“I think, therefore I am."
[In this essay I use the enigma of humanity's two worlds (the physical and the mental) to show that two other worlds, of humanity’s own making, are not enemies but friends, each allowing the human to better understand its true nature.]
In my essay “Modes Of Awareness And Mental Causality”, I said that there were essentially two types of causation in the universe: 1. Physical causality, or the cause and effect upon which science is founded, and 2. Mental causation, which relies on internal mental causes, which psychologists call motivations. Because hard scientific facts can never really explain that bridge between the human mind and the physical world science explores through the medium of physical causality, philosophy must fill in the gap, so to speak. Descartes realized this long ago, and, in essence, created two separate worlds: the world of matter and the world of mind. His dictum “I think, therefore I am” became the enunciation of this; and drew the limits between these two different worlds, the world of matter drawn from the reality 1 we perceive; and the world of the mind, which provides the methods through which the former world is known. What most investigators in both these realms (scientists and philosophers) seemed to miss, that is, until Sigmund Freud 2 made this important distinction known in the discipline of psychology, was that ‘necessity’ or causation is not the same in these worlds. But even today this distinction seems to be overlooked because modern Medicine is a science that still puts the mental world of the mind at the mercy of matter and physical causation. But, luckily, quantum physics has muddied up the waters enough, to again show that there is still a very real problem arising between these worlds, and the type of necessity involved in each. The strict deterministic causation of Newton’s physics suddenly fell to a spectrum of causations, of various strengths, distinguished through statistical probabilities, as enunciated in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle 3 . But still, people seem to ignore the fact that science cannot breach the gap Descartes made so plain. As I showed in another essay, “The Resolution Of Life”, the objects of that ‘scientific’ world are mere constructs that tend to lose all meaning if investigated outside the limits of resolution that human perception normally works within – in fact, new objects 4 must be created to allow them to function in the predictable ‘states’ science must have to function. When science reaches the limits of its realm, the origin of matter and energy, it comes to an area where religion has in the past intervened, because suddenly causation fails, and that unexplainable “first cause” rears its ugly head 5 , proclaiming, in no uncertain terms, that only the causation of the mind now holds sway in this particular realm, where even quantum physics falls apart 6 . But there is something common to both of these realms: change. Change has been studied from ancient times, in both the East and the West. In the East, it was first annunciated in books like the ancient Chinese oracular “Book of Changes” (the “I Ching” 7 ), and in the ancient Taoist books, which seemed to call it the “Tao”. A changeless process, which, in turn, produced all change in the universe. This was enunciated as a type of dialectical process, a logical process that shows the differences between the causality of the mind and the physical causality of science. 8 Two different logics hold sway in the mind, and in the physical universe it perceives. The physical causation of science must abide by the nature of matter, and allow causation to work in that way; while the mind works on thoughts, and special mental events called motivations that deal with the objects of thought, where two contradictory objects (thoughts) can exist simultaneously, as opposed to the realm of matter where this is an impossibility (see footnote 8, below). But there is another difference: time. Time functions differently, in these two worlds. In the world of matter, it functions as a dimension that separates specific distinguishing states for matter. States determined by change. But in the mind, this is not really taken into account, except in its dealings with the world of matter; for the mental world lives in an eternal present, and can only distinguish time through referring to that outside world of matter, and the memories of its actions in that world. In fact, time is created in that world, and, even only distinguishable there, through the change that occurs there in matter itself. 9 Time seems to reside wholly within the physical world of matter, but its representation is wholly contained in the mental world of thoughts and memories, even though time, as such, has no real existence in the mental world, without reference to the physical world. In other words, there is no time, without the existence of that external physical world. The modality of time only comes into existence with the existence of the external physical world. Therefore change itself, only exists there, not in the mental world of thoughts. This must be so, because there are no referents to the existence of time but the external happenings in that external world. The mental world exists only within an indistinguishable eternal present. 10 Further, the measurement of time is a physical phenomenon, created in repetitive change – a change, which cannot be made except through reference to that external world of matter. The mind cannot measure time without the existence of the external physical world, and the periodicity of change it makes available to measure time. So our conclusion about the modalities of time, space and causality is that they only exist where matter exists (the world in itself), because they are the method the mind has chosen through which to represent that “world in itself” to the world of the mind. But, if this is so, then they must share a commonality between these two worlds. But, time also involves the dual concepts of sequence and necessity. Each moment necessitates the next moment. So a type of modal causality, or necessity, resides in time itself. But if we now go back with this “causal sequence” to the ‘beginning’, in this particular case, we see there is a beginning (unlike the beginning of the physical causal chain that the first cause defies), it is the beginning of the perceiver – birth! So what is the first cause? It is the mind of the perceiving organism – the thinker (in Descartes’ terms), who thinks and therefore exists because of that very same thinking process! 11 This also holds in science, for time is what science uses to create its relations in the phenomenal world it deals with. So the objectivity of science all comes about because of the subjective world (of the mind) that has made it possible in the representational clothing it created to display it. Even the notion of ‘predictability’ relies on this, because predictability depends on the notion of the ‘state’, which is subservient to the modalities in the notion of ‘reproducibility’. Each ‘state’ of matter, or even energy, relies on this concept (state) to show it as ‘predictable’. So all the dimensions (or modalities) through which a human perceiver obtains knowledge of the world are intertwined together with causation, yet they cannot be known, per se, but only in relation to what I term the existents of the continuum – the substratum of the objects the mind creates from them. The mind, in turn, uses these objects to create thoughts upon which it acts to form the motivations (a different form of causation) that create the behaviors it uses to interact with the world. But mental causation has something called purpose tied to it, a mental component that arises because there exists a will behind the causation of the mind. The physical causation called cause and effect does not have this ‘purpose’, supposedly, because there is no one viewpoint or will tied to it. Yet, even this cannot be proven, because of that one very important fact science can’t explain – the first cause. If we can’t explain the first cause then can we, willy-nilly, dispense with a first cause that does indeed have a will attached? Religion takes advantage of this to produce a first cause with a will imbedded in it – it’s called a God. But if we think about it, it is really that very personal viewpoint that the mental world creates that is for each of us that same “first cause”; so we ourselves can serve as that very same “first cause”. This would actually make more sense, except that that ‘chimera’ (what philosophers call “the world in itself”), that world that lies on the other side of our senses, pulls us in the direction of an overriding ‘purpose’ by whatever it is that creates the world that we can only know through our senses 12 . In a sense, we still are that ‘immediate’ first cause, since it is our perception that initiates it, and sustains that external world. But since it is an ‘external world’, something beyond us, that we did not initiate, but only perceive, then we hypothesize a “first cause” external to us that had a will, like ours, that created all there is on the other side of our sensory apparatus. A ‘super’ will, if you will, that created a universe, and therefore, a ‘super’ purpose tied to that same will. This is the God religion forms, with an overall purpose for its creation. But because this purpose acts over many, supposedly, individual wills, then it acts through a purpose all these wills share, and they are each a contributor to the overall attainment of that purpose through each of their individual behaviors. 13 The World Abstraction Created – Purpose in action As we have said, one of the biggest differences between these two worlds, the one of matter, and the one of mind, is that within the world of mind there exists something called ‘purpose’. Purpose requires something else, which we call ‘will’. That is the real crux of the difference between these two worlds: one is the actor, and the other the stage he stands on. But both are needed in order to produce the play – life. But which came first: the actor or the stage? Science tends to tell us the stage produced the actor; philosophy tells us the actor produced the stage. Religion says something else produced both. Science says there is no overall purpose; philosophy says that the overall purpose resides in the ‘will’ of the actor; and religion says that the overall purpose resides in a will outside of even the actor – the will of the play’s producer – an entity called God! But if we tend to forget all of this for the moment, and focus only on how that stage we call the world is shown to us (the actors), then we can get a better perspective on everything. From Division Unity What we know about anything comes about by a process called ‘abstraction’. A way by which we take a mass of anything and then divide it into parts; then we ‘identify’ any part as having certain characteristics: texture, smell, color, shape, etc., and its particular ways of changing, in its interactions with other parts of the world. All of these we say are attributes of this particular thing, and makes up that thing’s ‘definition.’ Of course that definition ‘identifies’ not just this particular thing, but also every thing that is that thing, its class – the class of all particular things that fit that definition: e.g., all birds, cats, books, mountains, etc. What we have done is bring order into the chaos of many ‘individual’ things, by dividing this multitude into many parts that are distinguishable through their sameness, and their identity of being in the same class with all other things that share similar attributes or characteristics. We now have groups of things that we know all about, instead of a mass of individuals that we can fathom nothing about. This abstraction gives us something else: a way of distinguishing ‘things’, from the way in which they are represented. All the physical things we see in the world share a ‘clothing’ of sorts. They share existence, in what we call ‘space’, ‘time’ and ways of interacting through change, relations. The uniformity of this clothing tells us that the clothing exists apart from the things it clothes. These modalities show up in the ‘things’ they clothe, yet are not themselves a part of these things. Immanuel Kant 14 showed them to be instead a part of us, and coined the phrase “Transcendental Ideality” for them (in other words, ways of knowing, or ‘modalities’). 15 They are a sort of meta-language that allows us to compare all the ‘objects’ in a similar way; and they allow us to create a reasoning through which knowledge and meaning can be formed, from this world, and between this world in itself, that consists of objects, and the inner world of our minds that consists of other objects called ‘thoughts’. This ‘connection’ merges the world of perception, with the ‘purposes’ the will forms to form the causality of the mind, which in turn affects the world in itself. We also see that this abstraction process is based on a ‘resolution’; a ‘range’ within which every object lives that determines its overall identity as a member in that class of objects. And, that this is merely a convenience to order the diversity of the world, and limit it to a smaller number of manageable things from the plethora that the total uniqueness of existents presents to the perceiver. 16 Thus this process of division and subdivision, called abstraction, actually forms an overall unity that brings forth both knowledge and predictability in a world where everything is really different; and even further this allows the human to use this understanding to form the proper motivations in the mind that allow the behaviors of humans to manipulate the world for their benefit. So the human will is ultimately determined through the interaction of the knowledge gleaned from the abstraction of the diversity of objects into a manageable system of groups of objects that take on a singular identity though their classes. Through this process the many individuals become one, through the assimilation of the class in place of each of them. But the ability of the human to probe outside of the normal range of the these objects, in investigating the macro world of astronomy, or the micro world of atomic particles, allows the recalibration of the modalities of time, space and causality into new forms consistent with the new objects found in these new modality ranges. Thus time and space become Space-Time; the normal Euclidean geometry becomes Non-Euclidean; and causality becomes a non-deterministic type, ruled by statistical probabilities. The objects themselves are no longer the objects of everyday life, but things like the quantum of light that sometimes behaves as a wave, and sometimes a particle; and the various fields of electromagnetism, whose actions are felt in mass actions instead of the individual actions of the objects of normal life. In other words, the concept ‘particle’ does not really have the same meaning in the world where human beings live, as it has in the world where the atom lives; and the further into the atom we go, the less it has any meaning at all, that is, meaning as we know it in the world of everyday life. So even meaning changes according to the resolutions, which the modalities of perception take on at different resolutions of the reality we experience. The problems come in finding if these new objects are really ‘real’ objects, or, perhaps, merely artifacts that only simulate the ‘new’ reality we have created for them. In other words, are we going beyond reality into a fanciful artificial reality that holds no real promise but illusion? Can we connect the real determinism we know in our normal reality, with this strange non-deterministic reality we have created in our postulations of the atomicity of matter? ‘Atomic’ Theory Because Mathematics takes certain elements called ‘postulates’ as the basis upon which its logical rules act to make predictions, from certain current states of the universe of matter to future states, theoretical scientists have legitimatised the postulation of certain fundamental elements of matter called ‘atoms’, as the basis of the known universe of matter and energy. This creation of the ‘so-called’ fundamental building blocks of matter, in line with the needs of mathematical logic is the basis of current atomic theory. But is science really only leading us into a make-believe reality, based on a world other than the one the senses show us – a reality that is supposed to form the basis for everything the true reality of the senses is based on, the substratum of matter; or is it really only producing a theoretical hypothesis that is totally out of touch with that world – in other words, a ‘created’ world that doesn’t exist? As the reconfiguration of the determinism of traditional physics into a series of statistically probabilistic causalities, causes the connection to the real perceived world of the senses to become ever more tenuous and iffy, that connection itself becomes a tortuous and uncertain path that creates a world further and further removed, and more, and more impossible to connect with that real reality it is trying to explain. As we have used abstraction to unify our world through the creation of objects, it now seems we are using that same abstraction to further disconnect us from reality entirely; and we are producing instead, a world beyond the resolution of even our perceptual apparatus. One case, which has recently surfaced is the “Big Bang Theory” of the origin of the universe. This theory works backwards from the present, using the known laws of physics, and the current geometry of the universe, to postulate a primordial entity called a ‘singularity’ – but, what about this singularity? Did it ‘always’ exist? If so then we haven’t explained the true ‘origin’ of the universe 17 , only a postulated entity that may have caused the present form our universe has taken, if we assume that the laws of physics haven’t changed during the evolutionary process, we hypothesize, and the current geometry of the universe also hasn’t changed since the beginnings. In fact, this is probably very unlikely, since the geometry of the universe (time and space), and the laws of physics are probably very much tied to the overall structure of the universe at any point in time 18 . But still, all of this aside, we come to the same dead end: the postulation of an entity, which always existed, or the creation of ‘something’ (matter and energy in any form) from nothing (an absolute void); both of which are “first causes” and therefore outside of the realm of cause and effect. In fact, the human mind’s created logic, which is the basis of all mathematics, and all the ‘hard’ sciences derived from it 19 , depends on this very same thing – a set of unexplainable consistent ‘postulates’, which are assumed by the mathematical system, which can make predictions from them. In other words, mathematics itself assumes a first cause, which it cannot explain, therefore not only a first cause beginning the physical universe, but a first cause that creates the logical and reasoning abilities of the mind. Of course, all of this derives from the fact that the real ‘first cause’ is the human mind itself, which Bishop Berkley realized, and Immanuel Kant elaborated on so long ago. Are we truly studying the artifacts of Nature, or what I call the “existents of the continuum”, in science, or are we coming closer and closer to studying the artifacts of the human mind? Our societies have done the very same things, by allowing the freedom of individuals to replace the needs of society with the greedy needs of various individuals, and pretend that they are society’s needs. This distortion of the capitalist economic process is destroying the society, which sustains it, and has even replaced the governments, which were supposed to defend these societies, with governments meant to keep this distortion progressing. Conclusion: Science is built upon the human reasoning apparatus, a logic, which consists of two parts: the inductive and the deductive. The inductive process lets science probe the philosopher’s “world in itself” (what I call the ‘continuum’ and the existents it holds) through observation and experimentation. The facts and relations gleaned are then used to create new classes of objects through the process of abstraction, which are valid within the area of the world probed (what science calls the ‘system’). Metrics are then created to allow valid ‘states’ to be accurately measured and recorded. Now what has been formulated through inductive probing is used to form a consistent set of axioms underlying a hypothesis, which is used to deductively predict future states of the system examined. If these states are confirmed in further experiments, a new theory is confirmed as a law of the universe, within the limits held by the axioms assumed. 20 Underlying this process is the physical causal process, which is assumed to hold, and thus allows the process of experimentation to be used as a verification tool. Thus the reasoning processes of the mind creates the primary axioms for the system through the use of observation and experimentation; deduction then allows predicted states to be found, and experimentation, using the causal process, verifies the results. What we emphasize here is that science cannot build on nothing – in other words, it must begin with certain axioms that are taken as ‘undefined’ or ‘accepted’ without question. These axioms may be ‘intuitive’ (in conformance with human experience), as in the axioms of Euclid’s Geometry, or merely chosen as fitting a certain hypothesis, as in the non-Euclidean geometry Einstein used in Relativity Theory; in any case, the causal process is used through experimentation to verify or contradict the results predicted in the theory. So science cannot go outside this causal process since verification cannot be achieved outside these limits. This shows that the beginnings of the universe are outside of the realm of science since it is clearly outside of the causal process. Also, science can never rule out the belief in a deity that created the universe; in fact, the dead end of a “first cause”, that science reaches, yet cannot explain, actually shows the limits that are reached are not the limits of the universe, but the limits of the reasoning abilities of the human mind itself, which must always begin with ‘something’ as given or understood. 21 But Science’s failure is religion’s gain; and its new vitality; for humanity is shown that religion and God are ever more the answer to the enigma of the two worlds that humans live within, and the only viable alternative to that which reason cannot approach. It is the causal process of the mind, which drives the search for the hypotheses of scientific investigation, and guides the inductive process; but it is the physical process of causality, which confirms and verifies the validity of these hypotheses. The meshing together of two realities – what we call the physical, and what we call the mental – must make sure that we realize the causal processes that drive each of these realities. The ‘purpose’ of the mind must not distort the causality of the material, and visa versa. But as I said before: "...Science’s failure is religion’s gain; and its new vitality; for humanity is shown that religion and God are ever more the answer to the enigma of the two worlds that humans live within, and the only viable alternative to that which reason cannot approach". Because the human lives in two worlds, each with its own brand of necessity, there is a need for both science and religion; not as enemies, but as allies, in the perpetual battle to find humanity’s true worth.
1 A hypothesis, philosophers call “the world in itself”, the supposed basis of all perceptual experience.
2 Freud introduced the new concept of the ‘unconscious’ mind into psychology. And he created a whole theory of dynamic psychology he called Psychoanalysis, which included a model of the personality based on entities that resided in both the conscious and unconscious mind. But Freud remained a true scientist all his life, believing that the true foundation of his theories still relied on matter and the physical causation of science.
3 Two books that this physicist and philosopher wrote should be read by anyone approaching this subject: “Physics and Beyond, Encounters and Conversations”; Werner Heisenberg; Harper and Row, Publishers; New York; 1971; and “Physics and Philosophy, The Revolution in Modern Science”; Werner Heisenberg; Harper and Brothers Publishers; New York; 1958. The latter has a very important introduction by the philosopher F.S.C. Northrop on the different kinds of causality he distinguishes.
4 This applies to the ‘macro’ world of Astronomy, and the ‘micro’ world of atomic and sub-atomic particle physics.
5 Euclid, and all of mathematics since his time realized that there must be certain initial postulates that cannot be derived from anything else; they form the basis upon which any mathematical, or, for that matter any predictive system relies. The trick is to find out what they are. Likewise, science finds this “first cause” to be the only postulate that it can’t go beyond, because causation, by its very nature, does not seem to exist before it. In other words, an effect without a cause can’t be, according to any causal theory. And the first cause is just that – a beginning to a beginningless necessary cycle, or something that doesn’t rely on anything else to exist – a scientific impossibility. None of the methods of an inductive science can ever get around this problem – how did energy or matter come to be; or, which came first?
6 See my essay: “The Limits Of Science Are The Boundaries Of The Self”.
7 The most accepted Western translation seems to be the Wilhelm/Baynes Translation: “The I Ching, or Book of Changes”; Richard Wilhelm and Cary F. Baynes; Princeton University Press; New Jersey;1971. Also the book “Change, Eight Lectures on the I Ching”; Helmut Wilhelm; Routledge & Kegan Paul; London; 1961, discusses the origins of the book. The early Jesuit missionaries were the first to introduce the book to the West, although reluctantly, and with little insight into it’s scholarly potential. Jung, an early psychoanalyst, was the first to see its applications in psychology, in investigating the human consciousness and it’s unconscious components. He later wrote a book on a particular theory of his called ‘Synchronicity’, which was supposedly, an ‘acausal connecting principle’, explaining the uncanny ability of the book’s answers to fit the context of the queryer’s questions; “Synchronicity, An Acausal Connecting Principle”; C. G. Jung; Princeton University Press; New Jersey; 1973.
8 See “Modes Of Awareness And Mental Causality” the paragraph with note 5 in it, concerning the Oriental Taoist and Marxist dialectical styles of logic.
9 The following quote from my former essay “Modes Of Awareness And Mental Causality” shows this: “This confusion concerning causality comes about not as a denial of basic logic, but as a different interpretation of the meaning of certain “contradictory” concepts. Concepts can be defined as “seemingly” contradictory, yet their simultaneous assertion is not an impossibility. The assertion of an object and the negation of that object is a physical contradiction in time and space (the sensual or material) – in other words, a physical impossibility – but the assertion of objects of thought, or concepts, in the same way, may be not only possible, but even probable. Thought is perceived in time and space (at the moment it is thought, in the individual thinking it), but it exists within its own space, which does not exist in that same time and space. Within the space of thought, seemingly contradictory concepts can exist simultaneously; this is not a violation of logic, but a new logic, and merely a consequence of the nature of thought itself. For instance, a person can both love and hate the same thing at the same time; because feelings are not “things” that are physical objects in time and space, but objects of thought expressed in the perceptual clothing of the “feeling”, another type of mental concept. The space of thought does not violate causation, but has its own type of causation, which is different from the causation of the perceptual space of time and space (mechanistic causation). Social phenomena also reside in this same mental space, although they can affect the space of time and space through human behaviors. The effects of this “mental” space on the space of “time and space” are real, but not the same as the causality of physics. We might best characterize it as a different form of causality.”
10 If one is placed in the environment of total sensory deprivation, one loses all sense of time and space; one floats essentially ‘timelessly’ in a hallucinatory state. See Dr. John C. Lilly’s books on his experiments in sensory deprivation: “The Center Of The Cyclone”; John C. Lilly MD; Bantam Books; Toronto; 1972 and “Programming And MetaProgramming In The Human Biocomputer”; John C. Lilly MD; Melo Park Calif.: Whole Earth Catalog. What we must understand is that time (and, actually, all the modalities) is a mental creation, yet is produced only in relation to the stimulation of the sensory apparatus by the existents in the "world in itself". Other then that, the mind does not know it, in purely mental phenomena (dreams, or thoughts referencing objects, for example, are not purely mental, for they would call forth memories of the world, and therfore use the modalities in their mental reproductions).
11 Or as I have formulated it, in my book “The Philosophy Of The Good”, ‘perceives’: “I perceive therefore I am.” The First Cause is our birth, that, in turn, sets the clock of the Universe ticking, so to speak. It is what creates all things perceived from nothing. Every birth does this for the perceiver it creates.
12 It (the world in itself) does this by showing us ‘fate’, a type of causation we can’t account for because there are unknowns present whose actions we can’t control. In other words, the "world in itself" is outside of the jurisdiction of our will.
13 But, of course, all of this must remain only belief or conjecture, for we cannot prove any of it.
14 Kant showed this in his landmark book: the “Critique Of Pure Reason”. For example, from page 78, of the Norman Kemp Smith edition, St. Martin’s Press, 1965: “What we are maintaining is, therefore, the empirical reality of time, that is its objective validity in respect of all objects which allow of ever being given to our senses. And since our intuition is always sensible, no object can ever be given to us in experience which does not conform to the condition of time. On the other hand we deny to time, all claim to absolute reality; that is to say, we deny that it belongs to things absolutely, as their condition or property, independently to any reference to the form of our sensible intuition; properties that belong to things in themselves can never be given to us through the senses. This, then, is what constitutes the transcendental ideality of time. What we mean by this phrase is that we abstract from the subjective conditions of sensible intuition, time is nothing, and cannot be ascribed to the objects in themselves (apart from their relation to our intuition) in the way either of substance or inherence. This ideality like that of space, must not, however, be illustrated with false analogies with sensation, because it is then assumed that the appearance in which the sensible predicates inhere, itself has objective reality. In the case of time, such objective reality falls entirely away, save in so far as it is merely empirical, that is, save in so far as we regard the object itself merely as appearance.”
15 See my essay: “Intelligibility – The Great Mystery”
16 Note: these modalities can be measured in different ways, according to the resolution within which they live. In fact, they can even be merged, as say, in the Time-Space of relativity theory. This is shown vividly in the creation of non-Euclidean geometries, to define a different space from Euclidean geometry. The resolutions of the micro and macro worlds of physics, change the resolutions of the modalities themselves, and therefore, create new objects that reside only within these new resolutions of the modalities used to perceive them. See my essay: “The Resolution Of Life” and the further notes on the essay “The Message Of The Philosophy Of The GOOD.”
17 Here, I assume that the term ‘universe’ is meant to mean all existence.
18 Here, I assume a metrical meaning for time and space, not a perceptual meaning. This metric allows science to form hypotheses that can predict future or past states of the physical universe.
19 See “Principia Mathematica”; Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell; Merchant Books; 1910.
20 Does causality hold in Quantum Mechanics? Yes, because one state can be used to predict, unambiguously, future states. Even though the states themselves contain probabilities. In essence, it’s all about how you define a state within the system studied, and the mathematical function that allows you to move from one state to another. In quantum mechanics probabilities are part of how the state is defined. The crux is creating experimentally verifiable states that can produce the future states as predicted through theory. This quantum mechanics achieves. So physical causality verifies theory here. See the chapter "Probability In Quantum Mechanics", in F.S.C. Northrop's book: "The Logic Of The Sciences And The Humanities"; The Macmillan Company; New York; 1948.
21 In my opinion, it is very disconcerting to find that supposedly ‘great physicists’ have come out with statements saying that the beginnings of the universe leave no place for a God (Stephen Hawking is a name that first comes to mind here). In fact, I question whether these supposedly 'great' scientists are scientists at all, but only the very same fanatical "true believers" religions have propagated. True scientists use reason, but, apparently, some of today's great scientists are merely technicians in mathematical formula use, that have forgotten reason guides the use of these formulas. Perhaps they would like to answer the question where did matter and energy come from? If they can do that without invoking the equivalent of a God, then I will call them true scientists – but, in fact, they cannot – because there is no way for physics to explain how something (in this case, matter and energy) came from nothing; or, alternatively, explain how something (matter and energy) "always was and always will be" – these are the only two alternatives to either a God, or an unknown process that makes a God a viable alternative; and physics can’t answer anything about them, because physics deals with causality, which does not exist in either of these cases. [by the way, the second alternative... "matter and energy always was, and always will be", sounds pretty much like something you might call a GOD.] On the contrary, I say the reverse: physics, in coming to the dead end of a possible ‘first cause’, shows a definite need for the existence of a deity. Just as Darwinian Evolutionary theory and its methods of extinction and adaptation have shown how the evolution of the human species has superceded its own physical evolution with the evolution of the human mind. And this, in turn, shows another line of evolution in the human that might very well confirm the presence of a higher entity that guides the human race through an inexplicable tendency within the human will itself. The problem is that religions are mired in ‘dogma’ and organizational hierarchies that were produced in ancient times, and they have forgotten that God’s real book is the human will itself. As the human will progresses through human reasoning, God becomes even more evident through showing himself as the first cause that gave the world the order and processes needed to fulfill His will. The point is that God is defined by each human in his or her own way, yet remains the same entity all know through the innocence of the human heart. Religions should, instead of characterizing God in definite ways, proclaim the love He is!
Originally Published:May 30, 2012
Revised:July 4, 2014