The CofEQ Book of  “Sin”

cofeq-sin

The Church of the Eternal Question Book of Sin

“Despise not the sinner. Despise, instead, the sin.”

Introduction

In the Church of the Eternal Question (CofEQ.com), we do not respect “belief”. This is because we do not, ourselves, believe. We simply “reckon”, and we reckon on the basis of information currently available.

We reckon that one can conclude from the existence of intelligence that its purpose is to seek application. That is to say, the purpose of intelligence is to think, to enquire, to imagine, to be curious, to seek solutions to problems. To use human intelligence as a vehicle for unquestioning belief is, in our view, roughly equivalent to using an intergalactic star ship – as a door stop.

Given the above, it stands to reason that, when it comes to Sin, the Church is not interested in anyone’s beliefs. Instead, we seek clear statement of underlying assumptions in place, brief representation of the grounds for making/holding those assumptions, and intelligent revelation of the logic springing therefrom.

This volume will endeavour to lay bare the process of assessing, in empirical terms, the basic nature of “sin” such that even ordinary Parishioners may follow and understand. Clearly, Parishioners will seek the guidance of respectable Church Dignitaries as matters become more complex and/or involved, but this written guidance should suffice for most day to day situations.

1. Unquestioning Obedience.

1.1. The worst sin is Unquestioning Obedience. Insofar as humans have been blessed with “intelligence”, it follows that it is incumbent upon humans to develop and apply that intelligence. Humans not developing and applying intelligence is like birds not flying or fish not swimming or mammals not sharing body warmth or flowers not cross pollinating. It’s like having eyes and not looking or having hands and not using them. It doesn’t make sense to have a shatteringly wonderful gift and not use it. Developing intelligence requires questioning, exploration, examination, curiosity, a tendency to look beyond the apparent face values or circumstances. Adopting a body of knowledge by rote and holding it to be the absolute and non-negotiable truth contradicts the very existence of human intelligence.

1.2. If Unquestioning Obedience is a sin, it follows that “Giving Orders” without a proper context must also be. By a proper context we mean that humans may negotiate and agree circumstances and situations whereby they may consent to accept one voice, pro tem, as the voice of the collective. In most cases it is undignified and contrary to the tenets of primordial evolution for humans to give or take orders. The exceptions reside in situations of stress or danger where quick group decision-making is essential to survival. However, this is only acceptable if there is a clear collective allocation of responsibility and authority. No Parishioner should give or take an order without clear and time-limited collective authority, properly negotiated, from the ordered constituents. More particularly, no Parishioner should use collective power to oppress another.

1.3. It may be assumed that Giving Orders is a higher sin than “Taking Orders”, but remember, it takes two to make a fascist. Think about it. The greatest crimes in human history have been perpetrated not by individuals acting alone, but by groups of individuals accepting and responding to orders. As a rule of thumb, it is useful to bear in mind (without straying into the sin of Taking Self too Seriously) the importance of maintaining dignity. The good Parishioner will always ask him or her self if it is dignified to jump when a deluded human has the temerity to bark an order.

2. Taking Self too Seriously

2.1. In the context of not knowing what is actually going on in our exploding universe and of the infinite unlikelihood of ever knowing, there are very limited grounds for intelligent humans to take themselves seriously. There is simply not enough information to hand. As long as we remain in the dark about the ultimate purpose of human life, we cannot judge if we or anyone else is “doing the right thing”, or even whether anyone is “better” than anyone else. How can one compare humans if one doesn’t know their purpose? And how can one flatter oneself that one is doing a good job if one doesn’t know what one is supposed to be doing?

2.2. Having said that, clearly there are grounds for assessing whether one is doing a good job or not within specific contexts. For example, a job may be to move a mound of earth from one location to another. It may be possible to assess the quality of the job by considering what both locations looked like before and after the job, the timeframe within which the job was completed, the human satisfaction achieved in the course of the work, the benefit to other humans and to the planet generally achieved by the project, the longevity or impact of the work over time, and various other considerations determined by the place and time of the event. But, in the context of the exploding universe, it is perfectly legitimate to ask either, “Should we be moving earth at all?” or “Is moving earth our central purpose, our pivotal role in the unfolding cosmos?” The important point to note is that there can be no final, non-negotiable evaluation. Evaluation can only be made within specified contexts, each requiring the pro tem adoption of a series of assumptions.

3. Deference

3.1. In the context of there being very limited grounds for taking oneself seriously, it follows that the grounds for taking anyone else seriously may be bordering on the absurd. There may be grounds for taking others seriously within defined or limited contexts – such as if they are making a particularly intelligent observation or are perhaps packing heat – but making an across the board decision to take someone seriously and to defer to them in all situations and circumstances is clearly flying in the face of good sense.

4. Promise breaking

4.1. No promises can be offered (or accepted) in perpetuity. Infinite promise flies in the face of logic and common sense. Good Parishioners would not seek to rely so heavily on another’s credulity. Having said this, the importance of verbal (or written) agreements must be acknowledged in the evolution of the species. The very existence of specialisation, for which we must be thankful as we gauge what has separated us from the “lower” species over time, presupposes the existence of negotiations and agreements. How else could one human be expected to go off hunting and gathering whilst other humans stay home still expecting to eat? How else can one human take the risk of staying by the fire and developing tools or clothing while others are out feeding? The assumption has to be that humans learned, fairly early on, to trust each other.

4.2. Promise breaking is therefore a primordial sin and a danger to humankind as we have come to know it. However, there is an obligation on both the promise giver and the promise taker. Do not fly in the face of logic. Be specific about time frames and/or allow notice periods of promise termination. Above all, do not expect extorted promises to have value. Bearing all this in mind, the breaker of a fairly negotiated promise is a sinner of a very high order indeed.

5. Ignorance

5.1. Ignorance is defined as not having to hand enough information relevant to the situation or problem being confronted. All humans have an obligation to inform themselves as best they may and to use that information and their intelligence to navigate the reality they see before them. However, some humans, by dint of economic circumstance, have a significantly lower exposure to assembled information and the techniques for retrieving and applying it. It could be said that Ignorance is a passive sin in the sense that humans are born into it and have to rely on good fortune and supportive fellow humans to begin the infinite process of overcoming it. Technically, Ignorance itself cannot therefore be a sin. The sin is more closely associated with inhibiting or discouraging humans from endeavouring, on their own terms, to struggle out of it.

6. Stupidity

6.1. Stupidity is defined as not applying enough relevant information to the situation or problem being confronted despite there being a reasonable assumption that such information is readily enough to hand. The assumption of such information being to hand depends to a large degree on economic circumstance. Some humans, by dint of economic circumstance, have a significantly higher exposure to assembled information and the techniques for retrieving and applying it. The more materially better off an individual may in fact have the good fortune to be, the less excuse for Ignorance that individual may legitimately entertain. Being Ignorant by virtue of ignoring or avoiding information reasonably considered to be at hand – is Stupidity.

7. Giving Attention without care

7.1. Attention is the tool, the lever with which we gain access to each other’s minds…….. Attention is such a powerful tool that we must exercise caution in its administration. We must be aware of inflating egos and the negativity and destructiveness which may follow. On the other hand, we must humanely recognise that desperation for attention is not necessarily grounds for withholding it. Humans need attention in the same way they need air and water. It should be freely given unless and until it becomes evident that it is being abused. Then it should be withdrawn until such time as the abuse declines.

8. Accepting Attention without care

8.1. Attention is the tool, the lever with which we gain access to each other’s minds…….. Accepting it without care and careful consideration increases the likelihood of becoming Stupid.

9. Belief

9.1. Because all belief is built upon a bedrock of assumptions, it can only be respected if those assumptions are negotiable. Belief springs, hopefully, from a foundation of knowledge, but, as we have seen above, all knowledge pre-supposes underlying assumptions. It would perhaps be foolish to say that absolute knowledge will never be within our grasp, but until it is, we have to accept the requirement for underlying assumptions. And we have to accept that this is just what they are – assumptions. Belief can be a source of great pleasure. In some strange way, it can release in humans energy hitherto untapped. But that doesn’t make it right. Belief is still just that – belief. The sin is not so much in entertaining a belief. The sin resides more in allowing that belief to over-rule one’s own intelligence and in foisting that belief on the resistant intelligences of others. Belief is like love. It can turn sour, and sourify all it touches.

.

© 2023 Deacon Martin