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
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
the most important is whether or not Deity actually exists. If Its existence can't be
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.
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
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.
utilitarian compares what these systems of thought "give back" to their adherents.
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.
partake, one need only choose a path that coincides with Deity's nature as it
finds manifestation within time.
inevitability of Deity's nature, reward is thought to be certain. By means of this thinking,
the basis for all long term hope. Hope in turn takes the sting out of temporal defeat --
Beyond this advantage, there are serious problems to holding to a personal
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
intent toward us. Coupled with the continual need to rethink our interpretation of
"Holy" books -- our only apparent external link to Him -- real doubt about
Deity assumes to
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
existence. Up until now there has been no solution to this quandary.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
exacts a real cost upon the believer as well. It does this by
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
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
'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.
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
of our worship.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
may very well be giving
mankind one last chance to save itself, before It must necessarily
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.
'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.
progressed, and human technique improved, the importance of survival diminished.
did, more subtle needs arose. They in turn were factored into the description of
situation and circumstance warranted. However, the idea of power as
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.
|Back to Top