As a minor example, the story of Adam and Eve was introduced by St. Augustine in the fifth century, to provide a convenient and satisfactory explanation of Mankind’s origin. But, this imaginary exercise was not accepted by early orthodox Christian religions or, the Jewish traditions, as it was considered undesirable for the Scriptures to be read in this way.
The story is now considered to be a kind of religious folklore – not seriously accepted, or promoted, by officialdom, but allowed to be aired, on occasion, as a harmless viewpoint.
Now, because of its intensely personal nature, the decision about the existence of God can’t be decided for you, by others. You have to make this decision for yourself, probably requiring a degree of simple basic and personal introspection, based on facts, as much as possible, free from any artificial religious constraints.
Of course, reaching a decision can be assisted by a wide reading of philosophical views on the subject, but it must be understood that absolute confirmation is beyond the competence of language or logic. There is always an area of doubt, because of incomplete knowledge, but, it has to be the individual’s choice.
This book is a discussion of ideas, and endeavours to provide a combined general, philosophical and scientific viewpoint, based on today’s knowledge, that is subject to strict confirmation, rather than repeating outdated stories of the past that were suitable for their times, but are just that – stories from the past.
All of our views are shaped, firstly, by our education and, secondly, by our experience of life, and this duality of experience leads us to live in two worlds – an Outer world that is, largely, controlled by the rules of Science and Mathematics, i.e. the Laws of Physics, and an Inner world that is influenced by emotions, feelings, and imagination and the benefits of history..
However, these two worlds are bridged by Reason, and it should be kept in mind that without Reason, any discussion about the existence of God, becomes meaningless, as God’s identity could be decided, according to the individual’s personal choice, at any particular time – and changed just as easily. A chaotic and senseless proposition.
So, while the Laws of Physics can’t directly prove the existence of God, it may be considered, that, the evolving existence of these complex rules, based on absolute truths, could be considered as a kind of continuing and unfolding indirect proof that God exists. This, together, with Reason, acting as an interpreter or guide, furthers the discussion into the future.
There is no doubt that conclusions of the past were influenced by the political and living conditions existing, at that time, and, in many instances, force was used to impose “favoured” opinions on others.
On occasion, reliance was placed on fables, or wrongly assumed statements, or translations etc., but, with the benefit of today’s hindsight, we can see that these may have been in error.
But the important aspect today is not what others think, but what do you think? What reason do you have for thinking that God exists? Or not.
A viewpoint of the existence of God has to be based on personal conviction, with, or without, the aid of academic teaching, keeping in mind, the comments above and the willingness to think about these matters, in a meaningful way. Just as we are doing now.
In my view, the likelihood of God’s existence can be reasoned into being, using a “balance of probabilities” approach, but this requires that you become explorers and are brave enough to question and reject those things that are unreasonable, regardless of who said, or proposed them.
Keep in mind, that “a balance of probabilities” approach, for example, has to include the fact that - the concept of an intelligent life force (you and I) - requires a higher intelligence to conceive of it and to originate it. Isn’t this a basic and logical, indisputable part of the proof that God exists? It is self evident and can’t be disputed.
Remember, if something is true, it will be unchanging – if change is apparent, then either it’s not true, or, only true under some circumstances, and this needs to be recognised in terms of its importance to the matter as a whole.
This is not a new approach – you’ve been sorting out the facts of living all through your life, and if the truth is known, probably, on occasion, needed to do so, to stay alive and well.
The same reasoning process applies to any discussion on philosophical, or religious matters and, it should be kept in mind that being bound to a religion that promotes tenets, even historically accepted tenets, that are untrue, or doubtful, seems somewhat pointless. Above all you need to be true to yourself.
You may like to ponder on the thought that, as I see it, Science and Philosophy are two ends of the same subject – each with its own language – feeling their way toward each other at the middle.
At this meeting, a common language and understanding will emerge, and Mankind will have taken a great step forward in his understanding of his existence. Indeed, Truth is out there to be found, but requires the application of Reason and Faith, plus a touch of forbearance, to aid in the search.
Part One
The Start of the Journey
The journey of life starts when you are born, but the journey of self-knowledge starts when one realises how little one really knows – Part One discusses the beginning of awareness.
Status Quo?
We live and die, in accordance with a process set in place by God. Now you may question this and it is agreed that despite centuries of research and learned discussion, none of us really know the answer to this question.
All we can do is to look at the available facts and these are that, ultimately, we will all die, and can only provide guesses at what happens from then on. Hopefully, this discussion may help to sort these uncertainties out, to some degree.
You will 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,