There has been a lot of debate, books and articles and programmes about the issue of: ‘Is there a God?’; ‘Is there life after death?’; ‘Is Darwin right?’; ‘Are spirituality and religion shams and delusions?’
Well, perhaps they are all right – and all wrong.
An interesting proposition seems to be that all of these arguments are circling around a number of simple truths. The first is that, just because scientific experiment and theory cannot prove that something categorically exists, or cannot be measured, quantified or experimented with does not mean that a particular phenomena (such as spiritual/cosmic life in some form) are not ‘real’ or ‘do not ‘exist’. It could mean that scientific method just does have the tools (yet) to conduct quantifiable and repeatable experimentation. Or, conversely, it could mean the very opposite. Truth and hokum travel side-by-side.
You soon find yourself pondering the exact meaning of words such as ‘real’ or ‘exist’ because the endless debate that swirls around and around these profound questions ultimately cloaks the ‘truth’ (but we will probably never know what ‘truth’ actually is). A sage once defined reality as that which cannot change. You have to think about that one for a long time and it is still a conundrum.
The second is that even eminent scientists, such as Richard Dawkin, regard ‘God’ as being the notion of some kind of supernatural being separate from ourselves that just created everything and therefore is the opposite of scientific truth. He has made a lot of money rubbishing that idea.
Once upon a time no one knew about DNA, or genes, black holes, big bangs or gravity. But, these phenomena existed even though science and religion were completely unaware of them (so, if they were unaware of them, did they exist or not?). So that means that science is simply discovering what is already there, and in some cases learning how to manipulate phenomena to develop technologies and processes. So science is not actually creating any kind of fundamental truth, it is just uncovering tiny fragments of it.
So, what if all there is can be summed up as follows. There is only one overarching consciousness and all creation and everything that exists that we don’t know about (and that is simply immeasurable) is all part of this one state of consciousness (that religions perceive as spiritual experience and so personalise it as God). And this consciousness exists in a timeless state. From it emanates everything there is. Human beings are not separate individuals from this consciousness. They are individuals at the human level but this ‘God Consciousness’ manifests itself in us conditioned by the individual ego so that it appears as though every person has an individual, personal consciousness (and everything non-human doesn’t). But all humanity is connected (is it six or seven steps?) And the external world of matter, minerals, chemicals and everything else is also part of the overarching consciousness (and so is also connected).
So it is quite possible that when they die human beings coalesce into some sort of electrical/spiritual particles retaining some semblance of their human experience and are recycled (reincarnated) as the continual process of creation and destruction continue – all within the one, undifferentiated consciousness. There are many examples of this process in the natural world. As above so below. The cycle of birth and decay is simply a glimpse of how the whole thing works seen from a human level.
And sex is the glue that holds it together (at least at the material level).
Just a thought.
“Just a thought.”
Let’s hope it stays that way.