Expanding the cosmic humanist worldview

 So, one thing understanding the times did poorly was discussing the cosmic humanist worldview. I feel like they barely had much to say on the subject, and the topic was a lot less fleshed out than it was for other worldviews. But, given my own experience with this worldview, I feel like I can explain it better than Noebel can. I will admit, I can be a bit biased here, but again, having some actual spiritual beliefs here, it might be good if I can shed some light on things.

Theology

The themes of "everyone is god" and "all is one" is generally accurate. The New Age theology is normally based on a form of pantheism, the idea that everything and everyone are part of god. God is often referred to as "source" (as in the source of all things), with everything being made up of, and being an expression of god. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why make all of this? I don't really know. I suspect being eternal and alone is boring. So God made the universe, maybe many other universes, and split its consciousness among many many many trillions of souls, which are all individualized expressions of God, with us being some of them. 

In all honesty, when I talk to "God", I feel as if I'm talking to a more advanced version of myself. And it is, to my understanding a more highly advanced version of ourselves. While each of us are incarnated on earth, some of our soul is left behind in "heaven" and we interact with it regularly, being the eternal, all knowing version of ourselves. We also come across other beings who may interact with us, whether in heaven or on earth. We often have spirit guides in heaven, and on earth many of our significant relationships are often with people we know elsewhere. 

Philosophy

As the book states, most cosmic humanists are not naturalists, and don't believe the natural is all that there is. There may be many dimensions and beings that we are not really aware of. I don't think that we need to discount naturalism. As you guys know, I think science and the scientific method are some of the best ways to know what is true or not, but we should also be aware that this is not necessarily all that is. Science is limited to our physical reality founded in the five senses. And unless we can detect something, we might not know it is there. While I respect agnostic atheists for their desire to have evidence before believing something and understand where they come from claiming to claim that there is extra is a logical fallacy such as a god of the gaps argument or an argument from ignorance, it is also true. We really don't know how the full extent of our reality works, and there can be a lot of "other stuff" in the gaps between our knowledge. 

I will say the book seems to focus on zen philosophy, but zen buddhism is just one branch of cosmic humanism. There are many other branches and iterations of the idea that can exist, and this worldview is really a collection of similar overlapping belief systems rather than one official belief system. It is very non dogmatic in a similar way to secular humanism. And to address the claim that cosmic humanists believe all religions lead to god, eh...in a way I can see a cosmic humanist claiming that. Because the supernatural does not really reveal itself in nature, I do believe they may interact with us through flawed religions. Unlike the christian god that demands we meet certain doctrines, the cosmic humanist version of god is willing to work with you where you are at, where ever that may be. They are also willing to work with atheists and meet them where they're at in my personal experience if they really want to reach out to you.

However, I would argue that they often don't, and again if you have to wonder why God isn't obvious, it's because I'd argue they don't want it to be obvious. Unlike the Christian god, who demands to be known and worshipped, I'd argue God doesn't really care about being believed in for the most part. If anything it works out to their advantage that we don't know. Because knowing would affect our behavior and that would take away a significant aspect of what makes us human. We come here, forgetting everything, so we can live in a world where many don't see any reason to believe in God, and those who do often approach the subject through flawed religion. It's a lot like the prime directive from Star Trek. Don't interfere with the less advanced societies, as doing so would influence their thinking and behavior. Nonintervention is generally best.

Ethics

Going off of the above thought, let's just say that while I dont necessarily think that the cosmic humanist perspective is necessarily morally relative, the noninterventionist stance is by design so that we have the free will to behave as we would in a world in which God is not present. Treat this reality like a simulation where technically, everything goes. You can do good, you can do evil. It's like the ultimate RPG, and souls generally incarnate into lives they wish to experience for whatever reason. I do believe we will ultimately be judged for our behavior here, and that we will have a life review showing the effects of our actions on others and the environment when we die. So while we are given free reign, well, let's just say I wouldn't want Hitler's life review when I die.

Does this mean there is a hell? No not really. I personally don't believe that. If "hell" exists at all its temporary. I personally believe that we are our own harshest critics, all being mini gods part of the big god in the other world. And while I would agree there is SOME system of "karma" or something like it, I do not have a firm stance here. Honestly, some lessons are intended to be learned in this life, and if we do not learn them we will learn them in another life. And some lessons we might learn in a future life based on our actions here. I do believe that, for example, that Hitler may have become a genocide victim in his next life, or will in some future life. So if you kill in this life, a future life might be designed with you dying horribly just so you know what it is like. 

I don't think karma is an absolute law, like say the Buddhists do. i don't think we necessarily have a firm system where every single karmic debt must be repaid and as we inevitably screw up in every life we get more and more in debt. If we did that, then it completely defeats the purpose of even incarnating in the first place, and it makes doing so one of the dumbest decisions you can make. Like taking a bad loan from a loan shark knowing they break your legs if you can't repay. So i do think whatever system exists is more flexible than that and there is some discretion.

Biology

This is where the book gets weird and kind of goes off the deep end and misses the point. In an attempt to shoehorn evolution into the equation, they go on about cosmic evolution and how we are evolving toward a collective consciousness. 

I mean, if I were going to answer the question of BIOLOGY, I would just answer with the secular worldview of evolution. But there's no reason it can't be a version of theistic or guided evolution. I really don't have strong opinions here. Some would believe in weird stuff like the "ancient aliens" theory or stuff like that, but honestly, for me, I just default to the secular perspective based on science. I see no reason this can't work with the idea of a new age perspective, we just don't NEED one to explain the process IMO. 

But...on the topic of collective consciousness, I mean, this is more in the political or ethical realms, but yes, I do believe that despite the "prime directive" style approach to intervention, that God or the divine on the other side don't influence our planet AT ALL. If it were to be done, they would send people to incarnate here for the sake of sending some message to evolve the species. Like if they decided to create a situation where someone would go through a certain series of events to bring them to some sort of truth that they are to share with the world. I believe that can happen. I mean, if the rules are no intervention from the outside in a direct sense, why not send people in to direct and influence things from the inside to advance humanity's knowledge or social evolution? 

Psychology

The cosmic humanist worldview, according to David Noebel is one based on pseudoscience, talking about how disease is a result of not being spiritually awakened enough. Admittedly, this is a common thread among a lot of cosmic humanists, and there is a lot of pseudoscience in the movement. Some think disease is a result of not being spiritually enlightened enough. A lot of new agers are also anti vaxxers going on about "chemicals" and stuff. They believe in "alternative medicine" and often going vegan for similar reasons. They might believe in healing crystals and weird stuff like that. 

I mean, in all honesty, no, just disregard all of that. Medicine is a field that should be based on science and peer review, so we know what works and what doesn't. While placebo effects show psychology CAN influence medicine to a small degree, ultimately our bodies are physical machines that are sometimes in need of maintenance. And as such, physical solutions are often the answer to our ills. 

Even though I am a cosmic humanist to some extent, my 60% secular humanist influence isn't there for no reason. I will always prefer reality based solutions over nonsense. As you can tell, most of my spiritual worldview does not really conflict with anything about physical reality or secular humanism at all. This worldview is complementary to my secular one. And when the two conflict I almost always prefer the secular approach. For obvious reasons.

Still, on the subject of psychology, I would say that new age stuff is big on stuff like meditation, mindfulness, being balanced mentally, and being able to hear god or your higher self more clearly by engaging in quiet meditation or hypnosis.

Sociology

 The book seems to mostly look at sexual relationships with each other and how it seems to oppose traditional family units. Well...okay. Let's try to explain it this way.

I don't think there is ONE SET WAY to do things like Christianity is for. Christianity loves to impose a life script on people. A one size fits all model for how life is to be lived. But given we all have free will, and there is the "prime directive" type approach to intervention, I don't think that God really prescribes one model.

And if anything as the book suggests, cosmic humanists often CHALLENGE traditional social norms and structures. To go off of the above, I do think some people come here explicitly to live in alternative ways that go against the grain to open up humanity's ideas of what is possible. We live in a sandbox world, God isn't telling us to live in any specific way. If anything, God might want to challenge peoples traditional perceptions and open up new ways of living to expand the collective consciousness. So if you want to live non traditionally, live non traditionally. Don't get married, don't have kids, don't work, be gay, be straight, be transgender, it doesn't matter. We can live in any way we want to. And if anything, I don't think God likes people to be imposing social norms on others in their name when they commanded no such thing. 

And yes, relationships can be weird. I do believe that we have soul relationships with many significant relationships we have in this life, and that what our relationships with others in this life are, is not what our relationships might be with them on the other side. We love to force the model of "till death do us part" when in reality....well...some relationships are supposed to last a lot less time, and others might last well beyond this life time. There may even be literal ETERNAL LOVE out there for people. Like soul mates whose history expands well beyond this life time and into eternity. Stuff like that. 

It's best not to use conventional knowledge when approaching cosmic humanism.

Law

As the book says, cosmic humanists arent generally focused on law much. They focus mostly on personal development. I never heard of "self law" in this sense and it seemed shoehorned in just to have something on this section.

Still, law and ethics can be a big part of one's spiritual views. And just as above god may indirectly influence our laws, or encourage stands against unjust laws, through us, ie, humans who incarnate for the specific purposes of doing so. 

On the subject of self law, while people might at times clash with laws and this be by divine design, I would avoid taking the self law idea seriously. If one can just disregard laws whenever they want, then it kind of defeats the purpose of them.

So while all of our laws are subjective and human made, I do believe most people should obey them most of the time and only under extreme moral conviction should people actually disregard them generally speaking. 

Just because we have free will doesn't mean we should use it violating just laws. I mean, we CAN do it, and there are penalties in this world for a reason. To prevent people from doing that. 

Honestly, this isnt much different than secular humanism. Just because no moral absolutes exist doesn't mean we should go around just doing whatever we want. Sometimes laws exist for good reason and should exist. 

Politics

The understanding the times book seems pretty inconsistent here. It claims that cosmic humanists want a one world government, while also claiming that we want anarchy. 

First of all, I never heard of new agers calling for one world government. If anything most new agers are extremely paranoid. Just as there are good people who come here to enlighten humanity, many new agers believe there are people who come here to exploit it. You know the weird talk about reptilians and lizard people new agers often talk about? Yeah, they believe they're an alien species that comes here to exploit people. While many species come here and incarnate as humans to help humanity, some do harm, and many new agers seem paranoid of the supposed harmful ones. 

Of course in my exact worldview under this, while I believe some come here for positive change, since everything from "God" is intended to be positive, even if it can be corrupted on earth, I do not believe there is an evil equivalent of that.

I dont think new agers are inherently for anarchy though. While if the worldview's conclusions were applied to law and politics, it could lead to that in theory, I think that law and politics are realms for humans to hash out amongst themselves. We are to decide collectively how to live. And while some might be sent here to influence that somewhat, ultimately the decisions do have to come from people. 

I think the only things that god is really willing to violate the prime directive type approach at all on are issues of existential importance. For example, I believe god and those from them influenced us in the 20th century to avoid nuclear war. And I think in the 21st they're working on climate change.If our habits are so self destructive they can destroy the planet and cause mass extinctions, i think god is more willing to intervene to prevent that. Never in fully known ways we can point to, but it's weird.

Consider how Hitler survived so many assassination attempts during WWII. I once watched a video suggesting if the war ended differently, we could've ended up in a nuclear war. But it ended in just the right way to prevent that outcome. Or consider fidel castro in a similar capacity and how if he wasn't in power the cuban missile crisis could have played out differently. 

I think some events play out in just the right way to create the optimal outcome that doesn't lead to a mass extinction event. And I believe that again, in the 21st century, they're concerned about climate change, and that a lot of people are sent here for the purpose of stopping that from blowing up and being self destructive. 

Economics

Once again I feel like Noebel drops the ball on this subject. He seems to claim cosmic humanism pushes some weird prosperity gospel thing where higher forms of spiritual consciousness contribute to more money. 

This is nonsense, and while I won't say that cosmic humanists are against making money, and do believe that if you work for something you have a right to enjoy it, honestly? Most cosmic humanists aren't overly concerned with money. While some would push weird law of attraction psuedoscience, there's a lot more to it than that.

If anything, the more highly spiritually conscious you are, the less you care. You don't believe in the grind, you don't believe in just working your life away under capitalism. I see a lot of people on spirituality forums and subreddits say since their spiritual awakening claiming since their "awakening" (when they develop a cosmic humanist worldview) that they often don't value work and career and money like they used to. Sure, people want enough to live on, but at some point, the sacrifices people give up become not worth it. Most truly spiritually enlightened people do not seek to become rich for its own sake. They don't value materialism highly. These things aren't necessarily bad, but there's just more important things in life. 

People in unethical careers might even decide to quit them to do something making a lot less money, and is more ethical. People might drop secular careers to follow their spiritual passions. And of course, there are many many MANY tarot readers on youtube looking for a buck. As they see it, spiritual mediums, tarot readers, and doing a service, and many have to eat, so they have to monetize the habit.

Others feel called to do service oriented work outside of capitalism altogether. Not all work is profitable, but it still has to be done. And many forms of work within capitalism are BS jobs that don't really provide purpose at all. The cosmic humanist worldview, much like my secular humanist one, seems to reject the idea that work under capitalism necessarily gives people a sense of purpose. If anything, at times they seem to be counter to one another. Many cosmic humanists work as little as possible in order to do their "real" work and live their "real" purpose. Your job matters little in the grand scheme of things. You're not here just to pay bills and die. You're a spiritual being here to experience life and live. Working your life away isn't living. 

History

As I said, while God normally remains neutral in human affairs and does not interfere directly, there are times and ways in which human history is influenced. I would argue God is especially interests in preventing crises that lead to mass extinction of the human species and other species, and actively encourages highly developed souls to incarnate on earth in order to prevent such an outcome. As I said, I also believe the divine will intervene to protect certain people if they need a certain event or outcome to pan out a certain way. I don't know how they do it, but the outcome seems obvious.

I also believe that souls can intervene for less serious reasons too. And it's very much in line with raising humanity's consciousness. People might live unconventional life styles as examples for others, to challenge traditional worldviews.

And I do believe the ultimate goal is for us to advance and mature as a species. Not toward 'god hood" or whatever since we're already divine, but toward making this as much of a heaven on earth as we can. While we are free to live poorly, and many great evils and injustices are tolerated here in accordance with our free will, I do think that god and others (who are part of god) intervene to make sure things don't go too far and to try to nudge humanity in a different direction. Whether we listen is up to us. 

How my views intersect with cosmic humanism

As you know, I would consider my worldview primarily a secular humanist one. But, I am also a cosmic humanist in a sense. As I see it, my deconversion from christianity was intentional. My worldview was intentionally broken to get me questioning the true nature of reality, allowing me to build a worldview back up and its place. And after I learned what I needed to, I became spiritual again.

My spiritual perspective is not the dominant perspective I have toward most areas of life. My secular humanist perspective is. BUT...as you can tell, there isn't much about the cosmic humanist perspective inherently at odds with my secular humanist perspective outside of the obvious belief in more than just the natural world. I tend to prefer to believe things based on reason and evidence, and as such, there are rarely conflicts between the two worldviews.

If anything, if you accept the reasoning I laid out above, you can see how the views actually...align in some odd ways. Like how my take on cosmic humanist economics is not at odds with my anti work views I developed under secular humanism. if anything the two go hand in hand. I don't think that's by coincidence. Both worldviews are just different approaches to the same set of issues. 

And honestly, I think it's good if anything that my political views can be justified primarily through a secular perspective of reason and evidence. No one should expect a raving lunatic screaming from the moutaintops to have a convincing message. Or the weird crystal lady going on about collective consciousnesses and the law of attraction. Sometimes you need a guy based in reality to actually get things done and have their views taken seriously. 

So yeah, whether you believe in cosmic humanism or not, it doesn't matter. I literally don't care and am fully sympathetic to anyone who is skeptical of such a perspective. All i ask is that on matters not directly pertaining to cosmic humanism that you take my views at face value and see if you think my reasoning and evidence are convincing. If you do, good for you. If you don't, well, that's up to you.