Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Thursday, June 2, 2011


I've finally been struck by the motivation to register this blog name and write an introductory post.
As of this moment, I do not yet have a master plan for this space, other than as a place in which to post thoughts on atheism, skepticism, and Thelema. It is likely that my other interests -- including art, poetry, pop culture, and mockery of religion – will eventually figure into the posts I make here down the line.
I'm going to begin by giving a short rundown on skepticism and how atheism, naturalism, and moral nihilism are necessarily derived from a proper application of it. This post will conclude by examining the usefulness of these ideas to a proper practice of Thelema.
Skepticism is a mode of thought in which one does not accept propositions until they have been demonstrated, through evidence, to be likely true. A skeptic is one who seeks to apply skepticism consistently to all of the claims he encounters.
This outlook arises from a desire to believe [note: I use “believe” to mean “accepting a proposition”] as many true claims as possible and as few false claims as possible. If I simply wanted to believe as many true claims as possible, I would believe every claim; however, I would, in the process, be accepting a vast number of contradictory, conflicting, and untrue claims. If I simply wanted to believe as few false claims as possible, I would reject every claim; however, this would lead to a number of practical problems.
The best approach, then, is to attempt to believe as many true claims and as few false claims as possible, which yields a mental map of the universe that is as close to accurate as we can possibly get, based on the evidence currently available to us. We revise our acceptance of claims as new evidence becomes available.
Now obviously, in daily life, one does not have the luxury to subject all claims to rigorous investigation. As a result, most people develop a heuristic that they use to analyze claims on the fly. For example, if a friend tells me that he just bought a new car, I would probably accept his claim without badgering him for exhaustive evidence -- this is because the nature of the claim is very commonplace and ordinary, my friend has demonstrated himself to be trustworthy in reporting ordinary events, etc. While it might be possible that my friend is lying or mistaken, I'm willing to grant such an ordinary claim for the purposes of having a conversation about it. And even if he is lying or mistaken, the issue is hardly one of great importance.
However, if my friend were to tell me that he just bought a flying car that enables him to travel through time, I would certainly not accept this claim without a great deal of corroborating evidence. The reason for this is quite simply that such a claim is extraordinary, outside of the experience of all people, undemonstrated in any way, currently impossible under knowledge as it currently stands, etc., etc.
Atheism follows naturally from skepticism, and it is the lack of belief in all gods, "gods" being defined as supernatural (and typically non-corporeal) beings with extraordinary powers. Note that atheism is not necessarily the active belief that "there are no gods" -- it is, in its broadest sense, the position that none of the claims for the existence of god-beings have met their burden of proof sufficient for the atheist to accept them.
In addition to the fact that there is no evidence for such beings, there is a great deal of evidence against the existence of such beings. A universe in which superbeings intervene in the affairs of humans is a measurably different universe than one in which such superbeings do not, and there are absolutely no indications that any such superbeings affect the material world in any way.
There is a famous saying: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and this phrase is often trotted out to suggest that gods may exist. However, absence of evidence is most definitely evidence of absence in situations where we would expect to see evidence.
For example, if I claimed that I owned a dog that I keep in my house, but you, on visiting my house frequently, not only never observed a dog but in fact observed that my house was devoid of any of the items necessary for owning a dog (no dog food, dog dishes, dog door, collars, leashes, toys, nothing), it would start looking suspiciously as if I had no dog. If you went through my house with a heat sensor and combed every square inch and found no sign of any canine life anywhere in the house, you could be practically certain that I don’t actually have a dog (at least, not in the house itself).
In a similar way, the universe in which we live demonstrates absolutely no sign of any supernatural being that intervenes or manifests in any kind of detectable way whatsoever, and as such, we are justified in saying that there is a great deal of evidence against the claims that gods exist. While it’s true that we can’t comb every square inch of the entire universe and make absolute conclusions about whether or not gods exist – any more than we can comb every square inch of the entire universe and make absolute conclusions about whether or not leprechauns exist – we can conclude that, in terms of practical knowledge, we can say that gods don’t exist in the same way that we can say that leprechauns don’t exist.
“Absolute” conclusions are absolutely worthless and we can discard them in favor of the best conclusions currently suggested by the evidence.
Related to atheism is naturalism, the philosophical position that the natural world is the only world that is demonstrable and thus the only one we are justified in accepting. This position, like atheism, follows naturally (no pun intended) from skepticism, as no supernatural claim -- for example, claims about the existence of ESP, ghosts, demons, "magic," divination, psychic powers, etc. -- has ever demonstrated itself to be even remotely likely to be true. Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence against such beliefs, in exactly the same way that there is a great deal of evidence against the belief in gods.
Practitioners of the "occult" sometimes claim that they too are naturalists because they believe that their alleged superpowers are "part of nature." Yet regardless of the labels they want to use to make themselves feel better about believing patent nonsense that appears to be entirely imaginary, the fact is that they believe patent nonsense that appears to be entirely imaginary. I will continue to refer to such claims -- including ESP, ghosts, demons, "magic," divination, psychic powers, etc. -- as "supernatural," to designate things that are "outside of nature." And since none of those things I listed above actually exist, they are indeed "outside of nature.”
Finally, the last item that we can derive from skepticism is moral nihilism, the position that no action is inherently moral or immoral and that moral claims do not convey any real objective truth about the universe. Under moral nihilism, a statement such as “You should not steal” or “You should not engage in sexual intercourse unless you are married” are equally empty statements that express nothing more than the values of the person making the statement.
This position is the result of applying skepticism to moral claims and determining that there is no evidence that suggests that there is an ultimate binding imperative for any individual to act in any particular way. There may, of course, be pragmatic reasons to avoid certain behaviors – such as, for example, the desire to avoid expected repercussions, such as punishment – but no ultimate imperative against any action appears to exist.
Once an individual accepts that this is the case, there is only one basis left on which to decide action: that person’s inclinations in conjunction with the realities of the environment. This is, in fact, the exact premise behind Thelema, a philosophy of individual conduct created by twentieth-century poet and mystic Aleister Crowley. Thelema (Greek for "will" or "willpower") holds that the only proper guide of individual conduct is the individual's nature – as opposed to arbitrary rules of behavior imposed on the individual from without.
Such arbitrary rules of behavior obviously include morality derived from religion (all “thou shalts”). However, these arbitrary rules also include all forms of morality, including secular morality, and even “personal morality” generated by the mind of the individual.
According to Thelema, it is possible for an individual’s nature to be frustrated by the individual’s false ideas about the self and about the universe. For example, a person who is naturally inclined to be a homosexual will create a great deal of internal conflict if he accepts the belief, imposed on him by society or religion or even by his own thoughts, that it is “bad” to be a homosexual. Such a person might deny his own nature, constructing instead a self-image in which he is a “macho” tough-guy. Alternatively, this person might admit to himself that he is a homosexual but feel too guilty to act on his actual inclinations. Or alternatively, this person might indeed act on his inclinations but feel extremely guilty and suffer as a result. All of these negative outcomes result from the individual’s acceptance of the idea that a particular act is “bad.”
According to Thelema, “good” and “bad” are equally illusory creations of the mind and have no objective meaning outside of the mind of the person using the terms. If the individual rids himself of the idea that homosexuality is either “good” or “bad,” he is free to pursue his natural inclinations without guilt.
To give another example, an individual may have gotten it into his head that “It is wrong to be mean to other people.” As a result, if this individual encounters a situation in which he actually desires to be mean to someone else, an internal conflict will be created. The solution, according to Thelema, is to rid the mind of its tendency to think that any particular action is “good” or “bad” in and of itself and respond to the situation according to one’s nature.
It might very well be, of course, that the individual actually does want to be nice to the other person in order to obtain that person’s favor or to accomplish some goal. In that case, if the individual acted nicely, it would not the mental construct “It is wrong to be mean to other people” that is motivating the behavior: it would be the person’s actual desires and appraisal of reality that are motivating the action.
Of course, it might also be that the person actually wants to be mean to the other person and does not care at all about obtaining some kind of favor or accomplishing some goal by acting pleasant toward the other person. In this case, Thelema holds that the proper course of action for the individual is to be mean, and to hell with what that person thinks and to hell with the idea that it’s “bad” to do so.
As the above examples demonstrate, it is quite possible – and almost inevitable – for an individual to thwart his own nature and create internal conflict. In Thelema, the individual’s nature is called the “will,” and it is often qualified as “True Will” to distinguish it from the various ideas  that the person has – ideas that are usually dead wrong – about who he is, what it is he should do, and what it is that he wants to do.
The task of the Thelemite (one who subscribes to Thelema) is to discover the will, to “pierce the veils” of the false ideas that he has created of himself and his environment over the years and to perceive clearly his actual nature and what it is that he actually wishes to do.
As should be obvious, a Thelemite is aided greatly by having a clear understanding, not only of himself but of the environment in which he finds himself. To this end, skepticism and critical thinking are among the best tools that a Thelemite has at his disposal. If one is to discover and carry out the will, one is far more likely to be successful by attempting to achieve the aim of skepticism and to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
This is not to say that discovering the will is a “rational” process – it is not. One’s will is not rational, and it cannot be discovered by thinking about it. The will must be perceived, but this perception must be aided by a proper understanding of the universe, an understanding informed by skepticism. There will hopefully be more to come on this topic as this blog evolves.
Unfortunately, there are a number of people who have sought to turn Thelema into a supernaturalist religion or a set of supernaturalist practices, believing in all manner of ridiculous and false claims, from the belief that the “true will” is some kind of supernatural force to the belief that the individual reincarnates and carries out a true will across multiple lifetimes to the belief that the true will can be revealed by entering into imaginary conversations with make-believe creatures, including angels, demons, and aliens.
It is the contention of this blog that Thelema is best aided by a skeptical approach, one that includes the positions that are the inevitable result of properly applied skepticism: atheism, naturalism, and moral nihilism. As this blog develops, it is my hope that many, if not most, of the posts will explore various facets of these topics, their relationship to Thelema, and ways that rational, intelligent people of the 21st century can benefit from Thelema without subjecting themselves to a cavalcade of false and delusory beliefs.


  1. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

    I couldn't agree more. Neither could Crowley, for all his apparent metaphysical dogmatism throughout his life. For example, see Liber 333:45, "I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms upon awakening; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."

    Also, "The Soldier And The Hunchback" plus the late writings of this fine gentleman were what got me back into Thelema a few months ago:

    I'd say that if you're not perpetually skeptical, and demanding proof (a la the "Doubting Apostle" Thomas, in the Gospel of John), then you're not a good Thelemite.


    Love is the law, love under will.

  2. LB wrote:"I couldn't agree more. Neither could Crowley, for all his apparent metaphysical dogmatism throughout his life."

    Yes. I have my doubts about exactly how "dogmatic" Crowley was about all the metaphysical stuff, especially since all of his writings, right up the very end, are filled with comments that suggest that he didn't interpret the supernatural stuff in literal ways.

    At any rate, it's impossible for us to know exactly what Crowley really did believe, and -- luckily -- it's entirely irrelevant for us.

    Incidentally, it's my sense that there are a great number of people who are interested in Thelema and who also are skeptical of all the supernatural nonsense. It's nice to hear that they really are out there.

    "I'd say that if you're not perpetually skeptical, and demanding proof (a la the "Doubting Apostle" Thomas, in the Gospel of John), then you're not a good Thelemite."

    Yes, except that "proof" of extraordinary claims can never simply be individual subjective experience in uncontrolled conditions. There'll be a post on this idea up in another day or two.

    But I remind you of that great line in the Vision and The Voice: "Blessed art thou, who
    hast seen, and yet hast not believed."

  3. Over here from Servitor Ludi, who introduced me to the concept of Thelema. There's a lot in this post and it would take perhaps more mental energy than I'm willing to invest at the moment to even try and respond to it in its entirety but let me just speak to this:

    'Of course, it might also be that the person actually wants to be mean to the other person and does not care at all about obtaining some kind of favor or accomplishing some goal by acting pleasant toward the other person. In this case, Thelema holds that the proper course of action for the individual is to be mean, and to hell with what that person thinks and to hell with the idea that it’s “bad” to do so.'

    I want to be nice. I like keeping the peace. I like it very much. I think the angst which arises from behaving like a jerk, put simply, sucks. But what about cutting people off? Like all of us, I go through life with two warring impulses. On the one hand, I don't want to harbor unforgiveness in my heart toward another and therefore encourage the easy growth of a bitter root and eventual calcification of the heart. On the other hand, I sometimes think when people are behaving like assholes, I'd rather just steer the hell clear of them.

    How would a Thelemite reconcile these opposing desires?

  4. Thanks for the interesting comment.

    I might be misunderstanding you, but I think the very question of how a Thelemite would reconcile these impulses carries the assumption that there’s one set way for a Thelemite to do so.

    It’s a cliché to say that “it depends on the circumstances,” but that doesn’t make it any less true. No two True Wills are going to react the same way to the same situation. Hell, even a single person’s True Will, at different times, might not react in similar ways to similar circumstances (there are no identical circumstances because every moment is unique).

    The foundation of the Work of Thelema is to observe, and to get very good at observing is very hard work. If I’m reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that there are two mutually exclusive options when someone is behaving like an asshole: (1) remain silent and “harbor unforgiveness” or (2) cut the other person off entirely.

    The Work starts by observing these feelings of “unforgiveness,” or, rather, your negative reactions to these “asshole” behaviors. Where are these feelings coming from? Do they arise from an arbitrary standard of the mind (or from some misperception of another person’s attitude or motivation, or from some story you’re telling yourself about the situation)? Or are they the genuine, authentic reactions of your Self against something that the other has done? It’s *very* hard to talk in generalities about this, and it might be very difficult for you yourself to tell the difference until you have some experience in observing the way your mind works.

    I feel as if you’re implicitly creating a false dichotomy: there are a number of steps in between silently harboring resentment and abruptly cutting someone off. Based on your comment and your tone, I get the impression that you would do well in situations like these to discuss how you’re feeling with the person in question. It might be a simple case of the other person not realizing that they’re being perceived as an asshole, and a frank talk might snap them out of it (or at least get them to think twice next time). Of course, it might be that the other party will get all defensive and resist an honest talk. In that case, well, you’ve said your peace, and you’re not responsible for how they deal with your honest voicing of your feelings.

    [See William Blake’s poem “A Poison Tree” for an illustration of the dangers of repression. Communication, of course, is its own challenge, since it requires not only expressing your perspective but a willingness to hear out the other]

    Here’s the important thing: True Will is what you *do*, not what you think you feel or think you are. Someone is acting in a way that is damaging your relationship with them and making you not want to hang around them? Then tell them that, if that’s what you’re honestly inclined to do. On the other hand, if there’s someone you really can’t stand, then don’t interact with them unless it’s absolutely necessary.

    Like I said, it’s tough to talk in generalities. I hope my reply was somewhat helpful and not as rambling as I think it might have been. If you’d prefer to have a private conversation, we could continue via e-mail.

  5. Suze,

    As you've correctly discerned, this space probably isn't the best venue for the kind of personal conversation (or "confessional") you want to have.

    For what it's worth, I think you're exactly on the right track. The key issue is what you mentioned in one of your deleted replies: that, when it comes right down to it, you prefer to be left alone and not bother with it all.

    The trick, from a Thelemic perspective, is to discern whether that preference is an authentic preference of yours or part of some fantasy your mind has cooked up about the "person you are," etc. It *sounds like* this is likely an authentic preference you have, and I'd encourage you to keep observing and adjusting your activities to bring them into line more and more with your True Will.

    In the big picture, after all, having two people no longer commenting on a blog isn't the be-all and end-all. A number of Thelemic practices you can read about on my blog and Erwin's (The Qabalistic Cross, the LBRP, the Star Ruby, Resh, etc.) are designed to get the individual to think in broader terms, outside of the prison of the mind, which is constantly trying to get you to assign more importance to things than they are ultimately worth.

    1. You people are fucking morons, I am not even going to waste my energy beyond saying simply this: Quit with the lazy mans Thelema and quit with Aleister Crowley. Stick with Richard Dawkins and that other Jackass pseudo-intellectual in the wheel chair with the voice simulator. Not only will you be much happier, but you wont waste needless energy pretending to be open minded!!!...

    2. Thanks for the bizarre comment. I'm amused by your characterization of my presentation of Thelema as "lazy" and your implication that I'm not open minded.

      I think you'll find that what is actually lazy is simply generating visions/trances and expecting this to do much more than provide entertainment. I think you'll also find that closed minded people are the ones who are incapable of explaining their standards of evidence and what it would take to change their minds on a given issue.

      You're welcome to present any argument or evidence that you'd like against any claim that I've made -- or not to do this, as you wish.