Purpose of Working Magick - IMO

Over the course of several weeks, perhaps even months, various writers in the blogosphere have been opining about using magick to cause shifts in probability, bending reality or producing outright miracles, either through the “Black Swan” paradigm or by just expecting magick to produce what it has been advertised to produce since earliest times. It would seem that magick is perceived as just a mechanism for causing change to occur according to the magician’s will, in some form or another. However, as the ever dissenting voice that is raised in contrast to the present ululations of how magick should work (miracles vs. probability shifts), I wonder aloud if the real purpose of magick has somehow been lost or just omitted.

This brings to mind a question that I have probably answered more than once over the course of the last year and a half, which I have written in articles posted to this blog, and that question is “why do we work magick?” Do we work magick to just make our lives more advantageous, blessed with material success and personal power? Is that the purpose for magick? Or do we work magick to cause godlike miracles to occur, showing ourselves to be godlike and almighty. Does magick, properly coordinated and worked, make the magician operator into a guaranteed winner?

Of course, for every winner there are a lot of losers, this is true in sports as well as life. For every miracle sought, very, very few ever manifest.  Still, a more simplistic judgement is that the only success in life is survival, and that everything else is merely superfluous. That would translate into the rule of thumb that if you have survived your ordeals in life, no matter what they are, then you are a success. The downside to that logic is that eventually everyone dies, so at some point in life, everyone is a loser.

Success, just like any condition of good fortune is, unfortunately, very ephemeral, whatever ruler you use to judge it. In the greater scheme of things, a person is born, lives, and then later dies, regardless of how great, successful, humble or inadequate - death is great equalizer, as always. This is why the Tarot Trump, “Wheel of Fortune” is such a compelling study for those who seek to master their lives, or at least, it should be. Next to that card in importance is Death and the Hanged Man, but that is another topic altogether.

Yet we still haven’t answered the most essential question as to why we work magick. If life is full of chance occurrences, opportunities, disasters, and a lot of boring same-ness, then applying magick to life situations may improve them, perhaps slightly or even better, but more often it doesn’t make a real lot of difference in the long run. The real purpose to working magick, in my humble opinion, is to cause just one great but essential miracle to occur, and that is the miracle of total godhead assumption and all that proceeds from that achievement.

Other names for this achievement are enlightenment, achievement of Atman (God/dess Within), conscious illumination, cosmic consciousness, Godhead realization, the immortality of individual consciousness and the ability to accept the role of divine mediator, to do whatever is required, however great or small. To be a functional spiritual avatar doesn’t mean that you are suddenly a great person endowed with godlike powers, it means that you understand your purpose and role in life, and seek to unthinkingly and selflessly perform it.

What that means is that the petty ego and it’s needs for status, power, wealth, love and happiness are completely subsumed to the point where they are no longer even relevant. It requires the greatest sacrifice that one can offer. That sacrifice is the willing abrogation and elimination of the outer external self, which is shown to be an illusion and an obstacle to perfectly channeling the Godhead. That, in my opinion, is the purpose of working magick. Wealth, career success, fame, glory, the adoration of the crowd, sexual gratification, these are the many illusions and delusions that confront both mystic and magician alike, and seek to upend and thwart the simple and pure aspiration for union with the One.  

If you think for a moment of what it must be like attaining union with whatever you perceive as the Godhead, and then trying to imagine how that would personally affect you if it did indeed occur, it would suddenly seem kind of odd to think about all of the small things that beset you in your current life situation. They would have receded far into the background of what would be a completely new and redefined existence. It would also make the endless pursuit after the various material accouterments of a comfortable and successful life seem sort of small and petty, and indeed, in the larger scheme of things, they would be.

Does that mean that striving to better ourselves in the material world is a fruitless pursuit, a folly that will cause us to be distracted at best, suborned in our spiritual search at worst? No it doesn’t somehow mean that all material pursuits are wrong or misguided. We do what we have to do to maximize our potential, but we do it both within a material and spiritual dimension. All the while we are living and struggling with our material existence, we should never loose our focus on that ultimate achievement, which is union with the Godhead. Everything that we do should selflessly and relentlessly promote our ultimate spiritual apotheosis, anything else is a distraction. Our True Will should be to achieve that perfect union with the One, and all that we engage in and encounter should merely aid in that process.

In my first published book, “Disciple’s Guide to Ritual Magick,” I wrote some pretty compelling things in regards to the seeker and what he or she is seeking, and also what can cause that search to fail or come to grinding halt. I would like to quote from that section of the book (chapter 3.6, pages 83 - 85), using the more raw pre-published text because it manages to express these ideas in a more direct manner. I’ll let you be the judge, and see if this section doesn’t succinctly answer the question as to why we should work magick and what our ultimate goal should be. To achieve at-one-ment with the Godhead is to take a profound journey through the strata of higher consciousness, but the goal is never to glorify in the achievement or the outward effects, but to unswervingly seek the goal itself.

“Ken Wilber, in his book, ‘The Atman Project’ (chapter 13, p. 183 - 185) outlines the difficulties and the challenges that one must face in order to truly gain, in a permanent fashion, these higher states of consciousness. Whether one is aware of it or not, we’re all seeking enlightenment. It’s the fundamental drive that pushes all of us through the vicissitudes of life. However, there are forces within us that disguise our motives or lock us in a static mental state of development where complacency and comfort are far more important than gaining any kind of new vista or spiritual perspective in life. We all begin our paths with the same objective, union with the All, but very early we are thwarted by the necessities of life, and we must at some point return to the fundamental quest of all being-ness, if we are to find true fulfillment and completion. We should make certain we always question our motives and the nature of our quest in life, so that we have not substituted our goal of perfect at-one-ment of Atman for some kind of imperfect and shallow surrogate, an ‘Atman Project.’

The ultimate nature of reality, according to Wilber, is an emptiness or voidness, but one that is not a true emptiness that is void of all forms or features. It is also a unified field of holism, where all space and time, and even consciousness itself is part of one seamless whole. The ultimate reality and the ultimate state of consciousness are one and the same, a kind of ‘super conscious All’ (p. 184). This unity is the only true reality, and all else is an illusion, particularly anything that is egoically or independently real. Even in the nature of Deity itself, there is only the timeless, transcendent one-ness, and so there is no difference between anything, even between man and God. What this entails is that we’re all part of a greater whole, and that magick is a process that has validity and power because of this wholeness, and cannot be comprehended outside of this unity of being and its various conscious derivatives, since it operates on and through that wholeness.

To be an individual, even an individual god, is to exist in an illusion, since everything is truly one and indivisible. We exist as separate entities glorifying in our uniqueness and our individuality, but we are also seemingly always seeking for something apart from ourselves, and that quest is also an illusion, since everything is whole and subsumed into the oneness. Therefore, living beings, in order to function and survive, have learned to suppress this perception of one-ness, since at the level of the undeveloped or Typhonic state it would lead to a disintegration of the self. At the trans-personal or Centauric level, the boundaries between the oneness and our individuality must be breached, and done so in a manner that does not destroy that individual, but illuminates one instead. Therefore, we live through the illusion of individual entities existing in space and time in order to function, but the irony is that we must transcend this state because it is a barrier to attaining the highest levels of consciousness. What this means is that whether or not we are aware of it, our ultimate quest is for oneness and unity, the ‘rediscovery of this infinite and eternal wholeness’ (p. 184).

Before the emanation of spiritual creation, where Spirit was imbedded in matter, there was the wholeness that is oneness, and we seek that wholeness that is [a] oneness within ourselves. That is the nature of the spiritual quest that the seeker seeks - to be one within the wholeness of the All, our perception of Atman, or God/dess Within.

However, the means to obtaining this sublime state necessitates the death or dissolution of the ego. This perception of ego death is frightening to the individual, especially at the Centauric level, since the ego has become invested with autonomy, and seemingly drunk on its own empowerment and uniqueness. The irony is that to die, the seeker learns to truly live and perceive reality as it actually is, without the limitations of time and space. But getting past that boundary is the most difficult task that seekers can face, and usually they become trapped into accepting their own ego as a surrogate god, thus denying their ability or willingness to evolve to the next higher level. Many occultists have failed this greatest test. Yet the desire for attaining those higher states, and the union of All-Being continues its alluring and seductive siren call, and we as seekers always seem to hear and are drawn to it. It is the ultimate approach-avoidance conflict.

It’s for this reason, because we greatly desire this ultimate achievement and we also greatly fear it, that we end up choosing surrogates instead of actual transcendence. Substitutes range greatly in terms of their variety, and they are usually huge distractions that take the seeker far away from true attainment, such as the usual sensual additions of food and drink, drugs, sex, fame, money, power, and knowledge, but also hidden addictions, such as hubris, self-righteousness, prejudice, misplaced or false piety, cynicism, apathy, and a loss of soul. All seekers truly seek for is the attainment of oneness, but what they actually get if they fail the test is a substitute gratification that makes them think that they have achieved the great quest. Therefore, we must always carefully examine our motives, and ask ourselves the fatal question - are we truly seeking Atman, or are we engaging in a diversion? That question can’t be quickly or easily answered, but we must be aware of what is motivating us, and at what level of our being. At some point in the career of magicians, they must step outside themselves and transcend all of these prior limitations, or be faced with living out their lives with those same limitations forever haunting them. They must [instead] cease working magick, and instead become the magick.”

I hope that this helps to convince my readers that the true purpose of magick is union with the One, and that all else is a potential diversion, an “Atman project” instead of true Atman.

Frater Barrabbas

Belief, Faith and Experience - Levels of Experiencing Religion

I wish to continue to discuss the social categories and dynamics of religion, picking up where I left off with the discussion of legitimacy and authenticity. I would like to now focus on the three types of religious sentiment, and look at belief, faith and experience and how they can shape a religious organization as well as the opinions and practices of the individual adherent.


This brings us to the discussion of the three fundamental levels of experiencing religion, as based upon the definitions of religion given previously. Ken Wilber proposes (in the book “A Sociable God”) that there are three basic levels to religious practice and adherence, and these are belief, faith and experience. (See chapter 6, pages 105 - 111.)

Belief is the lowest level achievable by a member of a religious body because it does not require any examination or analysis of one’s creed. It only requires a complete embrasure and acceptance of a codified belief system or doctrine. Believers do not question their beliefs. They tend to interpret liturgy and sacred scriptures in a literal sense, and negatively judge those who are either outside of the faith or dare question any of the foundational beliefs that make up the base of that creed. Believers are passionate, often anti-intellectual and zealous because they adhere unconditionally to dogma and doctrine, and eagerly proselytize their beliefs to others. Religious wars, crusades and terrorist attacks are typically promoted by a minority of overly zealous believers. Tolerance and inclusiveness are usually not their modus operandi, since to admit anything different than what is dictated in their religious creed would, in their mind, jeopardize their belief entirely. Those virtues typically characterize individuals who have begun to actually examine their beliefs and question their basic spiritual assumptions.

The next level is faith, which represents a state where believers have progressed to the point of examining the nature of their beliefs, allowing for the intrusion of doubt, speculation and the inclusion of alternative perspectives; something that would have been impossible for a believer. To those who have faith, beliefs are not the source of their religious involvement, but rather it is an intuition of Deity, where they begin to apprehend a Godhead that has become more intimate and transcendental. Therefore, those who have faith avoid any kind of literal interpretation to doctrine, liturgy or sacred scriptures. Faith is a religious perspective that can admit that spirituality is full of paradoxical qualities which can’t be fully explained or determined through doctrine or dogma. Faith is a natural maturation of belief, and leads its adherents ultimately to become spiritual seekers.

We should keep in mind that zealous believers are also typically provided a great deal of spiritual experience through an active pursuit and full engagement of their religious doctrines. Yet this acts as a mechanism for merely reinforcing what they already believe. Still, that kind of spiritual experience is closely guarded, carefully defined and rigorously controlled by the religious organization that sponsors it, whereas people of faith seek their experiences independently and even outside of their mainstream religion.

This leads us to the next level, which is that of spiritual experience. Experience is superior to both belief and faith, since it is a kind of knowledge of Spirit that is outside and beyond the usual confines of a religious creed. Experience verifies the tenets of a religion, but usually in a manner that reveals far more than the original intent of those tenets. This is why spiritual experience can be considered dangerous and inimical to the dogmatic practices and rigid doctrines of the believer.

Spiritual experience is where individuals have direct and unsupervised encounters with the Deity, as a deeper perception of Spirit or a peak experience, either of which allows for a temporary insight into (and influence from) one of the authentic trans-personal realms. (Wilber has called these the psychic, subtle or causal domains of higher consciousness.) Spiritual experiences can also cause powerful cathartic realizations to occur, generating a profound internal transformation that can become permanent. Experiences are ephemeral, even when they cause transformations, so seekers are required to integrate those experiences into their base of spiritual knowledge, translating their messages from a deeply personal and subjective sphere into one that is objective and easily understood by others.

The integration of spiritual experiences into one’s personal spiritual knowledge is a process of structural adaptation. A peak experience is fleeting, despite the fact that it represents an authentic spiritual experience; it needs to be examined and analyzed so that it can become part of the seeker’s permanent knowledge of things spiritual. A single peak experience can’t alter the conscious mind of spiritual seekers, but a series of them can and do alter seekers in a very profound and permanent manner. The process of continual spiritual experience, which builds one’s spiritual knowledge through adaptation, also fosters a corresponding process of transformative growth and an incremental expansion of conscious.

So we have belief, faith and experience, representing the three levels of religious expression. Each of these levels represents progressive stages of spiritual maturity, knowledge and insight, which an individual acquires as they seek to directly apprehend the nature of the Godhead. But what of the nature of the various religions themselves? Certainly, the qualities of belief, faith and experience would be quite different depending on the nature of the organization in which they occur. Some religious organizations and institutions are closed off and don’t allow individuals to directly experience the numinous manifestation of the Deity; others require their members to ultimately move up this ladder of realization.

In the next stage of our consideration of religion, we should examine the different kinds of spiritual organizations that exist, particularly those in the U.S. We should examine the “source” religion as it is found within the underlying strata of our culture, and how that source religion changed and split up over the past century. We should additionally note that all religions are in some fashion the same and they are also quite different, nor should we eliminate quasi religious political systems or even atheism from our considerations.

This leads us to examine the nature of religion itself, to determine the structures and dimensions found within the cultural matrix in which they occur. One of the more insightful and valuable points that Ken Wilber makes in his book is that academics who study the sociology of religion have developed a theory which states that all religions seem to be fundamentally the same at their core or “deep level,” and that obvious differences are believed to be just surface translations. This theory was proposed in the 1960's by the eminent sociologist and professor, Robert Bellah, and distilled by Wilber in his book.

Bellah’s theory subscribes to the notion that all religions are the same, even though through a deeper analysis, this notion appears to be superficial and does little to explain the intrinsic nature of religions and their obvious differences. Adhering to this theory forces scholars to ignore rather than explain the differences between religions. Although somewhat limited by today’s standards, his theory was ground breaking nonetheless. Bellah’s approach to theorizing the function and structure of religion is  referred to as “symbolic realism.” This theory is presently in the process of being augmented with a different and more subtle approach, called “structuralism;” a scholastic mechanism that has been successfully used to explain a number of social organizations. Interestingly enough, structuralism has its origins in modern linguistics. This adaptation of Bellah’s theories was put forth by the sociologist Thomas Robbins and psychologist Dick Anthony.

Symbolic realism proposed that all religions underlie a universal religion at the level of the social linguistic deep structure. However, structuralism has maintained that religions that have a different surface structure must also have a different deep structure, just as different languages have both a different surface and deep structure. While not wanting to get deep into a discussion of the merits of symbolic realism vs. structuralism, it is important to note that different religions focus on different priorities in regards to legitimacy and authenticity, and that each of these two different perspectives have their own distinct deep and surface structures as well. Ken Wilber made some additions and minor modifications to these theories so that they would use the differentiation of legitimacy and authenticity, adding two more dimensions to the concept of surface and deep structures. I have found Wilber’s modifications to be quite useful and they seem to fix some of the flaws that the structuralist approach to religion still appeared to contain. Wilber’s contention is that legitimacy and authenticity entail different deep structures and surface structures in religions that focus on one of the pair, to the obscuring or altogether omission of the other.

Legitimacy in religion incorporates a deep structure of meaningfulness, social integration, membership status and symbols of immortality (collective destiny), as well as an exoteric mythic civil (mainstream) religious organization. Authenticity in religion incorporates a deep structure of non-rational engagement that precipitates conscious evolutionary growth, promoting a universal mysticism and an esoteric mystery religion; where paradoxical perceptions are valued, matriculated and utilized to act as transformative mechanisms. The dynamic contrast between exoteric and esoteric religions is fundamental to the difference between legitimacy and authenticity. Whereas surface structures change slowly through a process of evolution and re-translation, deep structures change through revolution, so the change in a deep structure, when it happens, is rapid, catastrophic and intense. It should also be understood that deep structures are not monolithic, that they can and do change, but the most common changes are surface changes.

After Wilber has throughly examined all of these theories about the sociology and psychology of religion (and added his own modifications), he then uses it elaborate on one of Bellah’s main theoretical premises, that of an American civil religion (see pages 124 - 139). This is where the concept of a “source” religion enters into our considerations. The source religion for the U.S. is the civil or state religion that shaped the ideals and insights of the founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is the first time that I had ever been exposed to the theory of a basic civil religion practiced in the U.S., but it seems to make sense, since America’s pluralistic culture can tend to be homogenous in certain areas, such as language, education, and the mainstream civil religion shared by the majority.

This civil religion, based as it was on Anglo Protestantism, was a legitimate rather than an authentic religion, which Wilber says: “served good mana on a mythic-membership level and it offered an easy abundance of taboo-avoidance and immortality symbols” (pg. 124). America’s civil religion linked Protestant Christianity with obvious political expressions of nationalism and patriotism, producing such slogans as “In God We Trust” or “One Nation, Under God.” One could also easily define other state or civil religions in this manner, particularly in the manifestation of monolithic communist governments, such as in the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, to mention just two. The ramification of this theory of an American civil or state religion becomes quite insightful when we consider what happened to that spiritual institution in the late 20th century. 

The American state religion began to fail in the 1960's, and was rapidly replaced by new religions or by a reformation of the old Protestant paradigm (Evangelism, Dispensationalism, Fundamentalistic Christianity). The mainstream creeds began to lose their effectiveness and their membership began to drastically drop off. Wilber continues this analysis with the statement: “As the old translation-convenant finally disintegrated, it left in its wake three separate lines of development, lines that were already in existence” (pg. 125). These three lines were broken into two groups, those who found fulfillment in secular rationalism and those who chose to be seekers of authentic religious experience.

Seekers of authentic religious experience could also be broken into two basic groups; those who were ready for personal transformation and those who weren’t. Those who couldn’t transform became alienated by secular rationalism and took refuge in various pre-rational immortality symbols and mythological ideologies, either as fundamentalists or as new age religious cultists. Those who could transform chose spiritual paths that would best facilitate that need, so the various movements centered around esoteric religious interpretations, such as earth-based spirituality, theosophical and eastern religious transplants, were born. As diverse as all of these movements presently are, they have one point in common; they have given birth to an ever growing minority of spiritual seekers in America, which will hopefully one day become the dominant form.

Wilber writes: “Since established religion represents a compromise with the ongoing secular institutions, the only other possible host of revolutionary [religious] thought, however unwittingly, is the noninstitutionalized religious sector” (pg. 127).  So what we have in America, and perhaps by some extension, Europe, is a natural competition between regressive and progressive spiritual forces, which will ultimately lay the foundations for a completely new spiritual perspective in the West. We can see this dichotomy at work not only in religion, but also in politics and the collective cultural social psychology. There is a polarity between those who are socially and culturally conservative and those who are socially and culturally progressive.

Our current spiritual crisis in the U.S. is caused by the promotion of reactionary religious doctrines by various orthodox (or ultra-orthodox) organizations, which have attempted to enforce the failed legitimacy of the civil religion (American Protestantism). These reactionary forces disguise themselves as religious orthodoxy, patriotism, social conservatism and old-style family values, but are actually regressive reactions to the onslaughts of science and secularism. The fear of change and the desire to return to more fundamental values is completely contrary to adaptation and spiritual evolution.  It creates a kind of schizophrenic social pathology in which the future and all its potential is feared and rejected rather than embraced. Such fears, on the level of the social collective, represent a powerful regressive movement in our culture. Yet to our benefit, there is an equal counter force in our culture generated by a progressive spiritual movement that encourages tolerance, curiosity, courage, openness and optimism.

The conservative political movement in this country has defined conservative values as being religious and spiritual, in addition to fiscal conservatism and patriotism, and has defined its liberal opponents as being secular, unpatriotic, socialistic and anti-religious. This perspective is, of course, quite erroneous, since they appear to have excluded the possibility of individuals independently validating their spiritual beliefs through personal experience, and so, to them, there can’t be any evolution or growth of ideas. The viewpoint of orthodox religion and that of its political partner, social conservatism, are static and locked into an idyllic perception of the past. Since the technological world is rapidly changing and science is pushing back frontiers at even a greater pace, it would seem to be as vitally important for religions to be pushing back the frontiers of higher consciousness.

A progressive approach to spiritual studies and discipline would be the obvious new wave of the future for organized religions. A small number of groups and non-institutional organizations have already begun to trail-blaze this new direction, and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the Western world catches up to that small minority. In the meantime, social entropy gnaws away at the foundations of moribund orthodox religious institutions, and the dire necessities of the post modern world will even quicken their eventual end. However, that ending may be quite messy, as the current state of our post modern world seems to indicate.

Regressive social forces are not restricted to exoteric religious organizations, and these tendencies can bleed over into pseudo occult or spurious esoteric cults, producing an aberration of progressiveness that can never be authenticated. Such organizations, while pretending to be cutting edge or so called “New Age,” actually possess the same deep structure as extremely conservative fundamentalist religious organizations. They are typified by dogmatic or doctrinal tenets that can’t be evaluated, since they block any real means of testing or authentication.  These reactionary forces can also be defined as rebellious or counter-cultural, but they are still a negative reaction to science and secular rationalism. However, the counter-culture in some cases produced a real desire for authentic spiritual experiences and inspired some to become true spiritual seekers. That movement continues to gain momentum and depth.

The religious struggle in our present age, according to Wilber, is the struggle to somehow establish or resurrect legitimacy in a world where legitimate religion is no longer viable, due to the powerful social effects of science, technology and the necessity of secular government institutions. The struggle is represented in the world today by violent reactionaries, but is actually an inward search for an authentic religious experience. A resolution of this struggle will either produce a world that embraces authentic religion, conscious evolution and esoteric spirituality, or one that has destroyed itself - there seems so little possibility of compromise.

The relevance of these considerations to the greater occult community is that we, who are pagans, initiates and ritual magicians, by definition having formed an esoteric organization dedicated to Gnosis and spiritual evolution (i.e., the Order of the Gnostic Star), must represent the cutting edge of progressive thought and spiritual practices in the world. Our path must be one that is authentic, so for this reason we teach and share the mechanisms of the liturgy, rituals, and ceremonies of a modern transformative magick, as practiced within the Western Mystery Tradition. We don’t require anyone to blindly adhere to any doctrine or dogma, since whatever we hold as collective beliefs must be verified by personal experience.  We are proponents of conscious evolution, spiritual growth, continuous transformation, and ultimately, enlightenment and spiritual ascendency.

Our esoteric organization teaches the methods of conscious transformation, and these become the tools that the seeker and practicing ritual magician uses to foster a spiritual discipline of continuous transformation. Transformation develops depth, insight and stability at higher transcendental levels of being.

Ultimately, continuous conscious transformation has the effect of causing a complete social revolution within external religious organizations, permanently changing the translation of integrative forces and the nature of meaningfulness itself (doctrine, liturgy, sacred scriptures). In this manner, religion loses its literal interpretation of myth and lore, but does not lose its inherent mysteries, myths and paradoxes, thus removing from religious experience dogma and doctrine, and replacing them with individual and collective searches for authenticity based on transcendental transformation.

Wilber defines a true transformational organization as one that is based on the Buddhist Sangha model (a community of monks with a common goal or interest), which is analogous to an organization in the western tradition that I call a “Star Group.” This kind of organization is a close knit group that retains inter-personal access and is an appropriate place for rational inquiry, logical reflection, and a systemic study of all relevant philosophical areas. Such a group would reject dogmatic beliefs and insist on experience, and a peer review of those experiences. A Star Group is not a monastery or secluded group of individuals living in isolation (such as a Sangha), but a group of disciplined adepts living in the world, but periodically meeting to engage in important group activities. Such activities would include establishing a combined methodology or approach to acquiring total enlightenment.

The purpose to this kind of approach would be to destroy that “exclusive identity of consciousness with the mind,” but not destroy the mind itself, which would be subsumed into a larger supreme identity (pg. 134). Spiritual service and ego effacement would be promoted, as opposed to elitism and exclusive sect membership and its artificial ego enhancement. Therefore, all individuals would be subject to an examination by their peers, to “remind ego of its phase specific and intermediate place in over-all development” (pg. 134). This kind of group practice would foster a sense of selflessness that allows the transformation of one’s ego, so it may be transcended and allow for the greater levels of conscious development to occur without obstacle or impediment. This kind of organization is exactly what the Order seeks to realize in the formation of the autonomous local magickal temple and its membership.

A Star Group has its opposite, which is represented by regressive cults of the supposed “new religions.” Wilber points out that these groups can be identified by the following characteristics, and they should be avoided by all seekers as sinister traps and obstacles to true enlightenment.

According to Wilber, regressive cults are based on the dynamics of a pre-personal fixation on a “cult leader,” with consequent obedience to a father/mother figure/totem master, with self to clan fusion and disassociation (participation mystique) with group ceremonies, slogans (mantras of propaganda), and group mythic apocrypha. (See page 133.)

Entrenched members of such groups usually show borderline neurotic or psychotic dispositions with ego weakness and concrete immersion in the cultic experience, causing them to have difficulty in holding an abstract location in their mind. These people are typically engaged in a narcissistic involvement in their group, having low self-esteem along with a correlative difficulty in handling moral ambiguity, contradictions (paradoxes) or complex choice structures. Such a group fosters an atmosphere of passive dependence on an authority figure.

I think that behind Wilber’s Freudian terminology, we can easily see such a cult member as a person who believes that he has no individual worth, and who is therefore completely subsumed into the group. Within that protected environment he receives all of his personal worth and undergoes a kind of self-inflation through a deep identification and participation in the group. Such a person is barely able to function alone, and is completely indoctrinated into the group-mind, being unable to engage in any kind of critical thinking outside of the rigid definitions of that group and its limited view of reality. I can recognize these symptoms all too well, since I have experienced them myself when I belonged to a cult disguised as a witch coven.

A regressive cult highly discourages the very things that would make it a dynamic and creative organization, such as the power of  “active adolescent independence” (transcendence from subconscious dependence to self-conscious responsibility - pg. 132), rational self-reflection, critical appraisal and logical discourse.  Uncritical or unconditional allegiance to the totem master constitutes much of the psychological foundation of the cult. Such an organization, as described above, is exactly the opposite of what the Order seeks to form in the various spiritual communities of this country. For this reason, the by-laws were produced and consensus was made the pre-eminent method for the self-governance of an autonomous temple.

The contrast between a Star Group and a regressive cult could not be more obvious to anyone who has endured, even for a short time, such a terrible group dynamic. However, the various new age organizations, as well as fundamentalist churches, seem to produce these kinds of regressive groups in great abundance. Even an experienced adept has, at one time or another, been exposed to these kinds of groups, and likely endured a harrowing escape from them. Individuals who are suffering from extreme neurosis or psychosis should never be allowed to practice magick or occultism in organizations sponsored or underwritten by the Order or its members, just as temples that succumb to the excesses of a cult mentality should be banned or shunned. The Order sponsors a healthy regimen of occult practices and beliefs, and attempts to create a local organization that is safe, creative, dynamic, open, inclusive, and compassionate.

In order to illustrate the contrast between a Star Group and a regressive cult, I have shown the latter in its worst possible light. Many groups don’t fit this paradigm, and even those that are dysfunctional have redeeming qualities. Sometimes the endemic problems of a group have more to do with its structure, practices and doctrines rather than a despotic or tyrannical leadership. The world is not black and white, but more like various shades of grey. Still, there are two practical rules that can determine the objective worth of any organization, and that is the democratic rule of consensus in some form or another, and the critical appraisal and objective examination of all beliefs and practices.

Nothing should be done simply because it is traditional or because some authority figure has deemed it so; everything should be subject to question, analysis and rational dialogue. All beliefs and practices should have a practical reason for their adherence and use, transparently known by everyone who is a member. These two practical rules can easily determine the difference between a dynamic, democratic and creative organization and one that is locked into a stasis of irrefutable doctrine and inflexible dogma. We should also keep in mind that the emphasis of religious and spiritual engagement should be on authentic experiences rather than legitimacy - a confusion between these two perspectives can have very unfortunate consequences.

I, for one, have had my fill of dysfunctional groups and organizations, and therefore, seek the path of either a solitaire practitioner or the company of a loose confederation, an enlightened Star Group. Remember, the decision to stay or leave a group is always your one power of self determination - you should never allow that right to be abrogated by anyone.

Frater Barrabbas

Definitions of Religion - Legitimacy vs. Authenticity

My previous article brought up some interesting side issues that caught me quite by surprise in regards to the question of Strega lineages, something which I had to beg forbearance from my readers, since I know very little about that particular topic. Still, I often find these discussions and arguments fairly useless, since they often confuse and conflate two very different processes that are active in religion, and that is the difference between legitimacy and authenticity. While these issues have less of an impact in larger community religions, such as Christianity, they are quite hotly contested in the much smaller religious communities of witchcraft and paganism.

First of all, lets look at the definition of these two terms, starting with the dictionary definitions and then look at them in regards to sociological and psychological definitions. We also need to keep in mind that there are two very dissimilar viewpoints characterizing religion, that of exoteric or public religion and that of esoteric or occultic religion. Depending on a person’s or group’s perspective, the terms of legitimacy or authenticity can have a far greater weight and importance.

If we look at the dictionary definition for the word “legitimate,” we will find amongst the expected definitions the term “lawful” and “conforming to accepted rules, standards, etc.” Since we are not talking about a legitimate birth, we won’t go into the definitions that are concerned with how one was born, although sometimes the terms associated with legitimate and illegitimate in regards to birth do get conflated when discussing religious organizations. This is why some groups may be referred to as legitimate or illegitimate, where the proper term would be sanctioned or unsanctioned in regards to rules and protocols - a concern specific to spiritual and religious legitimacy. 

The dictionary definition of the word “authentic” gives the associated terms “genuine” and  “real,” which I believe are important for our discussion. Interestingly, the word “authenticate” has the associated phrases “to make valid, to verify, to prove to be genuine.” It would seem that authentic would represent a religious system where genuine and real experiences are held in high esteem as opposed to lawful decorum or conforming to doctrines, practices or rules. So it would seem that the word authentic is concerned with inner experiences and legitimacy is concerned with outer practices and established rules.

These two terms, when used to define a religious group or organization reveal the fact that they refer to different and opposed dimensions. Legitimacy defines a horizontal dimension that represents social integration, cohesion, group identity and order (rules, doctrine, practices). Authenticity defines a vertical dimension that is more focused on the individual and upon personal transformation and transcendence. Just this simple differentiation of terms reveals two very starkly different approaches to religion. One is exoteric, socially integrative and is concerned with communication and accessibility, and the other is esoteric, insular, and is concerned with mysteries, paradoxes and methods of inducing ecstasy. The former is engaged with translation, the later, with transformation. As you can see, these two dynamics in religion have contrary goals and directions, and confusing them can make communication between adherents of the same faith nearly impossible.   


To further clarify this discussion, I want to present a distillation of some of Ken Wilber’s perspectives and ideas on this issue. It was while I was reading and studying some of his ideas about religion that I had an experience that changed the way I look at religion in general, and more specifically, people’s engagement in their own chosen religion. After reading and digesting what Ken Wilber has wrote on this topic, it was almost as if a light turned on in my mind. I finally realized how easy it was for individuals and groups in witchcraft and paganism to get into passionate disputes with each other, forcing schisms and breaking up groups and spiritual families. I discovered that it often came down to whether one chose to follow the path of religious legitimacy or religious authenticity. The recent schism in the Faery/Feri tradition would seem to represent this particular distinction and how it can push individuals to follow one path or the other. They are not mutually exclusive, and in fact many have found a religious path that incorporates a certain degree of both, but they do represent diametrically opposing directions, and one can’t fully and wholly engage in one without diminishing or nullifying the other.

Let me continue with my discussion about my studies and what I discovered. Ken Wilber has written a book entitled “A Sociable God” (Shambhala Publications, 2005) to help define religion and religious phenomena using the latest theories in both the social sciences, as well his own theories regarding Integral Psychology. I have found this work to be extremely important and ground breaking, since it reduces down to a simple set of definitions what is a very complex multi-disciplined set of theories which contradict each other and are hotly debated between scholars of the same or different disciplines. Ken Wilber has offered this simplified and systematic approach, thus unifying the different perspectives and eliminating contentious points of view. I might also add that these opposing views have done more to confuse the various issues about the nature of religion than clarify them.

The greatest problem in defining religion is that it is many things to many people. There is, as yet, no single uniform perspective embodying all religious viewpoints, or at least none that would make any sense. This is precisely the point that Mr. Wilber made in his work. I will present Wilber’s ideas distilled from his book in the paragraphs below for the sake of efficiency and brevity. I also wish to present this information in manner that cuts to the core of the issues surrounding religion, assisting us to succinctly understand the spiritual and religious beliefs involving witchcraft, paganism and magick.

In his book (see chapter 5, pages 98 -102), Ken Wilber presents seven distinct perspectives based on a general  definition of religion, using a combination of the various social and psychological theories. He identifies seven basic areas, and includes two more that help to determine the depth and breadth of any one single creed (vertical and horizontal dimensions). We will cover each of these in the order that Wilber presented them in his book. Keep in mind that some previous theorists have written whole books on just one of these seven perspectives.

1. Religion is a non-rational engagement. By labeling it non-rational, religion is therefore defined as belonging to or originating out of a dimension that is “other” to reason and rationality. This would indicate that the nature of Spirit, of which religion is principally concerned about, is something that can’t be either quantified or even qualified, thus making it wholly transcendental and paradoxical.

2. Religion is an extremely meaningful or integrative engagement. This definition perceives religion as being an entirely social phenomenon that brings people together, teaching them to resolve their differences and live peacefully for the common good of all. Therefore, religion is concerned with making collective meaning and searching for collective truths that further the integrity and stability of the communal organization.

3. Religion is an immortality project, which is created to deal with the insecurities associated with the ephemeral quality of human life. This theory defines religion as a powerful social belief system that bolsters the confidence of the individual member, giving one a sense of being an elite participant in the collective destiny of the group. This has the effect of assisting individuals to cope with catastrophic loss and death (as well as the potential for such) by causing them to focus instead on the guarantee of a spiritual afterlife.

4. Religion is a mechanism for evolutionary growth through conscious transformation and spiritual evolution, so that by applying oneself to its discipline, one can fully apprehend the spiritual dimension of the self. As Wilber so adroitly put it: “[E]volution and history is a process of increasing self-realization, or the overcoming of alienation via the return of spirit to spirit as spirit.” This whole process represents the drive for transcendent self-realization and personal transformation.

5. Religion represents a social phenomenon of collective psychotic fixations and is therefore, inherently regressive, pre-personal and pre-rational. Wilber says that this perspective has a negative opinion about religion: “[R]eligion is childish illusion, magic, myth.” This perspective represents the typical attitude of empirical science and academia towards religion in general, and is a major part of the creeds of social secularism and atheism. Sigmund Freud held this opinion about religion, and so did Karl Marx and many others.

6. Religion is an exoteric social institution, and its mysteries and paradoxes are understood through the periodic and continual practice of liturgy and the study of sacred scriptures, shared by all members of a specific doctrine or creed. Religion is a public organization where everything is determined and explained in great detail, and nothing is left to chance or self-determination. Exoteric religion consists of the basic and fundamental principles of any religious organization. As Wilber has said in his book: It is a “form of belief system used to invoke or support faith,..preparatory to [an] esoteric experience and adaption..”

7. Religion is esoteric and occultic, and its mysteries and paradoxes are obscured and buried deep within the core belief system that everyone else takes for granted. These mysteries are typically not realized by the general adherent, but requires a deeper and inner exposure to that spiritual system, often acquired through the agency of a teacher and an individualized spiritual practice. The goal of esoteric religion is the obtainment of mystical experiences and a direct realization of spirit in all manifestation.

After having written down these seven different perspectives on the nature of religion, Wilber then examines the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the scope of religion, which brings us to the polarization of the two terms, legitimacy and authenticity. Notice the contrast between translation and transformation, which particularly characterize the breadth and depth of a particular religious practice.

8. Religion is only legitimate when it validates the particular “translation” or perspective established by a given doctrine or creed, usually providing its members positive reinforcements (“good mana”), and helping them to avoid social taboos (“bad mana”). This confers upon individuals a powerful emotional and social sense of being a member of a spiritual community, thereby providing personal meaningfulness, group destiny, and eschatological symbols of immortality.

Legitimacy in religion represents a horizontal dimension to qualifying a religion, and it incorporates the above definitions 2, 3 and 6. Legitimacy is concerned with the smoothness of translation (that it is readily understandable and rational) and the integrity of its social values.

9. Religion is authentic when it validates the particular “transformation” or deeper inner experience of a spiritual system. An authentic religion cuts through doctrine and dogma, giving its adherents the tools and methodologies to achieve a direct experience with the core of that religious system, and is less concerned with the outer trappings and the exegesis of liturgy and sacred scriptures.

Authenticity in religion represents a vertical dimension to qualifying a religion, and it incorporates the definitions 1, 4 and 7. Authenticity is concerned with the degree of personal transformative power and intensity associated with religious experiences, and the internal realization of truths that are paradoxical and irrational. Authenticity challenges individual spiritual seekers, forcing them to move beyond belief and faith, so as to directly experience the spiritual dimension.

So you can see from the above discussion that legitimacy and authenticity are two very different dimensions that will produce, when used exclusively, two very different religious organizations. However, most religions in the world are actually a hybrid of both of these dimensions, although as I have said, a religious group will tend to emphasize one over the other. This is also true when examining the different groups and organizations of witchcraft and paganism. Some of these groups emphasize social integration and communication, others emphasize personal transformation and occultic practices. You can see that when individuals of a greater organization who don’t agree on which emphasis should be used attempt to communicate with each other, they will not only fail to agree, but that they will not usually be able to understand the other person’s perspective. Arguments that involve legitimacy pitted against authenticity will almost always fail unless someone has the enlightened perspective that both approaches are correct, and that there is no one true way.

This also leads us to consider the nature of legitimacy within religious organizations. It would seem that it is a kind of social consensus, an agreement between members of the group. This agreement becomes part of the accepted doctrine, and therefore, is never questioned. For instance, Catholics believe that the Pope’s authority, vested in him from God, is legitimate because he represents an unbroken line of reverent individuals going all the way back to the apostle Peter. The Pope is, therefore, a representative of the apostle Peter, and all of the vested belief in Jesus Christ, his apostles and the doctrines and liturgy of the Church has been mystically translated into his very person. Does the Pope really represent an unbroken line going back to the apostle Peter? Historians would probably disagree with that claim, since for a period of time there were two opposing Popes. There is, additionally, the question of the personal integrity of some Popes in history, which might negate the idea of continuity. Also, the church hierarchy has always been the arbiter of the selection and crowning of the Pope; it is not something intrinsic in the individual, but an important role. Yet it is the consensus amongst faithful Catholics, from the lay person all the way up to the Curia of Cardinals, that the Pope represents an unbroken line, whether or not historians are willing to agree, or even that others outside of the faith would agree to its significance.

We can examine this logic and also apply it to some specific considerations in the British Tradition of Witchcraft (BTW) as it is perceived and practiced in the U.S. I am an Alexandrian witch, properly trained and initiated through all three degrees. I possess my Book of Shadows as it was given to me to be copied by my teachers, and I have papers, rituals and other lore that was passed down to me by my teachers. I have also initiated a score of women over the three decades of my practice. So one could say that I am unquestionably a legitimate witch of the BTW. Right? Not necessarily. Because there is some dispute as to whether Alex Sanders was properly initiated through all three degrees in the Gardnerian tradition, and given the sanction to promote his own initiatory line, some Gardnerians believe that all Alexandrians are not legitimate members of the BTW. Some have even said that Alexandrians aren’t even witches! (Of course, we won’t even get into a discussion of whether or not my teachers, who broke their oaths and became fundamentalist preachers, would be considered posthumously illegitimate, and therefore, negate my claim to legitimacy.)

I have personally experienced Gardnerians who were unwilling to allow me to circle with them or to even talk with me about any of their secrets because I am not, in their definition, a properly initiated Gardnerian witch. I am treated as an outsider, or perhaps a better term, as some kind of “spiritual bastard.” These same Gardnerians will admit that I am kind of a witch and a pagan, but not a legitimate member of their lineage. I have been shunned and treated as if I were the love child of some base relative. Yet my Book of Shadows and my core teachings are nearly identical to the same material used by Gardnerians. There are minor differences between the different initiatory lines of the BTW, and the unique lore of my line is no different in that respect than any other. Still, I am treated by some as an outsider.

Does this treatment bother me? Not in the least! I am not affected by this condescending behavior because I don’t need the consensus of the greater witchcraft community to validate the fact that I am indeed witch and a ritual magician. However, it does bother some witches, and I have known Alexandrians who have gotten themselves a Garderian pedigree in order to be more legitimate in the eyes of the greater witchcraft community. Why does this circumstance bother some and not others? The reason is the distinction in the emphasis between legitimacy and authenticity. For me, the most important perspective is to be authentically a witch. It doesn’t matter to me what the overall social consensus of the witchcraft community thinks is right or proper. What is important to me is that the magick I practice and the liturgical rites that I perform are effective and fulfilling for me as a spiritual person. Also, the most important goal that I am seeking is to unify myself with the One - to be enlightened and illuminated through transcendental transformation. I do work with my community as a teacher, spiritual elder and leader, but the focus of my practice is on the individual rather than the group. One could easily say that my emphasis is almost wholly towards being authentic rather than legitimate, and ritual magick probably has had a powerful effect in pushing me in that direction.

When I read or hear individuals arguing about their initiatory legitimacy or its lack, I understand and know why such a controversy is occurring. It is, in fact, a dispute over social consensus and membership credentials. Is it a valid discussion or argument? That depends on one's overall perspective, but from the standpoint of the tradition of witchcraft, authenticity must outweigh legitimacy. There are some very important reasons why this is so.

An individual’s claim to be a witch should never rest exclusively on the integrity of their supposed initiatory lineage. My tattered and questionable lineage is a case in point. I have also known a few individuals who had impeccable initiatory lineages, but who were also either completely incompetent or totally corrupt. I have also known individuals who had no exoteric initiation in any kind of reputable organization, but who were probably some of the most powerful witches I have ever encountered. Having a pedigree is no guarantee that one is a competent and capable witch, in fact sometimes it would even seem to guarantee a certain degree of fallibility and hubris. As I have stated previously, initiation is not the same thing as transcendental transformation, but for someone who seeks to emphasize authenticity over legitimacy, it becomes critically important that both occur simultaneously.

In my humble opinion, a witch should be first and foremost measured by his or her ability to function as a witch. A proper initiation and the reception of the lore of a particular line may confer legitimacy, but can’t guarantee that one is even truly a witch. What this means is that a witch is a witch because they practice witchcraft and worship the old gods. Does this negate traditions, lineages and families of witchcraft? No, it doesn’t negate them, but it also doesn’t make them a requirement for being a witch, either.

When someone comes to me and says that they are a witch, then I have the right to test them in a magick circle. If they pass that test, then I must respect that they are indeed a witch. Do I break my oaths and share the lore that was handed down to me by my teachers? Of course not! But I will also not exclude them from circling or practicing magick with me. This also means that all of the lore that I know and possess that is not covered by my initiatory oath is available for sharing with that person. Not only that, but I will believe them if they tell me that they are a witch, and I will consider them a sister or a brother - perhaps of a different line than my own, but still kindred seekers on the path of magick and mystery. Eventually, perhaps the distinction of lineages, traditions and families will melt away in the practice of witchcraft, thus we will all be of one overall greater tradition, and we will also be individual seekers after the same goals. I look forward to that time, where authenticity will rule and legitimacy will be considered a quaint affectation.

Frater Barrabbas

Stephen Hawking Says - Theology Unnecessary

A few days ago (Sept 11), while plugging his latest book, “The Grand Design,” Stephen Hawking said some pretty interesting things. While being interviewed on CNN by Larry King, the aging scientist said: “God may exist, but science can explain the universe without the need for a creator.” He also said: “Gravity and quantum theory cause universes to be created spontaneously out of nothing.” This was followed up with a final pronouncement, “Science is increasingly answering questions that used to be the province of religion. The scientific account is complete. Theology is unnecessary.” You can find the interview here.

I am quite certain that his pronouncements on Larry King Live have been the topic of furious condemnation and outrage in some religious circles, particularly the more conservative and inherently inflexible ones. Some may become outraged at this seemingly arrogant approbation of thought by science versus religion, others may be somewhat dismayed. I, on the other hand, was neither disturbed nor troubled by this pronouncement. I nodded my head in tacit agreement, realizing that science has a powerful and compelling argument for the origin of the universe, and for life on this planet.

You can read what some of the more harsh pundits are saying in response to what Stephen Hawking announced here, here and here. I have placed these links from the sublime to the crass, so that my readers will be aware of the spectrum of criticism unleashed by Mr. Hawking’s comments.

Some may consider that whatever scientists say is merely theoretical and not factual, nevertheless, most scientific theories gather a considerable sustaining corollary of ancillary proof and verification, or they are dropped for better theories or explanations. For instance, some may say that Evolution is just a theory and not a fact, yet this shows that they completely misunderstand the nature of a scientific theory.

One of the more brilliant things stated by Ken Wilber in his copious writings (for instance, see “A Theory of Everything”, ch. 4 - Science and Religion) is that science is preeminently good at determining the nature of physical reality – from the most minute level of subatomic particles and super strings to the clustering of meta-galaxies, and everything in between. Scientists have the power to effectively define and explain the world of material things. That is the true scope of their knowledge, and also its limitation. Science can’t explain the “why” and the “wherefore” of things, nor can it explain the nature of the human spirit and the world in which that spirit resides. What we have here is a boundary that divides the physical world from the spiritual world, a boundary in which human beings straddle, since they are a product of the tight integration of matter and spirit. However, that boundary is simply a matter of perspective or perception, since human beings and much of the life on this planet share in the integration of spirit and matter, as does all life throughout the multiverse.

If I may quote Wilber, where he rightly shows the kind of balanced perspective between religion and science that ought to be the centerpiece of a modern and flexible world view for the typical occultist, I believe that his words may bolster my opinions.

“In the area of spirituality, for instance, we need at the very least to distinguish between horizontal or translative spirituality (which seeks to give meaning and solace to the separate self and thus fortify the ego) and the vertical or transformative spirituality (which seeks to transcend the separate self in a state of nondual unity consciousness that is beyond the ego).”

“Likewise, with science, we need to distinguish between a narrow and broad conception. Narrow science is based mostly on the exterior, physical, sensorimotor world. It is what we usually think of as the ‘hard sciences,’ such as physics, chemistry, and biology.”

“[T]hese types of broader sciences..we call them the ‘human sciences’..[such as] psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, semiotics, the cognitive sciences – all of these ‘broad’ sciences attempt to use a generally ‘scientific’ approach to the study of human consciousness.”
(See “A Theory of Everything,” p. 73 - 74)

As you can see, what we have here is a differentiation between narrow and broad, religion and science. Also, most of the controversy is between narrow science and narrow religion, which should be expected. Still, there is a way to bridge these different perspectives and come to a holistic and unified viewpoint.

What Stephen Hawking has said is nothing less than science claiming an exclusive right to the description of the nature of all physical matter in its various forms, and the phenomena of cosmos, its origin and final dissolution. Religion has filled this gap of explaining how things in the material world came to be for nearly the entire known history of the human race, and perhaps even longer. We must understand this mythic creation of the cosmos as an important and meaningful allegory, but not as a literal fact. This is the correct apprehension of the role that religion plays in understanding the universe and our place within it. A critical evaluation and appreciation of both science and religion requires knowing that each serves an important function in the human experience, and that one should not overlap or attempt to determine the facts or beliefs of the other.

What that means is that science and religion approach the human experience from two completely different perspectives, and that when correctly understood, they neither contradict or negate each other. Of course, this assumes that we understand religion and its teachings as representing the human perspective pertaining to values, and also personal and collective meaning. Science can’t answer the question, “What is the meaning of life,” either for the individual or the whole of humanity, in fact it doesn’t even attempt to do so.

Correspondingly, religion should not attempt to explain how the material universe and all that is in it came to be. In religion, cosmology, creation and the end times must be seen as being completely allegory. Individuals and groups who perceive religious scriptures as a literal truth neither understand their true meaning, or for that matter, what they are attempting to explain. In other words, those who believe in the literal truth of religious doctrines are terribly confused.

In the post modern world some of us are afflicted with the desire to have everything explained in a simple and neat fashion, thus making the world equally simple to understand. According to the Bible, the world and everything in it was created by God in six days. Nothing evolved or changed unless God willed it so - and nearly all species of animals that ever existed in our world were created as they appear today (if they aren’t already exinct). This is much more palatable to a devoutly religious human being than accepting what science says, that life evolved from the lowest forms to the highest, and that the occurrence of life on this planet was determined by random factors and chance. 

Still, the theories of science in regards to evolution and cosmology, although not yet complete and totally understood, are validated by an insurmountable mountain of data. That data grows and expands every year, and new discoveries and disciplines only seem to validate the theories that they support even more. To argue against them is completely ridiculous, particularly when all it takes is for a religiously devout person to understand that their beliefs are based upon powerful and meaningful allegories, which give personal and collective meaning to human life on this planet. Science and religion don’t talk about the same subjects and don’t share the same perspectives, so they can’t ever contradict each other. If they do, then one is misinterpreting either one or the other.

The term “God” also has different meanings whether one is referring to how most scientists view this being, or how religious authorities view it. Michio Kaku, in his wonderful book “Hyperspace” devoted a couple of chapters to the role that God could play in the creation of the universe. Yet in a couple of sentences he seemed to highlight the whole difference between how science and religion define God. I will quote some passages from this book here, because I found that what he wrote was so striking and relevant.

“It is sometimes helpful to differentiate between the God of miracles and the God of Order.”

“When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order.”

“Most scientists, it is safe to say, believe that there is some form of cosmic Order in the universe. However, to the nonscientist, the word God almost universally refers to the God of Miracles, and this is the source of miscommunication between scientists and nonscientists. The God of Miracles intervenes in our affairs, performs miracles, destroys wicked cities, smites enemy armies, drowns the Pharoah’s troops, and avenges the pure and noble.”

“If scientists and nonscientists fail to communicate with each other over religious questions, it is because they are talking past each other, referring to entirely different Gods.”
(“Hyperspace”, p. 330 - 331)

As you can see by what Michio Kaku has said, scientists are not generally atheists, instead they see the physical universe from a different perspective. It’s not that scientists don’t believe in miracles, it’s just that miracles are typically outside of the purview of science. The universal order that Mr. Kaku is talking about is profoundly elegant and is even magnificently represented in the mathematics that is used to promote these theories, whether for Cosmology or Quantum Mechanics. Yet science is only concerned with what is observable, measurable and repeatable – the other domains that reside in the full spectrum of human experience have been freed to determine their own values and worth. Scientists can’t appropriate what is not empirically available to them. 

Even if, by chance, science eventually learns to quantify the human soul in terms of brain chemistry or random neuron firings, they will still be unable to determine human values and establish the beliefs and sentiments of personal and collective meaning. Religion still has an important and powerful role to play in helping people to live together in peace, and to ultimately advance and evolve the collective conscious minds of the human race. Science can play no role in evolving the minds and collective sentiments of people – that is the proper place for religion to occupy in the sphere of human existence.

Therefore, religious systems that promote social understanding, spiritual tolerance, compassion for all living things in this world, as well as the systematic conscious evolution of the human race are truly representative of the religious wave of the future. Other religious systems that promote sectarianism or beliefs and actions that are contrary to these goals, and would thus cause people to relapse into regressive states, should be perceived as inimical to the collective human race.

It is my hope that such regressive spiritual perspectives, analogous to those practiced in highly sectarian or fundamentalist religious organizations, will ultimately die out and be replaced by more esoteric, occultic and progressive belief systems. Otherwise, I greatly fear what the future holds for the entire planet, and the human race as a whole. We have a few decades or maybe even a century to change, hopefully that is enough time.

Therefore, I believe that what Stephan Hawking has said is not only appropriate and correct, but should become the cornerstone of all occultists and followers of the various esoteric spiritual systems. Science and religion are bookends that harmoniously and elegantly bracket the whole of the human experience.

By the way, Michio Kaku, in his book “Hyperspace,” which was published back in 1995, agrees wholly with what Stephen Hawking has recently announced on TV. You can read his opinions on page 192, in the sub chapter “Proofs for the Existence of God.”

Frater Barrabbas