Defining Morals Part 3.

Two last point then. 

The tarot analogy.

If we are talking about things that relate to morals, but within a framework where mystical thought like tarot is relevant. I think it is important to define the specific point where things stop becoming faith, and start becoming fraud. 

So, as I see it. When a tarot reader and their client meet to read cards and produce life advice from that. What are they agreeing on? They are agreeing that the cards are producing wisdom guided by a higher force. 

This is not like psychology. Where we have a certain skillset, agreement, of where the information is coming from. A science. There isn't a science to tarot that is agreed by secular sources. There is an agreement with it's adherents. An unprovable, and ultimately unfalsifiable faith. It is like a Christian church in a sense. The service is relevant because the people that go there believe there is a higher positive force called Jesus/ God, that they relate to.

Of course, there is some wiggle room here. What about if the reader doesn't actually believe it but the client does? Is this fraud? I would say no. While it would be if it could be proven. Faith is not a binary. It is not an on/ off. At any church there are some people that kind of think it's probably true but are not actually sure. People in the process of becoming atheists. 

Faith, or the lack thereof, is one of those things that can never be known. People can falsify that kind of thing for their whole life if there is something in it for them. It is rather like a bunch of excuses that generally abusive people have when confronted. "I did the best I could." OK, but is there any proof of that. Did you have private thoughts that "Maybe I won't do this crappy thing today" on the days when you did do the crappy thing?

Strictly of course, the act of lying, is like cheating in a sense. The client might not go to a reading if they knew the reader didn't have faith. But assuming the reader is reading in good faith, and is not condescending to the clients behind their back or giving them bad advice. Then I would not define lack of faith in itself as bad, because it is unprovable. 

The point where it gets unethical is when the tarot reader says something like: "There is a ghost in your house and for £2000 more I can remove it". The problem here, is A) that he reader knows there is not a ghost in the house. So this has become a lie. B) That they are making a claim to specialised knowledge that another person cannot confirm or deny. That cannot be objectively proven (unlike say, faith healing). This is inherently maddening as it disconnects people from said objective reality.

If you go to a tarot reader and they pull cards. You can buy a book on tarot and confirm what they have said. The knowledge is accessible. There is a lot of the new age that does not have this. 

Glass ceiling on spiritual teaching.

The video I am intending to review. at 35 minutes, David Wilcock talks from a Law of One quote: "In forgiveness lies the stoppage of the wheel of karma". 

I have had disagreements, in a sense. Not real disagreements. Debates perhaps. With llresearch. In making my case that forgiveness without contrition is not legitimate. I will make this case in my next post. 

But the overall point is that I have quite a long complex argument about what the Law of One really means (They mentioned a "process of understanding, acceptance and forgiveness") It is a lucid argument, that draws off real examples. But it is not the agreed upon argument. 

There is a difference between this statement and when David makes egregious errors with the Law of One. At one hour thirty one minutes, and not for the first time. He makes a statement that the Law of One says something that it explicitly does not say. It says that in many cases, the case is the opposite. One of these quotes is session 33.9. 

I just think there is a difference between these two things. It's rather like going to a bible sermon, or talking to a Christian. I believe that the Apostle Paul, who wrote like, half the New Testament. Is not a legitimate biblical figure and actually taught in opposition of Jesus. But it would not be a discussion that I would bring up in casual conversation.

If Christians were to say... vote left. I might ask them how they square this with the "thou shalt not steal commandment". This is a different argument than one that requires a certain level of intelligence and philosophical backing to understand. 

Conclusion.

Finally, those three posts are done. I have laid the foundation of the philosophical basis under which I can make a moral argument even within the fog of mystical beliefs. Where what David says is a statement of faith, a statement of lack of philosophical grounding, a statement of deliberate lies and fraud.