I sometimes come across statements from people who believe that life is nothing more than just a flash of light between eternal darkness.

And these kinds of statements frustrate me, because such a statement conveys no wisdom at all.

The irony is that such statements are often made by very intelligent, high-status professors or scientists or even philosophers, and they have no trouble contributing perfectly well-reasoned arguments for their respective field, yet they do not seem to be aware of the sheer ignorance, hypocrisy, and you could perhaps even say stupidity that they are displaying by actually asserting that life is nothing more than accidental, a flash of light between eternal darkness.

Why is such a statement ignorant and even hypocritical. 

Because generally speaking, atheists, rationalists, materialists, and so on, tend to pride themselves for their capacity to remain rational and logical, not being persuaded by emotional and subjective ‘delusions’.

But don’t they see the fact that their clinging to rationality in itself is irrational?

When you assert that life is accidental, that there was a void before you existed, and there will be a void after you die, do these people that assert this not realized that statistically speaking, the probability of this actually being true is about… 0%.

Think about it. Eternity existed before you were born, eternity existed after you will die, then statistically what are really the odds of you being here right here, right now?

You don’t have to be a mathematician for this answer to be obvious to you.

Atheists and (the deluded type of) rationalists would perhaps have the tendency argue back to me that the idea of heaven and hell as many religions have portrayed it, isn’t any more rational or likely.

And that’s right. But when did I ever say that just because I think that your materialistic theory is bullshit, that this means that traditional religious viewpoints would be the only alternative?

By the way, for the sake of the argument, I will portray ‘rationalists’ as people who dismiss subjectivity and (non-senses based) empirical notions as unreliable and therefore not worth considering.

Here’s the thing… I feel like atheism and rationalism is largely a reaction against the abuse of power that orthodox religion has enforced upon society. Generally speaking, atheism and rationalism is really not so much interested in truth, but is in fact more of a reaction against abusive religious powermongers who used certain religious propaganda to control people by using fear.

And of course, religious arguments do not hold much stake and are easy to dismantle not only using a lack of proof as an argument, but often simply by using simple reasoning to expose certain statements as being nothing more than blind faith; Something to believe in without any proper form of support, often not even from an empirical viewpoint, as often there’s no direct experience of God but rather a ‘hope in God’. Or in other words: Belief without both rational and empirical substance.

And from my point of view, rationalism is certainly a step forward in comparison to having blind faith without substance, without even having even a truly heartfelt connection to the religious or spiritual practices and endeavors.

But the way in which rationalism fails, the deluded kind of rationalism, is that it’s really not very rational at all.

Because what this rationalism does is that it only accepts that which is rational, and that it does not allow space for the irrational to be as an alternative or complementary method for inquiry into truth, with having no actual solid foundation to support this assumption.

Is truth exclusive to the head, to the mind? Is a inquiry for truth from an empirical or subjective stance less valid than doing it from a rational —or I should say logical— point of view? Based on what grounds? Based on your rationality? Based on your logic?

What are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think you can make an assertion about ‘God’ or an ‘higher order’ because you lack logical proof (and to be honest, I’ve read there is some counter-evidence to this)? But how do you know with so much certainty that God can be captured within the dimension of the material, sense-based and mind-based world?

Consider you were a character within a computer game. How would the character ever come to know that there is a creator to this computer game if all he does is doing research within the game itself? All he ever has known is the computer game, so what can he find as far as rational evidence is concerned that there would have been a creator, a game designer to all of this?

Kind of like trying to find an item taped to your back. You won’t ever find it ‘out there’ no matter how much research you do, because it always with you, but never within the sight of the senses or the grasp of the mind.

Despite of that the very assumption that Truth or God would only be able to be discovered through science and rationalism is naive, and that there is a very valid argument that things can exist beyond the grasp of our mind and senses, I do want to point out that there is scientific evidence for a more mystical existence than previously assumed. Quantum mechanics goes into this, and “the science delusion” by Rupert Sheldrake also goes well into many other forms of evidence. But for the sake of the argument, let’s pretend that this isn’t a thing and get back onto the main topic.

Getting back to the previous point: Rationalists or atheists may say: “Well maybe that’s a fair argument, that things may exist beyond what we can know with our minds and senses, but at the same time why should we believe in God if we have no evidence for it? Why not choose to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, as rationally that would have the same chance of existing? There is no evidence anyway”

Right. I agree with you. I also think you shouldn’t just start believing blindly in God. In fact, I don’t really believe in believing to begin with. I think the very assertion that “I belief this to be true and that not be true” is ignorant and naive to begin with.

But at the same time, I do want to you as a fanatic atheist or rationalist also to acknowledge that rationalism also has its limitations; at least so in potentiality.

At least be honest here. It is much more fair and I’d say also much healthier to be agnostic as opposed to atheistic. Going from atheism to agnosticism is in my opinion a step forward. You are at least in theory able to accept that nothing can truly be know for certain. That is a step forward, because at least you’re just being fair and honest here. It might at least in the beginning be in theory, and that you still have deep-rooted tendencies to act and think as if you were an atheist, but at least on the surface level, on the intellectual level, you do have the capacity to be honest. That’s a good start.

Another objection that atheists (or rationalists) may give is that: “Well given that at least with the material pursuits of science and rationalistic thinking you got something to work with, and with this totally out-of-the-air metaphysical notions of God and spirituality you have no substance whatsoever, the atheistic and materialistic theory is still the one that is most likely to be true”.

Well, is it?

Because then we once again get back to my point brought up in the very beginning of this commentary, which is that statistically speaking the materialistic notion of us having no souls and being ‘a flash of light in otherwise eternal darkness’ is about... 0%. Remember?

Rationalists and atheists pride themselves for being so logical but totally disregard to examine this hypocritical, totally irrational belief.

What then would be a more probable theory?

My suggestion is that we always have been and always will be, and that existence always has been and always will be.

Absurd? Sure. But the very fact that we exist at all to begin with is absurd. Why is there something rather than nothing? The fact that there is something at all is absurd to begin with. It doesn’t matter if you believe in the eternal soul theory or in the 0% theory, it is absurd irregardless.

Given the fact that we exist right here, right now is absurd to begin with, the most compelling logical theory in that already innate absurdity in my opinion is that we always have been and always will be, and that we are just temporarily inhabiting a body, before that body dies and then we move on to the next journey. Perhaps for another round of reincarnation, or perhaps to some other realm. I don’t know.

And not the hell or heaven realm as orthodox religion may portray it, because then once again the statistical probability of you then being on earth right now is still 0% with that theory.

I’d invite atheists, rationalists and materialists to do a couple of things.

Firstly, just understand what has been written here in this essay and just see the point that there is certainly validity, at least theoretically, for domains that lie outside what can be grasped with the senses and understood with the mind. Just be honest and admit to yourself that perhaps you can’t really be so sure about what the nature of reality is. Admit that you don’t know for sure, and that will allow you to become agnostic at least on the surface level.

Secondly —and this is particularly useful if you’re very much into science— I would recommend you to read into and explore studies that have been done in the fields of the occult, the mystical, the mysterious, the paranormal, or just scientific studies that defy the general scientific assumptions. Again, reading “the science delusion” (or “science set free” in the US) from Rupert Sheldrake is a good place to start. Also take a look into quantum physics, and just see that for example two particles can be connected over an almost infinite distance is something that is actual very magical, and allow yourself to be in amazement by it, instead of your usual reflex of trying to demystify everything.

Also, look into philosophy of science. Look better at how science in our modern day is actually conducted and what kinds of biases, assumptions, ignorance and even corruption may be taking place in the current scientific fields and the heads of the ((potentially even) top) scientists. See into the fact that confirmation bias and certain political agenda’s may be at play here, and that the objectivity of science isn’t something that can always be taken for granted.

Actually, I’m not saying science itself is the problem. This might surprise you, but I’m not even against science. I think science can be great! We got lots of great technology because of it. But even though science as a methodology can be great, the way people are using it nowadays may just happen to be... less than pure. I’d invite you to research into science itself.

Lastly, look into spirituality. You might once again ask: “Why not then look into the flying spaghetti monster?”. Well, the thing is that spirituality has an innate attraction in the hearts of people. There is an intrinsic desire for people to connect themselves and open themselves up to a higher power, and contrary to what atheists and rationalists will tell you, it’s not just because people start turning towards God because they need to desperately find something to put their hope in (although there are certainly many people who do it that way).

The argument that people start believing in God because they need to find some form of comfort, something that soothes them, is certainly not invalid. But there is also an impulse to turn towards spirituality that is not driven by lack, need or desperation. It is my feeling and my experience that there is also a calling towards spirituality that is very intrinsic to perhaps every human being, although many people repress this desire to the extent that they can’t feel it and aren’t aware of it.

Let spirituality not be something you believe in. This is not about believing. Simply explore it with an open heart and an open mind, and see if you feel drawn to it. If you do, go more deeply into it, and if you don’t, simply leave it aside. It’s that simple.

But I can almost guarantee you that if you do start looking into it with a fully open heart and mind, that it is almost inevitable that you will be drawn into a new and much more rejuvenating way of living.