Iran Rocked

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi

I am following events in Iran. Things seem to be developing quickly. I hear that police are in some cases joining the protesters, that IRGC stations are being found abandoned, and that the security forces deployed are Arabs, not locals. These are strong indications that the regime’s grip is failing. Usually the tipping point in a revolution is when the security forces melt away or join the crowds—when the regime cannot command its enforcers.

There is also a credible shadow government in the wings, under the Crown Prince; and the crowds know it. Israeli agents are surely on the ground, helping things along. The good old International Jewish Conspiracy, you might say.

What will the world look like if the Iranian regime collapses?

It will do damage to Russia, surely. Russia is close enough to the brink itself, with its hands full in Ukraine, and it has been relying on Iran for drones, perhaps other aid. This could tip that balance. Not only that—revolutions are contagious. An Iranian collapse may give courage to Russians sick of the war and the sanctions and the repression to try the same. 

It would be another huge accomplishment for Trump, to start the new year. Pretty lucky, with the midterms coming up. And it would be a cautionary tale to other American opponents not to poke the hegemon too far. The American sanctions and the American bombings surely contributed to this event, and certainly look like they did, which may be more important.

The contemporary Axis of Evil has been Russia, China, and Iran. Now that one is knocked out, the other two look weaker and more vulnerable. If one tiger was paper, are the others as well?

And who knows where else the contagion of revolution might spread? China? Venezuela? Cuba? Belarus? Georgia? All have looked restive recently. Each domino endangers the others.

Presumably this is very good news for Isael and Middle East peace. The Iranians have been funding conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and Yemen. Now that funding will be gone. The Irish Troubles ended when funding stopped flowing from Libya. So something similar might happen here.

This may also tend to discredit the ideology of political Islam. Iran was the leading example of this in practice, and it will have ignominiously failed. That fit of xenophobic reaction may have had its day. Time to wake up and join the world.

There have been rumours of secret mass conversions to Christianity within Iran, inspired by the oppression of the Islamist government, yet hidden for fear of punishments. It may be, with the lid off, that there will be a rush of public conversions to Christianity and Zoroastrianism soon.

Which will encourage Christian revival elsewhere.

Before the Islamist Revolution, Iran was an important regional power, with a GDP on a par with Spain. Newly allied with the West, it might again develop rapidly and be again a bulwark of American foreign policy in the region. And a powerful ally of Israel as well. 

I suspect post-revolution, Iranians will be as pro-Western as the various populations of the old East Bloc turned out to be after the Berlin Wall fell.

I have several Iranian friends who have been wanting this badly. I hope it happens this time for them.

Happy New Year

 https://youtu.be/wPnhaGWBnys?si=oWpWA1CVqni9S8Sm

On Dichotomous Thinking

 

The present, postmodern spirit is that one must not be “judgmental.” The term I hear from a psychologist friend is that one must avoid “dichotomous thinking.”

However, all thought is dichotomous. Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction: “either A or not A” is the basis of all logic. And the truth of this is reconfirmed by every computer program. Thought is binary. Yes or no, either/or.

Therefore, avoiding dichotomous thinking, avoiding judgements, is avoiding thinking. Is this a good thing?

It is at least arguable that it is not. “Ignorance is bliss.” “Don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

However, if you accept Plato’s contention, and Christianity’s contention, that all value comes from the three transcendentals, the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, refusing to think is evil. Seeking truth is why we are here, along with seeking justice and beauty. God himself is the perfection of these transcendentals: the perfectly real, the perfect good, and perfect beauty. Not to think is to turn away from God. Making postmodernism or modern psychology soul-destroying.

Why do we suppose truth matters? To Plato, the value of truth is self-evident, inherent, and incontrovertible: nobody genuinely believes falsehood or illusion is more valuable than truth or reality. 

Moreover, if you do, you are insane.

It seems obvious that anything and everything we class as “mental illness” is definitionally a failure to engage in “dichotomous thinking,” a failure to make clear judgements. Psychosis is an inability to distinguish what is real from what is not real. Depression or “neurosis”: is a sense of lack of direction—a lack of certainty about what has value, what is real, what is good, what is right or wrong. This is also the source of chronic anxiety. Clear direction, clarity of thought, heals all that.

Religion is the obvious antidote, and psychology is therefore harmful to mental health. Firstly in serving as a distraction. Consider if someone has cancer, and goes to a homeopath or a snake-oil salesman instead of a certified doctor. Wouldn’t you say that homeopathy or snake-oil here is causing harm by not working?

But worse: in condemning “dichotomous thinking” or “judgementalism,” psychology is actively causing and promoting mental illness. 

See too psychology’s concept of “mindfulness”: which to psychology means “being present in the moment.” You should empty your mind and concentrate only on immediate sensations.

Mindfulness is originally a Buddhist concept. But psychology, in appropriating the term, got it upside down. The original Pali term is actually cognate to “memory.” So it is very much not about being in the present moment. That would be the absence of mind, mindlessness. Surely it is odd, if the idea is to be alert to what is around you, that you should shut your eyes to meditate. This inversion of te practice is what psychology promotes. almost necessarily, because it denies the psyche.

To be fair, not thinking about things can indeed bring temporary relief to people with mental conflicts. But this is like getting good and drunk to forget your troubles. Not a cure, and sure to make matters worse over the longer term.

Happy Family Day!

 

Last Sunday was family day—the Feast of the Holy Family. A fear of the international Church that actually began in Canada, in Quebec. The readings for the day are of special interest: they give the Biblical case for family values, a topic on which I am skeptical.

The first reading is from the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)—not in the Protestant Bibles. 

God sets a father in honor over his children;
    a mother’s authority he confirms over her sons.
Whoever honors his father atones for sins,
    and preserves himself from them.
When he prays, he is heard;
    he stores up riches who reveres his mother.
Whoever honors his father is gladdened by children,
    and, when he prays, is heard.
Whoever reveres his father will live a long life;
    he who obeys his father brings comfort to his mother.
My son, take care of your father when he is old;
    grieve him not as long as he lives.
Even if his mind fail, be considerate of him;
    revile him not all the days of his life;
kindness to a father will not be forgotten,
    firmly planted against the debt of your sins
    —a house raised in justice to you.

Sirach 3:2-6, 12-14

Here is a more complete version of the passage, Sirach 3: 1-16, RSV:

Listen to me your father, O children;
    and act accordingly, that you may be kept in safety.
2 For the Lord honored the father above the children,
    and he confirmed the right of the mother over her sons.
3 Whoever honors his father atones for sins,
4     and whoever glorifies his mother is like one who lays up treasure.
5 Whoever honors his father will be gladdened by his own children,
    and when he prays he will be heard.
6 Whoever glorifies his father will have long life,
    and whoever obeys the Lord will refresh his mother;
7     he will serve his parents as his masters. 
8 Honor your father by word and deed,
    that a blessing from him may come upon you.
9 For a father’s blessing strengthens the houses of the children,
    but a mother’s curse uproots their foundations.
10 Do not glorify yourself by dishonoring your father,
    for your father’s dishonor is no glory to you.
11 For a man’s glory comes from honoring his father,
    and it is a disgrace for children not to respect their mother.
12 O son, help your father in his old age,
    and do not grieve him as long as he lives;
13 even if he is lacking in understanding, show forbearance;
    in all your strength do not despise him.
14 For kindness to a father will not be forgotten,
    and against your sins it will be credited to you;
15 in the day of your affliction it will be remembered in your favor;
    as frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away.
16 Whoever forsakes his father is like a blasphemer,
    and whoever angers his mother is cursed by the Lord.”

The primary sense in which one is to “honour” and “glorify” one’s parents seems to be to care for them with dignity in their old age.

This makes sense. It is simply the instinct of a small child to revere and obey their parents implicitly -- probably to excess, to the point of idolatry. The need for a commandment comes when what is right goes against what is instinctual. The commandment matters when the parent grows old and infirm, and begins to seem a burden to the adult child. And the grown child may find them demanding, childish and embarrassing.

This was a more important moral issue in the days before social security, of course. Nowadays aged parents are often perfectly independent, indeed better off than their adult progeny.

The second reading is from Colossians:

Brothers and sisters:
Put on, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved,
heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience,
bearing with one another and forgiving one another, 
if one has a grievance against another; 
as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.
And over all these put on love, 
that is, the bond of perfection.
And let the peace of Christ control your hearts, 
the peace into which you were also called in one body.
And be thankful.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, 
as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, 
singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs 
with gratitude in your hearts to God.
And whatever you do, in word or in deed, 
do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
giving thanks to God the Father through him.  
Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, 
as is proper in the Lord.
Husbands, love your wives, 
and avoid any bitterness toward them.
Children, obey your parents in everything, 
for this is pleasing to the Lord.
Fathers, do not provoke your children, 
so they may not become discouraged.

Colossians 3:12-21.

The last few verses are the classic Bible passage to which feminists object. The Biblical vision of the family is currently “politically incorrect.”

Before we get to that, note that the call to love one another comes with an obligation to “teach and admonish.” This is also “politically incorrect” in our time. The Bible tells us we are supposed to call out others when they sin. Currently, this is considered intolerance. According to the Bible, pointing out another’s sin is not an attack on them, but a duty of love. Which of course it is.

Now to address the feminist objection. This is going over old ground, but here it is. There is a contract implied here, with duties on both sides: the wife is obliged to subordinate to the husband, and the husband is obliged to show love for his wife. That’s the deal. Presumably if the husband breaks the deal by treating his wife with bitterness, the wife has a right to no longer act subordinate; and vice versa. That is the wisdom of the American Declaration of Independence, based on earlier Christian precedent: if the government does not keep its end of the bargain, one need no longer be subordinate.

Sadly, feminism, and women, have broken this contract. Making the family, and marriage, currently unsupportable.

There is a similar contract here between parents and children: as the wife is to obey the husband, so children are to obey their parents; and parents in return are not to provoke their children. Again, if the parents do not live up to this deal, but provoke and discourage their children, that is, act with malice and cause their children not to know what is expected of them, the children are free not to obey; indeed, arguably, ought not to obey. Again, as per the Declaration of Independence.

This last line also gives in the briefest possible form a clear diagnosis of the cause for depression. Depression is the experience of being “discouraged,” or “dispirited,” not knowing which way to turn. And it is caused by a parent “provoking” the child in childhood—acting with malice or failing to give clear direction.

The Old Order Changes

 I think that now the roof is really falling in on the political elites, the government bureaucracy, on the clerisy in general. The revelation of the corruption in Minnesota feels like not just a tipping point, but a collapse. 

Along with this, we are getting the many Epstein photos coming out. And we just got solid evidence that the 2020 US presidential election was deeply fishy in Georgia. It’s a perfect storm.

This feels like the end of the old order.

Leonard Cohen predicted it in the 1990s. Things will never be the same after this. 

Democracy is coming to the USA.

Christmas Music

 For the Fifth Day of Christmas--in lieu of golden rings.

Christmas Is Still On

 So you're gonna have to hear another of my favourite carols.

For some reason, almost brings me to tears.

Why Psychology Is a Bad Idea

 

Psychology emerged towards the end of the nineteenth century as an attempt to apply the principles of empirical science to the study of the psyche-- that is, the soul. Say “mind” if you prefer, but “psyche” translates literally as “soul.”

It was, therefore, a replacement for religion, which is the traditional practice of care of souls, and the body of knowledge about the soul. 

The question is, therefore, has psychology done a better job than religion at the care and nurturing of the human soul?

Conceptually, unfortunately, an empirical study of the soul or mind is nonsense. The methods of empirical science cannot be applied to the soul, because the soul is not a material object. It cannot be directly observed, cannot be seen, touched, tasted or touched. Science is learning by observation, and the soul cannot be observed. 

All of the “clinical evidence” from psychology is hearsay, and would not be acceptable in a court of law.  Nor would it be acceptable to real science—it is all anecdotal and second or third hand. 

As for experiment—psychology faces an insurmountable observer paradox. As Labov pointed out, in this case, the act of observation alters the object observed—or opinion expressed. As a result, psychology has no valid findings, and the currently fashionable theories simply change every twenty years or so, with no progress. Mathematician Stanislaw Ulam issued the challenge, “Name me one proposition in all of the social sciences which is both true and non-trivial." The only response so far has been the economic theory of comparative advantage. Perhaps.

It is worth noting as well that all psychological experiments, such as they are, are unethical. They violate Kant’s categorical imperative, that our fellow men must be treated as ends, never as means.

A friend of mine wrote a book about his grandfather. His grandfather was a prominent psychiatrist, once chief medical officer of the Queen Street Asylum in Toronto. Confined to a bed on suicide watch, said grandfather laboriously severed an artery in his leg with a butter knife.  My friend gave a presentation to the assembled staff of the Clarke Institute, Toronto’s second asylum, hoping for answers. Silence. At the end, one came up and said to him, “you realize, none of us has any idea what we are doing.”

Before “scientific” psychology took over in the mid-nineteenth century, cure rates reported for serious mental illnesses were quite high—often 80 or 90 percent. And mental illness was rare—perhaps a hundred patients in the Bedlam Asylum, the only one in the UK, in pre-modern Britain. As the culture has gradually turned from religion and towards psychological explanations and treatments, the incidence of what we call mental illness has grown year over year—one might almost say exploded. And all major forms of “mental illness,” once commonly cured, are now considered incurable. 

This is not a record of success. 

A world-wide WHO study in the seventies found that reported cure rates for serious mental illness are still far higher in the Third World than in the developed world. Which certainly seems to suggest that less psychology leads to better mental health.

Why does psychology persist? Too many wealthy vested interests with political power, often with the coercive power of the state behind them. And an irrational veneration of anything called “science” among the general public. 

But things are reaching a crisis point: not just with mental illness, but also drug addiction, mass shootings, suicide, self-harm, and general social dysfunction. 

It is urgent that we turn back to God.

Christmas Music

Contrary to popular opinion, Christmas is not over. It is a twelve day festival, beginning on Christmas Day. We are only in day 3, and there are just too many great Christmas songs.

Have to get this one in.

God bless.

 

Predictions for the New Year

My record for predicting the upcoming year is right up there with the experts—usually wrong. I didn’t even try last year.

But I am feeling more optimistic about the future than I have for a while. I do not say these things will all happen within the next 12 months, but here is what I see:

Russia will decisively lose the war in Ukraine. The fall of great powers, or lesser powers, tends to come in at least two stages—first they lose a big one, then they do something reckless a couple of decades later, determined to regain their stature. This overreach leads to the decisive final collapse. Witness Germany in WWI and WWII; Saddam in Gulf Wars 1 and 2; the three Punic Wars; Napoleon at Leipzig, then at Waterloo.  Russia is in stage two now, following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 91.

I regularly predict that the governments of Russia, China, or Iran will fall. It will happen soon; perhaps not this year, but soon. By my calculations, centrally-managed regimes last no more than one lifetime before the rot forces a collapse—about seventy years. That’s how long the USSR lasted—1917-1991, 74 years. The CCP has been in power since 1949, 76 years. They are in the last throes. 

This may provoke them to start a war to forestall collapse. I feel there is a good chance that this year they will try to invade Taiwan. That often happens when a regime is facing the end: a last desperate lunge for more resources and more capital to keep the lights on. 

But if they do, they will fail. Here’s why: the advance in drone technology gives huge advantage to the defense and in particular makes any sea invasion, requiring large massed vessels and war machines, immensely vulnerable. Given that Taiwan is taking lessons from Ukraine, they could easily with their industrial potential and technical skills produce a drone fleet that could sink Chinese hopes, even without US or Japanese intervention.

The US economy is about to boom. Elon Musk, who is in a good position to make such predictions, expects it to start growing at unprecedented levels within the next two years. This seems a safe bet, due to dramatic improvements in productivity from AI, robotics, and self-driving vehicles. At the same time, the US has a pro-business government in place, which will not choke this growth with regulations.

Indeed, just having Trump in there trying new things and shaking things up can be expected to give the US economy a boost of optimism. Studies suggest that if a company does ANYTHING to shake up standard procedures, esprit de corps rises and productivity improves. Optimism is infectious.

This being so, the Republicans should hold the two Houses of Congress in the midterms. Historically, the ruling party almost always loses the midterms, but if strong economic growth becomes clear by then, I think this will make the difference. Especially as evidence of waste and corruption under Democrat regimes is emerging.

I think the government of Cuba will fall. I think Rubio has Cuba in his sights, and this is part of what is going on between the US and Venezuela—Venezuela has been propping Cuba up. Russia is occupied elsewhere, and is in no position to step in. China may be having their own problems. It seems a good opportunity for the US to put the screws in, and it would be quite a feather in Trump’s red MAGA cap if he managed to end the Communist hold on Cuba. Ending the Maduro regime in Venezuela may only be a bonus.

The popular opinion throughout the developed world is turning hard and fast against mass migration. I expect deportation to become the common policy throughout the developed world. Mass immigration was governments’ solution to population collapse. Soon, such fears will look shortsighted, as AI and robotics allow rapid development with fewer workers. Importing low-skilled bodies is just adding liabilities, apart from risks of cultural collapse.

I get the sense we are on the cusp of a major breakthrough against cancer. This too will reduce the supposed need for immigrants, by extending lifespans. I expect to hear more on this in the coming year.

I get the sense we are on the cusp of a major breakthrough in nuclear energy. I expect to hear more on this too in the coming year. Energy could get a lot cheaper.

This will also take the remaining wind out of the turbines of the “climate change” lobby—already back on their heels.  We will stop hearing much about climate change, and there will be no more appetite for draconian measures by governments in the name of reducing carbon emissions.

This will remove from governments their strongest argument for grabbing more power for themselves and suppressing the growing populist movement. Accordingly, I expect more populist regimes to be elected over the coming year, and the popularity of the remaining “progressive” regimes to continue to fall. Where elections are delayed, there will be growing civil unrest. 

Now let’s see if I got any of this right.

Is a Golden Age Near?

 

It was not long ago I was lamenting the absence of leaders. We had them back in the 1980s: Thatcher, Reagan, JPII, Pierre Trudeau, Gorbachev, Mitterand, Steve Jobs. These were people of stature. But since the 80s, we seemed to have been led by midgets with no sense of direction. Worse, they seemed untrustworthy and often illegitimate. Sunak? Biden? Pope Francis? Justin Trudeau? Macron? Tim Cook? Never mind ideology; these were empty suits off the rack. It was as though our civilization had lost all energy.

Then came Trump 2.0. It is worth being grateful for the fact that we are again in a time of giants. Trump is revolutionizing American politics. Never mind ideology, again—this is true leadership. He does not follow polls or received wisdom or the system: he leads. His administration is composed of other original thinkers, charismatic and principled leaders: JD Vance, Marco Rubio, RFK Jr. Tom Holman, Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard, Doug Burgum, Pete Hegseth. It is all quite exciting.

At the same time, in the private sector, we have seen the rise of Elon Musk. He too is an original thinker, like Steve Jobs but more so, accomplishing one impossible thing after another. His latest prediction is that the US will enter a period of double digit economic growth within the next year and a half. Holy cow.

I long lamented the loss of the old media—or rather, the credibility of the old media. Back in the eighties, The Economist was trustworthy—you could count on a reasoned take on the world. I used to trust CBC Radio. Both collapsed into kneejerk leftism decades ago. Yet now, we seem to have trustworthy voices emerging in new media. There is turmoil, but The Daily Wire seems to set a responsible standard for commentary. Joe Rogan seems intelligent and honest.

Are leaders emerging in other countries as well as the US? Farage looks promising in the UK—he is certainly a leader. Italy has Meloni, and Japan now has Takaichi. Those are three important countries. Local “Trumps” are winning elections in Latin America.

We may be on the verge of good times—times as good as or better than the eighties, when the East Bloc collapsed, the Berlin Wall came down, the world was suddenly unipolar, the economy was expanding, and personal computers were suddenly appearing on desks everywhere.

Happy St. Stephen's Day

 

As Essential to Christmas as "Die Hard":

 

Who's Missing?

Who is missing here? 

Given that this was recorded in 1985, what Canadian voices are surprisingly absent?

Ian Tyson—although Sylvia is there. Paul Anka. Celine Dion—she was already big by this time in French. Richard Manuel from The Band is listed in the chorus, but I don’t see Rick Danko or Robbie Robertson. A bit odd, since Ronnie Hawkins is prominent. Denny Doherty, from the Mamas and the Papas. I think he was living in Toronto area at the time. Zal Yanovsky, from the Lovin’ Spoonful—in Kingston then. It makes sense that Gilles Vigneault is not present—he would consider himself a Quebecois, no doubt, and not a Canadian. Buffy Ste. Marie, despite her popularity in Canada, apparently never held Canadian citizenship. Catherine O'Hara is present, but not her sister Mary Margaret, But then, Mary Margaret was not famous yet. But where are Kate and Anna McGarrigle?

 And where’s Leonard Cohen?

I checked. He was in the middle of a World Tour. So that explains that.

Canadians for Trump

 

As a Canadian, I am cheering for Trump in the current trade dispute with Canada.

This may sound treasonous to some. Canadians are currently swept with the ugly mass hysteria of nationalism, driving us, like so many countries before, to act against our own interests.

Canada cannot win a trade war with the US. Canada’s greatest economic advantage, not to mention its greatest national security advantage, is living next door to the USA: the world’s richest market. And we are going to fight with our customers? Dumb.

 The USA has trade grievances with Canada; and doing what the US wants would not just be good for America: it would also be good for Canadians. Trump is fighting for Canadians’ interests against our own government. 

The biggest butt carbuncle is Canadian “supply management” of eggs, poultry, and dairy. This is a tax on the Canadian poor, for the benefit of a small number of farmers—or farm corporations. Drop it, and the cheapest forms or protein become cheaper. A blessed relief in an era of food price inflation. At the same time, more Canadians could farm; more competition. American and European producers could enter the market, again lowering prices, and giving Canadian consumers more choices—think of all those European cheeses becoming much cheaper.

Of benefit to consumers, clearly. And most of us are consumers, not producers. But also quite possibly of benefit to producers. They too have lost great opportunities as a result of the production quotas. Canada was once the world’s largest supplier, for example, of cheddar. The quota system forced us out of that market. Many rural dairies had to close; now if you buy cheddar abroad, it is invariably from Ireland or New Zealand. Canada has lost a major export industry, for the benefit of a few thousand established suppliers. With no incentive to improve the product or their efficiency.

Then there are the restrictions on foreign ownership of Canadian companies. The Americans hate this. These can be reasonable when national security is at stake—but American ownership ought to be exempt from such concerns. Probably NATO allies should be exempt. We want investment. By their nature, restrictions on foreign investment are a restraint on trade, a brake on the economy, and force prices up for Canadian consumers. Canadians, and Canadian businesses, suffer from unreasonably high ISP and telecommunications costs as a result of these restrictions.  It would be at least as much in Canadians’ as in Americans’ interest to lift them all for American investments in Canada. 

Then there are the various “Canadian content” restrictions supposed to protect Canadian culture. These too look to the Americans like a non-tariff protectionist measure. They might make sense if 1: Canadian culture were substantially different from American culture, and 2: the content so protected were distinctly Canadian. But neither of these premises hold. American content coming across the border, is actually a better reflection of Canadian culture than the “multicultural” content the Canadian government favours. And the bureaucratic costs of policing, enforcing, and conforming to these restrictions is significant, and kills creativity.

Canadian talent has always been able to compete very well internationally, thank you very much; including before there were any Canadian content regulations. Robert W. Service, Stephen Leacock, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Alice Munro, Leonard Cohen, Cirque du Soleil, Celine Dion, Mack Sennet, Neil Young, The Guess Who, Louis B. Meyer, ... none of them needed protectionism. Those who do probably do not deserve it. The truth is, Canada has long “punched above its weight” in the international culture. Probably largely from the advantage of living next door to the USA. 

Of course, Trump also wants a crackdown on fentanyl trafficking. And we are against this why? I see the homeless every time I go uptown. We did not use to live this way. Do we really want to live this way?

Now the US economy is growing at about twice the rate of Canada’s. And we are pouting in a corner and missing this great opportunity to engage.

It Is the Night....

 

Advent Music

 

Healthy Religion

 

psychiatric restraints

A friend recently expressed his support for “healthy religion.”

This seems to me a backhanded criticism of religion, damning with faint praise. The implication is that religion is often unhealthy.

Pharisaism, I would agree, is unhealthy. But that is not religion, is it? It is feigning religion--by definition.

I Grokked the term “healthy religion,” and find it is a concept in psychology:

“Key Differences Between Healthy and Unhealthy Religion

The distinction between healthy and unhealthy religion often boils down to how faith impacts individual well-being, relationships, critical thinking, and society. Psychological research and expert analyses (e.g., from psychologists like Kenneth Pargament and studies in journals like Psychology of Religion and Spirituality) define healthy religion as one that promotes positive mental health outcomes—such as reduced anxiety, greater life satisfaction, empathy, and personal growth—while being flexible and intrinsically motivated. In contrast, unhealthy religion (sometimes called toxic, fundamentalist, or cult-like) leads to negative outcomes like fear, isolation, intolerance, and psychological harm through rigidity, control, and coercion.”

So the concept of “healthy religion” is a psychological one. It is judging religion from the viewpoint of psychology. In other words, it assumes modern psychology is the standard by which religion is to be judged.

That is backwards. Religion deals with absolute truth and absolute value: “worth-ship.” Accordingly, religion is the standard by which psychology must be judged, not vice versa. You have to determine what you want to do before you decide what tool will do it.

I agree that religion promotes positive mental health outcomes, reduced anxiety, greater life satisfaction, empathy, and personal growth. I think this is true of all religion, at some level. But that is not the purpose of religion. You do not worship God for your health.

Are there indeed forms of religion that produce fear, isolation, intolerance, rigidity, control, and coercion? I do not think so. Religion is perhaps unique among human concerns in that it does not and cannot control or coerce: one’s religion is always voluntary. One can always walk away. One can be forced by a government or one’s family to pretend to belong to a given religion; but not to actually believe it. And such coercion is from the government or the family, not the religion. 

This is not true, for example, of psychology, which can at times be coercive: involuntary confinement, electroshock therapy, lobotomy, shackles, straightjackets, and so forth.

Does religion produce intolerance? Belonging to a religion can cause one to be intolerant of people not members of that religion; but this is true of all groups. To form an in-group of any kind is automatically to form an “out-group.” And surely one does not want to discourage all community on these grounds. Conversely, it is from religion that we get the concept of human equality and human rights—that all men are brothers and you are to do unto others. So if intolerance is your concern, religion is your solution, not your problem.

Does religion produce isolation? Yes, if one seeks to withdraw from the world, perhaps as a monk, anchorite, or sannyasin. One grave problem with psychology is that it discourages and tries to prevent this often healthy and life-giving option. True, others may also shun you because you are religious—but to blame religion for that is like blaming Jews for the Holocaust.

In conclusion—for now—I’d like to endorse healthy psychology.

Advent Music

 

Lyrics by Christina Rossetti

The Winter Solstice

Peekaboo!

As I write this, tomorrow at 10:03 am EST is the winter solstice. I try to remember to mark it on Facebook every year.

What disturbs me is the common inference that in doing this I am celebrating a pagan holiday.

Pagans have no special claim to the solstice. It is a natural phenomenon. All cultures have always found it deeply symbolic. If you believe in the Christian God, he fashioned it, and it is a manifestation of God’s power. It is God speaking to us.

A friend who visited Machu Picchu was told, or deduced, that the Intihuatana stone there, aligned with the sun at the solstice, was intended as an anchor to prevent the sun from disappearing. Supposedly the shamans harnessed the sun from here and pulled it up from the horizon.

I do not believe ancient peoples were that stupid. Of course they knew the sun was going to rise again without human intervention. The point of the stone, and the solstice, was to symbolically harness the Earth to the Sun, not the Sun to the Earth. The solstice, to them as to us, is the promise that, like the immortal skies, we too might rise again.