Most religions and organized philosophies are and have been more political than theological. It is time for a democratization of spiritual philosophies, as the French and American revolutions democratized political power. Those revolutions were leaps of trust that few now appreciate. It is time for a revolution in our foundations of understanding; a Jeffersonian leap of trust: to trust the people to be able to understand reality, and that the people can feel secure enough even without a supposed absolute knowledge.

The Gaia Society is spiritual, but is not superstitious. We feel a sense of awe, not of a church-architecture of stone, but of the far grander works of nature. Man-made architecture is not a bad thing, but we prefer the living Redwoods to dead steeples made of two-by-four pieces of them. Let's have "meeting places", but our "church" is ... everything!

Gaia spirituality is not an enemy of science, but a brother. We do not try to deny what nature tells us is true, when we ask the question with the scientific method--without ego. Nature is what it says it is, not what we want it to be, no matter how much we might think we want it to be different. People who fear science prefer painted windows of imagined two-dimensional scenes... rather than clear windows on true nature.

On the other hand, we find science, by itself, inadequate as a basis for a spiritual philosophy. By its definition and design, by itself, it lacks the emotional aspect necessary. However, what it has now engendered --spun off, if you will-- is very spiritual.

We also find that a basis of mythology is inappropriate for a spiritual philosophy because its metaphors frequently become misleading. Over great periods of time, things change enough to make the original meaning unclear or completely lost. It may sometimes be useful as a teaching parable, as the authors intended. However, people too easily get lost in the details of the metaphor, taking it for truth in itself; then its value is lost. Self-aggrandizing teachers may then try to pass it off as fact, even when that is ludicrous.

One function of a church is to confer a feeling of safety. We can't and won't do that. Quite the contrary, you'll notice. (See "The Desirability of Insecurity".) One way to confer a feeling of safety is to say things are stable, even when they're not. A few church leaders ignore the population crisis. We wonder how they sleep.

The Gaia Society doesn't claim to know anything about the supernatural. In fact, many of us do claim to have no absolute knowledge of it. If we find a way to know, we'll say so; till then, we'll concentrate on what is known of the natural. We'll not argue it, but simply leave it to other philosophies and churches, including ones we may attend ourselves. There are plenty of churches for the study of supernatural ideas.

The Gaia Society is not trying to rediscover and restore some medieval or prehistoric religion. Other than the name, we look entirely to the future. Our foundation is scientific knowledge, not mysticism. Let's not let anyone illustrate Gaia as a pseudo-medieval drawing of Greek myth. No castles, no Mount Olympus.

This vision of a vastly grander universe is here for all to see and understand, and yet there is no religion (that we've heard of) that embraces it as The Gaia Society does! Nearly all of them --yet-- would fight any part of the idea. This amazes me!

Their picture of the Earth with life merely added on top; with little lights in the night sky; where man is an absolute ruler and owner, and nothing else matters... ye gods, what a flat (in all senses) little world; what a limiting and cramped set of ideas.

But just wait. As soon as the people lead, the hierarchy of leaders will follow. Given enough time, they will claim it was all their idea in the first place.

We put little imperative on study, ourselves. One may --Zen-like-- achieve enlightenment without formal study. One might study forever, or simply watch in wonder.

To be a Gaian: You don't need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the interrelationships of creatures and processes on Earth, nor all the effects of human actions and effluents. However, you won't feel awe over something you are not aware of! No matter how spectacular it is! That feeling is one of the biggest payoffs of the study.

So you do need some understanding of: the principles of evolutionary change. 2: The delicacy and vulnerability of Earth's balances between species and forces. 3: a few terms; like greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, predator/prey relationships, acid rain, and above all, over-population of humans, which has caused under-population of nearly everything else.

You don't need a church building, tho there will be something equivalent to that. A garden or forest is more appropriate, anyway. The entire Earth is your church, best exemplified where it is left alone; as in uncut forests.

Gaia is a spiritual philosophy that prefers simple nature-integrated buildings, with no emphasis on awesome architecture. The world is our home, and certain exemplary, natural parts of it are the best church we can think of.

From the world's experience with DDT, and introductions of exotic flora and fauna, we've painfully discovered that interference with the balance on nature cannot but make it worse. Aussie rabbits, lungfish, killer bees... It can be an excellent opening for the contemplation of the Gaian mechanism; the things in nature that, by billions of deaths and extinctions, and a googolplex of complex interactions, have evolved to become the best of all possible worlds. However, oceans and even mountain ranges made several separate worlds on one planet. Humans interfered, and Gaia will need much time to rebalance each environment to compensate.

People cannot make a connection with nature if there isn't any nature left to see! If the public isn't close enough to a piece of it, or can't see it for any other reason, they can never know what they're part of. Part of their identity is lost to them forever; and their reason to preserve it --and themselves-- remains unknown to them.

Things will get worse, in proportion to the degree that people think they can't.

If we let any part of that unseen nature go belly-up in our effluents, a part of the Earth's survival system is gone. How many pieces of that can we do without? How many rivets can safely be removed from an airplane? People are even now removing the safety margins of the Gaian system. We must counteract this.

Why do good people fight for the environment? Not just for the return that they personally could receive. It's the feeling they get from: 1: doing the right thing; 2: getting the connection with the process of nature, and their part in it. Being part of it, they benefit from the health of the whole, and they benefit psychologically from feeling that more-intimate connection with it.

We don't think there is anything paradisiacal about Gaia. No mere fortunate circumstance. For other worlds that harbor life would have also evolved into the best of all possible worlds. Might we then have to modify that phrase? Yes! "All worlds with life are unimprovable!"

How do we study this amazing life-system? Read what pleases you. We'll try to provide as much as we can. Read college biology texts or Alan Watts on Zen... Haiku poetry or local politics. Do what you feel is important, especially what you can do well, and pleases you.

Curiously, the Gaia Church is the first (potentially) great spiritual philosophy not to have started in a harsh, empty, dry environment. Quite the contrary! This means our foundation tends to be positive; more cheerful.

We might call the Gaia Church's philosophy a cross between Zen and scientific ecology. Especially in that the prefix "eco" means home, and "ology" refers to learning. We call Earth our home. That may sound silly, but it takes the entire Earth to provide all the interactions that make any particular smaller place livable.

The Church is neither theist nor atheist. Quite the opposite of those. Our intention is that the greatest number of people can claim to be Gaians. We desire that people of nearly any religion can see--not that we are right, and have divine sanction--but that we agree with you. We too have learned of the awesomeness of nature, and we feel about it as you feel. We think that that ecstatic wonder is our birthright, and help each other toward it.

This Church can be your co-religion. Perhaps the first; it doesn't matter. By "co-" we mean that people of most religions can subscribe to our feelings and beliefs as well as the ones of their traditional religion. The potential is enormous. Any person with any hope of human progress will be in favor of our growth. The membership could eventually get into the billions.

But it is more than just a co-religion; it can be the sole spirituality of millions of people who now claim no religion at all, and of millions who carry one or another label, but have no more to do with it than that. Many of these people may be agnostic--the opposite of atheism and theism. The Church makes no claims to know any supernatural secrets, nor can it give you an inside track to heaven. If you feel the need for that, fine; chose a standard religion to do that for you. ("Man is the only animal with the one true religion; dozens of them!" ~Mark Twain.)

The image of Gaia --the Earth Mother-- is not presented as a god or as real in any way. It's just a convenient, appropriate symbol. We will fight the inevitable trend toward personification of it. (The Buddha would have been appalled at the "godhood" he was sometimes given.) Gaia --never even a real person-- is not here represented as a "she", nor a "he", nor a singular "it". Gaia is a kind of a plural "it", tho. Gaia is a near-infinite set of living inter-relationships, of which we are a part. (Too big a part for the good of the whole... which includes ourselves.)

This Church is not a cult; it is not a superstition. (A superstition is what lies beyond the line that demarks the silly things a person doesn't believe from the silly things a person does believe.)

The Gaia Church is not a primitive religion. A primitive religion originates from a simplistic interpretation of nature, spurred by the human need to know, and partially from a desire for a belief in a ridiculous fairness in nature: that somehow, lions shouldn't eat sheep. (But, yes, we recognize that primitive people are/were doubtless closer to knowing the truth of nature than we.)

Gaia theory also originated from an interpretation of nature, but from a scientific observation of nature, the acceptance of it as an ideal, and the desirability of basic human nature.

"Traditional" religions may still be primitive; they are merely old enough to have accumulated --often despite themselves-- a veneer of good human nature; e.g., altruism, morality. These are endemic virtues that push us, lift us, in the presence --or absence-- of any particular organized religion. They'd exist in any case; let's not give the religion of any particular culture credit for what existed before and beside them.

Who is the greater person: one who declines to rob his neighbor's house because a "god" will get him, or a person who, for rational and good-selfish reasons, refuses to steal? Which one is the primitive? Which one is shallow? If there is a god, which person do you think that God would most admire?

There is a place for the lesser person, too. "The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, do nothing." No; doing nothing may turn out to be the best thing. It's extremely difficult to know if what you do would be more damaging than doing nothing.

I think that hot place is reserved for those who "believe in God, just in case he exists". This falls somewhere between hypocritical and dishonest, and is the most difficult double-think, as one must try to convince oneself of what one knows he doesn't believe. What do you imagine a wise and omniscient god would think of that?! They are not fit people for Earth society, let alone heaven! (Careful; while we're often given cause for suspicion, we cannot know for sure what's in another mind.)

There is a spectrum of hypocrises, from the mild (euphemisms) to the serious (blatant lies). Platitudes are insincere compliments and smoothe-over feel-goods--which are small lies. It's always suspicious when one spouse changes religion to match the other. Is it mere coincidence, an honest change of mind... or hypocrisy?