SCIENCE RELIGION AND MORALITY

ONE REASON WHY SCIENTISTS RESIST THE IDEA

2005-09-04T13:57:00.000-07:00

A principle emotional problem involved in the idea of the reconciliation of science and religion is the justified fear that “religion” refers to one or another of the exiting traditional faiths. These are characterized by their archaic institutions, their fundamental irrationality and their illiberal and coercive methods. No progressive thinker would want any part of such a marriage. Nor could such a union foster an era of spiritual progress.

If a genuine reconciliation of science and religion were to come about it would be highly improbable that the spirituality that would emerge would resemble any existing religion in its historical or dogmatic details.

Instead, it would consist of an overarching spiritual vision that would be subject to rational criticism, revision and augmentation. Any imperatives or obligations that may be implicit would have to be humane, moral, democratic and universally acceptable based not on authority but on objective reason alone.

All the while such a rational religion would have to offer a compelling response to the monumental existential quandaries identified historically and addressed (albeit imperfectly) by the great mythologies and religions of the world.

THE COMPLETED SCIENTIFIC METHOD

2005-09-04T13:26:00.000-07:00

There is a single universal epistemology underlying the process of any problem solving whatsoever.

(1) Articulation of the problem: This involves formulating the problem in such a manner that it can be objectified and understood, and so that the conditions of its ultimate solution can be predicted.
(2) Invoke authority: The next step in the solution of any problem involves the appeal to authority. Authority refers to the repository of solutions to the present or similar problems, which already exist. These solutions can be recovered from memory, from the knowledge of others, from the literature, from computers, etc. Valid deductions from all these sources also fall under the heading of authority.
(3) Creativity: When there is no means by which the problem can be solved by appeal to authority, or by means of logical deduction from what is already known, human creativity remains as the only further appeal. There is no protocol or formula for creativity. All that can be said is that our experience confirms that we are capable of bringing forth new ideas (ideas that are not theorems of what is already known) that in turn are able to solve problems that cannot be solved by means of authority.
(4) Verification 1: Does the solution solve the problem? The first of three principles of verification involves the subjective test. Does the solution eliminate the quandary? Is the problem, in the light of the solution, no longer a problem?
(5) Verification 11: Are the elements of the solution self-consistent? Once the presuppositions that make up the statement of the solution (the theory) are articulated are they mutually coherent? A solution, which contains a contradiction, cannot endure as a solution through time. Eventually, the logical error will result in practical failure, and thus in the reemergence of the initial problem or some new problem.
(6) Verification 111: Are the elements of the solution logically consistent with existing paradigms? Since the solution to any problem must coexist with the myriad solutions to other problems, which we regularly confront, the same principle that applies internally, applies also externally. Where we employ two mutually exclusive theories to deal with different problems, one or both will eventually prove to be untenable, and their status as solutions will be invalidated in failure.

This is the universal epistemology and it applies to the practical, the scientific and the spiritual.

A NEW METAPHYSICAL BEGINNING

2005-09-03T05:36:00.000-07:00

I believe that everything in the universe is composed of one ultimate essence and that this essence is alive and free.

I am forced to consider this hypothetical conclusion because it takes three things to make the universe meaningful, and rational religion and spirituality possible.

These three fundamental elements include:

1. Being
2. Consciousness
3. Free will

If you begin with being only (as science does) there is no logical or empirical means to get to consciousness or freedom. Any subsequent readmission into our discourse of consciousness and freedom becomes strained, artificial and ultimately invalid. This is, in fact, the dire predicament we find ourselves in today: Our materialist metaphysic has foreclosed rational and creative advance in the realm of the spirit. Much of the alienation, over-consumption, and amorality that we are witnessing today can be attributed to this problem.

If, however, we begin with free will as the ontological foundation, we get all three. For what is free must be conscious and what is conscious must have being.

As radical as this may sound to the contemporary intellect, there is nothing in logic, science or the empirical method that prohibits this alternative beginning. At the same time, the significance of its implications make its exploration compelling. Of course what follows must rise to the standards of rational objectivity, accountability and universality.

It has been my life’s endeavor to work toward the establishment of a discipline for the spirit that can be elevated to the same level of creativity and cognitive sophistication as that of the hard sciences.

FREE WILL

2005-09-01T14:09:00.000-07:00

There are two major questions concerning free will:

-What is it?
-Do we have it?

Here I would like to shed some light on the first question.

Two caveats are in order:

1. It is impossible to know what freedom is, in its essence.
2. What we can know is how freedom is manifested wherever it is brought into being.

It is impossible to know how freedom operates in its essence for this simple reason. To know how something operates, is to know its causality, its necessary and sufficient preconditions. And to say that, “we know the necessary and sufficient preconditions of freedom” is, at the same time, to deny the existence of freedom. To know the cause of something, whether in a logical or in an empirical sense, is to know the determining factors. Once we know what “determines” “freedom”, there is no longer any room left for freedom.

This does not, however mean that we are destined to remain ignorant about freedom. In fact, there is only one model for genuine freedom that is not absurd. Any model that cannot be reduced to this one fails to offer a rational instance of autonomy.

1. There must choice. Thus, there must be at least two mutually exclusive options of which one must be chosen.
2. Both alternatives must represent a positive incentive. That is, both must offer the prospect of subjective improvement over the present state of consciousness.
3. One of these alternatives must be more proximate (in time or in ease of acquisition) while the other must be more remote (in time or ease of acquisition).
4. The more remote incentive must, in the subjectivity of the agent at the moment of the choice, represent a qualitative improvement over the more proximate.
5. Genuine freedom comes into existence when, and only when, the agent opts for the more remote choice over the more proximate.

I offer this challenge: There is no other viable candidate for free will that does not ultimately conform to this model. All other contenders are absurd.

EPISTEMOLOGY 101

2005-08-26T12:09:00.000-07:00

*All problems are of the same fundamental nature.
*All solutions are of the same fundamental nature.
*All solutions derive from the same two fundamental sources
*All solutions are evaluated by the same three principles of verification

All Problems are ultimately phenomenological. They emerge (before they are ever articulated) as a subjective distance or “vacuum” between what “is” and what “ought to be” for the subject.

All solutions must, therefore, ultimately be evaluated based on how effectively they mitigate the vacuum between what “is” and what “ought to be” for the subject. A solution, in the final analysis, is anything that can be placed into the breach to bring “is” and “ought” closer together.

All solutions derive from two and only two sources:

1. Authority
2. Creativity

Authority is exemplified by anything that once qualified as a solution, by the present criteria, and is now made available to re-deploy as such. Examples of authority include: memory, the knowledge of others, culture, literature, art, databases and valid deductions based on these sources.

Creativity represents the potential we have to bring about new solutions, which have never before existed and add them to the body of authority for future reference.

All solutions are validated by means of three and only three criteria:

1. Does the solutions mitigate the vacuum, narrowing or eliminating the gap between subjective “is” and subjective “ought”?
2. Are the elements of the presuppositions implied by the ideas that comprise the solution logically coherent?
3. Are these elements consistent with those of the other paradigms, which together comprise the current body of solutions, that is the current state of our knowledge and understanding?

Is there any reason why this epistemology would not apply equally to the empirical and the existential, that is, to science and religion?

THE RATIONAL REHABILITATION OF RITUAL

2005-08-26T01:06:00.000-07:00

Ritual is found in every religion. In fact, religion can be loosely defined as a mythology coupled with its body of ritual. The former represents its ontology while the latter animates its practice.

In the modern critique of religion, ritual is reduced to the absurd primarily because it is based on the irrational notion that symbolic beliefs and actions can have positive or practical cosmic efficacy, without the need to define an empirical link between the act or belief and the expected result. This, after all, is the definition of superstition.

We may however have to reconsider this over-hasty dismissal of ritual. All acts that are defensible as “rational” are rational precisely because they are both logical and practical. Moreover, all practical acts are rooted in the selfish and sublunary. They are quid pro quo relationships. Human behavior, as is all animal behavior, is grounded in those responses and preoccupations that are useful for survival and reproduction.

As such, they are inherently unsuited for a unilateral, or selfless, relationship to God. They are unsuited for holiness, worship and thanksgiving. The instrumental, as crucial as it may be, is invalid when it comes to religion. In fact, where religious behavior degenerates to the level of the ulterior, to the political, economic, social or visceral, it becomes counterfeit and inauthentic.

The idiom of genuine spirituality must therefore be purged of the practical and replaced by the sacrificial. As such, its language must necessarily be symbolic rather than efficacious. Ritual is sacrificial speech. It is the idiom of holiness.

Nothing else is suitable except ritual. Ritual hence is the foundation of any religion whatsoever and it is a foundation that is, in its apparent irrationality, entirely rational. Ritual is and must remain the foundation and ultimate expression of any rationally defensible religion whatsoever.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

2005-08-26T00:54:00.000-07:00

The frightening specter of the intrusion of “Intelligent Design” into our nation’s core curricula results from the fact that it is employed as an “intelligent design” for the insinuation of religion and its irrationality into the acculturation of the next generation.

As such, it is indeed an instance of mixing the inherent irrationality of a narrow theology and its authoritarian pitfalls with an educational system ostensibly committed to reason, enlightenment and cultural diversity.

The tragedy however is that this patent abuse of the idea, and its justified negative reaction, obscures the fact that the notion of intelligent design as such is, at its foundation, every bit as rational as the prevailing theory of Darwinian evolution and genetics. There is nothing in the best science of the age to refute the possibility of an intelligent designer, nor is there anything inherent in the idea of an underlying purpose that could not be subjected to thorough scientific scrutiny. The fact that the dynamics of nature can mimic deliberate intentionality does not imply that there can be no such thing as deliberate intentionality.

Further, as to which paradigm ultimately turns out to be a better principle of explanation is something that is amenable to mediation based entirely upon reason, creativity and the scientific method.

And on this level it should be introduced as a viable alternative to the prevailing theory along with the necessary instruction as to how such an alternative to Darwinism would have to be fleshed out, strengthened and verified in order to be elevated to the cognitive status of the prevailing paradigm which has withstood one hindered and fifty years of the most intense empirical scrutiny ever to bear on any other scientific idea.

THE FORMULA FOR IRRATIONALITY

2005-08-25T14:25:00.000-07:00

The coefficient of irrationality varies directly with the magnitude of what its advocate deems to be at stake.

We seem to forget that reason did not evolve as an end in itself. Instead, it arose and endured, as a powerful strategy in the struggle for survival. But this remarkable evolutionary augmentation emerges with an inherent paradox. Reason has the tendency to become a witness against the incentive for its invocation. When this happens, self-interest allies itself with self-deception, the irrational becomes “practical”.

The adaptation, which gives us the power of logic also enables us to uncover implications, which argue against the goals and predilections of the logician. Reason, unlike instinct, is blind to interest. Its revelations are as likely to reinforce an imminent goal as to frustrate it.

It should therefore not be surprising that rationality is so easily sacrificed when it comes into conflict with desire, while an understanding of what is at stake for the logician, is often a powerful predictor of just how much irrationality one is likely to encounter.

Religion is a powerful case in point. Since eternity is at stake, reason is the first and ultimate casualty!

ONE HAND CLAPPING? - LIBERAL V CONSERVATIVE

2005-08-13T05:56:00.000-07:00

This debate is ill-defined, ill-advised and unnecessary.

To be conservative is to recognize that we did not get to where we are without the endless refinement of what is most practical, most rational and most noble. This great bounty needs to be identified and preserved.

To be liberal is to understand that despite great progress there is endlessly more to be done and hoped for, and that we have an unceasing moral obligation to be creative and to forge deliberate progress.

The only ideology therefore that makes any sense at all is characterized by an understanding and application of this tandem process, together with the commitment to remain rational, honest and selfless in the determination of when to be more liberal and when to be more conservative.

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTALISM

2005-08-12T01:13:00.000-07:00

Within our prevailing ideology environmentalism is a zero sum game. To defer to the planet and its ecology it is necessarily to sacrifice, to do with less, to suffer restriction, to endure some negative experience. This equation will inevitably cause resistance and encourage cheating and deception. It already does!

Additionally, our economy is grounded in progress and increased consumption. Its expansion is necessary to its survival. To fail to grow is to stagnate and decline. Furthermore, we measure our success and happiness on the basis of consumption and the prospect of ever-increasing consumption.

All this foreshadows disaster. If the entire world’s population were suddenly able to consume even at the rate of the poorest citizens of the First World, the planet could not sustain it.

There is only one viable solution to this problem, and it does not involve:

*The undermining of our economy
*The end of capitalism
*Confiscatory taxation
*Burdensome government restriction
*Arduous self-denial

Instead, the solution lies in an enlightenment born of education by which the bounty of an intact environment, and the efforts to preserve and sustain it, becomes an intrinsic source of joy and fulfillment. In this way environmentalism becomes a positive incentive, a source of meaning and purpose. Only then will it be possible to derive continued satisfaction from consumption within sustainable parameters, while we strive towards ever-greater fulfillment as a function of pursuits, which not only preserve the environment, but also enhance and celebrate its vast untapped potential.

WHY LUCIFER SINNED

2005-08-11T10:23:00.000-07:00

The myth of Satan has a powerful hold on our collective imagination. What we fail to understand, however, is why this should be so. It seems naïve to believe that Lucifer was so stupid that he thought he could dethrone God.

What seems far closer to the source of the myth’s power is this: The rebellion was a function of a fundamentally legitimate grievance. The fact is that God cannot create a perfect angel. This is because perfection implies morality, and morality is a function of freedom and a suitable environment for choice. “Created-perfection” is a contradiction. “Created-perfection” confers no merit on either the benefactor or the beneficiary. No matter what God may have bestowed upon his archangel unilaterally would have added absolutely nothing worthy of praise.

Lucifer would not have been able to participate in God’s perfection, and God would not have been able to love Lucifer, for Lucifer possessed nothing worthy of love.

The die is cast: Nothing whatsoever remains for Lucifer but rebellion. For, he is already in Hell. Indeed it is nobler for him to curse God in truth and risk damnation then to endure for all eternity in a perpetual and irredeemable lie.

What the myth teaches us is not the folly of hubris, but something far greater. What the myth teaches us concerns an initial and necessary limitation of God, which can only be overcome in time, enabling progress toward his ultimate perfection. The myth teaches us that the best an All-Perfect God can achieve is not a world perfected, but rather a world that is perfectible, that is a world in which goodness is achievable through freedom, cooperation, courage, sacrifice and love.

GRAND UNIFICATION?

2005-08-11T05:25:00.000-07:00

The Holy Grail of contemporary science involves the search for a general theory capable of unifying all the forces of nature. The final step in this quest concerns the reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity. Once this is achieved, so the orthodoxy goes, we will have a complete understanding of the dynamics of the universe at every scale.

But how can we have such a “complete” understanding if the very inquirer remains outside of the paradigm?

A true “Grand Unification” would involve more than the inclusion of the fundamental physical forces. A true “Theory of Everything” would demand that we also reconcile the material with the existential, that is, the forces of nature with the quest for meaning on the part of nature’s most sublime manifestation.

A true “Grand Unification” would enable us to understand the fundamental dynamics of what exists along with the purpose for which precisely those dynamics are best suited.

Of course, we have no way of predicting whether such a theory is even possible. But then, again, we have no way of predicting whether Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity can be reconciled either. All the while, the aspiration for such an existential theory is at least as rational and noble as the search for the purely physical one.

It is the hope for the attainment of this goal that motivates my philosophical commitment.

TEMPERING EMPIRICAL ARROGANCE

2005-08-09T02:39:00.000-07:00

Science conducts a thought experiment. It posits that everything is material. With this conjecture it goes on to achieve all the great bounty represented by its prodigious discovery and invention. But in it triumphalism it forgets that perhaps all is not material. It forgets that perhaps what may be most important of all may be found precisely in that realm which science has declared unreal. Science fails to recognize that once spirit has been banished from its ontology (an expedient that is entirely legitimate for heuristic purposes) it can never again be reclaimed rationally.

Science thus condemns spirit either to the status of an illusion or to the custody of the irrational where it currently languishes. Granted, spirit may be both illusory and irrational, but science, as such, has no way to establish this.

There is only one alternative. Spirit must be re-admitted to assume its place along with the material at the very foundation. For if spirit is not established as a fundamental proposition, it can never be validly derived from anything else. To be sure, this is also a thought experiment. But remember, everything scientific is hypothetical. Once reintroduced, however, the spiritual must be treated with the exact same demanding intellectual objectivity characteristic of the most rigorous empirical disciplines.

We have no way of predicting whether this more robust ontology will enrich our understanding of the universe or our place within it. But without it we have no hope of ever accomplishing for the spiritual what materialism is already accomplishing for the physical.

THE DEFINITION OF AUTHENTIC RELIGIOUS PRACTICE

2005-08-07T11:25:00.000-07:00

Life obligates us to engage in those activities that are necessary for survival. At the same time we are obligated to fulfill our personal, social, vocational and civic obligations. Beyond this, we are encouraged by our society and by our consciences also to aspire to be humane, moral and loving. To assure that we are able to sustain this level of activity in a healthy and wholesome manner, we require leisure and recreation. All the while, we must recognize the necessity of reason and good faith as we navigate within and among these realms.

It is impossible to practice authentic religion if we do not defer wholeheartedly to these pre-religious obligations. Once we have understood and respected this, once we adhere to the rational demands within these realms, we can enter into any religious system whatsoever in the modality of worship, prayer, fellowship and thanksgiving.

In the realm, which emerges out of this dynamic there can be no bigotry, no fear, no unjust coercion, no irrationality and no immorality. Once this is achieved, it becomes possible to embrace the intrinsic spirituality in every faith and in every tradition. It becomes possible to purge them of all that is inauthentic and irrational, and elevate their purest elements, sacrificially, to the Creator.

A QUESTION FOR THE NEO-DARWINIAN PARADIGM

2005-08-07T09:07:00.000-07:00

For each linear or arithmetic evolutionary augmentation in capacity there must arise a corresponding geometric increase in complexity and computational power. This is because each fortuitous innovation must function as both an independent new system and as an integrated aspect within, and deferent to, the wider organic manifold, which represents the entire organism.

This would suggest that the rate of evolutionary unfolding would vary inversely with complexity, as fortuitous mutations capable of such rapidly accelerating demand would become correspondingly less likely.

We should therefore suspect to observe that increasingly more complex organisms would evolve ever more slowly. But observation does not bear this out.

Please explain!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEOLOGY?

2005-07-31T06:30:00.000-07:00

Theologians perpetually sabotage themselves by declaring--in misguided reverence--that God was all-perfect from the beginning.

This idea is fatal to theology. Though it is conceivable that God may be all-powerful and all-knowing, in the classical sense, it is not possible for God to be eternally perfect in a moral sense. The reason for this is that morality requires other beings to whom to be moral. (See “definition of morality”.) This creates an apparent limitation to God’s power, as he is dependent upon others. In other words, he is he is not entirely self-sufficient.

Further, if moral perfection is a virtue, then God cannot hope to achieve moral perfection for himself unless he not only creates others, but also imbues them with the capacity for virtue. God therefore is further constrained not only to create others to benefit from his benevolence, but these creatures must themselves be free and capable of behaving morally to each other.

It follows further that if this is true, we must expect to discover a world which is far from utopian but rather replete with genuine and ubiquitous moral challenges.

Is this not the world that we observe empirically?

THE DEFINITION OF MORALITY

2005-07-31T02:47:00.000-07:00

Morality is an a priori concept. That is, there is one and only one universal definition, and this definition is knowable by any rational individual of good faith. All other definitions fail to capture the essence of morality.

Morality is defined as follows:

-It arises as a rational and free act on the part of an agent,
-Designed to enhance the subjective state of another or others,
-(Or the subjective state of the self at some future time),
-Requiring sacrifice, that is the deliberate acceptance of delayed gratification,
-Demanding effort.

This definition of morality is not dependent on whether or not the moral intension results in its intended realization.

INVITATION

2005-07-30T10:52:00.000-07:00

If the following applies to you, you represent the audience to which I am trying to reach out.

I consider myself enlightened, educated and sensitive to the overarching issues of our time.
In addition to my normal obligations as a responsible member of society I am also highly motivated to contribute to the moral and spiritual advancement of our culture.
Yet, I am severely hampered in this resolve by the absence of a viable idiom within which such advanement is possible.
The traditional language of religion and spirituality is obsolete. It is irrational, authoritarian and inimical to creativity and progress.
The method of the empirical sciences, though clearly devoid of the limitations of religion, have deliberately and un-justifiably excluded the non-material from rational scrutiny.

In order to remedy this situation we must develop a language, an epistemology, for the moral and spiritual as rational and as powerful as the method we already employ for the material, for science, technology and medicine. Only then will can we hope to accomplish for the spiritual what science is already accomplishing for the material.

WHY RELIGION MUST HAVE A DEFINITION

2005-07-30T02:40:00.000-07:00

In order to have a bona fide discipline of religion its subject matter must be definable with the same degree of unequivocal rigor as any genuine empirical concept. If no such definition is possible, there can be no corresponding discipline. As it stands currently, no such definition exists.

How do we know when we have such a definition? Here are the prerequisites:

The definition must be universal; that is, it must be applicable to and within any human society whatsoever.
Religion must, at the same time, also be particular. Authentic religious activities arise within "a religion", not within "religion" per se.
The definition must be coherent. The elements of the definition must be self-c0nsistant.
The characterization must be compelling. That is, it must resonate with an intrinsic impulse in human nature to transcend all other modalities of behavior.
What we thus understand as "religion" cannot be reducible to any other modality of human behavior or preoccupation. Where this occurs the activity reduces to that modality, and its association with religion becomes inauthentic and/or dishonest.
No aspect of the meaning and imperatives of religion may be validated based on authority alone. While faith may be an intrinsic, and indeed noble, aspect of religious practice, there may never be an externally imposed obligation to believe and/or obey.

The foregoing principles do not define religion, nor do they offer us any particular religion. What they are for is to provide a test against which any future candidate may be evaluated. They are also designed to encourage the development of religion as a rational discipline independent of the ignorance, superstition and coercion in which it is currently mired.

THE QUEST FOR A NEW MYTHOLOGY

2005-07-23T05:43:00.000-07:00

All traditional religions are based on mythologies. We tend to disparage this mode of thought as being primitive, irrational, superstitious and un-verifiable. But this is a mistake. Granted, the specific myths which currently underlie the world's religions do suffer from these deficiencies. It is for this reason that they are not suitable for the grounding of a rational and compelling faith. There is however no reason why there cannot be a wholly rational mythology, one that convincingly addresses the most profound existential quandaries of the human spirit, while remaining faithful to the demands of reason and objectivity.

To develop such a mythology we need a discipline that recognizes that it is entirely legitimate to theorize concerning theology and spirituality. What is not legitimate is the substitution of scripture, authority, dogma, doctrine, tradition and coercion for the highest standards of rationality and accountability.

If we recognize this, the quest for an overarching existential vision-- one that is capable of recasting our human condition in terms of some higher purpose available for all-- may become a reality. There is, of course, no guarantee of success. But this is just as true in any strictly empirical pursuit. All I am saying is that such a quest is possible and considering its potential significance, rises to the level of a moral imperative.

MY VISION

2005-07-22T02:19:00.000-07:00

Human beings have the capacity to seek fulfillment from two different sources. The first is the physical or material. The second is the esthetic or spiritual. The physical is dependent on consumption. Here there is a quid pro quo. The gain is offset by a loss. It is in this realm that we have competition, excess, inequity, the peril of war and the peril of environmental destruction.

The second source of fulfillment, in stark contrast, has the capacity to gratify, but without consumption. In the realm of the esthetic and spiritual there is no quid pro quo. Here the gain need not be offset by a loss. Here there is no need for envy, exclusion or strife.

At this stage in our history the overwhelming quest for meaning and gratification derives from the material. And it is here that our great social, political and global problems reside. I do not believe that these problems can be solved within the realm of the material alone! Instead, what must begin is a process by which the increasing rate of consumption is moderated by the exploitation of the esthetics and spiritual. This would enable unlimited progress, unlimited augmentation of meaning, but without the dangers associated with accelerating consumption.

To accomplish this, we must develop a new idiom, an effecive epistemology, a creative philosophy, by means of which we can accomplish for the spiritual what science, technology and medicine are already accomplishing for the material.

HOW TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

2005-07-17T11:50:00.000-07:00

STEP 1: Take a sheet of paper and draw a circle in the middle.
STEP 2: Around the perimeter of the circle compile a list of the principle existential questions and quandaries which have plagued humanity since the dawn of human history (and which religion has sought to address).
STEP 3: Next, create a theology and place it in the circle. Invent some vision or conception of God which, were it true, would solve, illuminate and render justifiable, the problems enumerated.
STEP 4: Make certain that the theology proposed is logically coherent. It must contain no internal contradictions.
STEP 5: Make certain that the theory remains consistent with the established teachings of the empirical sciences.

I am not claiming that I can prove the existence of God. Nor am I claiming that such a proof is even possible. What I am claiming is that any proof that is capable of meeting these five criteria would qualify as the closest to a proof for the existence of God as is humanly possible. And there is absolutely no justifiable reason why we should not begin working on this project immediately and enthusiastically.

DEMOCRACY - THE MOST DANGEROUS IDEOLOGY OF ALL

2005-07-16T11:33:00.000-07:00

What is democracy?

Contemporary democracy can only be understood in terms of the realization of five axioms. Democracy cannot progress unless the implications of each of these five axioms are realized. The failure to realize them leads to the failure of democracy. Their realization leads to catastrophe.

The five axioms of democracy are:

LIBERTY
LAW
HUMANISM
UNIVERSALISM
ENVIRONMENTALISM

Democracy, in its existing and historical forms is possible precisely because it is always incomplete and imperfect. To perfect it, within the prevailing world view, is impossible, and the attempt to perfect it must inevitably lead to disaster.

The reason for this is that axioms 1 - 4 demand exponentially increasing material consumption which, because of axiom 5, runs up against an unavoidable natural limit.

"Liberty" can only be understood as the "liberty to consume", and to be freely able to consume more and more. "Law" must be understood as the limitation of unrestrained consumption, demanding a net increase in available resources for the sake of continued improvement. "Humanism" demands that those who are unable to compete for resources, for whatever reason, be sustained in dignified fashion nonetheless, again elevating the demand for additional resources. "Universalism" implies that all of humanity have access to liberty, law and humanism. If democracy is valid for one society, it applies to all.

At this stage of the development of democracy not a single axiom has been properly established, anywhere. All historical and existing democracies were, in fact, possible precisely because they were in violation, to some extent, of all five of these axioms. Yet, we are already at the brink of environmental collapse.

Ergo, democracy is either impossible or disastrous.

The only reasonable and practical solution to this problem involves the augmentation of our empirical epistemology to admit the existential. We must have a rational science of the spirit. For it is in the realm of spirituality only that unlimited progress without additional consumption is possible. It is only by this means that democracy (in terms of its five axioms) can be safely universalized for all the nations of the world. This must be our immediate and collective priority.

WHY SCIENCE AND RELIGION MUST BE RECONCILED

2005-07-16T09:58:00.000-07:00

All human activity is motivated by the desire to acquire and enhance subjective gratification and fulfillment and to avoid anything that will frustrate or impede this process. There are two and only two sources of all positive experience. The first is that class of pleasure that is associated, directly or indirectly, with the physical body. The second is derived from esthetic, spiritual or religious pursuits.

Now here is the problem: All gratifications associated with the physical body are dependent upon consumption. To produce the desired result, something must be consumed, eliminated or foreclosed to others. Moreover, as society progresses from subsistence toward affluence, there arises a geometric increase in the amount of consumption required for marginal additional gains. It follows that in order to enhance the subjective gratification of the world's population within the prevailing paradigm 'arithmetically', the increase in material resources required to support this must increase 'geometrically'.

So long as there exists only the material as the source for human fulfillment this process must inevitably lead to scarcity, frustration, strife, the loss of freedom, political unrest and ultimately to environmental collapse. Are we not witnessing this today?

Mercifully, there is a potential solution to this "Doomsday Scenario". This salvation rests with the second source of fulfillment. In the realm of the esthetic and spiritual an entirely different dynamic is at work. Here there is no quid pro quo, no requirement for consumption in return for gratification. Astonishingly, in this realm gratification and fulfillment can exist, and increase without limit, without a concomitant diminution of the world's resources.

As such, the spiritual becomes a potential source for salvation. This is not a 'salvation' in the classical theological sense, not as a means to avoid the wrath of God and the fires of Hell, but rather in the urgent rational and practical sense as a genuine source for a solution to the problem of global peace and progress. To understand how this alternative to ever-increasing consumption is possible, the spiritual must be be made available to the peoples of the world as a readily available source for additional progress, meaning and value, one which does not require additional consumption. The esthetic and spiritual, in this view, must become the focus for further societal evolution once we reach a level of consumption which becomes dangerous or unsustainable. Are we no already at that level?

Unfortunately, the prevailing empirical epistemology forecloses the possibility for the effective exploration and exploitation of this solution. Because of the lack of a compelling rational idiom within which to develop a science of spirituality we are doomed to face the consequences of unmediated materialism. We are forced, in a word, to face the consequences of the ever accelerating destruction of the environment in return for ever diminishing gains together with the inevitable social and political consequences which must result. What is urgently needed is the realization that a science of the existential (that is, of the spiritual) can be established and pursued with the same degree of rationality, objectivity, creativity and universality as the hardest of material disciplines. Only then can we have justifiable hope for world peace.

WHY THERE IS NO RIGOROUS SCIENCE OF RELIGION

2005-07-16T05:01:00.000-07:00

On the most fundamental level there is no difference between the method used by the material sciences and the method which would be suitable for a rigorous science of morality, theology, spirituality and religion.

The fact, however, is that there is a wide and deep conviction on the part of the rational and enlightened populace that the two disciplines are separated by an un-bridgeable chasm.

I believe that this fallacy was originally allowed to infect the scientific epistemology because of the Inquisition! So long as nascent science could convince the Church that its endeavors amounted to the harmless preoccupation with base and fallen matter, with the vulgar and sublunary, the ecclesiastical authorities had nothing to fear. Science could inveigle the Church into the delusion that it was their traditional method alone, their scripture, authority, dogma and doctrine, which could deal with the divine and transcendent.

This subterfuge worked wonderfully, but, alas, it has come back to haunt us!

Now that we desperately need a rational discipline up to the task of re-igniting the soul of a spiritually bereft civilization, we have no suitable epistemology. And so we are forced either to remain mired in the dross and despair of materialism or to swear allegiance to the moribund superstitions and coercions of yore.

We must understand and eliminate this fallacy. Then we must accomplish for the spiritual what science has accomplished for the physical. And we must begin this process before it is too late.

THE SCIENTIFIC FALLACY

2005-07-15T02:51:00.000-07:00

There is a critical fallacy in what is referred to as the 'empirical method'. It is primarily because of this fallacy that there has been virtually no progress in the realm of morality, theology and spirituality in the modern age. This fallacy involves the confusion of epistemology (that is, method) with metaphysics (that is, what we claim exists on the most fundamental level). Modern science accepts materialism as its metaphysics. This hypothesis is, of course, allowable within the scientific method. What is not however acceptable is the idea that scientific materialism is part of the scientific method. It would be just as faithful to the scientific method to begin with a different metaphysics, for example, the idea that the universe is fundamentally spiritual. I am not saying that such alternative metaphysics would be as successful as materialism in providing a basis for science. All I am saying is that such alternative hypotheses, at the outset, in no way violate the epistemology, which science employs and which has been so remarkably successful in providing the knowledge and technology we enjoy.

The problem for morality, theology and spirituality becomes dramatically clear when we later discover that we have no means to address these disciplines within the framework of science. What the scientific community conveniently forgets is that this is the result, not to some discovery of science, nor that there is something fundamentally irrational with spirituality. Rather it is due to science's arbitrary selection of a particular metaphysics, namely materialism. Simply put, science chooses a metaphysic that forecloses spirituality and then insists that the absence or irrationality of spiritual ideas emerges out of its discoveries.

If, therefore, we choose ever to have a spiritual (or existential, as I call it) discipline on the same level of cognitive sophistication as that of the empirical sciecnes, this fallacy will have to be redressed. An alternative metaphysic will have to be considered, one which does not disallow in its premises what we are seeking in its conclusions.

RECONCILING RELIGION AND SCIENCE

2005-07-13T03:44:00.000-07:00

The most significant factor impeding societal evolution is the lack of a method by which science and spirituality can be reconciled. This reconciliation must be accomplished on the highest level of rational sophistication. This new discipline must rise to the objective and universal level of the empirical sciences. At the same time it must compellingly address the fundamental questions and problems of religion and spirituality.