Religious Insights

In Conclusion
WCC

I've elected to return once more to the consideration of religion and its central dynamics, mainly because of the overriding influence that religion continues to exercise upon societal beliefs. Of particular concern is the attempted extrapolation of these beliefs in the form of demands upon nonbelievers. With the technological realization for global destruction in the hands of those who embrace opposing theologies, any exercise of conservative rabidness is obviously problematic. Since Deity and religion are claimed to be the driving impetus behind the current attempt to force change in the world, these theologies need to substantiate the rational that supposedly constitutes the certainty by which they find justification to act. Hence, the age old practice of pointing to Holy books and their questionable interpretation as sufficient justification to wage war is clearly suicidal to the human race and hence no longer acceptable.

hristians have been waiting for the return of Christ and the final judgment of mankind for nearly 2000 years. The Jews have been waiting for the Messiah for almost four thousand. Other religions have comparable expectations about when Deity will appear and how that will translate into a release from human bondage. However, for those of us not privy to miracles, and otherwise unable to accept the imaginings of others, there still exists a logical need to understand the many elements central to the question of Ultimacy.

Of these, the most important is whether or not Deity actually exists. If Its existence can't be substantiated then everything attributed to It becomes immediately suspect. Although believers would like to think otherwise, history claims no valid proof for Deity. The reason can be traced directly to an inability to define Deity. You can't prove what you can't define. As a result, the door has been left wide open for speculation. This has resulted in division that now encompasses both theory and practice.

On one side are those who deny all responsibility to Deity. The most ardent are called atheists. They even go so far as to reject the very idea of Deity. In the middle are the agnostics. They admit to the existence of something, but deny its personification and thus any responsibility to It. On the other side are those who believe in Deity; even thought they have had no prior choice but to cling by "blind faith" to a Deity about which they can't agree.

Christianity alone is divided into more than 330 denominations. This, in turn, seriously throws into question its claim to being the only diviner of truth. When you factor in all the variations in idea that make up the world's religions, the differences in belief are truly overwhelming.

Even though belief in Deity varies widely, there is still little doubt that it's universal. This is because it is germane to self identity. At the same time, this accounts for why there is such widespread disagreement between beliefs. It's because the self can be conceived in an endless number of ways. Because belief can't tolerate doubt, we are unfortunately left with a predisposition to discount all ideas that are different from our own. Some respond to this need by choosing to remain uninformed. Others mask their intolerance in a defense that is obviously offensive. Whatever the case, few seek to understand opposing positions for what they can contribute to the coherency of their own.

In spite of continuing controversy over who is right, all beliefs appear capable of generating similar conviction among their more ardent adherents. Hence it remains impossible for us to know which is right merely by its effect upon its practioners. Reason hasn't been of much help here either; since without access to 'certainty,' it can't even verify the truthfulness of its own function.

Hence we have been forced to default to other ways to qualify belief systems. The most utilitarian compares what these systems of thought "give back" to their adherents. From this standpoint, at least some meaningful conclusions are possible. For one thing, we know that there are serious disadvantages to being an atheist or an agnostic. Once you remove Deity from the human equation, you necessarily reduce all idea to the temporal immediacy of circumstance. This makes the unbeliever wholly responsible for their own utopia.

When things go well this approach obviously works, but when they don't it doesn't. Without long term hope, it's only a matter of time before one's ineffectiveness proves insufferable. Impending death provides a classic example. In the face of death, the meaninglessness of everything becomes immediately inescapable for the non-believer.

Most religions are geared to addressing this problem. Since Deity is traditionally characterized by perfection, It is seen to be the guarantor by which all legitimate idealism is realized. Life beyond death is but one expression of this idealism. To partake, one need only choose a path that coincides with Deity's nature as it finds manifestation within time. Given the inevitability of Deity's nature, reward is thought to be certain. By means of this thinking, Deity becomes the basis for all long term hope. Hope in turn takes the sting out of temporal defeat -- even death.

Beyond this advantage, there are serious problems to holding to a personal Deity. To begin with, our understanding of Its perfection does not prepare us for our experience of imperfection. Hence we are left without a way to justify the suffering and inequality that plagues our lives. Since Deity would not be Deity unless It were able to correct this situation, Its lack of intervention burdens us with a sense of unworthiness. When we know that we are not to blame due to employing the best of our intentions, even though the result suggests otherwise, our suffering becomes an enigma that calls into question Deity's intent toward us. Coupled with the continual need to rethink our interpretation of Its "Holy" books -- our only apparent external link to Him -- real doubt about Deity assumes to force.

This is why atheism and agnosticism thrive. It is because no belief system has yet to provide a coherent explanation of Deity. Because of this, it inherently throws justifiable doubt upon Its existence. Up until now there has been no solution to this quandary. Furthermore, without direct access to 'certainty' there cannot be one. Six thousand years of recorded history confirms this. Mankind is more divided over the issue of Deity today than ever before. And, as new discoveries and attendant theories continue to question old beliefs this gap is bound to widen.

ne issue that exemplifies this problem is evolution Vs creation. By questioning how we got here, evolution invariably questions Deity's existence as well. In response, creationists have been forced to try and explain Deity's failure to create finished products. Were It able to do so, it only follows that there would be no need for everything to constantly undergo change. This change also questions Deity's ability to affix temporal purpose to His creation.

If that weren't enough, there is also a personal issue involved here. If Deity is the epitome of Love, Wisdom, Justice and Power (as most religions contend) then why hasn't It saw fit to allow us to understand our purpose relative to the ever changing nature of ourselves? Because It hasn't, we remain vulnerable to our own questioning and hence to all who would deceive us. Additionally, we're forced to wrestle with our doubt while supposedly facing the constant threat of terminal judgment by Him. How we can be "justly" judged when we are precluded from confirming the 'truth' that would allow us to act responsibly is yet another Divine enigma.

Under mounting pressure from scientific evidence, the Catholic Church recently decided to take counter measures. It did so by incorporating evolution into its concept of creation. In this way it hopes to internalize future debate in order to moderate and otherwise silence it. But even if the Church is successful, it still does not resolve the problems that evolution raises.

If reasoning had not been inherently compromised by a lack of sufficient logical insight we would not be in the dilemma we're in. Instead, we would be able to confirm 'truth' and thereby understand why we should incorporate it into our lives. If we then chose not to, it correctly follows that we could be "justly" held accountable for this decision. However, if we can't understand the necessity that 'truth' demands, then we shouldn't be held accountable for ignoring its cause. And to date, we have not been able to understand what constitutes 'truth,' because of the absence of 'certainty.' As a result, we remain blind to how justice works.

Any of these logical inconsistencies could have spelled the demise of man's belief in Deity -- were there not an intuitive factor at work within us. However there is; and, it is responsible for conjuring up the interim fix that has kept the initial debate about Deity alive. It is called "faith" -- and it serves to bridge the gaps in our disassociated understanding of Deity. Although it has undoubtedly provided solace for the less demanding, it too has proved unable to satisfy the demands of logic. This is because faith's application is inherently flawed. We know this to be true, because its application is not limited to the individual. When faith is employed outside of the individual, as a binding agent for a group (church), it inevitably causes us to become vulnerable to the disparity in knowledge that naturally exists between us. This in turn causes faith to be predisposed to give credence to "authoritative acceptance." When that happens, authority is then able to promote ideas that compromise us in ways we never intended. Hence faith makes us vulnerable to those who would purposely or inadvertently mislead us.

So, because faith is not guided and otherwise constrained by logical necessity, it was destined to cause real problems for mankind. The Inquisition, the Crusades and the Holocaust are but a few stark reminders of the tragedy it is capable of promoting and thereafter sustaining. Because of faith's predisposition to suppress common sense, some of the world's worst atrocities have wound up being carried out in the name of Deity. Were faith anything other than "blind," this would have never happened.

n spite of our previous inability to reconcile temporality (time) with Deity, the future does hold renewal. It comes in the form of an undeniable proof that finally achieves what scholars thought was impossible. This proof defines the dynamics of Deity as they have cause to exist within the world of 'time.' Furthermore, it does this without diminishing our understanding of Deity's ability to be whatever It is outside of 'time.' With this new discovery, we are finally in possession of a proof for Ultimacy that provides us with a relative and undeniable definition for Deity. This new understanding -- in the form of 'certainty' -- causes the human equation to take on a whole new light.

To begin with, the acceptance or rejection of Deity is no longer optional, it is now logically mandatory. This spells the demise of both atheism and agnosticism. It also exacts a real cost upon the believer as well. It does this by limiting reason's conceptualization of Deity to the temporal constraints that allow for our difference. The importance of this cannot be overstated because it is within the framework of these limitations that our freewill arises. Hence our mutual adherence to them is essential to freewill's continuance. Both depend upon our ability to emulate the unity inherent in Deity's nature, since it alone enables the possibility from which our freedom springs.

We are able to partake in Deity's unity by co-opting its possibility in the form of the unification of self -- individually and collectively. Doing so is what actually constitutes freewill's function. Therefore, if we fail to understand the unity of which we are about, then our actions are destined to sequentially limit our access to freedom until death becomes our only option.

Hence, this proof not only defines Deity (within time) and proves the necessity for Its existence (within thought), but it also advances an understanding about Ultimacy that is central to the experience of ourselves -- since it inherently promotes the exercise of our freewill and the benefits that necessarily spring from its correct use.

Because Deity cannot be separated from 'certainty,' and truth cannot be qualified without it, 'certainty' promotes an understanding that is logically verifiable and immediately self evident. It tells us that Deity exists, qualifies the nature of our mutual reality, and confirms that Its next effect upon the world of 'time' is imminent in the form of judgment. This judgment is not debatable, but inevitable. It's inevitable because 'certainty' enables a logical necessity that demands compliance to the truth that it promotes. By doing so, it negates our ability to justify our actions relative to the temporal inability to know. By imposing this limitation upon thought, 'certainty' causes the grounds for judgment to arise simultaneously within Deity and self, preventing them from being contested by either. Violate self and you now violate Deity, it's just that simple.

So by manifesting Itself within the field of human knowing as 'certainty,' Deity has now established the grounds for a "just" judgment for believer and non-believer alike -- one that is both immediate and undeniable. These are essential elements to any final judgment; and an obvious indicator to its onset. Moreover, this judgment does not violate either our freewill or Deity's previously declared commitment to love us. It is this consideration that truly represents the benevolence of a Deity worthy of our worship.

So,

f you have been looking for the signs that mark the return of Ultimacy to the world of man, you might give serious consideration to the above dynamics. In effect, the arising of 'certainty' within the field of human knowing constitutes the FIRST tangible evidence, in modern times, that confirms the refocusing of Deity's attention upon the human condition. It also provides us with the means by which to determine Its progress in the possible reestablishment of Itself over the affairs of man.

Undoubtedly, scripture holds many rich imaginings about Deity's return. However, when considering them a little common sense is in order. If Deity were to just materialize in our world -- in all Its glory -- Its presence would immediately destroy our ability to hold on to our own difference. Preoccupation with the infinite has that effect. Once our consciousness was dispersed our cause would inevitably be lost. Hence Deity has need for something far more subtle, yet equally effective. That something must be able to impose itself upon everyone in the same exact way, even as it yields the means by which one's intentionality is successfully clarified. Without this clarification, we remain capable of claiming that our judgment is unjust. Overcoming this objection is fundamental to the legitimate implementation of justice itself, a precursor to Ultimacy's return.

By entering into the world as 'certainty,' Deity would successfully negates this liability. In the process, It would also force the rewriting of the moral fabric by which the individual understands his /her option to experience freedom. This impact upon morality is destined to impact upon the world of ethics as well; since ethics is necessarily grounded in the understanding of morality. Hence the proof will also necessitate a rethinking of the constraints that allow for group identification and interaction.

Among the first to feel this impact will be the world's religions. 'Certainty' demands their immediate and incontestable unification. It does this by necessarily dispensing with all doubt relative to the existence, nature, and necessity of Deity. Hence difference in belief is no longer acceptable unless it's purely cosmetic. Having been at odds for millennia, unification is destined to be a difficult obstacle to overcome. Hatred and mistrust between sects run deep. But, as I indicated in a recent letter to the head of the World Council of Churches:

"Anything less than unification cannot fulfill religion's God given custodial obligation to man; since it defeats construction of a moral/ethical imperative capable of overcoming the divisiveness that religion promotes in the affairs of man -- a divisiveness that is now poised to destroy all mankind."

I then appealed for a cooperative effort to construct a mutually acceptable presentation to the World Council of Churches' assembly in Harare, Zimbabwe (Africa) -- to proclaim the "immediate necessity for the unification of religion stemming from the entrance of 'certainty' into the field of human knowing." [see An Appeal to the WCC]. This same appeal was also sent to the heads of all the major religious organizations that comprise the World Council. Other key interfaith groups were likewise included. Unfortunately, this appeal fell on deaf ears.

Religion isn't the only one on the hook here. This imperative to unify holds true for all other human disciplines as well, even though the specifics by which 'certainty' finds application within them varies. In the world of science, it assumes to force as a new and undeniable understanding of 'time.' Since 'time' is of singular importance to the conceptualization of reality as science perceives it, this new understanding is poised to have a significant impact upon science as well.

Of greatest significance is the effect that 'certainty' is poised to have upon the interface between philosophy, theology and the sciences. It is here that it is destined to force a rethinking of both the direction and application of technology. This is crucial to the future survival of mankind. At present, scientific disciplines are out of control, quantifying information and creating alternate realities at a pace that outstrips the individual's ability to understand their relevance. This prevents the control of them. The result is no longer in question. It has been cataclysmic. See Cause for Urgency if you have not done so yet.

Without a unifying constraint capable of leveraging all of these disciplines, it's only a matter of time before the disillusioned find a way to push some result past the point of control, thereby promoting the chaos intrinsic to our self-destruction. Hence there is a need to implement this control with all haste. Obviously, the means to constrain our rush to knowledge cannot come from any predefined power base. Economic and political forces in the world would be quick to prevent it. Founded upon differing ideologies, that have led to a history of conflict, it is only natural that they should see change as threatening to their status quo -- unless it can be otherwise justified.

That leaves only one place from which the impetus to constructive restraint can come. It must come from within one's self. In doing so however, it must have the ability to affect every human person in the same identical way -- irrespective of their prior affinity to believe. Additionally, it must also promote this change with an immediacy capable of stemming our current rush to self destruction.

There is only one way to achieve all this; and, it is by introducing 'certainty' to the current mindset of mankind. It alone can demonstrate (to our reasoning process) the dynamics of a 'truth' capable of guaranteeing our continuance -- irrespective of where and when that continuance finds cause to be. It does this by inherently promoting a "universal" understanding that is equally effective across all time and circumstance. As such, it serves equally as well whether it is being used as justification to oneself, one's fellow man, or to Deity. The arising of 'certainty' within the field of human knowing, at this critical juncture in time, suggests that Deity may very well be giving mankind one last chance to save itself, before It must necessarily intervene.

f the realization of 'certainty' cannot bring mankind to its senses, then Deity will have 'just' cause to impose Its will upon those who threaten human survival. For the last decade I have struggled to define a tangible approach to constructively change the polarization of thinking that has arisen from the historical confrontation of cultures. The result is the Eden Project. Anyone capable of understanding the importance of this material can likewise understand the necessity to become involved in a tangible effort to promote constructive change in the World.

No one disputes the right of the self indulgent to destroy themselves. What they don't have is the right to destroy the innocent in the balance. Technology has now given them this capability and it runs counter to the foundational guarantee of continuance inherent in the idea of self realization. This causes it to be a fundamental abuse of not only our freedom but a direct affront to what we understand to be Deity's nature -- a fact that no one can any longer deny due to the emergence of 'certainty.'

Unfortunately, organized religion has proved unable to assume its rightful role in this equation; because, it is beset with far too many ideas that are stuck in another time. Still, it is understandable why they have remained overly cautious about change. Without 'certainty' to point the way, it has been impossible to determine what is right. At best, you only wind up exchanging one questionable idea for another; and, this waffling undermines the confidence of existent and prospective believers. Philosophy has proved this to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt. Because of its constant vacillation, regarding what constitutes truth, it has lost its credibility and hence prominence within the academic community.

Before the popularization of knowledge, few questioned anything. Those who did were quickly silenced by existing authority. With the spread of education things became more tenuous. People soon came to expect change, because education inherently promoted its value. Unable to compete with the progress demonstrated by other avenues of thought, religion withdrew into censorship. There in the mystery of not-knowing, with fear as its main ally, it found the means to continue to impose its will. In the process, it reinvented itself around the miracle. Coupled with the emotional fervor that miracles evoke, these instances of aberration have successfully persuaded undisciplined minds to condone ignorance for thousands of years.

How miracles occur, why they occur, and who or what is responsible for them are all things that we cannot qualify, since we are inherently inclined to see everything that exceeds our temporal limitations in the same exact way. Even when bona fide, miracles have little to do with promoting the logical bridge between faith and reason that is required to liberate our freewill. Hence, they cannot help us in the struggle to take responsibility for ourselves. Because of this, they should not be promoted beyond the actual circumstance that gives rise to their occurrence.

So that all understand -- my intent here is not to try and place blame. In most cases, traditional efforts to characterize Deity and our responsibilities to It were as good as those living at the time were capable of making them. What they are not, is adequate to the time in which we now live. We are rapidly approaching a cataclysmic showdown of incalculable proportions, one that we were not even capable of imagining only a short time ago. It calls for a new understanding that factors in the possibility for the end of all sentient life on earth. The very existence of this threat indicates that life was not self determined as evolution suggests, since it does not contain the means by which to ensure its own continuance. Only by merging with that which is self-determined (Deity) is this guarantee instated. To do that we must have access to 'certainty.'

o how did our belief in Deity get to where it is today? Initially survival dominated all else. This caused Deity to be defined by way of power. Conceived as eternal and the master of survival, It was thought to have an existence that was wholly external to the mortality to which It was known. As time progressed, and human technique improved, the importance of survival diminished. As it did, more subtle needs arose. They in turn were factored into the description of Deity as situation and circumstance warranted. However, the idea of power as Deity's preeminent difference refused compromise. After embracing it for so long, it had become inconceivable that Deity could be any other way.

Hence all belief's, consciously or unconsciously, employ a slightly different twist to qualify Deity by way of power. As a result, the world has and continues to live with the idea that Deity condones the use of power to achieve the good. The problem with this conclusion is that the idea of what constitutes the good varies widely throughout the world.

The result is a schism that prevents the world's religions from coming together long enough to raise a moral standard capable of possibly altering the future destruction of mankind. Instead, they remain embroiled in a controversy over whose interpretation of Deity is more correct. The inability to logically determine an answer to this question is what then allows each to continue to justify their own difference.

To overcome this impasse, so that they might work together toward trying to resolve the world's current crisis, their leadership must come to understand that there are specific limitations that constrain mankind's ability to think. It is these limitations that are shared by everyone similarly -- irrespective of their race, color, creed or current persuasion. More importantly, it is only within the framework of these limitations that a universal representation of Deity is possible. This is what is needed and this is what 'certainty' brings to the table.

It alone provides access to the ultimate characterization of freedom that a reflective process bounded by limitation can conceive. As such, it is a tangible manifestation of possibility itself -- or Deity in time. Unlike man's prior imaginings of what Deity must be like, this one shows us that It is NOT the unconstrained possibility that we previously thought. Instead we now know that It is self constrained within time, finding expression by way of unity. This fact causes unity to be of singular importance to us.

Moreover, it is an aspect of Deity that we can now directly partake in, thanks to the qualification of 'certainty.' Where previously we were limited to envisioning ourselves as separate and distinct from Deity, it allows us to see ourselves as an actual aspect of It. This change in thinking is due to our ability to take appropriate responsibility for ourselves as it is dictated by Ultimacy in the form of 'certainty.' Hence this realization marks a true revelation in human thought. It also shows that 'power' can and must yield to love in order to gain access to justice. However, it is not to the unqualified love that we previously associated with power. Instead, it is to a love that is qualified by way of its capability to promote the Good in the form of the unity that now constitutes our mutual purpose.