Religion’s admonition, to worship and live our lives to glorify God, does not easily satisfy the human heart and intellect today. Our logic has become a discriminating seeker, needing more engagement—one that compels direct evidence of God and the reason for our existence.
Religion has yet to provide answers that we term useful. Nor does Science’s explanation, that we are a happy accident, satisfy many of us who need answers to questions that go beyond physics and biology:
Why are we here?
Is God here?
In exploring answers to these questions, first there is a need to consider the possibility that God exists. For me, the most reasonable idea of what God would need to be is one that clears away any notion of “gender” or “a being”--notions that diminish and limit. It would also need to be a perception that makes the concept of God more useful.
The idea of God, offered for consideration here, is by an eighteenth century author and religious scholar, M. B. Eddy, 1876, makes the most sense to me:
“the Only MIND PRINCIPLE SPIRIT SOUL LIFE TRUTH LOVE.”
Listening to a physicist explain the existence of particles that can’t be seen, she says, “We know they’re there because of the effects they engender.” And so we marvel at a 6-point snowflake, beehive cells, and the intelligence of an octopus. These examples are quiet announcements of something more profound than Science has been able to explain in a way that reaches both parts of us coincidentally —that which feels (sensing) and that which reasons (consciousness).
With the conditional acceptance of Eddy’s compound idea of God, discussion follows with the use of mathematics as a metaphor, because mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers are on record interpreting mathematics as primary evidence of God’s existence:
• “The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.” Euclid
• "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe." Astrophysicist Paul Davies; Superforce (1984)
• "In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s (mathematical) laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematics methods by means of deduction." Albert Einstein
• “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle, British astrophysicist
Based in PRINCIPLE mathematics is an elegant, beautiful and logical science. As fascinating as mathematics is, however, if left only in the abstract, it can be difficult to understand, undervalued and remote.
We relate to mathematics best when used in a way that manifests its reality within the bounds of our physical universe.
It is also offered as a metaphor in support of my argument.
“Manifest: clearly visible; apparent to the mind or senses.” Webster’s Dictionary
Suppose, in applying manifest to our questions, we come to a thought that says:
If God is the only spiritual Creator, is it possible that we inherit a similar ability—to manifest? And might there be a reason?
The idea that we manifest is not new. There is scientific and spiritual precedent for this idea. Three are offered here:
• “...physicists, faced with compelling experimental evidence, have been moving away from strictly mechanical models of the universe to a view that sees the mind as playing an integral role in all physical events.” “Rediscovered the Mind,” by Harold J. Morowitz. From Psychology Today, August 1980.
• “..the physique is simply thought made manifest.” “Miscellaneous Writings," ibid. M.B.E.
• Dr. John Wheeler (theoretical physicist on retro-causation): “We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?”
Martin Redfern (radio program host): “Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we, and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest.” "The Anthropic Universe" 2/18/2006
Considering the proposition that we do possess the capability to manifest, would this capability suggest a purpose related to God?
If we accept manifest as an ability, another question presents itself: without man, could God’s existence be apparent?
If the answer to this question is “No”, then another idea occurs concerning the nature of our relationship with God—an idea that proposes the possibility of a synergy which may further support our existence.
“Synergy (from the Greek syn-ergo, συνεργός meaning working together) is the term used to describe a situation where different entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome.” ibid., W.D.
No, this would not have us equal to God, but the idea that we are a natural result of God's existence does suggest that a synergistic relationship is necessary to accomplish the purpose of our existence.
Working theory: We exist to make God and Creation apparent (manifested) and God's existence becomes apparent, clear and useful in much the same way a child learns 2 + 2 = 4 with a set of tiles, making mathematics more real and understandable. As a consequence, it would stand to reason that our being here is necessary.
A question accompanies this theory:
Is it possible that we come equipped to manifest, whether we want to or not?
Now comes Free Will, as an expression of SPIRIT’S infinity, in the sense that diversity must be another outcome of God’s compound nature.
Free Will can also mean we are free to remain ignorant of God’s existence. An error in mathematics can lead to disaster, but the disaster is certainly not the fault of mathematics, nor was it created by mathematics. It is we who perceive evil, not God, and perhaps when Free Will remains ignorant of our purpose, we are “free” to perceive evil.
Would it not then be incumbent upon our choosing to control our ability to manifest under the direction of discrete knowledge?
The main difference between science and religion is that science works to prove or disprove theory, eventually settling on a consensus that advances to the next theory. Because each religion, however, seems to lay dogmatic claim to The Truth, progress is hampered, and real, spiritual thinking instead remains dormant.
Thus the pursuit (beginning in pre-adolescence) of a continuing, independent, and comparative study of religious scripture (any and all), along with the writings of spiritual philosophers and philosopher-scientists (those men and women dedicated to thinking deeply on these concepts), would perhaps advance our collective consciousness. A perspective emerges on how these ideas are useful, parallel, coincide or differ from each other.
The effort alone would fine-tune consciousness, and perhaps lead us to realize the importance of what we’re accomplishing mentally.
Further, if what Morowitz, Wheeler, Eddington, and Eddy say is true, we are also manifesting the Universe.
“Ah,” some might argue, “but the universe is billions of years old; we aren’t that old as a species.”
If true, with LIFE’S expression represented everywhere, isn’t it plausible that we would not be the only self-aware beings who manifest?
Wheeler’s statement is certainly worth considering as well, since “retro-causation” is now being explored, and, if proven a reality, will certainly further substantiate the idea of manifestation as an inherent, human ability.
The possibility that we manifest suggests meaning—a meaning that perhaps explains why we are here under the conditions in which we exist:
• Could this ability enable us to recognize and begin to understand MIND’S Creation, accede to LIFE’S nature,and find utter satisfaction in a reciprocal relationship with LOVE.
• Could it possibly demonstrate the TRUTH of existence as being the “Ultimate, Unifying Force,” that Science looks for so diligently and Religion ignores so completely, to demonstrate the inextricable Unity of GOD and Man.
Finally, the idea that we, and an astonishing array of other conscious beings, are not just in a physical location, but are indispensably/inherently needed to manifest God and Creation's existence, has a scope that justifies the scale of the Universe.