REVIEW: CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD

Conversations With God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Vol. 1Conversations With God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Vol. 1 by Neale Donald Walsch
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I don’t remember where I first heard about this book. I think it was High Existence and one of their many articles/lists on the books that will “violently shift your perspective” or some such. What sealed it for me was when I listened to a podcast (Positive Head Episode #12) where the site’s founder, Jordan Lejuwaan, was invited. When he was asked to name a book he’d take with him on a deserted island, he replied with little hesitation: “Conversations with God.” The best part? The host agreed with him!

Now, these are people who are very much against religion as we understand it and the way we talk about it in public discourse. When I first heard of this book, I recall that I, too, was very skeptical, just judging by the title: “who is this guy with this frankly messianic, banal idea of speaking to God and transcribing the conversation?” It seemed silly, like something belonging to the Middle Ages, certainly not our supposedly progressive-thinking world. Mind you, I’m trying to offer you what had been my automatic thoughts, which I might not actually agree with on a more conscious, rational level.

Having read a badly converted .mobi version of the .pdf I managed to find online on my Kindle—just another hi-tech mode of delivery—, I can now confidently say the following:

If somebody told me: “man, this book contains the words of God”, if I could somehow be certain that they were speaking the truth, and if I did put my prejudices aside, my prejudices that come from growing up in a society built on soul-crushing organised religions that are deadly serious and strict about what God is supposed to be, the contents of this book are close to what I would ideally expect to find. In that way it leaves nothing to be desired. It has a certain something that truly feels divine, superhuman, an oriental or pagan worldview that does not deny people (of all sexes!) our body and all the fun things we can do with it. Here we have God joking around, pronouncing hedonism and all kinds of sex as holy, right next to unconditional love and our calling to be Who We Really Are, which as I understand it means that we become God by creating with our lives the best, most fulfilling, creative and loving version of ourselves.

This book wasn’t pretentious, nor dogmatic, nor close-minded. It was nothing of what you’d come to expect from what we call religion. It does have a lot of common points with Jesus Christ’s teachings as they have reached us today (which are pretty much the same across the board and across historical and famous spiritual teachers), but the book is certainly not Christian, which is a good part of the reason why you needn’t look farther than other reviews of this book on Goodreads to see Christian followers denouncing the book left and right, flat-out refusing to read it because it will supposedly challenge their faith. People, if you want to be devout and pious, at least try to do it right.

I don’t know who or what it was who spoke to Mr. Walsch. I have no idea if it was God, whatever God is or might be. It could be the writer just talking to himself, but why would that make it impossible it to have been God speaking through him? It all depends on how we define God. I’m a realisation of God writing this review right now, you are a realisation of God by reading it, and you are a realisation of God no matter what your response to it is.

I’ve recommended this book to many people already, and I recommend it to you too. It really doesn’t matter what your creed is or what you might be proud of calling a lack of one; contrary to my strong thoughts on what ancient organised religions believe we should be doing with our lives, I cannot see a reason why following this book’s advice would make your life anything but better. Even if you’re an atheist who believes in scientism, I do think that reading this book would do you good. In fact, I’d say that rejecting it without thought would just prove a certain amount of closed-mindedness in you and make you dangerously similar to those aforementioned hardcore “Christians” who feel proud of themselves for refusing to read a book. Doesn’t that make you uncomfortable?

While we’re at it, let me share with you a closing thought that came to me yesterday. We accept that organised religion is a powerful entity—much less so now than in the past, but let’s say that they still have no problem of capturing the imagination of billions. Now, organised science, what we’d call the mainstream scientific dogma—just follow the money—they have power not only over the minds of billions, but also actual power, mainly expressed through the activities of huge techno-corporations that have been setting the rules and the paradigm. Both organised religion and organised science are supposed to be superhuman, and therefore have a duty to be neutral and above the petty realm of “human weakness”.

We know that organised religion is full of scumbag priests and other subcategories of clergy. So what is it exactly that protects organised science from similar “infiltration”? Both fields promise mountains of money and prestige. How can one safely rest his or her faith with one over the other as the ultimate representative of an accurate and objective world theory? It seems to me that what it takes to be religous is faith and an ability to reject the proof that lies in the material world, it takes an equal but opposite(?) amount of faith and ability to reject the proof that lies in the material world to be an atheist.

Heh, look at me, never missing a chance to attack scientism!

I’ll say it again: if reading, enjoying and feeling inclined to follow or at least consider the life advice contained within Conversation with God makes me “religious”, there, done: I’m religious. If you are unable to tell the difference between the frankly liberating information contained in this book and what has passed off as religion for far too long in the world at large, then that is something you’ll have to sort out by yourself, I’m afraid.

View all my reviews

REVIEW: JOURNEY OF SOULS

Journey of Souls: Case Studies of Life Between LivesJourney of Souls: Case Studies of Life Between Lives by Michael Newton

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

 


I believe in reincarnation. There are just too many things going on out there that are inexplicable if you rule out survival of consciousness. And if this book is legitimate, which from the look of it it is, Journey of Souls only adds to the mystery.

A quick word on whether this book is substantial proof for the existence of reincarnation: if you don’t believe in this kind of thing, this book won’t rid you of your skepticism. It’s like the forever-discussed “proof” of the existence of God or not. Atheists would never accept or even recognize “proof” for the existence of God. If you are one yourself, sit down and think what kind of proof would be enough to convince you that God exists, and what other atheists would have to say on the matter. To be fair, respective theists would never accept the proposition that such a thing as proof is in fact necessary, either. Not when faith is the cornerstone of religions in general.

Back to the book. If you’ve ever heard of past life regression through hypnosis, Michael Newton is the guy who apparently first used and popularised the technique.

Nature or nurture? Just your soul feeling adventurous, silly!

To tell you the truth, I imagined it to be better when I downloaded it for my Kindle. In the first paragraph of this review, I mentioned that the book only adds to the mystery. Big time it does: I came out of it more puzzled than enlightened. I disliked some of the questions he asked his hypnotised clients, and the whole after-/before-life system assembled by the info gathered from the tens (hundreds?) of cases used for the book seemed to me too anthropocentric, too much of the existing material world. Apparently there are levels of soul maturity, as well as soul “schools” and soul nurseries or, for lack of a better term, tribes.

Then again, if Journey of Souls reflects what’s actually happening at all, that would mean that it is actually the the human condition that reflects the way things are in the spirit world, not the other way around. It seems plausible; people are souls in meat suits. You don’t stop being a person when you drive a car, do you? Or maybe you become an “enhanced” person given a tool that expands your possibilities. I can see a similar reason for souls wanting to incarnate and indeed, such reasoning is given in the book.




At the end of the day, you can only know for sure if you’ve had a past life regression yourself. Maybe that’s the only way for any of us to be convinced that death is not the end, and maybe only then can we obtain the knowledge we can actually do something with in order to change our lives for the better. Anything else is so many steps removed it’s like reading sex stories expecting to feel what an orgasm feels like second-hand. Errr, I mean… What was I saying before ? Yes; at the very least, if Mr. Newton’s goal was to make me want to be hypnotised to find out my spiritual past, he got that part right.

So what do you say? Is the truth out there or in here?

View all my reviews

Review: The Science Delusion: Feeling the Spirit of Enquiry + Quotes ~ Αποφθέγματα ΧΙΧ

The Science Delusion: Feeling the Spirit of EnquiryThe Science Delusion: Feeling the Spirit of Enquiry by Rupert Sheldrake

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I have the rational intelligence to be a scientist, but it’s not in my personality to fill in cracks in established mental models. I seek anomalies that open cracks.

~Ran Prieur

Quickly becoming one of my favourite quotes.


Jimmy Wales tells “energy workers” that Wikipedia won’t publish woo, “the work of lunatic charlatans isn’t the equivalent of ‘true scientific discourse'” [link]

Jimmy Wales’ statement is as revolting as the discussion under it. I would suggest that you read it, but only if you have the stomach for tens of “skeptics” parrotting the mainstream opinions about woo, parapsychology etc, claiming the truth and the high ground of knowledge as they usually do. Even the article itself is taking clear sides without shame.

Do these people know anything about the subject? Does Jimmy Wales know anything about the subject, he who with one broad swath pigeonholes so many people as lunatic charlatanes? I don’t know whether this technique in particular has had successes, explicable or inexplicable, in doing what it says it does, I haven’t looked into it to be honest, but I’ve seen the same discussion surrounding “pseudoscience” too many times to count.

Why this hate? Why this elitism? Why this aversion to exploration of the fringes? When did science become all about defending what’s already known? I thought the opposite was the main idea. Is materialist science, peer-reviewd journals, wikipedia, Richard Dawkins and the rest, parts of a bulletproof world theory anyway?

No, they’re not. Far from it. And if you want to know why, you should absolutely read The Science Delusion (title insisted upon by publisher) by Rupert Sheldrake. His main idea is that science and the scientific method are generally good at giving answers about our world, but, just like organised religion 500 years ago did, it has become too inflexible, too bulky, too dogmatic, too rid of assumptions, too sure of itself and too dismissive to be of any real use today. Meanwhile, it’s hindering research that could further our understanding of the world in unimaginable ways.

What’s interesting is that Sheldrake in this book provides us with -what’s normally considered as- hard evidence for a world that cannot be explained materialistically. That includes results of real peer-reviewed experiments that point to the reality of things like brainless memories, statistically significant telepathy and many more chin-stroke-worthy phenomena that truly test mainstream science’s beliefs of what should or shouldn’t be possible.

After reading the book, I checked Rupert Sheldrake’s Wikipedia entry just to see reactions to his work from the scientific communituy. Not surprisingly, the discussion was not much more sophisticated than what I witnessed in the link at the top of this review: accusations of pseudoscience, charlatanism etc pervaded the articles, indications that the skeptics hadn’t really comprehended the criticism aimed at their methodology and worldview, didn’t follow up on the bibliography, plainly assuming that there must have been something wrong with it (confirmation bias), or that they simply didn’t even read the book. Richard Dawkins has said, after all, that he doesn’t want to discuss evidence when it comes to inexplicable phenomena, raising questions about whether he’s really interested in the truth or not – in my personal experience, most skeptics do not have furthering their understanding of our world at the top of their priorities.

In any case, I find the accusations against Sheldrake, and this book in particular, hollow: The Science Delusion has close to 40 pages of notes and bibliography of actual experiments to back it up and Sheldrake’s style and prose themselves are lucid as well as restrained. Even in the parts in which he discusses the inability of science to interpret the phenomena, where he proposes his own theory of morphing resonance as a possible explanation -the parts I enjoyed the least because I cannot exactly grasp the concept of morphic resonance-, he does so without conviction, but rather with the spirit of the curious researcher. A true scientist in my book. The skeptics’ reaction to his work seems to disregard all of this completely; they treat him like they would any old fraud.

But I understand: scientists are also people. What would it have been normal for them to do in the face of rejection of their entire lives’ work plus a few hundred years of tradition? Accept their failure? Accept their dogmatism? Just as scientists are people, science is also a human activity, and as most of human activities do, it also suffers from the same problems human beings generally have, only in a larger, more chaotic scale.

Finally, one more reason I appreciated this book so much was that it was… tender. At the other side of the raging skeptics and this blind rejection there is investigation, there is respect, there is a belief in a state of things that resonated deeply with me. Maybe it’s because Sheldrake’s main field of research has been biology that he shows such love for plants, animals and life in general. For whatever reason, it warmed my heart and made me think that if I ever was a real scientist, Sheldrake would be my rold model: a fighter for truth against the faux fighters for truth, the romantic gardener who everybody calls a hippie but he alone sees what everybody else is too blind to see.

Third five-star review in a row after Μίλα μου για γλώσσα and
Small Gods
(lol). Am I becoming softer or just more grateful?

View all my reviews

Review: Small Gods

Small Gods (Discworld, #13)Small Gods by Terry Pratchett

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A quick note before the review: my friend Garret got this book for me as a gift for my last nameday, and he was also the guy who first introduced me to Terry Pratchett years ago, so here’s a double “thank you” for him.

Now, the review.

I definitely should be paying more attention to Terry Pratchett. All four books of his I’ve read I have greatly enjoyed, and this one not only had as much Pratchettesque humour as I could ask for, it had a very serious and significant message to share as well. That’s probably the reason why my mentor here in Bulgaria, Boris, who I yesterday learned has read ALL of the books in the series, some of them twice, called it “one of the heavier books” set in the Discworld universe. It’s an opinion which I understand but can’t completely agree with. To clarify: it’s not that it wasn’t heavy compared to the other Discworld novels I’ve read, but to me this contrast just made the whole thing tastier. What can I say, I suppose that, myself being a man of contrasts, it feels more… balanced? Natural? Complete in a paradoxical way that makes perfect sense?

It just feels right.

So, what’s next? I will continue to crawl my way through the series like a turtle, of course, but now, with renewed motivation from Boris, maybe I can do it with less of Om’s slugishness and more of The Great A’Tuin’s grace(?).

View all my reviews