Religion for fear.

[Stormier]

This is my first post on the forum, I have done a quick search regarding this and can't find a previous post on the forum so I apologise if its a repost.

 

My point I would wish to discuss here is that religion is the adult form of a of a blanket or a mobile above a child's head. It's a transparent way to comfort people who are scared of the unknown or the unbearable.

 

If a child was in bed before he knew they never existed they always believed there were monsters in their closet or under their bed, they are told that say, a blanket, will keep them away and of course they believe it and it keeps them safe when really it doesn't in actual fact the problem just wasn't a threat.

 

It is similar with religion if someone is scared of death they turn to religion to give them illusions of grandeur that there is an afterlife which will grant them their wildest dreams when, more than likely they will just be dead and decomposing.

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that something which is based on astronomy and star signs originally (I will discuss the way in which it is based on this if anyone wishes to get into it) is capable of saving their life or giving them everything beyond their wildest dreams.

 

I'm all for people being comfortable and finding a way to cope with death, but that's all religion is and ever will be. A coping mechanism.

 

We could find a better idea one day that possibly doesn't fuel war and chaos throughout the globe due to conflicting ideas of equally ludicrous beliefs.

 

Discuss.

[Phi for All]

We have certain strengths as a species. Really high intelligence. Upright walking frees our hands for tool use. An outrageous ability to communicate in fine detail. Cooperative skills that allow for innovation rather than hive-mind. There's more, but it's really the combination that gives birth to our imaginations, which turns out to be a very bittersweet effect.

 

We imagine both good and bad things, and we fear the bad, often to the point of irrationality. Personally, I think it was being able to look into the shadows and imagine the tiger threatening the village that kept our ancestors alert and alive. Given the evolutionary success of being able to imagine things you couldn't actually sense directly, it's not hard to see how that became, "There must be someone like us, but greater than us, who we can't see but does these things we don't understand".

 

As we've matured, we've used the curious parts of our imaginations to help us understand, and in the last few centuries we've confirmed that every explanation has its foundations in a very real, very rational world that doesn't require supernatural behavior. But our imaginations continue to insist that there must be more that we can't see yet. And for some, you're absolutely right, it's a comforting blanket that does no harm and a lot of good.

 

It really shouldn't be hard to understand why many people are afraid. And understanding this is crucial, imo, because incredulity is a passive and fallacious argument, and won't help with the main problem, making sure a group's beliefs don't become violent with respect to those outside the group. Ignorance is almost always the foundation that agendas are built upon.

[Roamer]

Religion is probably the best coping mechanism for death we currently have,

but religion is also a mix of morales and laws

(there are rules in religion, but unlike law they're not enforced by, well, force )

 

Most of our social constructs(morals, politics, economics, culture, science) are based on make-believe, where illusion becomes (close to)reality.

Constructs that fail to somehow address reality get discarded.

[Stormier]

I whole heartedly understand why people are afraid, my point was more that religion, in the current sense, is not the way forward by any sense. I don't discredit it completely, I merely point to the facts which show religion has gone from being a nice, family-based coping mechanism to being the root of many wars, conflicts and monetary problems globally which hinder our ability to move forward and find if there is anything "bigger" than us. I don't debunk religion, I debunk the current form of it. As to my original point of it being fear based, I did not say it was a bad thing that we are scared, I just think there are many a better way to deal with those fears than to revert to the above (war etc.).

 

Religion isn't new in the scheme of things, nor is jihad on countries on colonies due to their religious views and faiths however, you would think that since we no longer live in the dark ages and are civilized in the most part we would have a much more serious look at how to re-evaluate not the religious viewpoint but the way in which it is conducted around the world.

 

No mechanism is perfect, they all have holes, mine included. I find peace in the fact that when I die if I do good and try to prevent wars and save the planet my children and children's children will be in good stead which isn't, as we know, necessarily the case.

 

I just feel, in my opinion, which of course is neither right nor wrong, there needs to be a better way to do this I don't care if it's religion, or any other method but it just needs to be conducted in a more 21st century way.

[Phi for All]

Religion isn't new in the scheme of things, nor is jihad on countries on colonies due to their religious views and faiths however, you would think that since we no longer live in the dark ages and are civilized in the most part we would have a much more serious look at how to re-evaluate not the religious viewpoint but the way in which it is conducted around the world.

 

...

 

I just feel, in my opinion, which of course is neither right nor wrong, there needs to be a better way to do this I don't care if it's religion, or any other method but it just needs to be conducted in a more 21st century way.

 

I think you hit the nail here. Our "civilization" is currently made up of a large part of 21st century processes, and a large part of Dark Ages processes, with another large part stuck somewhere in the Puritan era.

 

The more hidebound an ideology is, the less personal and more evangelistic it becomes, imo. The need to convert people or consider them outsiders is where this practice is really detrimental to our civilization.

 

The better way you mention, again imo, is a secular education for everyone on the planet. Knowledge will provide clean water, good food, better buildings, less corruption, healthier economies, stronger social structure, and a whole host of other benefits that will help lessen the fear that can make people act irrationally.

[Roamer]

It's realy centuries ago we waged war in the name of religion against "heretics"

Nowadays we wage war in the name of "freedom" against "drugs" "communism" and "terrorists"

Same game, different propaganda.

[Stormier]

In the developed world yes, I agree. In the third world however, and the middle east(Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine so and and so forth) religion is about the only factor which causes war and conflict.

[NowakScience]

 

Religion isn't new in the scheme of things, nor is jihad on countries on colonies due to their religious views and faiths however, you would think that since we no longer live in the dark ages and are civilized in the most part we would have a much more serious look at how to re-evaluate not the religious viewpoint but the way in which it is conducted around the world.

 

I find peace in the fact that when I die if I do good and try to prevent wars and save the planet my children and children's children will be in good stead which isn't, as we know, necessarily the case.

 

You really did just hit the nail on the head with those two sentences.

I honestly can't see a reason other than comfort for someone to devote their life to a leap of blind-faith.

Edited May 11, 2014 by NowakScience

[Stormier]

A reform is needed, it happens in legislature daily I don't understand why religion can't keep up. People are still following a belief that was around when we believed we were the centre of the universe, that the world was flat and witches were roaming the earth.

 

For things to co-exist they must evolve coherently.

 

In the more positive though, the current pope I believe could actually be a "god-send" (pardon the pun) at least for Catholicism, he seems to be taking things with a far more modern view than any previous (contraception, homosexuality so on so forth) so maybe this will be something he will consider in his term, let's all hope.

[Marshalscienceguy]

This is my first post on the forum, I have done a quick search regarding this and can't find a previous post on the forum so I apologise if its a repost.

 

My point I would wish to discuss here is that religion is the adult form of a of a blanket or a mobile above a child's head. It's a transparent way to comfort people who are scared of the unknown or the unbearable.

 

If a child was in bed before he knew they never existed they always believed there were monsters in their closet or under their bed, they are told that say, a blanket, will keep them away and of course they believe it and it keeps them safe when really it doesn't in actual fact the problem just wasn't a threat.

 

It is similar with religion if someone is scared of death they turn to religion to give them illusions of grandeur that there is an afterlife which will grant them their wildest dreams when, more than likely they will just be dead and decomposing.

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks that something which is based on astronomy and star signs originally (I will discuss the way in which it is based on this if anyone wishes to get into it) is capable of saving their life or giving them everything beyond their wildest dreams.

 

I'm all for people being comfortable and finding a way to cope with death, but that's all religion is and ever will be. A coping mechanism.

 

We could find a better idea one day that possibly doesn't fuel war and chaos throughout the globe due to conflicting ideas of equally ludicrous beliefs.

 

Discuss.

I think someone figured out people are not always willing to be good people without fear of something bad happening for doing bad. This is the same reason we have a law book for the government because we know people are not always going to be genuine. I believe it was an attempt to counter this. Now if it was really a message of god is another matter but I do believe this was the intention.Now morals are subjective so peoples idea of whats bad seems to vary from person to person. This is affected by culture and tradition and personal beliefs created on experience. Why you cant really Subjectively prove why your morals are correct because everyone has different morals. The bible follows the same principle as mom or dad saying "Sit down and behave or I will hit you/beat you/spank you/ground you". Why God is often refereed to as "The Father". Since Father knows best. Though really without some sense of order we would have chaos. So even if you get rid of the bible some sort of system of checks and balances will always exist. Since someone is always going to try and keep some kind of structure. I do believe its a means of getting people to behave but so is the law. Instead of crime the bible has sins and the sins warrant punishments depending on your crime. Just like crime get you different punishments depending on what you do.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[PeterJ]

Hi Stormier

 

I see where you're coming from, and you hold a common view. Unfortunately your post displays a dire lack of knowledge of religion. What you say would be true for some religious doctrines and some religious people. For instance, there are parts of Buddhist doctrine that are openly acknowledged to be taught as a comfort rather than as the precise truth. But then, some scientists deny all religion on the basis of no knowledge, and we do not accuse science of being a comfort blanket just because a few people use it as one.

 

The point is, when it comes down to it, is that if we find a religious doctrine or belief a comfort this would have no bearing whatsoever on its truth or falsity. So calling religion a consolation for our sorrows is not a criticism but a compliment. If you think that this is all it is, then this view is easily overcome by a bit of googling. In reality, religion is often completely terrifying, and no comfort at all. For religion at its best one is asked to face the facts and to verify them. This is no picnic.

 

But yes, for many 'believers' consolation and comfort would be more important than discovering the facts. There is a reason why ignorance is often confused with bliss.

[iNow]

In the developed world yes, I agree. In the third world however, and the middle east(Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine so and and so forth) religion is about the only factor which causes war and conflict.

I'm no fan of the problems brought by religion, but your comment above is just wrong. It ignores deeper and more ancestral issues of the need for resources and basic goods for survival.

 

Most commonly on our planet, especially with ever quickening global climate change, violence comes about due to a lack of potable water in drought stricken lands or lack of adequate nutrition and shelter. We also see it in context of oil and other highly prized goods like diamonds, but more commonly we see this type of struggle come up due to a lack of opportunity and also unfair or corrupt distribution of those opportunities.

 

While tribal groupings and religious sectarianism will most certainly exacerbate these issues and while sometimes differences in these indoctrinated ideologies are the direct cause of violence/war/conflict, it is NOT accurate to suggest they are "the only factor which causes war and conflict."

 

 

In reality, religion is often completely terrifying, and no comfort at all. For religion at its best one is asked to face the facts and to verify them.

This suggestion that religion is about terror contradicts the core and foundational teachings of most, and strikes me as a very disingenuous argument. We know for a fact that a very large number of people go toward religion precisely because the idea it offers them that there exists a deeper meaning to existence and a potential for a better life after death which offers them solace and peace in an otherwise chaotic world.

 

We also know that religious practice tends to be far more common among those who are deeper in poverty, experience daily struggle in their lives, and lack education relative to their nonreligious peers. While some parts of religion are "completely terrifying," those tend to be treated as punishments for the "wrong" behavior that can be avoided for the "right" behavior. This is actually a GREAT comfort to most, as it offers a simple code and set of instructions to follow. No longer are they asked to make difficult moral decisions amid vague and confusing circumstances. Instead, they have a playbook that says, "If X, then Y." That is a massive comfort for most people, and in this context even the most "terrifying" parts of religion are pretty mild. Further, we tend to see people compartmentalize those negative parts away and ignore them completely.

 

Also, I must say that you're reading of religion as being best when "facing facts and verifying them" seems to be a minority view. Countless examples show that religious people (especially among Christians and especially in the US) tend to only accept those facts that align with their preconceptions and they tend to ignore facts which negate or rebut it. Their belief comes first and facts matter little (if they are even considered at all). Case in point: Evolution denial or the argument that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I'm not saying every religious person is a young earth creationist, only that your position that religion seeks facts is specious, at best.

 

Finally (and this is more to the overall thread topic), I think some people turn to religion because they are afraid, but it's inaccurate to suggest all do. There are far deeper social and biological reasons why people are religious. More often it's about fitting in with the local tribe or group or community and having leaders or parents that taught us what and how to think during our most formative years. It's about how our brains have evolved to look for simple patterns and stories that explain the unknown. It's about many things, and fear is just one possible option.

Edited May 16, 2014 by iNow

[PeterJ]

I didn't say religion was about terror, and I certainly didn't mean to suggest that many people become religious in response to terror. Nor did I say all religiously-minded people are seekers after truth. But the core of religion, which many believers never approach for fear of what they'll discover, is the abandonment of the ego and, in a sense, of life itself. The journey has terrifying moments that are well attested and described. .

 

Someone here once recounted an experience at the dentist during which he came face to face with the void, and could not proceed for fearfulness. This is what I was meaning, the journey towards knowledge can be frightening.

 

Note that when I use the word 'believer' it is not entirely flattering. Of course many people believe religion is about believing all sorts of things, but this is what one could call lay-religion, the Sunday part-timers.and dabblers, those who pursue fantasies of magic and superstition. or what the Vedas disparagingly call the 'hymn-reciters'. This is definitely an aspect of religion, especially where it becomes dogmatic, that is wide open to criticism. But as educated people we ought to be able to see past this. .

[iNow]

Nor did I say all religiously-minded people are seekers after truth.

Try not to move the goalposts here. You originally mentioned "facts," and that is where I focused my comments. Truth is (while sometimes related) a separate concept entirely.

 

 

Note that when I use the word 'believer' it is not entirely flattering. Of course many people believe religion is about believing all sorts of things, but this is what one could call lay-religion, the Sunday part-timers.and dabblers, those who pursue fantasies of magic and superstition. or what the Vedas disparagingly call the 'hymn-reciters'.

I encourage you to reconsider this reply as you've essentially just engaged in the no-true-scotsman fallacy. Those things you reference are all VERY MUCH tied to religion in many/most cases, even if your personal experience with theism is somewhat more sophisticated and nuanced.

 

 

We're getting off topic, though. The OP discusses how people are religious due to fear... they use it as a "security blanket." Given posts to this thread thus far, it appears that you and I agree that (while this may be true for some) this is an oversimplification and not terribly accurate for many. For the reasons already mentioned, and more yet to be mentioned, that assessment is false for quite a large number of theists and religious practitioners.

[PeterJ]

I am not a theist, so my experience with it is probably irrelevant. But yes, those things I mentioned are 'tied' to religion, as you say.

 

I didn't mean to be rude to anyone by what I said. But we don't look at what high school students or amateurs do in order to define science, we look at what senior scientists do. With religion we tend to look at what lay people do., and unsurprisingly we end up with a vast spectrum of views on religion.

 

The thing is, even if a lot of people turn to religion purely out of fear, the search for consolation or whatever, this would have no bearing on what religion is or what it has to say. Unless we know this, then our views on why people become religious are going to be all about psychology and sociology, and have little relevance to religion itself.

 

If lots of people turn to religion for inadequate or muddled reasons, then what does this tell us about religion. Not a lot, it seems to me.

Edited May 17, 2014 by PeterJ

[tar]

Stomier,

 

Although I agree that the rainbow bridge is not real, and that it is a comfort, it was still a consideration I allowed, as I read the card sent out by the vet after we put our "Shady" to sleep.

 

Was it "fear" that drove me to imagine crossing the bridge and seeing Shady frolicking in the field and bounding toward me.

 

I don't think so.

 

 

I was reading Kant a while back, and he mentioned something about life after death. I realized he was not talking about considering his own life after his own death, but considering that others would be alive, after his death. Life after death is something we all consider in this regard. Otherwise it would not be important for us to leave a better world for our children or for anyone that lives after we do.

 

Common for people to worship their ancestors, as it is evident, that the people that came before us, in some large number, sought to make the world a better place for us.

 

But fear? Fear of dying being the only reason for religion?

 

I think not. I think its more like love that fuels religion.

 

And although its difficult to see through the fog and unbelievable that there is what seems like just pure evil in the world, when some guys bury a woman alive for 8,000 bucks, or shoot up a school because they were teased as a child, I would guess that no man or woman alive loves life and their family, and their group and their world, because of fear.

 

The only fear operating in the general sense, applicable to all, would be perhaps the fear of losing life.

 

Evidently this loss is something no good person can abide.

 

Regards, TAR

[PeterJ]

Nice post Tar. And a great point about love.

 

But loss of life is not a matter to fear for everyone. In general the sages and prophets either laugh at it or are unconcerned. Some seem almost gleeful when contemplating their departure from this temporal world. The methods and practices of religion would be pointless if they did not lead to an understanding of life and death, for how can a person be truly happy while they still fear death?

[iNow]

Although I agree that the rainbow bridge is not real, and that it is a comfort, it was still a consideration I allowed, as I read the card sent out by the vet after we put our "Shady" to sleep.

 

Was it "fear" that drove me to imagine crossing the bridge and seeing Shady frolicking in the field and bounding toward me.

 

I don't think so.

I would actually argue the contrary, especially if viewed in a Buddhist or Taoist sense. Instead of being present in the moment and being authentic with your sense of loss and sorrow, you chose to distract your mind and replace your feelings of grief with a comforting fiction.

 

You chose (whether consciously or unconsciously) to "imagine crossing the bridge and seeing shady frolicking in the field and bounding towards" you. While I do not fault you for making that choice, I do think it's important to acknowledge that you did, in fact, choose not to be present with your pain and anguish, at least in that moment.

 

Again, I do not fault you for making that choice, but if we are being honest about the reasons you probably made it then we must consider that you were seeking to avoid discomfort and that you were trying to displace your negative emotions.

 

Surely, you can see how one might suggest that a form of fear and anxiety was involved there and make a valid argument that these were inherent in your choice to allow the easy fiction of the rainbow bridge to replace the difficult truth of your loss, and that perhaps you are being too quick to dismiss the idea that a form of fear truly was involved in that choice.

Edited May 17, 2014 by iNow

[tar]

peterj,

 

Well yes you can't both fear and love the same thing, except in the senses of fear that mean respect and awe and revere and such.

 

I am an atheist and explained as much through my tears at my Mom's memorial as I spoke. Said that we held the memory of my Mom in our memories, and that she was being held in the arms of Jesus, whom she loved. Makes no real difference which parts of that statement you take figuratively or literally, I meant the words I said, and everybody there, religious or not, understood the meaning.

 

I know you know this already PeterJ, because we have talked before about this, but I believe the sages and the wise know no better than the fool about life and death, truth and reality. There is no special key required to experience life, that has not already been given to, or taken by, anything alive. Whether a rich man or a butter cup, the "secret" is already out.

 

Regards, TAR

 

My mom was not afraid the days before she died. Her last words to me were "You've been a good son."

I don't think I will be so unanxious when my time grows near. Maybe, maybe not, but I would like to be able to look my daughters in the eyes and assure them "it will be alright". I am not now, and probably will not be then, "afraid", of death. But considering that life is the only thing you have, it is at least, really INAPPROPRIATE, that you die.

[iNow]

you can't both fear and love the same thing...

Sure you can. Just think of a much bigger older brother who bullies you, or a father who beats you. You still love them, but you also fear them.

[tar]

iNow,

 

We cross posted.

 

I agree with you that I replaced some bad feelings with good, but I still authentically had the sorrow and loss, and know darn well there is NOT an actual bridge like that. But being authentic is not something I am a foreigner to. I take the grief and the loss, and cry just like everybody else.

 

My general drift, from a logical point of view, when it comes to discussions about religion, and imaginary beliefs, and "ideal" considerations of all sorts, is that from a 30,000 ft view, all people on Earth, are pretty much in the same boat. That is, we can all talk to each other about life and meaning, and reality, because we are all here doing it. Nobody has a "leg up" in this regard. Nobody is "better" at it, than anybody else. Nobody holds the secret to it, or knows somebody else's mind, better than that somebody else, knows their own. Nobody.

 

There is a logical problem with that determination I just made, when it comes to eliteism and people in power, who are normally the people a standard deviation or two out to the right of the bell curve, who might very well really know better than some on the left hand side of the curve, but that is another discussion. To this discussion I would have to add that anybody that is not concerned about their death, is doing others that are alive, a disservice, by suggesting it is possible to be so cavalier about something so evidently crucial.

 

As in, sure I know by Uncle and Cousin are not playing golf in heaven, but as long as that is the way the family is choosing to look at it, for a moment, and a grief releiving laugh, it remains genuine, and does not attept to "skirt" reality.

 

You and I have talked before on this, concerning the ability we have to converse with an unseen other. To put ourselves in the shoes of another, and to rely on the "opinions" of imaginary friends.

 

You know me well enough to know when I am being genuine, and when I am making stuff up.

 

Neither of us can assume though that we know the other 8 billion folk on the planet well enough to tell them when they are being appropriately afraid, or irrationally afraid, nor do either of us, or PeterJ's sages, know enough to rationally, laugh at death.

 

Regards, TAR

Inow,

 

We cross posted again.

 

Was talking with an older gentleman just the other day about a father who beat him. Said he could have stood up to him, but did not. Took it out on some others in street fights instead.

 

Yeah, you can love and fear at the same time. But its that respect type of fear.

 

Like when they talk about "fear of God".

 

Even bullies you can "love". Had a situation in front of my highschool where a "hood" picked a fight with a "longhair"(me). The fight was stopped by the loud speaker calling us both to the office. He was always getting in trouble, so I could have easily gotten him into some more, but I said "it was just a misunderstanding". The next day a friend of mine asked why, during the fight, as I was getting punched in the head, every time I got through his defenses I open my fist and "touch" his face. said "that is the way my dad and I would play fight, and that is the way my uncle and I would play fight, and I had no intention of hurting him". After the "fight" we "the bully" and I would say hello in the halls, and the hoods and the longhairs got along better after the incident.

 

So, I think for the purposes of this discussion, we need to know what type of "fear" it is, that the OP is suggesting religion engenders.

 

Regards, TAR

[PeterJ]

What an unambitious approach to knowledge you choose to take. It seems to derive from a few unnecessary assumptions But each to his own.

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

Not unambitious, just realistic.

 

There is no question that the world is larger and more long lived than I. Following is that there is no question that the world is larger and more long lived than you.

 

Since the world is larger and more long lived than either of us, there is neither one of us that is larger and more long lived than the world.

 

If you and I both, are in and of the world which is larger and more long lived than either of us, than neither of us can be larger and more long lived than the world.

 

A human body/brain/heart group is in and of the world, it senses and remembers the world and predicts and modifies the world, but "contains" the world, only in model and analogy, not in actuality. In actually, the world contains the human.

 

Not that the sages are not correct in their long repeated conclusions, but what is figurative and what is literal, what is actual and what is model, is of utmost importance to maintain and differenciate between, when it comes to being realistic.

 

One of the Eastern tenants is that one must deny the self, to understand the Brahman, but then a sage goes ahead and claims they have reached nirvana, and everybody else is lacking the right idea, the proper attitude, the "secret".

 

How exactly would this claim make any sense. It would be exactly a selfish claim that would negate the possibility that the sage had "actually" become one with the cosmos.

 

I have noticed that when sages reach nirvana, they do not take the rest of us, with them. They go it alone. They do it by themselves.

 

Now, many have felt one with the universe, so its probably a natural condition, especially since there is none of us that is not in and of the universe, by definition.

 

So, why claim special rights? It belongs to us all, already.

 

Regards, TAR

[PeterJ]

Imam Ali, immediate successor to the Prophet Mohammed, writes 'Dost thou think thyself a puny being, when with thee the universe is enfolded'.

 

So I don't understand your criticism.

 

It's like asking Andy Murray, when he won Wimbledon, why he didn't immediately teach the rest of us how to win it, and accusing him of keeping it a secret.

 

There are lots of reasons to doubt the teachings of the sages if we do not share their knowledge, but what they teach cannot be reduced to absurdity. You talk about the universe being infinitely large, the Dalai Lama talks about the world in a single atom. This is because you reify space and time. If you do this then, yes, the teaching would not make sense.

Edited May 18, 2014 by PeterJ

[tar]

PeterJ,

 

But the topic here, is fear of death.

 

The Eastern Religions suggest that a particular consciousness is on an eternal journey that the mortal body has nothing much to do with. That you have to deny the flesh, so to speak, to embrace the spirit is also a tenent of Tora/Biblical/Koran teachings.

 

The idea that one can kill in the name of Allah is rather a strange idea for a Moslem to hold, or that such an idea could fuel a crusade from the Christian side. Same logical situation (or illogical) is embedded in the image of a sage, on top of a mountian, knowing the truth, and becoming ONE with the universe, BY HIMSELF.

 

If you pretend that knowing the "secrets" of the Vedas, actually allows a self to be not a self, but one with the cosmos, you can not similtaneously pretend that it is only you that has made the trip.

 

On the other hand, if you assume, in my unambitious way, that the truth is, we are already completely signed up as universe material and energy, and already completely immersed in it and cognizant of it, as conscious humans, aware of this particular place, and this particular time, as our focus, BECAUSE of the self involved, then not only have we already made the trip, but suggesting you could do it, without the body/brain/heart group that is sensing and remembering and holding the model of the thing, is utterly baseless, imaginary, made up, unrealistic pretense.

 

If your lack of fear of death is based on pretense, then you might just as well go along with the rainbow bridge, as with the "sages".

 

Regards, TAR