Since this appears to be the place to reestablish our semantics, I wish to clarify what I mean by philosophy. Not the dictionary definition, but its origins. Philos (according to Wikipedia) “denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers”. Sophia, (or Sofya) quite simply meaning wisdom. And wisdom, to use the suggestion first offered by Emmet Fox, is a perfect blend of love and knowledge. The reconstruction of the word I leave to you.
PART ONE — THE PAST
“...all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“
Max Planck 1858—1947
Novel Prize in Physics in 1918
Chapter 1
Fundamentalism in Religion and Science
A fanatic is a man who consciously over compensates a secret doubt.
Aldous Leonard Huxley, British author (1894—1963)
Trying to argue for or against the existence of God leads to an unavoidable stalemate. The opposing parties have not agreed on the semantics, which would, or could, define the existence of the Infinite Source, yet both insist, as Albert Einstein had done, that Infinity exists. The physicist Max Plank (above) goes still further. He postulates, or at the very least suggests, the pre-existence of a mind which is a “matrix of all matter”. As for infinity, Einstein, for his part, wasn’t sure about the universe, but quite confident about his other candidate. No. The other candidate he was referring to was not the Infinite Source—it was human stupidity.
Although infinity cannot really be defined, we know the infinite by different names. As pointed out by Baruch Spinoza: “To define God is to deny God.” Thus, the Infinite, or whatever moniker you wish to impose on God, cannot be defined without imposing limits on it. The word ‘define’ comes to us directly from Latin, definire meaning (inter alia) to limit, to explain, to bound as in set boundaries for, or to restrict. Not the sort of thing one would want to do with anything we like to think of as Infinite, particularly if we were to spell it with capital ‘I’.
Furthermore, probability (of being right) dictated by the quantum theory should apply in equal measure to science and to myths. Though admittedly religions no longer qualify to be included in the divergent views of reality, one could say that Yeshûa was the Dawkins of his day, doing his best to free people from the mental and emotional oppression of the priests.
Perhaps, unfortunately, this is where the similarity ends. While Yeshûa confined himself to instilling faith in one’s own potential, Dawkins tends to put the shackles of the ever-erring science on human consciousness. Why ever-erring? Because, we appear to change our minds every five minutes. Intellectually, we are, I am sorry to say, primitives.
Hence, I would suggest, we should preoccupy ourselves with little more than with Pragmatic Realism, as ancient myths appear to have done. As for (omnipresent?) intelligence, the Max Plank’s mind, or an “infinite source”… they are another matter. We shall touch upon them throughout this book. The mind of an individual is, as we have seen in my little FOREWORD, quite another matter.
The only higher power Yeshûa, or Jesus as he was later known, recognized lay within himself. Charles Darwin (as does Dawkins with religious fervour) seems to externalize it by assigning it to the Universal Laws. Yeshûa, on the other hand, stated, quite clearly, that he and his ‘father’ (as he seemed to have referred to ‘whatever was the absolute source of his power’) are one.
Subjective experience is no less real and pragmatic than the so-called ‘scientific’ or objective experience that can be shared with, or by, others. All intangible experiences such as love, hate, a whole gamut of emotions, love or dislike of music, art… beauty in the eyes of the beholder… all that cannot be measured by human senses or by modern instrumentation, would have to be dismissed by an analytical/scientific mind. Yet we all must pass judgment on reality in which we find our being, whether we like it or not.
At least, in spite of popular belief, the followers of biblical teaching can be sure of one thing, though only if they actually read the Bible:
1. God does not pass judgment, (“…for the father (god) judges no man.” John 5:22). Tell that to the millions of preachers and/or critics, who’d never read the Bible, or managed to diligently omit the items they found uncomfortable.
2. God cannot behold evil. (“You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity…” Habakkuk 1:13).
At least there is something that ‘God’ cannot do. Makes him almost… human, but contrary to us, the consequence of not being able to discern evil entails inability to pass judgment. On the other hand, the father “hath committed all judgment unto the son,” (John 5:22). That’s you and me. Yes, ladies are included. So far, so good. The Bible has set limits on the biblical Infinite but, so far, not on us.
“Ye are gods…” rings in my ears.
Anyone interested can find many confirmations of my selections throughout the Bible. Good luck.
Under the circumstances, at least for Jews and Christians, any discussion on the reality of good and evil as envisioned by believers, be they scientists or not, is entirely in our own hands. Or heads. Or whatever we use to be dogmatic and/or intolerant. We seem to find both traits quite easy to espouse. Buddhists already know what they are doing. They are just waiting to be awakened, while practicing the Eightfold Path. And the Four Noble Truths, of course, although I happen to disagree with one of them. I don’t believe that “Life means Suffering”. My book, Key to Immortality suggests why suffering is not necessary. Sorry Gautama, but, after all, the Gospel of Thomas has been written some 600 years after you withdrew your consciousness from your physical body, and seekers of nirvana must have learned something new since.
A word about priesthood of yesteryear.
One cannot really blame the scientists for suffering from a good dose of fundamentalism. After all, for thousands of years, priesthood and scientists had been virtually synonymous. Only the priests had the means to study nature, not to mention the stars, and they alone declared their findings to people at large. Since our senses are extremely inefficient—we can see, for instance, but a minute, a really minuscule fragment of the wavelength of light surrounding us—the results of their scientific observations were not very reliable. It is to be hoped that scientists of today, having a more advanced technology and seemingly vast financial resources at their disposal, and being no longer constrained by dogmatic interferences from various churches and sacerdotal circles, will assure that the conclusions of their observations will be more trustworthy. Alas, not so. Many of the scientists continue to declare their finding dogmatically, continue to hate to be criticized, and then… change their mind.
Echoes of the past?
In early Judaism the priesthood was inherited through the families. While some Jews (e.g.: the Sadducees, who also fulfilled various political and religious roles including looking after the Temple, and the Karaites, meaning ‘readers of the Hebrew scriptures’), claimed to have had their beliefs based on the written text, the Torah, most Jews appeared to have followed the Oral Law. The Pharisees (meaning ‘set apart’) took it upon themselves to transmit this Law to their remaining compatriots.
Yeshûa, as stated above, had little regard for the priesthood. He expressed his opinion about the priesthood quite clearly:
“But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” (Matthew 23:13)
Nothing changed.
Of course, Yeshûa (Jesus) taught that heaven is a state of consciousness, thus within us, an idea not picked up by the Christian religions to this day, and dismissed outright by scientists (with the exception of a few psychiatrists) as superstition.
Perhaps that was why he, Yeshûa, had a number of other equally unpleasant and certainly undiplomatic things to say about the scribes and Pharisees. As I am sure, he would today about their counterparts.
Thus, the whole discussion about a resident or in absentia divinity is abortive. Still, both Dawkins and his opponents made a lot of chutzpa (and hopefully money), in their attempts to destroy each other. And I should mention, that I share most of the apostate author of God Delusion views regarding a whole gamut of religions, not, however, regarding reality. Also, religion has little, if anything, to do with ‘god’. Look up the words of mystics on the subject and you’ll agree, also. Words such as “Don’t call me good, only my father is good and he’s in heaven. Or… “Don’t call me master,” or… “The son of man can do nothing by himself.” The scriptures demolish gods faster than I ever could. One day, we shall all agree. After all, are we not all latent Buddhas?
A word of caution. When referring to god as ‘good father’, we might bear in mind the words of Lao Tzu: “Tao is impartial—it always favours good men,” (my italics).
In a dualistic reality, i.e. one based on the opposites of good and evil, only the state of balance is ‘good’. There is a pragmatic saying that “God is what the opposites have in common”. This is a great unwavering guideline for establishing the ethics of life. There is an old paradigm stating that there is no good without some evil, no evil without some good. If we ignore the 20-million deaths left in his wake, Hitler, from the point of view of eugenically inspired standards could claim to be ‘good’, or at least ‘moral’. However, he was very far from the state of balance. Even as George W. Bush, evidently guided by the self-confessed and publicly announced new-born Christian status and with able, indeed eager, assistance of Toni Blair, is said (Opinion Research Business survey in Wikipedia) to have been at least in part responsible for the murder, or at least for the death, of approximately one million people. How is that for loving your enemy!
This is why I prefer to regard ethics as defining man’s actions, while relegating morality to little more than keeping up with the Joneses and avoiding a public scandal.
Hence, Pragmatic Realism.
Without entering into the benefits or otherwise of various religions, a question arises how religious systems manage to survive longer that other systems designed to control man’s minds. I am referring to social systems including all empires and political entities.
With regard to scientists, some evolutionary biologists have introduced memes as having properties necessary for evolution. (A little bit like the black matter in the universe, which is purported to help it collapse onto, or possibly into, itself). Essentially, a meme is an element of a culture or system which is, or can be, passed from one individual to another by non-genetic means, e.g. by imitation. It has been suggested that various religions, or cults, have survived, albeit for a very short time, due to memetic collaboration.
The proponents of this thesis may be right. I find it hard to imagine that genes (no matter how selfish) could, all by themselves, create monsters who would burn members of their own species on the stake.
Yet, as for longevity of some ecclesiastic organizations, I am inclined to disagree, especially as regarding religions that lasted longer than a century or two. In such cases, it is my contention that it is the threat of punishment and reward that keeps them going. Parents teach their children to be afraid at a very early age. In western religions, heaven and hell, the ultimate carrot and the ultimate stick, assure the religious system’s survival. Throughout history, although less successfully, the same method had been attempted by various political entities. Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, and only to a slightly lesser degree George W. Bush and his oligarchy, have all scared their people into abject submission. It is by far the easiest way to retain control over peoples’ minds and modes of behaviour.
As for Buddhism, I never regarded it as religion. It is more what the western religions purport to be—a way of life.
The carrot and the stick have proven the most pragmatic method, even though it is completely divorced from reality. It does prove, however, that we, en masse, still expect to be treated like little children.
Interesting?
Chapter 2
Where We Were
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th U.S, President (1858—1919)
Not so long ago the Earth was flat. If you went sailing, and if you weren’t careful, you might have slipped over the edge to your doom. Unless you were stopped by a 40-foot high wall of ice at the very edge of the earth/ocean, which would also smash your boat to pieces—a dubious choice of impending demise. The modern hypotheses of the Flat Earth Society created not so long ago by Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884), is still doing quite well in the USA. Though originating in the UK, its ‘modern’ version, founded by another Englishman, Samual Shenton in 1956, was later led by Charles K. Johnson, who made his home in Lancaster, California. The Society was inactive after the American’s death in 2001, but was quickly resurrected by its new president, Daniel Shenton, in 2004.
The late president, Charles Johnson, thus expressed the aims of the Society:
“To carefully observe, think freely, rediscover forgotten fact and oppose theoretical dogmatic assumptions. …To replace the science religion… with SANITY.”
Surely, all noble sentiments. A little of what I am attempting to do, right now. We all try to do this, at least those of us who have not yet been dragged into the quagmire of fundamentalism of science or religion. As Einstein said, “Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” He was referring to other peoples’ knowledge. Not knowledge coming from within. A number of poets, musicians, scientists, and mystics admitted to having woken up, after a good night’s sleep, with new, sometimes revolutionary, ideas. Subconscious at work? Perhaps. But, what of the unconscious?
There are other things that a well-trained scientific mind must dismiss as irrelevant, or at least non sequitur. There is a story about Einstein (who was said to have been a very stupid child) that he has only shed his presumed obtuseness after his mother bought him a violin. Even after leaving school, Einstein played Mozart or Bach to help him with his equations. Not a very scientific approach but, at least for me, Einstein was first a philosopher, and only then a scientist. In the old days, philosophers have had to be mathematicians. I suppose ‘physicist’ is the next best thing. By that I mean that his scientific theories were the result of his philosophy and logic, not the other way round. He is said to have even used the fiddle to improve on his equations. No mention of genes or memes.
So much for scientific method.
Of course, in spite of the Flat Earth Society, our scientists have made enormous strides since 2004. Most of them accept that the Earth is fairly round. I am told that since condemning Galileo Galilei (1564—1642), and burning Giordano Bruno (1548—1600) at the stake as heretic for sharing Copernican (Milołaj Kopernik 1473—1543) views, even the Vatican accepted the notion.
For now. Until the next revelation?
We must never forget that the Vatican Observatory (Papal interest in astronomy dates back to 1578) is a scientific research institute of the Holy See subject to the Governorate of Vatican City State. Rather like Royal Astronomical Society (founded in 1820), or the American Astronomical Society (est. in 1899), only… much, much older. In fact the Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical institutes on earth.
Perhaps old and good are not synonymous in science, although the astronomers continue to study starlight of stars long dead.
As for revelations, past or future, I suggested in my book, all visions are subjective.Visualization—Creating Your Own Universe, that
“
Subjective religious visions are called Revelations. Subjective non-religious visions (unless held by famous people) are often referred to as hallucinations. Hallucinations can be subdivided into artistic, political, social, idealistic, and a whole array of inspired non-religious fantasies, delusions or insights. Revelations fall essentially into two categories, the pragmatic (aimed at organizing people) and the prophetic (aimed at scaring people). Both deal with influencing others directly. There has never been a prophecy of a carrot that was not accompanied by a stick. The prophetic visions are usually symbolic in nature, i.e. misunderstood by all people who attempt to give them a fundamentalist interpretation. There is a very basic characteristic of all visions. They can never really be shared. People who claim allegiance to a vision of another human being become followers, never those who implement the original vision.”
Nevertheless, as you can see, good ideas seldom die, and if their originators do, there are always others who seem more than willing to pick up the banner, and joyfully make fools of themselves. I should know. I used to be quite dogmatic myself. I once held dogmatic faith in both, science and religion.
Yet, in spite of the Flat Earth Society’s persistent efforts, the scientists decided to forsake sanity and to round off the edges of Earth into an irregular globe. For their sake I have placed this whole chapter in THE PAST.
I shall return to this matter in THE PRESENT.
Alas, you can’t win them all.
In the meantime, other scientists (particularly the astrophysicists but other specialties obediently followed suit) decided that it all started, and I mean ALL, with the Big Bang. No one cared to define just how big the bang was, but who cares about details. Scientists deal mostly with things so small that they cannot see them or, although very large, so far away that they cannot see them. A harmonious equilibrium? And after all, at the time of the big bang there was only one universe to worry about. Today, they would probably say ‘a’ rather then ‘the’ big bang.
DELUSIONS — Pragmatic Realism Page 2