Whether or not we have free will is an ancient philosophical question. Ancient Greek philosophers already reasoned, ‘This happens because of that. Everything that happens could be an endless sequence of causes and effects.’ We feel we make our own choices. If I went out to buy a garden gnome yesterday, I am inclined to think I could as well have decided not to go out shopping or to buy something more useful instead, like an inflatable Santa Claus that says ‘Ho ho ho’ when you pinch his nose. If I could go back in time, I might have done something different, or so I believe. But if I had felt an uncontrollable urge to buy that garden gnome, I would have considered myself subjected to forces beyond my control.
And some things are beyond our control. Our biology and culture limit our options. You can’t simply stop breathing or run faster than the speed of sound. Those who have tried, failed, or died. And it is hard to do things that go against the prevailing will of society or your family and friends unless you don’t care about other people’s opinions, which might be something you have no control over. But it seems you have options. Choices like buying a garden gnome don’t raise controversy, and you appear free to make them.
Recent advances in neuroscience have enabled scientists to observe brain activity associated with decision-making. And that was quite revealing. Our choices originate in our brains several milliseconds or even longer before we become aware of them.1 The evidence suggests that there is no free will in the sense we traditionally believe it to exist.
This traditional idea of the will is that it is a force of its own. Nothing else causes it. It is rooted in the belief that we have a mind, a spirit or a soul that is separable from our bodies. This idea is at odds with scientific findings that our minds are a result of chemical brain processes. Not having a will is not the same as predestination, as it doesn’t rule out the possibility that we could make different choices if we were to go back in time. Our choices could still be random, like the throw of a dice. A dice doesn’t have free will, either.
Religious people face questions like, ‘If we have a free will, how can God know what we will choose?’ Or conversely, ‘If God knows what we will choose, how can we have a free will?’ The most straightforward answer is that there are two levels, so the level of us mere mortals, who make their plans, and the level above, that of the Supreme Puppet Master, who pulls the strings and determines what we will choose. That is not free will at a higher level, but at a lower level, it is. Somehow, some people remain fascinated by this question.
At least we experience making choices. These choices might be illusions, but the feelings that accompany them aren’t. It is the experience of choice that ordinary people understand as free will. When you go through an emotional struggle before buying a garden gnome, the emotions are real, even if they are chemical processes in the body. And so, free will as experience exists. And it is pointless to argue that even if you could go back in time, you could not have done otherwise, because you can’t go back in time.
Predetermination raises several questions. One is about punishing criminals as retribution rather than to protect the public. A desire for reprisal is a human emotion. But it seems unjust to hold people responsible for actions they can’t control. Often, criminals lack a proper upbringing or have psychological issues. And punishing offenders rather than addressing the underlying causes increases the likelihood of recidivism. In our experience, moral rules and punishment matter, just as free will does, and we experience having a choice. That is the point of punishing criminals. And it can deter calculating individuals. It is good to address social problems and prevent crime whenever possible. However, not catering to feelings of justice and the desire for reprisal undermines the moral fabric of society. Rules and punishment are in our nature.
Compatibilism says we have free will, even when our choices are predetermined. It is similar to the Christian concept of having a moral choice, while God knows what you will do. It becomes logically consistent if you introduce two levels: one of daily experience and another of the underlying reality. It is a practical approach which allows us to make moral choices. Morality is more than just following rules. It is about doing the right thing. However, the entire concept of morality hinges on the assumption of freedom of choice.
The second question deals with fate. If you are going to die on a preset day, then what is the point of seeing a doctor? Alternatively, you could opt for a dangerous hobby like mountaineering, for you will live until a specific date. But you don’t know that date. So, if you go to a doctor who cures you of an illness that would otherwise have been fatal, that would be predetermined. If you choose not to go to the doctor and you die, that would also be predestination. The same applies to abandoning a hobby such as mountaineering versus the alternative of perishing on the slopes of Mount Everest.
The third deals with premonitions and accurate predictions insofar as they are not attributable to fraud or chance. Why can fortune-tellers sometimes make accurate predictions? And why are their predictions unreliable at the same time? The answer is it is impossible to know the future. If I knew I would have a car accident tomorrow, I would remain home, and the accident wouldn’t happen. Predictions can influence the future, unless they are vague or hidden. In 1914, no one could have guessed that the licence plate number on Franz Ferdinand’s car referred to the end date of the upcoming world war.
So, if I pass a sign saying, ‘You will have a car accident tomorrow,’ it can only be a sign if I laugh about it and discover it was a sign the next day. Premonitions and accurate predictions require more than predestination. If you have a suspicion that proves correct, it is not you knowing the future but the one giving you the premonition. Predetermination suggests that we are like characters in a story, much like the comic book character Spiderman. Spiderman may realise he is a comic character in a story, but only if that is the script. Spiderman can’t change the script, but the script’s author can make him believe he can. That would be a delusion on the part of Spiderman, for you can’t escape destiny.
That is also how voodoo works. The practitioner of voodoo puts needles in a doll, and the targeted subject suffers intense pains simultaneously, but there is no causal relationship. There is no magic. The underlying cause is a scripted coincidence.
Predetermination allows for accurate predictions that defy chance. Actions taken to prevent these predictions from being fulfilled must fail, which requires a lack of information on the actors involved. Oedipus fulfilled the prophecy of killing his father and marrying his mother. He didn’t know that the couple he believed to be his parents were not his true parents. Fearing the prediction, he fled, which led to a sequence of events that made the prediction come true. That is why the prophecies of ancient Greek oracles only made sense in hindsight. And so, as predictions, they were pretty worthless.
Latest revision: 23 July 2025
Featured image: Aruba sunset. English Wikipedia.
1. The clockwork universe: Is free will an illusion? Oliver Burkeman. The Guardian (2021).
Evolution theory suggests we are an animal species that evolved from apelike creatures and that chimpanzees are our nearest living relatives. In other words, we are much like the other animals. Indeed, animals can experience joy and suffering like us. A central ethical rule is not to cause unnecessary pain and suffering. So, if ethical considerations apply to our fellow humans, they might as well apply to other animals. Nature does not have ethics, but ethics are part of our nature because we can place ourselves in someone else’s position and feel compassion. Compassion helped us as a species, as did aggression, but in a utopian society, ethics take precedence.
Suffering is something a conscious mind experiences, but consciousness comes in different levels. You can beat a stone, but it does not feel anything. A plant is less aware than an insect if it is aware at all. An insect has less awareness than a fish. And fish are less conscious than mammals. And we may relate more to animals that are more like us. That is why mammals elicit the most sympathy. And so, murdering a cow feels very different from killing an ant.
We care more about people we know than strangers, so we may also care more for our pets than people in faraway countries. The suffering that goes unnoticed does not affect us. Only when we see the misery, for instance, in factory farms and slaughterhouses, do we become aware of it. But once we know, we can react in different ways:
Not caring. You may have more urgent problems than animal welfare.
Accepting. You could argue that meat is a natural part of our diet.
Doing something. You might become a vegan.
Humans have been murdering animals since time immemorial. And our distant forebears drove several animal species to extinction. So, why stop now? Today, humans dominate the planet, and much of the remaining wildlife is under threat. Hence, it may not be a luxury to ask ourselves some questions like should there be animal rights like there are human rights? And if so, what rights should animals have? Animals themselves do not think they have rights. Respecting nature and animal suffering are reasons why we think about animal rights. But those considerations can conflict with each other. So whatever choices we make, they can raise controversy.
Even when we think animals have rights, animals transgress our moral rules, for instance, by murdering each other. After all, predators eat prey, and nature does not care. It is survival of the fittest. Should we stop them from doing that? Some species go extinct because of our actions, while others profit. Rats, cockroaches, and crows do well where humans have disrupted the balance in nature. Should we restore the balance in nature? And, if you own a cat and allow it to go outside, you contribute to a bird massacre. In the Netherlands alone, cats eliminate twenty million birds per year. Should you keep your cat inside or not keep a cat at all? And should we control pests? Probably so because pests threaten us.
And what about eating meat? Meat has been on the human menu since time immemorial. It provides us with some of the nutrients we need. There may soon be artificial meat and replacements with those same nutrients. And so, we might end the suffering of animals in the meat industry. Animals in the meat industry often live under miserable conditions, but in some areas like the European Union, there are regulations regarding the welfare of animals on farms. If animals cannot behave naturally, they experience stress and suffer, for instance, when confined to small spaces.
These European animal-welfare regulations conflict with practical economic considerations. For instance, what to do with a pig that resists stepping into the truck that brings it to the slaughterhouse and gentle prodding does not help? Transport companies and slaughterhouses must make money. Unruly beasts take time and can make the operation unprofitable. Whether animals in the wild always have a better life than those on farms remains to be seen. Wild animals must deal with predators, food shortages, and humans. Still, it is fair to say that ending factory farming promotes animal welfare. And we may need to limit meat consumption to reduce our impact on the planet.
In a caring utopian society, we should not make animals suffer unnecessarily. We can extend that to nature. For instance, if there is not enough food for the deer in a forest, is it not better to shoot the weak and eat their meat than to let them starve? Perhaps, you could introduce wolves, but that might cause even more misery. A deer suffers less from a clean shot from a rifle than a lengthy chase by a pack of wolves. And it gets worse when there are pastures with sheep nearby. Or do sheep lives not matter? Sheep, whether these are black or white, are mostly peaceful creatures who do nothing wrong.
If you prefer the wolves chasing deer, you believe the value of nature takes precedence over the rights of animals and that it justifies animal suffering. But nature itself does not suffer, nor does it care. And humans have profoundly disturbed the ecological balance, so unspoiled nature as it once was, is gone in most places. Letting wildlife coexist with humans can cause problems. For instance, bears are beautiful creatures, but it is better not to let them roam in cities as they are intelligent enough to adapt and may kill people. We can restore the original situation in areas where few people live, stop agricultural and industrial activities, and create large nature reserves. In other areas, we can better manage what remains of nature as a park.
A broken clock is right twice a day. At least that was so before clocks came with digital displays. Even that truth no longer holds. And so, nothing is certain, not even that. In the same fashion, end-time prophets may be correct, for once at least, because there can be only one end, even though that is not certain either. As for the end-time predictions of varying religions, if your religion is a bagload full of crap to begin with, expect no less from its prophecies. The prophecies in the Bible aren’t much help in picking a date or detailing out the scenario. The Bible doesn’t mention historical events like the discovery of America or the Industrial Revolution, which seem significant to historians but apparently not to the prophets of that time. Or the ancient prophets had no clue, which seems more likely.
Now, if these prophets didn’t know the future, and God likes to joke around, and of both we have evidence, their prophecies may still come true in ways they didn’t anticipate because we live in a world that runs the script of a story. So if the name Bathsheba hints that She was an avatar of God and would return as the Queen of Sheba, then the presidency of Donald Trump may precede the end times, because the noise of trumpets heralds the end times, and the name Trump refers to a trumpeter.
Logic is a strange thing, and humans are emotional creatures that occasionally think. If the end time ever comes, it is now closer than ever, but the longer we have waited, the less likely it might seem that it could be now. In any case, the odds for an apocalypse are higher than ever for the following reasons:
We ruin the Earth and turn it into a wasteland. We are creating an apocalyptic environmental disaster that includes, among others, disruptive climate change.
As long as there are nation-states, there will be no enduring peace, and weapons of mass destruction can kill billions of people and make the planet uninhabitable.
Technology will completely change life as we know it. Eternal life may soon be possible, or artificial intelligence may make humans redundant.
Existing religions and ideologies have failed, but we are religious creatures and need something to believe in. Only the truth can save us now.
The order is breaking down. We are nearing the end of social progress. The gang is our natural way of cooperating, and we may soon revert to barbarism.
We may soon discover that we live inside a virtual reality created by an advanced humanoid civilisation to entertain someone we call God.
If the end is now, it is time to apply some after-the-fact reasoning about how we arrived here. One ingredient in the mix is an obscure Canaanite deity whom the Jews came to revere as their preferred object of adoration and, later, as the Creator of the entire universe. And by a rather peculiar course of events, billions of people came to believe the same. Meanwhile, the Greeks had kicked off a tradition of rational enquiry into reality and moral life, which Europeans later took up. They began to develop science, Enlightenment ideas, capitalism, and social progress. They gradually came to understand that the facts contradicted the Bible and that it was not the absolute truth, not even in moral matters. In hindsight, we can add Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel to the list of greatest prophets of all time, as he envisioned that our quest for knowledge and social progress would ultimately bring us closer to God.
Pop music, the unexpected medium
If the end is near, there may have been signs, and probably not in places people were looking, and not the type of signs they expected. A few Christians found Satanic messages hidden in pop music by playing tracks in reverse. Some of them even believe Satan is in charge of pop music entirely and that this horned fellow has been busy composing the lyrics in his state-of-the-art studio in that hot place called Hell. Few would have guessed that God was the composer and hid secret messages in pop music. That, however, might be the case. Even more surprisingly, you don’t have to play the songs in reverse to hear them. Only that was not for the faithful to guess.
God is a DJ This is my church
Faithless, God is a DJ
Clearly, God likes to joke around. The song ‘Strange Phenomena’ by Kate Bush suggests that a coincidence with the radio could be a sign of God’s arrival,
A day of coincidence with the radio … G arrives, funny, had a feeling he was on his way. … We raise our hats to the hand a-moulding us Sure ’nuff, he has the answer
Kate Bush, Strange Phenomena
G might be God, as the song alludes to the hand that moulds us and someone who has all the answers. Does a day of coincidence on the radio herald the arrival of God? For me, it did. Coincidences on the radio prompted me to search for these messages. Like literary criticism, this is not science but speculation. So, can I guess God’s intentions? The following incident suggests so. At secondary school, I did particularly poorly at explaining literature. It is about guessing the motives of book authors. My scores were consistently poor, the poorest in the class. I considered guessing other people’s motives and decoding hidden messages in texts a waste of time. There are so many ways in which you can interpret words. The authors themselves often marvelled at what the literary experts deduced about their intentions from their books.
With the final exams approaching, I began to fret and asked my teacher for additional practice exams. It didn’t help. The grades remained as poor as before. Before the final exam, I prayed and asked God that the grade wouldn’t be too bad. My result was the best of everyone’s, but it was also equalled only by a girl with a striking hairdo, a bit alternative, who dressed in an outspoken way and flaunted her interest in art and literature. That was not only a surprise to me. A classmate wondered how I had managed to pull this one off. I was too ashamed to tell. I didn’t need a higher grade while children were starving. It was a peculiar incident. At the time, there was no reason to think God was behind this, nor did it seem a harbinger of things to come.
Hotel California
Let’s do a text analysis on the famous song Hotel California by the Eagles. What is its meaning? On the Internet, you can find some answers. It could be about the lost Paradise caused by American decadence and burnout, too much money, corruption, drugs and arrogance, and too little humility. Her mind being Tiffany-twisted and owning the expensive car reflects that. The wine being unavailable since 1969 refers to the fact that in 1969, it was no longer legal to drink alcohol while you were in a drug rehab programme. Before that, you couldn’t do drugs, but you were allowed to drink alcohol. The hotel, thus, was a rehab. I see another message, not intended by the songwriters and unseen by the critics.
When She stood in the doorway, the mission bell sounded. He might be meeting God because of the mission bell. And then, he enters Paradise, thinking this might be heaven or hell. God is a spoiled woman who owns the place and is used to getting Her way. Her mind, thus, is Tiffany-twisted. She owns an expensive car. Most people think Paradise is perfect, but it doesn’t agree with human nature. There is a darkness to it. They can’t kill the beast. And you can’t escape. You can check out when you like, but you can’t leave. You can argue against this by pointing to the master’s chambers. If there is a master, she isn’t God. Indeed, seeing meaning is not science, and interpretations are dubious. I knew that already as a teenager, so I won’t argue. With that in mind, we can proceed.
From Almelo via Enschede to Eurovision
Ilse DeLange’s fourth studio album, The Great Escape, contains the most messages. If there had been a meter for hidden messages, it would show an elevated reading when you play this album. If you read between the lines, this album comes with a message from God, Eve reincarnated, to Her husband, Adam reincarnated, to prepare himself. The album contains lyrics with parts that convey such a message. Noteworthy coincidences surround DeLange. DeLange was born on 13 May 1977 in Almelo, a town in the Dutch region of Twente. Almelo was also the hometown of Herman Finkers, a comedian who wrote ‘Kroamschudd’n in Mariaparochie’, a short animated picture about the possibility of Christ coming from Twente.
On 13 May 2000, the 23rd birthday of Ilse Delange, a fireworks plant in Enschede in Twente blew up, killing 23 people. That was exactly 11 years after I moved to Enschede to live on the University of Twente campus. I lived in dormitory 401 for five months, until 13 October 1989, a time lapse that precisely matches the events surrounding the Fatima Miracle of the Sun, which occurred 72 years later. This is the most spectacular religious miracle ever confirmed to have actually happened. And in that dormitory, lived that most peculiar Lady. The recurrence of 23 is also odd. The accident was on the day of the Eurovision Song Contest. Once the seriousness of the situation became manifest, the Dutch broadcast of the Eurovision Song Contest ended.
My wife had dreamt about a large fire the night before the fireworks accident. On the day itself, she visited a friend who had just given birth. Some of her other friends were also present. One of them came from Enschede. Just after my wife told this friend from Enschede about her dream, this friend received a text message asking whether she was all right. It was only then that they learned about the fireworks accident. Fourteen years later, Ilse Delange sang in the 2014 Eurovision Song Contest herself with Waylon as The Common Linnets. They came in second place after Conchita Wurst, a transgender Jesus look-alike. That is noteworthy, not only because it links DeLange to Jesus but also because early Christians performed a sex change on God in their scriptures.
Jesus and Conchita Wurst at a Meet & Greet during the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Albin Olsson (2014). CC BY-SA 3.0. Wikimedia Commons.
The Finnish rock band Turisas dedicated a song named The Great Escape to the Norwegian king Harald Sigurdsson, who played a role in a coincidence scheme related to D-Day. His daughter died in Norway on the same day he perished on the battlefield in England, a noteworthy coincidence. The Great Escape was also the name of the fourth album made by the English rock band Blur, released on 11 September 1994, a remarkable date considering the coincidences surrounding the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. The total length of Blur’s album is 56 minutes and 56 seconds. Compressing these numbers results in 11:11 as 5 + 6 = 11. And 56 + 56 = 112, which is also the European emergency telephone number. The lead song of DeLange’s album, The Great Escape, lasts 4:01 minutes. I moved to Enschede to live in room 112 of dormitory 401.
The Great Escape
Ilse DeLange’s album ‘The Great Escape’ contains a message from God, the eternal Eve, asking Her prospective husband, the temporary Adam, to prepare for his task as saviour. That was not DeLange’s intention. Unwittingly, she became the channel for this particular communication. As Finkers already noted, a lot was going on in Almelo, such as traffic lights switching colours. Mediums make misses alongside accurate guesses. The messages blend into the lyrics like the accurate guesses of mediums mixed up with misses. The book ‘The Virtual Universe’ explains how mediums can be precise at times while making many misses. It is not a gift but scripted. It works the same way as meaningful coincidences. So, how can we interpret those songs?
In the first song, ‘Reach For the Light,’ God says She remembers and that everything he knew is lost. That makes sense if he is supposed to be Adam and doesn’t remember,
I know my name, but who’s the same when everything you knew is lost I’m filled with hope that echoes loud inside a forgotten mind
Ilse DeLange, Reach for the Light
In the second song, ‘The Lonely One’, God claims She used Her powers to make his life disagreeable. Only God can order the sun not to shine and the sky to fall on him. What She says about Herself would even make Louis XIV, the Sun King, blush,
I told the sun not to shine and stay away … I am the only princess, I am indestructible … Asked the sky to fall down on you
Ilse DeLange, The Lonely One
He probably thought his life was not great. The song ‘The Great Escape’ gives the album its name and is the centrepiece. The song says it’s autumn, and some force pulls him into the shadow world. For him, it was scary to be taken in this fashion. But it is a holy land in disguise. She says she comes from heaven,
In this holy land A desert made of quicksand … Some force pulls you in The shadow world … I was falling, falling, falling from heaven
Ilse DeLange, The Great Escape
In the next song, Carry Hope, She instructs him to prepare himself. She says the power is in his hands, and he has to make this land his own. She adds that faith calls out his name. In all his vanity, even Louis XIV, the Sun King, would not have said that when he lets go of hope, there is no one left you can follow. There is nothing but the power to believe in Her,
The power is in your hands, the dust will fall to sand Gotta make this land your own … Faith calls out your name When I let go of hope, there’s no one left to follow There’s nothing but the power to believe in me
Ilse DeLange, Carry Hope
It can hardly be more clear than that. The song Was It Love suggests She doesn’t care for religious people. They are locked inside their belief,
And they’re locked inside belief But they’re not inside of me
Ilse DeLange, Was It Love
You have to cherry-pick lyrics and the lines to get the message, so the critics might point at that. The coincidences relating to DeLange suggest that there is more to these messages than just an accidental slip of the songwriter’s mind. And DeLange comes from the Dutch region of Twente. I lived in Twente, met the Lady there, and She was born there as well. That makes it more remarkable. And then you have Finkers’ animation picture ‘Kroamschudd’n in Mariaparochie’ about the possibility of Christ coming from Twente. That is a bit too much to ignore.
Slippery slope
Lyrics by other performing artists contain messages from God. The song ‘Hotel California’ by the Eagles did get its fair share of literary criticism, as did ‘Gimme the Prize’ by Queen, and ‘God Is a DJ’ by Faithless. To access these messages, you must filter out the noise, thus selectively choosing the parts that fit, which is a very unscientific approach. Literary criticism is about seeing meaning. You can’t prove meaning as it is subjective, so seeing it is an art. And not seeing meaning is the art of being a moron. The song ‘Joga’ by Björk mentions accidents, coincidences and connecting the dots. The coincidences make sense only with one person. So God made these things happen to show him Her love,
All these accidents that happen Follow the dot, coincidence Makes sense only with you … This state of emergency How beautiful to be … All that no one sees, you see What’s inside of me
Björk, Joga
She adds how beautiful it is to be in an emergency. The emergency services telephone numbers are 112 and 911. When God demonstrates Her love for you by murdering people in accidents and terrorist attacks, that can be intimidating. And you might get the impression that you, like Jesus, have no choice but to go along with God’s plans.
Now the word goes around in certain circles that the song ‘Stairway to Heaven’ by Led Zeppelin contains hidden satanic messages that you can hear by playing the song in reverse, which is something normal people wouldn’t do. There was something there, and the artists said it was a coincidence.1 However, straightforwardly playing that same music, which normal people do, reveals something even more interesting. It mentions a lady we all know. That lady could be God. After all, the song is named ‘Stairway to Heaven’ rather than ‘Highway to Hell,’
With a word she can get what she came for Ooh, ooh, and she’s buying a stairway to Heaven … There walks a lady we all know Who shines white light and wants to show How everything still turns to gold The tune will come to you at last When all are one, and one is all … And she’s buying a stairway to Heaven
Led Zeppelin, Stairway to Heaven
It is therefore not a coincidence that the same album, Led Zeppelin IV, which features Stairway To Heaven, also includes the song ‘Going to California.’ It mentions a queen who is a woman who was never born, thus Eve,
Seems that the wrath of the Gods Got a punch on the nose and it started to flow … To find a queen without a king; They say she plays guitar and cries and sings. La la la la Ride a white mare in the footsteps of dawn Trying to find a woman who’s never, never, never been born.
Led Zeppelin, Going to California
The song The Infant King from the album Adieu Sweet Bahnhof by The Nits is about a boy king on his way to meet his Bride. The world is falling apart. The border is closed. People are packing. Gold can help you if you want to leave. That could be the End Times. But the infant king is on his way,
I tip-toe tip-toe through the sleeping train An infant king who meets his bride … Two eyes two ears nose uncertain smile A child reflected thousandfold Someone said the other day The border’s closed there’s no way in or out … My mood is changing every mile Someone said the other day The world is cracking up it’s plain to see … Two eyes two ears nose uncertain smile The infant king is on his way
The Nits, The Infant King
On that same album is the song ‘Woman Cactus’, describing a psychotic love affair of an indecent nature. His senses don’t make sense at all. She haunts him as the bar sign repeatedly prints Her name on the wall,
This is not comme il faut It’s no respectable affair … My heart, my head, my brain My senses don’t make sense at all The bar sign prints your name Over and over on the wall … I know it hurts to touch a woman With those needles and pins
The Nits, Woman Cactus
There is more, but it is a slippery slope. The farther you go, the more you slip-slide away. For the argument, the presented selection suffices.
Latest revision: 9 May 2026
Featured image: Watchmen cosplay at Comic-Con 2009. Taken on July 24, 2009. Ewen Roberts. CC BY 2.0. Wikimedia Commons.
1. The 10 Wildest Led Zeppelin Legends, Fact-Checked. Rolling Stone (2012). [link]
The purpose of our brains is to keep us alive so our genes can copy themselves, not to make us happy. Anxiety keeps us from doing stupid things. And happiness can make us complacent, and that could be fatal. There is a struggle for survival. So what is the point of new ideas, technological development and social struggle? Why do we have agriculture, industry, cities, writing, money, empires, science, property, human rights and democracy? If these things don’t make us happier, what is the point of pursuing them? The historian Yuval Harari asks this question in his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.1 Things often don’t happen to make us happier.
Our forefathers switched from hunting and gathering to crop planting and animal herding because agriculture feeds more people. It was a success for human genes, as there were more copies of them, and also for the genes of domesticated animals and plants. But it made the lives of humans and animals more miserable. By growing crops or herding animals, people had more food. But more children survived, so they had more mouths to feed and remained as hungry as before. Meanwhile, returning to hunter-gathering had become impossible as it would mean starvation. Compared to hunter-gatherers, farmers worked harder, their diet was less varied, and they had more violent conflicts.1
The competition between businesses and states drives the change. States are the most effective war machines. And writing made it possible to have states. Investors expect to profit from technological advances, or governments see a use for them, for instance, to win a war. And so, scientists fetch budgets for their research and get busy. We have smartphones because investors profit from making them. Your smartphone does not exist to make you feel better but to make you addicted. Many people now think their lives are meaningless without their smartphones.
Social reforms like equal rights for women intend to increase fairness, thereby making people happier. But it doesn’t always work out as planned. If there is a norm, for example, the man being the head of the family, many women might be content with the arrangement. Men might have accepted that women had been in charge if that was the norm. A norm gives clarity, and change brings discomfort. Feminism liberated women, and overall, it probably made women happier, but not always, and the process of changing these norms raised tensions. So what makes us happy? That is not easy to answer. It depends on our characters and circumstances. Several issues influence our happiness:
our needs
chemical processes in the body
money
our expectations
our desires
having a sense of purpose
social trust
Maslov’s hierarchy of human needs
Hierarchy of human needs
Abraham Maslow thought of a hierarchy of human needs. He claimed that basic needs such as food and shelter are paramount. Once you have them, you desire security. Maslow believed that if you have food and security, you crave love and attention. And if you have all that, you want to be respected and have a sense of purpose in your life. These needs exist but not in such a neat hierarchical order.
Chemical processes in the body
Some people are always cheery despite adversity and misery. Others are always bitter and fret, even when they prosper and have nothing to worry about. That has to do with body chemistry. If cheerfulness comes from chemistry, we can be happier by taking pills. Pharmaceutics can end depression but might also give a false sense of happiness. And do pills make you better, or do you become addicted to them? The difference between prescription drugs and harmful substances like cocaine is not always clear. Nevertheless, more and more people use pills to feel better.
Money
If you are poor, some extra money will make you happier. Poor people worry about making ends meet. And that is why poor people often feel miserable. It becomes less clear once you can buy the things you need and have no financial worries. More money can make you happier, for instance, if you spend it on the right things. What is right is a personal matter. So if you can afford it, you should buy that garden gnome you always craved.
The more you have, the less extra makes you happier. Your first automobile can make you happy. You can go where you want when you want. A second car makes less of a difference. You and your husband can go to different places on the same evening, but that rarely happens. A third and a fourth car probably have no use unless you are a car collector and have a garage where you can spend your days gazing at your automobiles.
Expectations
Suppose I promised you ice cream. If you expected a small cone, but I gave you a medium-sized one, the outcome exceeded your expectations. It can make you happy. But if you anticipated a large cone and got the same medium-sized cone, the result failed to meet your expectations, and that can make you unhappy.
If you anticipated less than what you get, that could make you happy, but if you expected more, it could make you unhappy. We adapt to new situations. After a while, our happiness or sadness is gone. Having low expectations can be a path to happiness. If you expect the day to be miserable, and that does not materialise, it can make you happy.
Similarly, if you are better off than your peers, it can give you satisfaction. Alternatively, being worse off can be displeasing. Your happiness depends on the people to whom you compare yourself. The attention given to celebrities, their riches, and their beautiful husbands and wives can give you the unpleasant feeling that your life is subpar.
That can make you go to the gym or the plastic surgeon, buy things you cannot afford and turn down potential spouses who are not rich or do not look so great. The advertising industry uses this to make us buy more stuff. People in more equal societies are often happier. And we might be happier without the Internet and television.
Rock cut seated Buddha statue, Andhra Pradesh, India
Craving
Gautama Buddha also weighed in on the issue. He lived 2,500 years ago and founded Buddhism. Mr Buddha taught that people crave temporary feelings and things, which causes permanent dissatisfaction. As soon as you have achieved a desired goal, such as love, or acquired a desired object, for example, a car, you will crave something else.
That ties us up in this world so our souls will reincarnate and keep suffering from craving, or so Mr Buddha said. When we stop doing that and disengage ourselves from this world, we disappear into nothingness, a state of eternal peace. So, according to Mr Buddha, happiness is about letting things go. And that became a religion.
Having a sense of purpose
Believing your life has a purpose can make you feel better. If you believe in God, you may think you play a role in God’s cosmic scheme, while atheists may believe their lives have no purpose. The psychologist Daniel Kahneman arrived at a similar conclusion. He interviewed women about their daily activities, which gave them pleasure. He also asked these women what made them happy.
Caring for their children was among the activities that gave them the least pleasure. But when he asked these women what made them the happiest, they answered that their children gave them the most joy. The children gave meaning to their lives. Maybe these women deluded themselves. Similarly, if you think your job is significant, that may give purpose to your life, but that can also be a delusion.1
Social trust
Societies can contribute to our happiness when there is social trust, which means you can trust other people and organisations. There is no social trust when your neighbours steal from you, or you fear that they do, criminal gangs roam the streets, corporations dump their toxic waste, the government spies on you, or you need to carry a knife or a gun to protect yourself. Wouldn’t life be better if you don’t need to worry about criminals, the government, or corporations, and you can go where you please without feeling unsafe?
When people do the right thing spontaneously, there is less need to check on them. And so, moral values matter. Without values, liberty is the road to hell, and Paradise is a dictatorship. Doing the right thing comes from a sense of connectedness. If I do wrong, it adds to the wrongs done, and this world becomes a worse place to live in, even though I may not notice it. That requires empathy and taking responsibility for our actions. That defines what good and evil are in Paradise.
Latest update 14 April 2024
Featured image: Smiley. Public Domain.
Other images: Maslov’s pyramid chart of the hierarchy of needs. Androidmarsexpress (2020). CC BY-SA 4.0. Wikimedia Commons. Rock cut seated Buddha statue, Andhra Pradesh, India CC BY-SA 3.0. Adityamadhav83. Wikimedia Commons.
1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.
Christians tell us that God is love. There is something about this love that the Church Fathers found so troubling that they didn’t want us to know. Jesus’ deeds might make more sense once you know what it is. Love is a central theme in Christianity. And so this religion is known as the Religion of Love. According to the Gospel, Jesus said we should love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30-31). Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians around 54 AD. It is one of the earliest written sources of Christianity. It contains a remarkable poem (1 Corinthians 13),
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.2
Paul informed us that love is more important than faith and good works. That is quite informative, as God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). The Christian story became that God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). The author of the Gospel of John shares his views on God’s love in the First Epistle of John (1 John 4:7-10),
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
God loving us and sending His one and only son into the world to die as a sacrifice for our sins seems peculiar, outrageous even, unless you are a Christian. Christians claim that Adam sinned, so we are all cursed, but then came Jesus, who saved us by his crucifixion. Jews and Muslims don’t believe that God has a son, nor do they think that Adam’s transgression justifies this sacrifice. When God ordered Abraham to offer his son, and Abraham was about to comply, God called it off. So why did Jesus do it? The odds are that it has to do with love. Ephesians gives a possible clue (Ephesians 5:25),
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
Christians believe Jesus married the Church. Only the Church didn’t exist when Jesus lived. The verse suggests that Jesus died out of love, as in a marriage. It asks husbands to love their wives just like Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. That was as close to the truth as the church fathers dared to venture. Jesus was married and gave himself up for his Bride. And men should do the same for their wives. This vantage also sheds new light on Jesus’ views on marriage as a bond forged by God (Matthew 19:3-9),
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?‘
‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’
‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’
Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.’
Here, Jesus departed from Moses’ law, referring to the beginning, thus Eden. Jesus’ disciples argued it would be hard for men to love their wives this way. Jesus replied that not all men can do this. Concerning marriage, Jesus promoted a high standard that was untenable for many men. It would be better to live in celibacy than not to live up to it. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a king who prepares a wedding banquet for his son (Matthew 22:2-14). The wedding symbolises the kingdom of God. It may seem odd to compare the kingdom of God to a wedding, unless it is one.
The Pharisees indulged themselves in some additional testing of Jesus when they caught a woman in the act of adultery (John 8:1-11). They asked Jesus, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They were using this question as a trap, as stoning should be the verdict according to Numbers 5, perhaps because they expected Jesus to rule in favour of the woman. Jesus’ answer was, ‘Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ But according to Rabbinic literature, the man being free from sin was a precondition for the trial of the woman, as Hosea 4:14 reads,
I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes.
Jesus’ answer was the correct interpretation of the law, as recorded in Rabbinic literature, so it wasn’t merely a clever rebuttal. By knowing the law better than they did, Jesus made the Pharisees appear foolish. The witnesses weren’t free from sin, and as for the husband, we learn nothing.
Surviving records of Jesus’ words and teachings suggest Jesus believed women to be equal to men. The equality of the sexes is at odds with the patriarchal society of Jesus’ time. Paul probably also saw women as equals, but his views concerning marriage are remarkable. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul says (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 3-4, 10-11),
Now for the matters you wrote about: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
To the married, I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
To Paul, celibacy was preferable to marriage, but only for the strong, who can resist their urges. Marriage is to keep the weak, who can’t control their desires, on the right path, so that Satan will not tempt them (1 Corinthians 7:5). That is a rather specific interpretation of Jesus’ saying that only men who are capable of loving a woman should marry, and that if one cannot love a woman, it is better to remain unmarried (Matthew 19:3-11). After explaining that, Jesus went on to discuss eunuchs, noting that some choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). That may have inspired Paul’s views on celibacy.
The Didache, an early Christian text dating back to the first century, implies the equality of the sexes. It helped to make Christianity monogamous, as opposed to Judaism at the time, and later Islam. As many early Christians were Jewish and had heard about Jesus and the miracles he did, but didn’t know about his marriage to God and believed God was an invisible being in the sky, Paul faced a theological problem.
Patriarchy returning
Paul resolved that issue by aligning Christianity with the Jewish scriptures. He wrote that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man (1 Corinthians 11:3) and that a man is the image and glory of God, as man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man (1 Corinthians 11:7-9). Paul must have known better, but it was the biblical account from Genesis. As a religious Jew, he considered these scriptures infallible, so the facts are secondary, which may seem strange, but that’s how many religious people reason. Most early Christians were Jews who didn’t know the specifics about the relationship between God and Jesus, so they wouldn’t have believed the truth anyway. Worse still, it would be blasphemous to them. And so, Paul did God’s work by making the new religion more palatable to them.
Paul makes up for it by adding that the head of Christ is God. He goes on to say that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, and that woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman, and that woman came from man, but also man is born of woman (1 Corinthians 11:10-12). In his view, men and women were equal. It is a juggling with words, as Paul is beating around the bush.
Over time, Christianity became increasingly patriarchal. Scholarly analysis of the letters of the early church fathers underlines this. Scholars think 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is a later addition.1 It claims that the man is the head of the family. The same applies to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. It orders women to be silent in the churches. A reason for suspecting that the latter passage is an addition is that several manuscripts have it at the end of the chapter instead of its usual location. Scholars view it as a sign that a scribe copied a note into the body of the text.2 A previous scribe likely added that note.
If you ask yourself how scribes could justify falsifying their scriptures, here lies an answer. It happened in small steps that appeared reasonable. You might not consider adding a note a falsification. As Paul wrote, the head of the woman is the man. You can interpret this as the man being the head of the family, as traditional Jews did. Once the comment is there, it becomes part of the text’s context as a clarification. Once it is part of the context and has become an instruction to read the passage that way, it might not seem falsifying to include it in the text. In this way, a few generations can make an astounding difference. And so, the First Epistle to Timothy reads (1 Timothy 2:11-15),
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Paul never wrote this letter, despite the letter claiming otherwise. An unidentified Christian scribe likely penned it down more than fifty years after Paul’s death. Scholars uncover falsifications by comparing the wording of this epistle with that of Paul’s genuine letters. The passage above suggests women spoke publicly and felt they had authority over men. Otherwise, the author would not have written it. These modifications suggest an equality of the sexes, a prominent position for women in the early Christian movement, and the gradual re-establishment of male supremacy.
Sacrifice for love
As Jesus sacrificed himself for love, devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is a noteworthy peculiarity, as is some of the accompanying imagery. Within the Roman Catholic tradition, the Sacred Heart is a symbol of God’s boundless and passionate love for humankind. Nothing of the sort existed during the first ten centuries of Christianity. The Crusades revived religious life and inspired monks and nuns to revere Jesus’ wounds, including his heart, as sacred. The Franciscan monk Bonaventure wrote in 1274, ‘Who is there who would not love this wounded heart? Who would not love in return Him, who loves so much?’ Over time, Jesus’ heart came to the centre stage of these devotions.
Women mystics played a crucial role in that development. Among them were Lutgardis of Aywières (1182–1246), Mechtilde of Hackeborn (1241–1298), and Gertrude of Helfta (1256–1302). The devotion to the Sacred Heart in its present form began with Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647–1690), a nun of the Order of the Visitation of Holy Mary, who claimed to have received revelations about the Sacred Heart from Jesus Christ between 1673 and 1675 in the Burgundian French village of Paray-le-Monial. Later, Mary of the Divine Heart (1863–1899), a religious sister of the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, reported receiving locutions and visions of Jesus Christ.
So, did Jesus sacrifice himself for God’s love, and did God not care about Jesus? And if so, why would God care about us? If that thought had occurred to the Church Fathers, they would have found it disturbing. If someone else were to find himself in the position Jesus once was, he might not be instantly enthusiastic about the proposition. But no one can go against the will of God. And you can fall in love with someone who has taken you hostage. It is a natural reaction known as Stockholm Syndrome. Having no choice makes things easier. You must try to save humankind if there is a slight chance of success. He knows he has to play his role in the script. And he can succeed, like Chief Inspector Clouseau, if that is the plot of the story. And if the absurd has hunted you down and cornered you, and you see no escape, you can better embrace it.
And is it so terrible to die for love? Everyone dies, usually for less agreeable reasons like a fatal encounter with a deadly disease, some random accident, old age or a war fought for the ego of a leader, or even worse, his stupidity. In hindsight, Jesus’ sacrifice was exceptionally functional. It created Christianity, a religion that claims we are unworthy of God’s grace and need to accept a saviour and follow him. It is an idea that can save us because we can’t fix our problems ourselves. We are religious creatures who need a fairy tale to believe in. And as Paul explained in his poem, you can speak every language, know all the secrets, and give your money to those in need, but it is pointless if you don’t have love. If it is a delusion, you can enjoy it for as long as it lasts. And if you must go down in infamy and die, you can better do it laughing. So, always look on the bright side of life,
Life’s a piece of shit When you look at it Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true You’ll see it’s all a show Keep ’em laughin’ as you go Just remember that the last laugh is on you And
Always look on the bright side of life Always look on the right side of life
Monty Python, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life
Latest revision: 12 February 2026
Featured image: A cross in a heart formed with candles. Photos taken in Camp Tejas, Giddings, Texas, USA. Wingchi Poon. CC BY 3.0. Wikimedia Commons.
1. Forgery and Counter forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Bart D. Ehrman (2013). 2. The Oxford Bible Commentary. John Barton; John Muddiman, eds. (2001). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 1130. ISBN 978-0-19-875500-5.
The Plan For The Future 