note that I have excluded any reference to religious beliefs in the above comments, as these are only factual to those who wish to believe in them. In effect, you are being asked to accept another’s truth and, while I respect the individual’s choice, it is suggested that the multitude of beliefs in existence, today, is in itself an indication of the uncertainty and lack of ultimate religious authority in this area.
My view is that religions are man-made attempts to provide an explanation of matters over which Mankind had no control and, at that time (and subsequently) were beyond his normal comprehension.
Perhaps, then, in the absence of more specific facts, you will agree that a ’balance of probabilities‘ approach is the best basis we can use to try to sort this out. In reality, life is not only a continuing and unfolding reality to be experienced, but is also a continuing problem of uncertainties yet to be solved. This is the task in which we are all engaged.
Einstein gave us a partial answer that requires an amalgamation of Science and Philosophy – a marriage, apparently, not always favoured by either party. But, because a reconciliation between these two disciplines is necessary, to any discussion concerning our existence, you may agree that this book helps to provide a reasonable basis for the inevitable union.
Science acknowledges those matters it can and can’t prove, and is in a continuing state of flux in its efforts to widen its boundaries. This is as it should be, but many of the concepts that guide our way of life today just can‘t be established in the same way – they are, therefore, a matter of opinion, or an expression of probabilities, until proven one way or the other.
Even then, this proof must continue to stand up to the onslaught of later knowledge, or be discarded as irrelevant.
Science is, in fact, a growing body of possible knowledge, some of which we are pretty sure is factual, but all of it is subject to reworking, as new knowledge and ideas emerge.
We need to know who and what we are – we need to know about our relationships with other species in our world and beyond and the confusion, caused by this failure to satisfy Man’s need to know, has caused our world to go through a ritical and very uneasy stage of upheaval over many years.
For example, consider the history of the Holy Wars of the 14th and 15th centuries between Roman-Christian and Islamic faiths and, in more recent times, the persecution of the Jews during the period leading up to and including the 1939–45 war.
Following that upheaval, for example, consider the current 60 years or so of competitive religious unrest, resulting in the present unstable situation in the Middle East, between Islam and Israel, plus the divisions within the Christian religions and the worldwide effects on the three main mono-theistic religions.
It is very reasonable, then, to say that this “need to know” about ourselves is still being held back because, just about all of our philosophical beliefs are based on opinions centuries old, which have been given the unassailable ‘mantle of Truth’.
The junction where Science and Philosophy meet should be one of cautious mediation, in which both parties can agree on mutual points of view, while accepting that there will always be a shifting area of doubt at the fringe that requires tolerance of the other’s standpoint, and the realisation – and acceptance - that we all gain from such a mutual understanding.
So the question arises – is there an approach that encompasses all of these aspirations and allows a better understanding of our world and its place in the universe? This book suggests that there is another way and outlines such an approach.
A part of this search requires that Man’s relationships with his world and his Creator are explored and, in so doing, a tentative bridge between Science and Philosophy is suggested. This is the ‘need to know’ in action and may also be an acceptable starting point for others.
An initial and general look at religions shows that the core basis of these religions is the insistence and reliance on specific interpretations of historical records and precedent, for their versions of the revealed Truth.
It is suggested here, that the continuing promotion of these differences is one of the main causes of the confusion, now, existing in the search for an understanding of Mankind’s place in the Universe.
This is not restricted to any particular religion or period of time but seems to be a general ongoing malaise that has existed for centuries. For example, in 1616, Galileo’s demonstration that the Earth revolves around the Sun, was in direct contradiction to religious teaching of the day, leading to his excommunication and to his work being restricted for many years as a result.
Other examples are the religious approval of the Crusades with attendant atrocities, the terrible tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, the Roundhead activities in Britain and the more recent atrocities in the Middle East and Europe. All in the name of God and the individual’s particular religion.
It is indisputable that the continuing usage of strict, ancient interpretations of religious texts, written for those times, often many years after the events took place, is questionable. That these original reports were often subject to later translation errors also adds to the uncertainty factor.
Of course, the problem with revealed truths is what to do when, later, it is found that a particular truth was not so infallible after all, and it seems irrefutable that any religion founded on ‘ truths’ which are not true, has to be in danger of irrelevancy. This leads me to four observations:
First, a great deal of wasted effort has gone into trying to prove what has been acceptable and comfortable in the past, rather than examining the subject afresh and making adjustments where necessary. This is still happening and is a part of the malaise referred to above.
Second, most major religions or creeds tend to apportion human emotions to their representation of God, as part of their beliefs, despite the complete lack of proof of this in the light of an unemotional examination of the facts.
Third, is the degree to which religious support is given to seemingly endless and life threatening conflicts, in the name of God, to justify particular viewpoints. This is evident in the Middle East, Europe, Asia and the Americas and is not specific to any individual religion or creed. The fact that this support is not strictly in accord with these religious teachings is conveniently overlooked or spoken over.
Fourth, is the strong probability that we are not alone in the universe and if that is the case, then the confirmation of the existence of more advanced worlds will require us to re- evaluate and realign our beliefs and many of our practices (where appropriate) in the light of new knowledge.
An example of the complexity involved in this last concept alone is that supposing we accept that there are, say, 1,000 other planets in the universe that can support intelligent life forms, and also accept that our understanding of today’s religions are true. Doesn’t this also mean then that we have to allow for the possibility that there are 1,000 other versions of these religious stories in existence?
Each would be at differing stages of unfolding or fulfilment – some more or less advanced than our own version. Perhaps a different version from our own? More true? Each will be just as true for its inhabitants. So, does this mean that Truth is a variable according to where we live, or our specific level of understanding?
If this is so, then what makes our version of these stories the correct one? Wouldn’t it be prudent to look afresh at our current spiritual development with this in mind? So, which man-made religion do you think meets with God’s approval? Why do you think this is so
