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 and, importantly, how do you know? Are you relying on someone else’s opinion once again?
The views expressed here may be confrontational, in that I am asking you to accept an unconventional view of Man’s place in the scheme of things, that not only offers an alternative non-dogmatic approach to living, but also has the advantage of allowing a greater degree of freedom of thought, thereby allowing for new truths as they arise, and providing a continuing level of certainty about our lives.
It will be apparent throughout this book, that I am also asking you to express your opinion on the various matters raised about the basis for living your life, and this is the important aspect – it’s your life, what do you think about it all?
It is hoped that the result of all this is a more balanced and sensible approach to life, with less fear and superstition to daunt you, and an increased ability to embrace whatever lies ahead.
Some of the views put forward here are similar to those of a group of writers and thinkers who lived during the 17th and 18th centuries and included such notables as Rousseau, Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others.
But as you will see from the following, this similarity just confirms the fact that anyone today can arrive at a better understanding of a more factually based philosophy, if the time is taken to do so. However, we should always leave room for the point that some things just are – we can’t know everything. There is always the possibility that we will know and understand more tomorrow and be able to benefit from it, if we have the wit and opportunity to do so.
This work is in four parts and discusses the concepts of the existence of an Inner Self, Mind-Body Healing, Death, Spirituality, concepts of the Past, Present and Future, and proposes a basis for a philosophical and scientific reconciliation. It also suggests that history shows that God, as the Supreme Spirit who has endowed Mankind with an indestructible spirit, is probably quite indifferent to what happens to physical Man.
Finally, as all of these matters are interrelated and together are a part of the whole, keep in mind that they can’t be dismissed because a particular aspect is inconvenient or nonconformist in its nature.
Part One is a brief reminder of the development of tribal authority, the appendage of various religious beliefs to the tribe, the arrival of t h e b a s i s for t o d a y ’ s