conspirators who check their humanity at the door is easier, even attractive. Everyone agrees that they're part of an exclusive club that rewards people who are morally superior. They enjoy that smugness. It gives them comfort. But it is necessarily devoid of humility and compassion. It doesn't matter what happens to that child or wife behind closed doors. A multitude of abuses can be overlooked so long as they can be kept sufficiently quiet.
And you know what? I get it. Being a person of one, responsible for one's own agency and consequences is a lonely road. Looking into a shared framework and calling bullshit takes guts. More than most will ever have. We are social creatures who desire a troupe with shared aims, and as long as anyone who isn't getting theirs is willing to pretend that God has brought peace and fulfillment, we're willing to pretend as well.
At least, we were...
Friday, May 25, 2018
I Have Dreamed a Dream
Waking up from a deep slumber is something that few people will ever enjoy doing. Sometimes, in the clutches of exhaustion, we can find a barely-suitable perch to lay upon and make it an effective bed. I've seen grown men lay supine on a hardwood floor with naught but an infant's punkin-seat for a pillow. I have myself slept in positions that my waking body found offensive, and it has been my observation that the offense became more bearable as I gave myself over to the sleep.
You have to pay the piper sometime, however, and disengaging from one of those improvised beds is a punishment. The pressure points that all went numb start to scream. Joints protest. Muscles cramp. Going back to sleep is an option that will mask the pain. I mean, it's how I got through summer vacations in Missouri, but that toll will still be waiting when you wake and there's no way around the ferryman.
When I began to stray away from Watchtower, I was also aware that my mother had used this above metaphor in reference to spiritual sleep. So I asked myself what I was experiencing that I once found painful (fleshly interests). What standards was I transgressing more easily as I gave myself over to the spiritual sleep?
Yeah, in those early days, I was concerned that I would one day wake up from my sleep and have to face the reality [and pain] of opening my eyes to the only truth I knew. And this would end up being my mental environment for almost 10 years. I lived in the constant fear that my debt for selfishness was going to be steep and payable on demand. I fully expected to meekly crawl back to the Kingdom Hall, tell the elders what I had done (which you'd find laughable), and beg them not to disfellowship me. Humility was the pain I feared most.
The prison of that thinking brought its own trials. Just for the sake of not being reminded of my error, I didn't talk to my parents as often as I should have. Unintentionally, that played right into the hands of my later realizations, making that transition easier. But we'll address that in a bit. I created distance from people that would force that conversation to occur. I replaced entire periods of my history with a void just so that there was nothing to discuss. I became a cherry-picker of my own story, sharing only the things that didn't include me being a Witness. It was a disservice to my person.
Now with all this in mind, it might sound like this would have led me to embracing Watchtower doctrine to set myself right. No, it's to illustrate the horrific reality of trying to wake up from a dream that is actually occurring within a nightmare.
If this sounds like I'm talking about the film Inception, I'm not...
Because Rick and Morty did it better...
So here I sat, in my mid-30's, mired in the expectation that I was going to tuck tail and go back to being a Witness. I didn't want to. I didn't care. But, for some reason, it felt like my only path forward. Then my real awakening began to happen. Now, I had no clue what was coming, but I knew that it was big. I wasn't aware of how painful it would be.
I've mentioned before that watching the HBO Documentary Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief was pivotal. It was startling that I should recognize the organizational framework of the religion I was taught to be the truth, just in use with a different group and a different theology. The two religions were so glaringly similar that I felt those old pangs of distress twisting in my gut - just from watching the stories of the people who had left. This is what waking up would become for me.
As I researched the origins and foundations, dissected the beliefs, scrutinized the prophecies I became very raw indeed. You see, up until this time I had believed that I was asleep as a Witness, but I was becoming increasingly aware that I had actually been mentally asleep. With each fact that I uncovered, being a Witness was more obviously a delusion that blinded me from a greater reality. With every moment of increasing wakefulness, I was also faced with the agony of realizing that I was the victim of lies, collusion, and manipulation. Being asleep is what had allowed me to operate as a Witness at all.
For most of us, we know what follows. There is the chastising, shaming, badgering, and eventual shunning. All of it is more painful than anything else you could endure because it is a re-victimization. But that is the cost. You will not be hailed as a hero by your peers. You will not be consulted for wisdom or advice. No, for your newfound clarity, you will be excised.
History has examples from many disciplines. We know them by names like Galileo, Luther, or Gandhi. They are the people who, by their own awareness, determined that an insufficiency of intellectual industry had to be addressed. They proposed new ideas and philosophies. They challenged the accepted model to which their respective societies granted consensus. Knowingly, and with heads held high, they accepted that the dream they dreamed was a prison of falsehood. They then fought their battles in the best ways they knew how. While their contemporaries saw them as rebels and insurgents, history knows them as visionaries, and each one of them paid a high price for waking up.
Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses is a difficult and embattled process. Few things in life will be as difficult, if for no other reason than the opposition you must face. For my part, the most difficult ties I would have had to sever were ones that I had already allowed to atrophy. As I mentioned earlier, I had withdrawn from my family gradually, so when it came time to embrace that I was an apostate, the band-aid didn't need much ripping. Had I been closer, I'd have been unwilling to endure waking. For that reason, I have the utmost respect for those who did and still chose to leave.
At the end of the day, this hard-fought awareness is something that I now wear as a badge of honor. I have learned that the discomfort I feel with cognitive conflict means that I am actually just at odds with myself. Those are the times that I begin to closely examine what I "know". I can't be enticed anymore by the numbness of sleep.
You have to pay the piper sometime, however, and disengaging from one of those improvised beds is a punishment. The pressure points that all went numb start to scream. Joints protest. Muscles cramp. Going back to sleep is an option that will mask the pain. I mean, it's how I got through summer vacations in Missouri, but that toll will still be waiting when you wake and there's no way around the ferryman.
When I began to stray away from Watchtower, I was also aware that my mother had used this above metaphor in reference to spiritual sleep. So I asked myself what I was experiencing that I once found painful (fleshly interests). What standards was I transgressing more easily as I gave myself over to the spiritual sleep?
Yeah, in those early days, I was concerned that I would one day wake up from my sleep and have to face the reality [and pain] of opening my eyes to the only truth I knew. And this would end up being my mental environment for almost 10 years. I lived in the constant fear that my debt for selfishness was going to be steep and payable on demand. I fully expected to meekly crawl back to the Kingdom Hall, tell the elders what I had done (which you'd find laughable), and beg them not to disfellowship me. Humility was the pain I feared most.
The prison of that thinking brought its own trials. Just for the sake of not being reminded of my error, I didn't talk to my parents as often as I should have. Unintentionally, that played right into the hands of my later realizations, making that transition easier. But we'll address that in a bit. I created distance from people that would force that conversation to occur. I replaced entire periods of my history with a void just so that there was nothing to discuss. I became a cherry-picker of my own story, sharing only the things that didn't include me being a Witness. It was a disservice to my person.
Now with all this in mind, it might sound like this would have led me to embracing Watchtower doctrine to set myself right. No, it's to illustrate the horrific reality of trying to wake up from a dream that is actually occurring within a nightmare.
If this sounds like I'm talking about the film Inception, I'm not...
Because Rick and Morty did it better...
So here I sat, in my mid-30's, mired in the expectation that I was going to tuck tail and go back to being a Witness. I didn't want to. I didn't care. But, for some reason, it felt like my only path forward. Then my real awakening began to happen. Now, I had no clue what was coming, but I knew that it was big. I wasn't aware of how painful it would be.
I've mentioned before that watching the HBO Documentary Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief was pivotal. It was startling that I should recognize the organizational framework of the religion I was taught to be the truth, just in use with a different group and a different theology. The two religions were so glaringly similar that I felt those old pangs of distress twisting in my gut - just from watching the stories of the people who had left. This is what waking up would become for me.
As I researched the origins and foundations, dissected the beliefs, scrutinized the prophecies I became very raw indeed. You see, up until this time I had believed that I was asleep as a Witness, but I was becoming increasingly aware that I had actually been mentally asleep. With each fact that I uncovered, being a Witness was more obviously a delusion that blinded me from a greater reality. With every moment of increasing wakefulness, I was also faced with the agony of realizing that I was the victim of lies, collusion, and manipulation. Being asleep is what had allowed me to operate as a Witness at all.
For most of us, we know what follows. There is the chastising, shaming, badgering, and eventual shunning. All of it is more painful than anything else you could endure because it is a re-victimization. But that is the cost. You will not be hailed as a hero by your peers. You will not be consulted for wisdom or advice. No, for your newfound clarity, you will be excised.
History has examples from many disciplines. We know them by names like Galileo, Luther, or Gandhi. They are the people who, by their own awareness, determined that an insufficiency of intellectual industry had to be addressed. They proposed new ideas and philosophies. They challenged the accepted model to which their respective societies granted consensus. Knowingly, and with heads held high, they accepted that the dream they dreamed was a prison of falsehood. They then fought their battles in the best ways they knew how. While their contemporaries saw them as rebels and insurgents, history knows them as visionaries, and each one of them paid a high price for waking up.
Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses is a difficult and embattled process. Few things in life will be as difficult, if for no other reason than the opposition you must face. For my part, the most difficult ties I would have had to sever were ones that I had already allowed to atrophy. As I mentioned earlier, I had withdrawn from my family gradually, so when it came time to embrace that I was an apostate, the band-aid didn't need much ripping. Had I been closer, I'd have been unwilling to endure waking. For that reason, I have the utmost respect for those who did and still chose to leave.
At the end of the day, this hard-fought awareness is something that I now wear as a badge of honor. I have learned that the discomfort I feel with cognitive conflict means that I am actually just at odds with myself. Those are the times that I begin to closely examine what I "know". I can't be enticed anymore by the numbness of sleep.
Thursday, March 29, 2018
50 Years On
I'm not even going to bag on the Society today. Their absurdity is really just a gag-reel of surprisingly successful grifts, and more opportunities will be available tomorrow. But I am cognizant of them anyway as I write this.
In less than a year, my parents will observe their 50th wedding anniversary. The countdown begins to the party that will inevitably occur, and which my sister is taking the lead in organizing. There is a massively extended family who will undoubtedly be in attendance. Scores of friends that are too numerous to count will be present. There will be stories. There will be laughter. But what there will not be are their children.
You see, among Jehovah's Witnesses every gathering is a "meeting". There will be accolades and thanks given to God for such a joyous occasion, public prayer, and fellowship with spiritual brothers and sisters. There may even be drinking and dancing. But the rules of acceptable association will still be upheld. Thus, those who have been removed from the congregation will not be invited to attend. Thus the exclusion of me, my older brother, and younger sister.
My mother was one of 9 children. She has 5 living siblings, of which two were never baptized into the congregation, while the other three were. There is a small army of cousins, nieces, nephews, her own grandchildren, and then her sons and daughter.
Among the people who will be welcome, if they are at all present, are a known pedophile, two domestic abusers, countless alcoholics and drug users - and those are just the baptized Witnesses. I would like to say there is some tongue-in-cheek humor in that statement, but I'm completely serious.
Taken separately, those character flaws are enough to make most people hesitant to keep company with such ones. Taken together, you might mistake my parents for people of ill-repute. Or, in a very oblique view, Christlike. He did, after all, minister to whores, thieves, and murderers.
A fleeting glance at this guest list probably raises the question of what type of character would not be welcomed. That's an unfortunately easy question to answer - I, for one, and only for the egregious sin of no longer counting myself as a Witness. Yes, people who studied, practiced, but then disavowed the religion because it didn't suit their spirituality will be unwelcome.
Also unapproachable, my cousin and her wife. There's really no way to forgive being gay if you're a Witness. There is no act of charity or compassion that will redeem the soul of a wilful homosexual. Not even donating a kidney to a practicing parent. No, my one-kidneyed gay cousin is shunned.
My brother, God love him, has a child out of wedlock. No criminal history to speak of, but he made a baby with his high school girlfriend. If he isn't just the worst of the worst, I don't know who is.
Before I begin rambling, I hope you see my point. Perfunctory disagreements with lifestyle only begin to have gravity for Witnesses if you've first agreed to abide by their rules. They magnanimously hold out hope for you if you've never been baptized, but will draw the line if you've first become a believer and subsequently become an unbeliever. Until that happens, they will lovingly show you the way of Christ. They aren't interested in your sins at all.
The disparity between one who committed acts of sexual violence being welcomed with open arms and a child who simply disagrees with the faith being shunned is difficult to illustrate. We don't have a secular analog for that. Why? Because it's just that absurd. As a society, we've seen past that; made laws to make such biased discrimination illegal. And yet, it is possible to be a Witness who is "jailed" for disagreeing with a law that has not been broken, while actual offenders are pardoned for being ignorant of the same law.
And this is the face that outsiders do not see. In the absence of children who are shunned, my estranged parents will talk of my apostasy to fellow believers who will, in turn, nod understandingly. My mother will let others know how heartbreaking it is to have offspring led away from Jehovah by the devil. She will remind everyone that she and my father tried to bring us up to love Jehovah. They will speak of us as though we're long deceased because, in their eyes, we are certain to be. How sad it is that their children will not be in the New System with them, while with almost deliberate irony they ignore them in this doomed one.
Perhaps they'll even share these stories and knowing nods with people who have committed egregious sins. They will laugh and clap them on the back. They will have forgiven those who sinned the sins of base and destructive selfishness. They will condemn those who have acted with honor and dedication to discernment and critical thought, if only because their conclusions incorporate empirical data that disproves the ones promulgated.
I am not a drunkard. I am not violent. I am not a thief, rapist, murderer, or child abuser. But, neither am I easily fooled. And that is the sin that makes me more reprehensible than those who are any of the things that I am not. I wont agree to a faith that I've sufficiently disproved just to appease my isolation.
In less than a year, my parents will observe their 50th wedding anniversary. The countdown begins to the party that will inevitably occur, and which my sister is taking the lead in organizing. There is a massively extended family who will undoubtedly be in attendance. Scores of friends that are too numerous to count will be present. There will be stories. There will be laughter. But what there will not be are their children.
You see, among Jehovah's Witnesses every gathering is a "meeting". There will be accolades and thanks given to God for such a joyous occasion, public prayer, and fellowship with spiritual brothers and sisters. There may even be drinking and dancing. But the rules of acceptable association will still be upheld. Thus, those who have been removed from the congregation will not be invited to attend. Thus the exclusion of me, my older brother, and younger sister.
My mother was one of 9 children. She has 5 living siblings, of which two were never baptized into the congregation, while the other three were. There is a small army of cousins, nieces, nephews, her own grandchildren, and then her sons and daughter.
Among the people who will be welcome, if they are at all present, are a known pedophile, two domestic abusers, countless alcoholics and drug users - and those are just the baptized Witnesses. I would like to say there is some tongue-in-cheek humor in that statement, but I'm completely serious.
Taken separately, those character flaws are enough to make most people hesitant to keep company with such ones. Taken together, you might mistake my parents for people of ill-repute. Or, in a very oblique view, Christlike. He did, after all, minister to whores, thieves, and murderers.
A fleeting glance at this guest list probably raises the question of what type of character would not be welcomed. That's an unfortunately easy question to answer - I, for one, and only for the egregious sin of no longer counting myself as a Witness. Yes, people who studied, practiced, but then disavowed the religion because it didn't suit their spirituality will be unwelcome.
Also unapproachable, my cousin and her wife. There's really no way to forgive being gay if you're a Witness. There is no act of charity or compassion that will redeem the soul of a wilful homosexual. Not even donating a kidney to a practicing parent. No, my one-kidneyed gay cousin is shunned.
My brother, God love him, has a child out of wedlock. No criminal history to speak of, but he made a baby with his high school girlfriend. If he isn't just the worst of the worst, I don't know who is.
Before I begin rambling, I hope you see my point. Perfunctory disagreements with lifestyle only begin to have gravity for Witnesses if you've first agreed to abide by their rules. They magnanimously hold out hope for you if you've never been baptized, but will draw the line if you've first become a believer and subsequently become an unbeliever. Until that happens, they will lovingly show you the way of Christ. They aren't interested in your sins at all.
The disparity between one who committed acts of sexual violence being welcomed with open arms and a child who simply disagrees with the faith being shunned is difficult to illustrate. We don't have a secular analog for that. Why? Because it's just that absurd. As a society, we've seen past that; made laws to make such biased discrimination illegal. And yet, it is possible to be a Witness who is "jailed" for disagreeing with a law that has not been broken, while actual offenders are pardoned for being ignorant of the same law.
And this is the face that outsiders do not see. In the absence of children who are shunned, my estranged parents will talk of my apostasy to fellow believers who will, in turn, nod understandingly. My mother will let others know how heartbreaking it is to have offspring led away from Jehovah by the devil. She will remind everyone that she and my father tried to bring us up to love Jehovah. They will speak of us as though we're long deceased because, in their eyes, we are certain to be. How sad it is that their children will not be in the New System with them, while with almost deliberate irony they ignore them in this doomed one.
Perhaps they'll even share these stories and knowing nods with people who have committed egregious sins. They will laugh and clap them on the back. They will have forgiven those who sinned the sins of base and destructive selfishness. They will condemn those who have acted with honor and dedication to discernment and critical thought, if only because their conclusions incorporate empirical data that disproves the ones promulgated.
I am not a drunkard. I am not violent. I am not a thief, rapist, murderer, or child abuser. But, neither am I easily fooled. And that is the sin that makes me more reprehensible than those who are any of the things that I am not. I wont agree to a faith that I've sufficiently disproved just to appease my isolation.
Friday, February 2, 2018
From the Horse's Mouth
Being an apostate takes grit and determination. It's exhausting to engage with people who don't want anything to do with you. More so when considering that they have no interest in determining the validity of their beliefs, while you contest the authority of their governing documents. They are certain that they are certain, and against that kind of conviction there is little reasoning that works well.
I can't tell you how to be an apostate, or even if you should be one. Each of us has our own story to tell, and our own ledger to balance. Because of that, some of us are more intent on grinding an axe, while others are content to leave it buried. But what is constant is that the people that shun us are unified in practice. We know what buzz-words we will hear. We know what resources they will reference. Witnesses can't surprise us. Exasperate, yes, but not surprise.
I try to be dispassionate about my approach. Not because I don't feel strongly, but because inflamed tempers often lead to common logical fallacies. The list of potential fallacies is long and varied, and it can be almost taken for granted that they will be employed at some time during a heated discussion. At a glance, they make some version of sense, or at least sound plausible. But on closer examination, they reveal themselves to be a baseless dismissal of a reasoned discussion.
The title of this post is an idiomatic reference to a fallacy otherwise known as "false attribution". This a type of appeal to authority in which the advocate references "an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased, or fabricated source in support of an argument." In this application, Jehovah's Witnesses will reference publications issued by Watchtower as evidence of God's spiritual direction of Watchtower.
Most of you will see the immediate flaw in this approach.
But the problem extends to every facet of Witness's reasoning. Every doctrine they adhere to is established by the publications of Watchtower, and any divergence from that practice is means for expulsion. The 1914 doctrine, for example, is their cornerstone belief. It's the thing that makes them special. When I asked my mother to prove to me the importance and historical accuracy of 607 B.C.E., she cited (repeatedly) only the publications of the Society.
The Society, in developing this doctrine, have patently misinterpreted or misapplied archaeological and historical evidence to arrive at their conclusion(s) (this is another logical fallacy known as "argument by selective observation" (cherry picking)). However, any acknowledgement that academia has a better understanding of history and scientific data would result in the immediate downfall of the Organization.
Now, this doctrine has been held to for over 100 years through one justification or another. They've changed their reasoning. They've changed its meaning. But they have never changed the date...
Every publication from 1912 onward has stuck to this doctrine. Evidently, it must be so historically significant, in that it is directly related to two watershed moments of humanity, that being wrong about it an impossibility. Thus, the deep faith of their followers.
Watershed moments are more frequent than the Society would like, however.
As we know, the 1914 doctrine requires that Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. 1914, of course, saw the outbreak of World War I. It was the "Great War". The "War to end all wars". The first of its kind in which so many nations were involved, or so many perished.
It's also not true.
If we take it from "the horse's mouth", none of what I tell you next is valid to one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This is also the reason I'm no longer one of them.
Jerusalem was sacked by Babylon in 587 B.C.E. This is archaeologically, astronomically, and historically proven fact. There isn't a debate to be had. However, by 'arguing selective observations', Witnesses will always arrive at 607 B.C.E. by citing only two or three dubious sources. Whereas 587 B.C.E. is documented by literally dozens of credible, vetted sources.
Well, shit... But 1914 was such a momentous year! It certainly must be the sign of Christ's invisible return to earth, at which time he appointed Jehovah's Witnesses as his earthly representatives...
About that... You see, there have been literally dozens of conflicts that qualify as "World Wars". Poly-continental wars involving three or more nations are rather common. The Romans fought the Persians for 721 years across two continents. The War of Austrian Succession occurred across four continents. The Napoleonic Wars... FIVE continents. And the kicker? None of those even qualify as the deadliest wars.
That distinction belongs almost exclusively to the Chinese. Between the Qing-Ming Conquest, War of Three Kingdoms, and Mongol Conquests the average body count was an average was twice as high as WWI. So what does The Great War have over all of the others?
*Crickets*
Mustard Gas, combat aircraft, and machine guns. That's about it. A demonstrably false prophecy should have been fulfilled twenty years later, and nothing really interesting happened in 1934. The "greatness" of The Great War was just propaganda. There was nothing about it that was measurably worse than many of the wars that preceded it. So to declare that it was the harbinger of the last days is without foundation.
The intensely frustrating part of this is that I abhor ignorance, particularly when it's voluntary. Practicing a religion that requires ignorance as the price of admission is just insane, but it's exactly what relying on the 'horse' as an authority is. Relying on the producer of unsubstantiated claims, even in the presence of overwhelming contrary evidence, as the only necessary proof of truth is without parallel in terms of frustrating potential.
But it's just what Witnesses do...
Monday, January 15, 2018
God, the Monster
Growing up as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I was often reminded by the platform that worshiping a higher power was a built-in feature of humanity. We were supposedly created to recognize the existence of a deity, even when there was no hard evidence to support that assertion. We even came up with silly generalizations like "there are no atheists in foxholes" to justify the inexplicable fear of the unknown. We build rites and rituals in the form of religions to assuage these fears, ever hopeful that we do not incur the ire of our Celestial Parent.
Is there a God? I don't know, and I'm certain that I don't know. Neither do you, for that matter. Gnosticism is, at its core, a self-prescribed confidence that one can know that there is or is not a God. Agnosticism is the opposite. It is the confidence that available evidence does not adequately support the hypothesis. Theism and Atheism are opposing axes of the framework in which a person either believes or does not believe in a God, doing so with either a Gnostic or Agnostic backing. People often mistake Agnosticism for being non-committal Atheism, but they are not related in that way (figure 1).
Whether we want to believe in a deity or not, we are still limited by the absence of evidence either way. In the common era, we direct people to whom God speaks directly to the nearest mental healthcare professional. But this is only after decades of research into human psychology and neurology. The Bible, Quran, and Torah were all written by people making exactly these claims. They include grandiose visions of heaven, hell, horrible beasts, and agonizing persecution. We currently diagnose these events as paranoid schizophrenia and apply anti-psychotic medications to treat them.
But we treat religious texts with a very different frame of reference. Why, though? The fact that it happened hundreds or thousands of years ago somehow makes it perfectly understandable? Logically, no, yet we still revere these texts as inspired and authoritative. Generation upon generation, we have passed on the myths as a means of regulating our society, measuring our success by the fear they inspire.
Remembering that there is a greater scientific foundation for evolution than creation, I began to wonder if there was another, anthropological explanation for this seeming in-born fear.
The fossil record indicates that we evolved from lesser mammals. The discovery of Homo Naledi in South Africa back in 2013 extends the primate record back as far as 2 million years. While there is a considerable margin of error in the dating (owing primarily to radio-carbon dating being useful only back to 50,000 years), it is evident that they were alive long before civilization as we know it. The remarkable practice of burial of their deceased is something that we haven't seen in mammals other than humans, so its extensive use by a million-year-old primate is not without wonder.
What is not left to wonder is that this one-and-a-half-meter-tall (5 ft) primate was subject to animal predation. Mammals, right up until the extinction of dinosaurs, were easy pickings for larger and hungrier things. As the ages dragged on, some of those mammals became Homo Naledi, and others became lions. While Oldowan stone tools did emerge some 2.6 million years ago around Ethiopia, there isn't much evidence that these tools became weaponized until around 64,000 years ago, well after Homo Naledi became extinct. This would preclude the assumption that Homo Naledi had defensive tools, and biology didn't really equip primates with claws or fangs.
It is only through technology that Homo Sapiens became an apex predator. Prior to the evolution of weapons, humans were just as likely to be eaten, and had thus evolved with a fight-or-flight response to danger. This evolutionary psychology was sometimes the only response to a predator when the prey was unable to prepare itself against the threat. In modern psychology, it is well documented, and the physiology well defined.
In modern society, this response is largely unnecessary, and yet is common enough to be called instinctual. So why is it still there? Well, evolution is slow to discard things that are no longer useful.
It's impossible to tell now whether early hominids had any sense or inclination of intelligent design of their species. Odds don't favor that possibility, but it is there nonetheless. What they certainly did have was acute stress responses to threats; a tool that persisted long after they had evolved and developed the technology to be apex predators.
It's an awareness, as much as a hard-wired response, that we carry into the modern era. Evolution dictated that our survival was dependent on this awareness. Just because we were no longer prey doesn't mean that we aren't still on the lookout for the apex predator we once ran from.
How do we define an apex predator though? Well, that's pretty straight forward.
It's creature that no others prey upon. They kill with comparative impunity, challenged only by the flight of their prey, and no other creature subordinates them as a food source. Lions, as mentioned earlier, are such an animal (absent the presence of humans). So is God...
Abrahamic religions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, refer to religious texts in which God is the alpha and omega. Before Him, there shall be no other god. Sodom and Gomorrah were leveled by fire raining from the heavens. Noah's contemporaries were drowned by a divine flood. The Assyrian army was slain by His angel as they slept.
God is an apex predator, no matter how you want to look at it. He's the biggest kid on the block. He has the most unstable temper. He demands the most stringent obeisance. He knows everything. He is everywhere. When his wrath is poured out upon thee, there is no escape. Multiple holy books are very clear about these truths.
The invention of God very conveniently responds to an awareness that has been born into us through millions of years of genetic refinement. The awareness didn't fail, even though there was nothing to run from. Our ancestors, for centuries, have had no need to fear being hunted and yet they still laid awake at night under the blanket of the universe, listening for bumps in the night.
Never in the modern era has God stepped forward to smite us personally. Evolution, however, is prepared just in case.
Is there a God? I don't know, and I'm certain that I don't know. Neither do you, for that matter. Gnosticism is, at its core, a self-prescribed confidence that one can know that there is or is not a God. Agnosticism is the opposite. It is the confidence that available evidence does not adequately support the hypothesis. Theism and Atheism are opposing axes of the framework in which a person either believes or does not believe in a God, doing so with either a Gnostic or Agnostic backing. People often mistake Agnosticism for being non-committal Atheism, but they are not related in that way (figure 1).
 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| figure 1 |
Whether we want to believe in a deity or not, we are still limited by the absence of evidence either way. In the common era, we direct people to whom God speaks directly to the nearest mental healthcare professional. But this is only after decades of research into human psychology and neurology. The Bible, Quran, and Torah were all written by people making exactly these claims. They include grandiose visions of heaven, hell, horrible beasts, and agonizing persecution. We currently diagnose these events as paranoid schizophrenia and apply anti-psychotic medications to treat them.
But we treat religious texts with a very different frame of reference. Why, though? The fact that it happened hundreds or thousands of years ago somehow makes it perfectly understandable? Logically, no, yet we still revere these texts as inspired and authoritative. Generation upon generation, we have passed on the myths as a means of regulating our society, measuring our success by the fear they inspire.
Remembering that there is a greater scientific foundation for evolution than creation, I began to wonder if there was another, anthropological explanation for this seeming in-born fear.
The fossil record indicates that we evolved from lesser mammals. The discovery of Homo Naledi in South Africa back in 2013 extends the primate record back as far as 2 million years. While there is a considerable margin of error in the dating (owing primarily to radio-carbon dating being useful only back to 50,000 years), it is evident that they were alive long before civilization as we know it. The remarkable practice of burial of their deceased is something that we haven't seen in mammals other than humans, so its extensive use by a million-year-old primate is not without wonder.
What is not left to wonder is that this one-and-a-half-meter-tall (5 ft) primate was subject to animal predation. Mammals, right up until the extinction of dinosaurs, were easy pickings for larger and hungrier things. As the ages dragged on, some of those mammals became Homo Naledi, and others became lions. While Oldowan stone tools did emerge some 2.6 million years ago around Ethiopia, there isn't much evidence that these tools became weaponized until around 64,000 years ago, well after Homo Naledi became extinct. This would preclude the assumption that Homo Naledi had defensive tools, and biology didn't really equip primates with claws or fangs.
It is only through technology that Homo Sapiens became an apex predator. Prior to the evolution of weapons, humans were just as likely to be eaten, and had thus evolved with a fight-or-flight response to danger. This evolutionary psychology was sometimes the only response to a predator when the prey was unable to prepare itself against the threat. In modern psychology, it is well documented, and the physiology well defined.
In modern society, this response is largely unnecessary, and yet is common enough to be called instinctual. So why is it still there? Well, evolution is slow to discard things that are no longer useful.
It's impossible to tell now whether early hominids had any sense or inclination of intelligent design of their species. Odds don't favor that possibility, but it is there nonetheless. What they certainly did have was acute stress responses to threats; a tool that persisted long after they had evolved and developed the technology to be apex predators.
It's an awareness, as much as a hard-wired response, that we carry into the modern era. Evolution dictated that our survival was dependent on this awareness. Just because we were no longer prey doesn't mean that we aren't still on the lookout for the apex predator we once ran from.
How do we define an apex predator though? Well, that's pretty straight forward.
It's creature that no others prey upon. They kill with comparative impunity, challenged only by the flight of their prey, and no other creature subordinates them as a food source. Lions, as mentioned earlier, are such an animal (absent the presence of humans). So is God...
Abrahamic religions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, refer to religious texts in which God is the alpha and omega. Before Him, there shall be no other god. Sodom and Gomorrah were leveled by fire raining from the heavens. Noah's contemporaries were drowned by a divine flood. The Assyrian army was slain by His angel as they slept.
God is an apex predator, no matter how you want to look at it. He's the biggest kid on the block. He has the most unstable temper. He demands the most stringent obeisance. He knows everything. He is everywhere. When his wrath is poured out upon thee, there is no escape. Multiple holy books are very clear about these truths.
The invention of God very conveniently responds to an awareness that has been born into us through millions of years of genetic refinement. The awareness didn't fail, even though there was nothing to run from. Our ancestors, for centuries, have had no need to fear being hunted and yet they still laid awake at night under the blanket of the universe, listening for bumps in the night.
Never in the modern era has God stepped forward to smite us personally. Evolution, however, is prepared just in case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)