Throughout time, man and woman have been searching for the
ultimate answer: life, the universe, and everything. This question is asked of
Deep Thought, the computer in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
It comes up with the answer 42. Unfortunately, the ultimate question itself is
unknown, therefore, telling us that it's more important to ask the right
question than seek specific answers. But even if we come up with the right
question, who's going to answer?
Of course, there are many religiously inclined people who
will tell you outright what the answer is even if they can't give you
sufficient evidence as to how their religion came about. For isn't the purpose
of creation-individual or collective-at the core essential information that
determines the importance or merit of existence?
Once I was approached by a member of the Los Angeles Church of Christ (Name changes according to city, so when I
lived in Boston it was the Boston Church of Christ), after a few minutes, out
of curiosity, I asked him, "Who specifically gave you the authority to start
your church?" After a bit of back and forth, I finally stopped him and asked if
God had given someone specific authority to establish his church. He answered,
"In the Bible, wherever two meet in His name, then there He is."
That's all fine and dandy, but what about getting the absolute answer to the "why" and "where's"? Where did we come from? Why are we here? And where are we going?
Shouldn't those answers come from the source, the Great Creator, one who will
tell each man and woman directly, absolutely, without variance? For there
certainly are a lot of possible answers out there, aren't there?
If you're looking for this definitive answer,
consider the following. I'll begin with one of the biggest major religions:
Christianity.
Christianity began with Christ. He died and left the
Apostles. After the Apostles died, things got crazy. At the top of the family
tree you've got the Roman Catholic Church. After a fashion, it separates
into Greek, Eastern, Latin, and Western. They all follow the Bishop of
Rome but have slight theological and doctrinal differences. A major
problem if you're looking for ultimate truth, yes?
To give you a feel for the size and complexity of the issue, I'm going to break
it down into detail for you. Keep in mind that allegedly, somewhere in all the
below is the truth. Please follow along.
There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the
Coptic Catholic Church, Italo-Albanian Catholic Church, Syro-Malbar Church, and
so on.
There are 37 Anglican Communion Churches
(Anglicanists call themselves the medium between Catholicism and
Protestantism), such as Anglican Church of Kenya, Church of Uganda, Church of
Providence of Myanmar, Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, Hong Kong
Sheng Kung Hui, Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, and so on.
The Anglican Communion also includes the Church of Bangladesh, Church of North India, Church of south India, and the Church of Pakistan.
There are 30 Eastern Orthodox Churches (broken into
additional sub categories: autonomy and autocephaly) such as Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe, Moldovan Orthodox Church, Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and so on.
There are 11 Oriental Orthodox Churches such as Ethiopian Orthodox Twwahdeo Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Eritrean Orthodox Tweahedo Church, and so on.
Then there is the Assyrian Church of the East and
some 45 other churches that call themselves Catholic.
Then you've got Protestantism, its hundreds of
sects, and many others:
Pre-Lutheran,
Lutheranism, Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregational, Anabaptists, Methodist,
Pietists and Holiness Churches, Baptists, Brethren, Apostolic
Churches-Irvingites, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Neo-Charismatic, African
Initiated Churches, United and Uniting Churches, Religious Society of Friends
(Quakers), Restorationism: Stone-Campbell Movement, Southcottites, Adventist,
Sabbath-Keeping Churches, Non-Adventist, Sunday Adventists, Sacred Name Groups,
Bible Student Groups, Universal Life, Anglo-Israelism, Oneness Pentecostalism,
Unitarianism and Universalism, Swedenborgianism, Messianic Judaism, New
Thought, Christian Science, Latter Day Saints, Rastafari, New Age, Religions
associated with the Yoruba, Esoteric Christianity.
Now to add to the picture, let's take a look at some more
options and some numbers.
- Christianity:
2.1 billion
- Islam:
1.5 billion
- Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist:
1.1 billion
- Hinduism:
900 million
- Chinese
traditional religion: 394 million
- Buddhism:
376 million
- Primal-indigenous:
300 million
- African
Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
- Sikhism:
23 million
- Juche:
19 million
- Spiritism:
15 million
- Judaism:
14 million
- Baha'i:
7 million
- Jainism:
4.2 million
- Shinto:
4 million
- Cao
Dai: 4 million
- Zoroastrianism:
2.6 million
- Tenrikyo:
2 million
- Neo-Paganism:
1 million
- Unitarian-Universalism:
800 thousand
- Rastafarianism:
600 thousand
- Scientology:
500 thousand
(Adherents.com)
Phew! That's a LOT of choices. But
wait, there's more.
Amongst all this confusion, one can see why people may just
desire to break from the overly done, tried and maybe not so true, and begin
anew or seek answers in non-religious doctrine, if we can label them such (and
I'm not necessarily talking agnostic or atheist).
This is why A Brief History of Time was such a
monster success, to Stephen Hawking's great surprise. But when you look at the
mass confusion out there, which religion do you select? Can you blame people
for looking elsewhere?
Certainly many have given up and gone for their answers elsewhere. It's
kind of like electing former actors and wrestlers to political positions
because people are just damn sick and tired of politicians. Seems there's
always a breaking point in life, where one needs to just begin anew.
Along the lines of the new, there's also Dr. Emoto and his Hidden
Messages in Water, and The Secret Life of Water, as well as The
Secret, and a cult favorite What the Bleep Do We Know? These are
based in pseudo-science and even pseudo-religion or spiritual philosophies, but
of course there are problems with these approaches as well. Let's get into
them.
Dr. Emoto's work is problematic because
his analysis is based in "subjective science" (Emoto's words) and entails
photographing the alleged reaction of water crystals to the spoken and written
word. Emoto has people pray while placing their hands on water in containers.
He's also written kind and belligerent words and phrases on pieces of paper and
taped them to bottles of water left overnight. What's problematic is that the
reaction of the water crystals may not be to the words but to people's body
heat or even the vibrations of the spoken words. The experiments are not
scientifically sound.
There's also a problem with The Secret
and its law of attraction. Those in The Secret talk about
thinking, speaking, and focusing on the positive, visualizing and believing
that what one desires will come about without having to be specific as to how
it will happen. If you believe enough, it will happen. But this is where
problems arise. When one "desiring" runs into not just weeks or months of
difficulties and waiting before the desired comes to fruition but
possibly years, why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?
Jack Canfield (he of Chicken Soup for
the Soul ad infinitum) who appears in The Secret, has spoken about
the difficulty people have with the law of attraction's three step process:
ask, believe, receive. The believe part is a biggie and is religious in nature
or based in faith, belief in things not seen, and is quite difficult for a
generation of Americans who have been steeped in the empirical or "seeing is
believing" nature of the scientific
method. And even though there are billions of those who claim a religion, how
many have "the faith of a mustard seed" to move mountains?
To continue, let's get back to Stephen
Hawking's Brief History of Time, there's even a problem here. With his
look at worm holes, black holes, particle spin, quantum and relativity theory
he and other physicists are attempting to come up with a unified theory. They
are attempting to tie together quantum and relativity with the string theory or
some other unifying theory. However, there are several problems.
First, many scientists believe that the
string theory is "not even wrong," meaning that there appears to be limitless
outcomes or answers.
Second, even if a theory is found (Hawking
believes there's a 50/50 chance we'll have an answer in 10 years), it can't be
"absolute." Hawking's definition of "theory" includes the statement that none
are absolute in nature, meaning, that scientists love play. They love
open-ended possibility, that which is often not even founded in reality,
abstract physics is based more in fantasy than reality.
Look at the string theory. In order for it
to work, mathematicians must add four dimensions. If a third theory is
eventually found, then it will have to be taken out of the abstract and put
into the real to give us a definition. So why can't any scientific theory of
complexity be absolute? Consider the following.
In order to be absolute (perfect in
quality, complete, not to be doubted or questioned) then one would have to have
all existing and future knowledge to the end of time, applied objectively,
knowing all possible outcomes, again, to the end of time. Not gonna happen. But
a lot of scientists are pumped about having such open-endedness. Hell, if they
know it all then playtime is over.
So what the bleep? Or rather, What the
Bleep Do We Know? Yes, another idea, here stated in a story / documentary
style film ala The Secret (a couple scientists appear in both films)
that speaks physics, that speaks to Brian Swimme's (mathematical cosmologist)
concept of "allurement." As Swimme states:
"Love begins as allurement-as attraction.
Think of the entire cosmos, all one hundred billion galaxies rushing through
space: At this cosmic scale, the basic dynamism of the universe is the
attraction each galaxy has for every other galaxy. Nothing in all science has
been established and studied with greater attention of each part of the
universe for every other part" (The Universe is a Green Dragon)
My gosh! I think we've got something here . . .
Let the man continue . . .
"Such experiences of interest are the roots of love. You are simply attracted
to something or someone, to some activity. You don't find reasons for this
attraction until after the fact; then you come up with reasons. The Earth does
not think: ‘Well, it'll be a good thing to be attracted to the Sun. That way,
humans can warm their tea in black bags and save electricity.' The Earth is
simply attracted."
"Each person discovers a field of
allurements, the totality of which bears the
unique stamp of that person's personality. Destiny unfolds in the pursuit of
individual fascinations and interests."
Wow!
Consider the following. There is nothing
more important to people than their individual freedoms. It's innate! Try to
get a three-year-old to do something he doesn't want to . . . Good luck!
It's why more people come to America than
any other country. It's innate. It's inalienable. It's just . . . right. It's the major reason you've got so many religious choices. Lots of individuals flexing their freedom-to-choose muscle and then saying "Hey, I'VE got the answer." Hmmmmmm.
OK. But the problem arises again. Where's ultimate truth. THE answer? Consider the following . . .
If
we desire to make our own choices at the very core of our beings, have so since we
were kids, then why do we go anywhere else to pursue our "individual fascinations
and interests."
We all have a path we must follow. The
answers lie within. It's only logical.
Seek and they will be found. But beware,
if you look deep enough, honestly enough, bravely enough, in a very singular fashion, you just may be a bit
surprised as to what fascination lies in waiting.
God bless.
