An inspiration, not a theory

Here we are going to examine an "argument" given as well by christianism and other self-proclaimed revelations like the one of Neale Donald Walsch with his Conversations with God: to be not a human theory but an "inspired" doctrine revealed by God (or by any other spirit from beyond).

This argument well resembles the argument given by so many cranks of science who criticize the well-established laws of physics (relativity and quantum physics) for being "only theories", and also for being based on abstract mathematics far away from the "physical meaning", that they mistake with their own naive "common sense", where they only believe their senses, the form of their perception and their personal way of imagining it. They forget that all our direct perceptions about the exterior world comes anyway from a highly complex reconstitution of information made by our brain from the brute information given by our nerves, so the "nature" of our "direct perception" has no reason to have anything to do with the possible original "nature" of the reality it may come from and that we want to grasp, whatever we do; but reality can only be approached by a complex reconstruction out of the form of our senses back to its original structure.
They criticize the well-established theories for being "mere" constructions of the mind instead of some pretented "naked reality" (which means nothing or cannot be grasped), and for being mathematical descriptions and calculations.  They pretend to recognize these calculations as true and accurate calculations as far these calculations are heard to be successful, although they know nothing of their contents, ignoring that this truth and success, even as a "mere calculation", has much deeper meanings and implications than the so-called "deepest truths" and "reality" they pretend to have, and is in contradiction with them.
So they blindly signed a blank cheque of agreement with the "mere" results of calculations that they don't know, and still they call liars and irrational people all those who try to tell them something of the real contents of what they have blindly signed, as soon as they hear that it contradicts their own "physical explanations": they are just satisfied to repeat that "naked reality" will always stay true whatever "mere theories" may say, so they need not care to know anything else and consider all those who doubt it can only be liars.

So whatever the situation, they present their own view as showing things "as they really are".

But they forget to answer the following question as if it was something obvious: what are the criteria to recognize a true "explanation" that presents the "naked reality", as opposed to a mere theoretical "description" ? For them it's easy: the naked reality is what they think it is. Whereas whatever others say that does not agree with them, is a mere theory.
But, this does not explain where this difference comes from. Indeed, they see no need to search for general definitions and criteria to distinguish between theories and non-theories, since there is no other example of a non-theory in the universe, as the truth is unique by definition.
Never mind, we can easily answer this question for them: by definition, the naked reality for someone is his own life and this own convictions, as they are real and lively for him, whereas the others'experience and convictions are mere theories because they obviously are but mere stories and words heard.

But the most fantastic field of human wonder for practicing this sport of pretending to have oneself the deepest truth while all the others who don't agree with it only make theories, is definitely religion. Because the very object of religion is to talk about and understand what goes beyond words and understanding. And to talk about the spirit and one's deep, subjective, spiritual and undescribable experience far away from the reference of the physical world that unfortunately is, in our present life, the only possible support for communication, elements of comparisons for agreements and common observations between humans.

Christians and fans of Walsch are among those people fond of using this trick to try to impose their truths on others. Precisely, each of those two groups use this same argument as the sufficient killer argument to dismiss all claims of the other group, seeing as dishonest any of their opponent who would not be convinced by it.

Well, of course you will say, this is not exactly true that they use the very same argument the ones against the others and conversely, else it would not hold. Indeed, they call it different names. Christians oppose God's truth expressed by His word to the human being, and dismiss Walsch's doctrine as being human (or inspired by a non-divine spirit) and promoting the value of human personal viewpoint as opposed to the strict belief of God's truth expressed by His Word. Walsch opposes the spiritual mystery and inspiration of sentiments to verbal and theoretical discourse, and dismiss the Bible for being a mere book of rigid verbal doctrine that lost the life and freedom of feelings and of our creativity reflecting God's nature of Creator.

This way, all of them express their unhappiness about how God made us and what he gave us to work with during this earthly life. Christians'program is to live unaffected by their human nature, whereas Walsch's program is to think not based on thoughts and to speak not based on words. All proceed by a blind and systematic elimination of all possible sources of truth they can ever be given by life, dismissed as mere "theories", "unsecure" and "not spiritual", and once they are done and left to the deepest obscurity, the last glance of source of possible (pretended) truth they arbitrarily choosed to not dismiss yet (choice that differs from a doctrine to another), so appears to them as the only possible source of the Ultimate Truth.

So, what is this only reliable source of the Ultimate Truth ?
It is this spiritual doctrine.
What makes its difference from anything else ?
First, that it is the only doctrine that is not a theory. This is obvious (see the above explanations). Precisely, in his doctrine, the Master tells us to follow his example and not make theories. Therefore, this Master should not be making theories himself.
Second, that it is not a fruit of human thought but of a divine inspiration.
Why should we believe this ?
Because the author says so.
Why should we believe him ?
In the case of christianism, because God is the author and we must believe God.

In all cases, because the men who wrote it:

1) Cannot lie: we personnally are their close mates from childhood and we know they are trustworthy, so when they say their inspiration is from God we must believe them. Moreover, someone dedicated to the holy task of guiding the people after him to spiritual truths is necessarily a holy person and thus not a liar. (But, books of the Bible do not even often clearly claim to be themselves the Word of God, and do not tell any detail about what is this condition of spiritual inspiration in which they were written).

2) Know very well (but do not need to explain us) what makes the difference between a human theory and a divine (spiritual) inspiration, and among spriritual inspirations, which are from God as opposed to those from other spirits; and they would not tell us about something that they would not have checked with certainty to be the direct expression of God's will.

Moreover, the exceptional nature of the divine privilege and enlightenment of our Master is proven by the fact that among all the other people who really committed themselves in a sincere and careful effort to follow this holy path of not making theories but only seeking pure divine inspiration and enlightenment, no one could ever produce such a unique, fantastic and universally recognized spiritual doctrine as his.

Antispirituality main page