THE GOD THEORY
by BERNARD HAISCH (2006)
Much of today’s religious dogma concerning God and the nature and destiny of mankind is flawed and irrational. It fails to resolve basic paradoxes—like why bad things happen to good people, and why some are born into privilege and some into starvation and misery. Moreover, the conflicting claims of the worlds religions contribute directly to the violence and hatred that afflicts much of the planet. On the other hand, rejecting anything pejoratively called supernatural in the name of science is equally flawed and irrational.
[AS FOR HIS FIRST QUESTIONS, GOD IS AT PRESENT MAINLY LETTING THE WORLD AND ITS PEOPLE MOVE ALONG, AS IT WILLS, BRINGING FORTH GOOD AND BAD; GOD IS KEEPING HANDS OFF FOR THE MOST PART. AND HE DOES NOT PROMISE HIS CHILDREN WILL HAVE IMMUNITY FROM “TIME AND CHANCE” THAT HAPPENS IN LIFE TO THE MAJORITY, SO IT IS ALSO FOR CHRISTIANS…..TIME AND CHANCE HAPPENS TO THEM ALSO. IT IS NOT YET TIME TO SEND JESUS CHRIST BACK TO EARTH TO BRING IN THE AGE TO COME, THE AGE OF THE EARTH BEING FULL OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AS THE WATERS COVER THE SEA BEDS; IT’S NOT YET TIME FOR THE PEACEFUL, WONDERFUL, HEALTHY, NO HARM OR DESTRUCTION, THE LAMB AND LION DWELLING TOGETHER, AND THE AGE OF SALVATION FOR ALL PEOPLES - Keith Hunt]
After three decades as a professional scientist and a lifetime as a seeker, I have arrived at a personal worldview that offers a satisfying and hopeful explanation of reality—a worldview that is not only possible, rational, and compatible with modern science, but compelling and capable of resolving some of the most intransigent moral issues facing us today. It embodies a way out of our global dilemma and so I offer it for your consideration.
Let me make it clear that I don't claim to speak directly to God. I am too conditioned as a scientist for that. In fact, if God ever calls, my line will probably be busy . . . but he might try my email. Precisely because I am a professional scientist, this book represents a gamble for me.
[AND FROM WHAT I SEE LATER I AGREE THE AUTHOR DOES NOT SPEAK TO GOD, AND I DO NOT THINK GOD HAS SPOKEN TO HIM EITHER - Keith Hunt]
I am gambling that there is a significant audience interested in a kind of rational spirituality that can nudge the world in a more tolerant and uplifting direction. I am gambling that, somewhere between the hardcore reductionists who explain all things as the sum of their parts and greet every suggestion of spirituality with a sneer, and the unquestioning faithful who receive their beliefs full-blown from prophets and preachers, there is a group of philosophical centrists—well-intentioned, open-minded, skeptical, but free spirits eager to investigate their own nature. I am gambling that these inquiring spirits, among whom I count myself, will join me as I explore the handiwork of an extremely ingenious God who, nevertheless, can only experience material reality by living in and through us and all beings everywhere.
To you, I propose a God whose purposeful ideas somehow became the laws of nature underlying our universe. I propose a God whose infinite diversity of ideas was capable of initiating the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, and also of supporting all the other "multiverses" that astrophysical inflation theory has cobbled up over the years. The difference between my proposed worldview and the prevailing reductionism of modern science is that its theories rest squarely on enigmatically pre-existing and randomly distributed "laws of nature" mindlessly giving rise to universes that are utterly devoid of purpose. Mine rests on an acceptance of an infinite intelligence as the source of our universe and all the other universes that modern astrophysical inflation theory postulates.
[NICE…. I CAN AGREE IT IS GOD THAT BROUGHT INTO BEING THE UNIVERSE AND MANKIND - Keith Hunt]
I am gambling that a closer examination of spiritual realities will also appeal to skeptical reductionists plagued by the (nagging and perhaps secretly welcome) suspicion that there may, after all, be more to life than the equations of physics. What I propose may also appeal to those who, although open to the idea of a benevolent deity, are put off by the dogmatism of organized religion.
[HUMMMM……WE SHALL SEE SHORTLY HOW HE DISAGREES WITH WHAT HE CALLS “DOGMATISM OF ORGANIZED RELIGION” - DISAGREES IN LARGE WAYS FROM WHAT THE BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS AND TEACHES - Keith Hunt]
I am also betting that scientific discoveries in this new millennium will substantiate that the rich inner world of consciousness we all share is more than just a neuro-physiological epiphenomenon. I'm betting that, before too long, we will understand how consciousness, at a fundamental level, creates matter, not vice versa. This view has roots deep in ancient mystical traditions, but is currently heretical to modern science. My wager is this:
As science integrates the in-depth knowledge of the physical world accumulated over the past three centuries, it will he channeled into a new and exciting line of inquiry that acknowledges the expanded reality of consciousness as a creative force in the universe and the spiritual creative power embodied in our own minds.
This book summarizes the thoughts of an inquisitive, but open-minded, scientist.
[GOOD TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND; BUT NOT SO OPEN THAT YOUR BRAINS FALL OUT; OR THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE DOGMATICALLY TEACHES - Keith Hunt]
What I present here is a theory that looks promising, not scientific proof. It should not be surprising, however, if some of what I propose coincides with theories propounded by others who claim a more intimate relationship with the Almighty. After all, if I am on the right track, and if they are, it would be worrisome if we were not, ultimately, in agreement. All I ask is that you seriously consider the logic of my theory, especially if it challenges you to question what you were taught—in Sunday school, in catechism or, dare I say, in physics class.
[SOME OF HIS THOUGHTS WE ARE TO “SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE LOGIC OF MY THEORY” ARE SO FAR OUT FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE, I HAVE TO WONDER HOW MUCH OF THE BIBLE HE HAS READ, OR HAS HIS READING BEEN IN ONE EYE AND OUT THE OTHER, MISSING HIS BRAIN COMPLETELY - Keith Hunt]
I offer this book, not as a theological treatise, but as a short, readable exposition of a worldview that can bring sense and purpose into individual lives, and tolerance and peace to a planet whose future is in serious jeopardy—in large part because of the irrational dogmatism of both religion and science. If I am correct, we are literally all one being (God) in many individual forms. Why, then, would we continue to harm one another?
[FOR SURE HIS BOOK IS NOT A THEOLOGICAL TREATISE, FOR SOME OF HIS THEOLOGY WE SHALL SHORTLY SEE IS FROM PLANET PLUTO, SO FAR OUT FROM THE PLAIN TRUTHS OF THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE - Keith Hunt]
The seeds that gave meaning to my life were planted at an early age. I was born in Stuttgart, Germany to German parents who moved to the United States when I was three years old. They came to Indiana because my mother's sister and her husband had moved there after the war. Postwar Germany, even in the 1950s, was a pretty bleak place and America was the golden land of opportunity. My aunt sent glowing and exaggerated letters back to my mother about a bakery that was available on the south side of Indianapolis; it was cheap and they could all go into business together. When my parents arrived with a few trunks, a few dollars, and one kid—me—the bakery opportunity proved to be only half-baked. I'm glad. Otherwise, I might have been a baker and this might have been a cookbook.
My early childhood was shaped by a scrupulously religious Catholic mother and by the good Sisters of Providence at St. Catherine of Sienna parochial school in Indianapolis who started each school day by herding us all to mass, on the assumption that this was the best prelude to reading, writing, arithmetic, and, of course, catechism. In fact, my mother wanted me to become a priest, and I'm sure she sent a lot of prayers heavenward to that effect.
Now, being a priest would have been more exciting than being a baker, but as a child, I always loved science. I cannot remember a time when I did not want to be a scientist, and specifically an astronomer. There are some things that you just know, especially as a child, when your world is not yet filled with the ambiguities and doubts that grow and haunt you later in life. As a child of the Sputnik generation, I loved to watch the space-cadet programs on television. Years later, at the Museum of Television and Radio in New York City, I tracked down an episode of Buzz Corbin and Cadet Happy that I think may have helped launch my space career. It was unbelievably silly: one back-and-forth joystick seemed to be all the control Buzz needed to fly around the galaxy in his interplanetary rocket. Life was remarkably simpler for them than it was to be for Captain Kirk, Commander Scotty, and their warp engines only a decade later.
By the time I entered the first grade, I already had a curious certainty that I would grow up to be an astronomer. I vividly imagined exploring the surfaces of other worlds through a huge telescope, like the 200-inch reflector on Mt. Palomar. Although what I imagined far exceeded what even such a telescope could actually deliver, the dream was real. I was comforted by knowing that a grand destiny awaited me in astronomy—that there were discoveries just waiting for me to make.
Because of my mothers devout religion and my own fascination with space, I developed a strong conviction at a very early age that I would become a priest-astronomer like Father Giuseppe Piazzi, who discovered the first asteroid, or Father Angelo Secchi, who, in the 1800s, was the first to classify stars according to their spectra. I learned, as I grew older, that these two vocations are not, in fact, incompatible. There are Jesuits who are professional astronomers in good standing. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Catholic Church operated several observatories in Rome, and the official Vatican Observatory, founded in 1891, maintains a modern facility atop Mt. Graham in Arizona—adjacent to the prominent Kitt Peak National Observatory—in partnership with the University of Arizona. I relished the idea of being involved in something really grandiose, something having to do with God and space. How much bigger can a dream be, after all? Not even the sky was my limit.
I pursued the dream of the astronomer-priest for a few years beyond grade school. In high school, I attended the Latin School of Indianapolis, dedicated to preparing young boys for the seminary. I received a first-rate classical education courtesy of the Archdiocese that would have cost a fortune at a private East Coast prep school. Along with the usual English, History, Algebra, Biology, and Physics, I got a hefty dose of Latin, Rhetoric, and Gregorian chant. After high school, I moved on to a college seminary run by Benedictine monks of the St. Meinrad Arch-abbey in the rolling hills of southern Indiana. There, the dark-robed monks lent an almost medieval atmosphere to my world, especially on brooding, gray winter days when we all assembled for mass in our cassocks and Roman collars and sang the ancient chants with our Kyriales. Requiem aeternam, dona eis, Domine. It felt like the middle ages.
I attended the seminary for just one year, however. From the moment I arrived, the possibilities of a different kind of future (especially one involving girls) drew me away from the enclosed worldview of the monastery. Surely, I thought, computation had an edge over prayer in the technological world of the late twentieth century. I abandoned the priestly half of my dream when I was eighteen.
However the other half of my dream I followed all the way, becoming a professional astronomer. I have had a successful career working in the United States and in Europe doing research, frequently competing for and being awarded observing time on orbiting NASA telescopes, writing scores of scientific papers, chairing international conferences, serving as a scientific editor for a prestigious journal in astrophysics, refereeing proposals for the National Science Foundation, giving lectures, and the like.
FROM ARCHABBEY TO ASTROPHYSICS
My transition from archabbey to astrophysics took place the following summer. It was, by any measure, a memorable time. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated. Vietnam and a tragic, divisive incoming president were polarizing the nation. Yet amid all this, we were going to the moon. The Apollo program had achieved lunar orbit and, on July 20, 1969, the moon landing took place. Human beings had reached another world. A turning point in civilization had been reached, or so it seemed. Provided you could look away from the raging chaos on the surface of our planet, the outbound direction into space and other worlds seemed full of promise. It had taken less than twelve years to go from primitive Sputnik (and Buzz Corbins one-joystick-does-it-all rocket) to landing astronauts on the moon. Surely another twelve years would be sufficient to take astronauts onward to Mars. That is how things looked to me as I went from the spiritual world of the St. Mein-rad seminary and archabbey to the scientific world of an astrophysics major at Indiana University. On the Indiana highway map St. Meinrad lies a mere hundred miles from Indiana University, but if felt more like one hundred light-years.
In my sophomore year at Indiana, I learned how to use a telescope and take photographic plates at the campus's Kirkwood Observatory. I became deeply involved with physics and its applications to astronomy in general. I began to study in depth the nature of stars, galaxies, planetary nebulae, the interstellar medium and the like. Before long, monasteries and the calling to a priesthood were remote and irrelevant memories.
When I graduated from Indiana University, I went straight into a graduate program in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Wisconsin was one of the top ten schools in astronomy and astrophysics in the country, and had just launched a major NASA mission, the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory. They also had excellent beer up there.
Wisconsin had a fast-track astronomy program that enabled me to obtain my Ph.D. by the time I was twenty-five. My doctoral thesis dealt with radiative transfer, a mathematically oriented description of how light and other electromagnetic radiation passes from inside a star and out into space. This kind of inquiry requires huge supercomputers like those at Los Alamos or Livermore, where much of the work is very closely related to nuclear weapons. Since that didn't interest me, I grew away from the subject, which I had begun to see as just too technical and too complex, involving too much of what scientists call "number crunching."
LAUNCHING A CAREER
By the time I graduated, the job market was nearly saturated and unemployment a looming threat. I was lucky enough, however, to be offered a postdoctoral fellowship doing research for Jeff Linsky at the prominent Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics at the University of Colorado in Boulder, a world center for research in astrophysics.
Once again I found myself immersed in a belief system of sorts, but this time the decidedly secular one of academia. Here at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, with the soaring Flatirons looking like a Hollywood backdrop, was one of the top research institutes. Scientists from all over the planet came here to spend a summer, or a year, and I had been welcomed into this secular sanctum sanctorum and given a chance to start proving my worth as a modern researcher. Was this not heaven on earth?
Linsky’s work involved obtaining data from NASA satellites, especially those dealing with the ultraviolet and x-ray parts of the spectrum. I, along with his other postdoctoral fellows, analyzed and tried to interpret that data. Our job was to generate a flurry of research papers that coaxed every possible bit of astrophysical insight from the precious satellite observations. This established reputations, advanced careers, and kept the grant money flowing. It was Linsky who stirred my passion for a class of stars known as cool stars (by stellar standards, our sun is a cool star).
At about this time, I began reading about Buddhism. I remember thinking to myself, perhaps because I was an astrophysicist with some bona fides as a seminarian, that there was some connection to be made, some insight on the deepest nature of things to be discovered, that only someone with my background could uncover. But that interest was soon tabled as my personal and professional lives became more complex.
[AND THE RELIGION OF BUDDHISM SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN SOME ROOT IN HIS THEOLOGY - Keith Hunt]
I was offered a research position at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, which I accepted. The Dutch were very active in astronomy, doing ultraviolet spectroscopy from a balloon-borne spectrograph launched, oddly enough, from Palestine, Texas. Of course anyone who knows the dreary Dutch climate will understand why Dutch astronomers would spend their time under Texas skies. The Dutch get around. After a year in the Netherlands, I returned to the United States and rejoined Linsky in Colorado. Not long after, I was offered a job with the Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory.
My work at Lockheed allowed me to do a remarkable amount of astrophysics, thanks in part to a highly classified program that is now well known: the spy satellite program. They wanted me to provide them with astrophysical information in order to very accurately calibrate their telescope using star positions. I had nothing against surveillance: spying on each other is a reasonable way to keep peace. Essentially they wanted me to develop a very precise catalog of star brightnesses, so I created an elaborate computer program for them that was probably ten times more accurate than anything ever done for a classified program, though I can't be totally sure of that since all such stuff was, after all, secret.
Lockheed seemed to have lots of money back then—this program in particular—and didn't really care what I did so long as the star catalog was a success . . . and it was. So I spent a lot of my time doing astrophysics beyond what they really needed and no one seemed to mind. I even managed to initiate new stellar research by winning some NASA grants.
Perhaps as a result, within a couple of years I was invited to join a research group at Lockheed that actually made its living from NASA projects instead of classified programs. It was called the Space Sciences Laboratory at the time and later split and morphed into the Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory. They were, and still are, the world's leading group in solar physics.
I studied flares on stars, which had become a hot topic in stellar astronomy because you could see them with the new ultraviolet and x-ray telescopes launched by NASA. But I also became involved in the analysis of data from the Solar Maximum Mission, one of the first satellites to measure x-ray emissions from the sun in great detail. I enjoyed this work, because the sun is the prototypical cool star and close enough to analyze accurately—a mere 93 million miles away, or right in our own backyard by astronomical standards. Studying solar phenomena while publishing on stellar observations gave me a considerable advantage, because most stellar astronomers know very little about the sun itself. The proximity of the sun affords a very high level of detail that can, in turn, prompt ideas about what you can observe on other stars. And that is how I fulfilled my childhood dream of becoming an astronomer.
AGE OF DISCOVERY
Joining a community of scientists is not the same, however, as making scientific discoveries.
It is said in science that, if you haven't made a major breakthrough by the time you are thirty-five, you are probably too old and set in your ways to have the insight necessary to do so. By the time I reached that landmark age, I had only one minor discovery under my belt—the stellar "coronal dividing line." In the grand scheme of scientific discovery, this was not an earth-shattering record. It's a bit like writing a song that tops the chart at number ninety-seven—more gratifying than just performing it at the pizza place, but don't expect a Grammy. Moreover, I felt hampered by the paradoxical fact that young scientists are not encouraged to stray far from the prevailing orthodoxy in their given fields, even though free inquiry is the stuff of which innovation is made.
But about that time I was actually foraging across a pretty wide intellectual terrain. This was in no small measure due to the intellectually liberating influence of my wife, Marsha, who is metaphysically inclined. She had just finished a Masters degree in music and saw the world through very different eyes than the average atoms-and-molecules-explains-it-all scientist. With encouragement and prodding from her ("How do you know that for certain? Have you ever really looked at this from a new perspective?") I developed a healthy curiosity for things outside the narrow confines of my astrophysical expertise.
At about this time, I became active in the Society for Scientific Exploration, an organization founded by a dozen university professors led by Peter Sturrock, a renowned plasma physicist at Stanford University. This society was founded to provide a forum to "foster the study of all questions that are amenable to scientific investigation without restriction." I soon found myself editing the Society's peer-reviewed Journal of Scientific Exploration. It was through the work of physicist Hal Puthoff, a Society member, that I became interested in a branch of physics that emerged at the start of the twentieth century, but never entered the scientific mainstream. It had the most impeccable credentials, however, having been explored by Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and Walther Nernst. This field of inquiry is essentially the story of light—a very special light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field, or the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. The zero-point field is an important part of the God Theory. I will return to it in chapter 6.
RETURN OF THE ASTRONOMER-PRIEST
Throughout this long journey, and despite a successful career in mainstream science that spans three decades, I never stopped asking fundamental questions. Moreover, my science has led me full-circle to a search for answers to some most unscientific questions:
Is there really a God?
What am I?
What is my destiny?
In essence, I have become—perhaps despite myself—the astronomer-priest of my early dreams.
I now know that the answers to these questions cannot be found in astronomy—or indeed anywhere in modern science. Moreover, I believe these questions are not being answered correctly by the religions of the world either. Indeed, I think that some of the answers given by religion today are exactly the opposite of the truth and are responsible for the violence and hatred that engulfs the planet. Some of the purported answers are monstrously inhumane and unworthy of a real God.
I believe it is time to put medieval notions of divine fiefdoms— and all their attendant notions of allegiance, punishment, vengeance, and servitude—behind us and move to a more rational and inclusive view of spirituality, one based on compassion and unity.
I, therefore, propose the God Theory—a theory that is intellectually satisfying as well as spiritually enriching. The rest of this book will explore that theory: What is the evidence for it? What are its implications for us as human beings? What is our relationship to the God of the theory and Gods to us? How can we reconcile spirituality and science? How can we transform the world from one of suspicion, intolerance, and hatred to one of trust, tolerance, and love?
ASKING FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS
The God Theory is my attempt to answer fundamental questions about our true human nature in the light of modern science. It is based on the simple premise that we are, quite literally, one with God, and God is, quite literally, one with us.
What would you do with infinite potential, some literally unlimited ability to do anything? Or to back up and put it in more prosaic, but more easily comprehensible, terms, imagine having a billion dollars in your bank account. Would this give you pleasure or satisfaction if you could never spend a penny of it? I doubt it. Except perhaps for a Dickens miser, the joy of wealth is in making use of it.
So try, in your limited human capacity, to imagine the existence of an unlimited conscious being of infinite ability, existing outside of space and time. This being must transcend space and time, because otherwise, whatever created space and time would be still greater than it. Where does such an imagined being take us?
[YES, A BEING THAT IS OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE, BECAUSE HE BROUGHT IT INTO EXISTENCE - Keith Hunt]
THE GOD THEORY AND CREATION
Some of the ideas of this being become our laws of physics as well as our dimensions of space and time. An infinite number of other ideas that this being must have play no role in this particular universe of ours. They may be put to use in creating completely strange other universes (so-called multiverses) that modern inflation theory postulates, perhaps adjacent to ours in some hyperdimension, that we would have no way of detecting owing to laws of nature totally incompatible with our physics and space and time.
The basic concept is that some combination of ideas within this infinite consciousness are compatible with each other and together result in environments in which evolution can take place and beings can live. Some, however, are totally incompatible and result in pure chaos and an inability to evolve and manifest materially. A square-circle universe, for instance, presents an irreconcilable paradox without possibility of development.
An interesting question to consider here is whether an infinite intelligence knows implicitly which ideas are compatible, or whether even an infinite intelligence resorts to trial and error to achieve its ends. Infinity being what it is, I think we can safely assume an endless number of congenial combinations capable of yielding universes with characteristics that are utterly unimaginable to us. Yet these unimaginable universes still fulfill the essential purpose of the initiating intelligence, which is to manifest all physical forms possible within a given universe governed by a given set of ideas-become-laws. In this way, the infinite consciousness moves beyond sterile potential to actual creation— to doing rather than just being. He gets to act out and live out his ideas ... his fantasies. He gets to spend his billion dollars.
Following this logic, the manifestations of this infinite consciousness in this particular physical universe are none other than all of us and all the things we perceive around us. The intelligence experiences itself through us because we are one with it. We are the creating intelligence made manifest—sons and daughters of that infinite consciousness, experiencing one particular creation that happens to consist of space and time and the laws of physics known and loved by modern science.
Also following this logic, religions claim that God knows our every thought begins to make sense. Our thoughts are part and parcel of this infinite consciousness. We just don't have direct knowledge of this in the here-and-now. Yet there is nothing fundamentally mysterious or invasive about this sharing of thoughts. It is no more mysterious than when we, as adults, remember our own thoughts as children.
This infinite intelligence is, therefore, a direct analog of the Creator of religious doctrine, one totally compatible with modern science be it the Big Bang, multi-dimensional string theory, evolution, etc. At some level, we know this to be true, because our consciousness is a part of the Creators consciousness. In some literal sense, we actually make our own universe and then enter into it. In this way, the Creator gets to experience one tiny part of its infinite potential through each of the billions of individual lives on this planet (and probably elsewhere). The infinite intelligence gets the joy of spending his billion dollars on all sorts of amazing experiences.
We are not fully aware of this, however, because the experience of physicality retains its infinite potential only when it is not fully defined. Our incomplete knowledge of physical reality enriches our human experiences by maintaining its novelty, its unanticipated outcomes, its newness. It allows us each to live our lives as a great adventure. What sense of satisfaction would a scientist derive from inquiry if the laws of physics were all clearly revealed as part of the act of creation? What joy would there be in searching for buried treasure if you knew all along where you hid it? It's the mystery that underwrites the joy of discovery.
One of the oldest of religious teachings is that "The One who became many is becoming one again." That is how I view what we are all doing right now.
[THE THOUGHT BEHIND THOSE WORDS IS CORRECT; GOD HAS MADE MANY, WHO CAN BECOME ONE, WITH HIM IN HIS FAMILY, HIS KINGDOM - SEE MY STUDY “A CHRISTIAN’S DESTINY”……. THE FIRST STUDY UNDER THE SECTION “SALVATION, LAW AND GRACE” ON THIS WEBSITE - Keith Hunt]
THE GOD THEORY, KARMA, AND THE GOLDEN RULE
But what are we to make of lives that seem patently unfair? How do we account for those who are either agents or victims of evil? These questions are troublesome only if we assume that a given individualized consciousness enters into physical life only once. Our universe is approximately 14 billion years old and is expected to continue for many billions more. Why would an individualized spark of divine consciousness choose to limit its experience of physical existence to only, say, eighty years of life in Bakers-field?
[THE 14 BILLION YEARS IS A GUESS BY SCIENTISTS; IT MAY BE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THAT LONG; THEN AGAIN IT COULD BE, THE BIBLE IS SILENT ON WHEN THE UNIVERSE CAME INTO BEING, AND IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN VIA A “BIG BAND” - THE BIG BANG IS LOOKING AT THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE AS NOW AND REPLAYING IT BACKWARDS TO AN INVISIBLE DOT. BUT GOD MAY HAVE CREATED GALAXIES AND THEN SOMETIME LATER SAID…. “MOVE OUT, EXPAND” - THE CORRECT READING OF “IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED….” IS “IN THE BEGINNINGS…..” FENTON TRANSLATES THE HEBREW AS “BY PERIODS GOD CREATED THE……” - Keith Hunt]
There is plenty of time in our imagined universe to achieve a balance of good and evil, of high and low, in the existence of each spiritual being. This is the meaning of the law of karma expounded by Eastern mystics—a law by which the good and bad in each individual spiritual consciousness is required to achieve balance, although not necessarily in a single lifetime. This karmic law may, in fact, be an intellectual and spiritual analog of the laws of conservation of energy and matter in physics, for example the rule that the sum of positive and negative charges must total the same before and after a reaction.
[THE AUTHOR STARTS HIS “KARMA” RELIGION IDEAS, OF BEINGS LIVING MORE THAN ONE LIFE TIME - UTTERLY DEMOLISHED BY THE BIBLE - Keith Hunt]
If the God Theory is correct, it has important implications for our everyday lives:
The God of the theory cannot require anything from us for his own happiness.
[WELL TRUE IN THE OVERALL, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN GOD HAS NO EMOTION AS “HAPPINESS” - HE MADE US IN HIS IMAGE; THE EMOTIONS WE HAVE HE HAS ALSO, ALL BUT SEXUAL EMOTIONS - THE BIBLE IN MANY PLACES BRINGS THIS TRUTH OUT - AS I’VE PROVED IN OTHER STUDIES - Keith Hunt]
The God of the theory cannot dislike, and certainly cannot hate, anything that we do or are.
[COMPLETELY FAR OUT WRONG! AS I’VE PROVED IN OTHER STUDIES; WE HAVE MANY EXAMPLES IN THE BIBLE AS TO WHAT ARE THE EMOTIONS OF GOD. ONE CLASSIC IS GOD IN THE FLESH, VIA JESUS CHRIST, HATED WHAT SOME WERE DOING IN THE FIRST COURT-YARD OF THE TEMPLE, AND HE TWICE IN THE GOSPEL ACCOUNTS TURNED OVER THEIR TABLES, AND SPOKE WITH LANGUAGE THAT WAS SHARP AND VERY BLUNT. THE BIBLE SAYS GOD HATES 6 THINGS, YEA 7 ARE AN ABOMINATION TO HIM - PROVERBS 6: 16-19. THAT IS JUST FOR STARTERS; I HAVE TO ASK IF THIS AUTHOR HAS READ THE BIBLE - Keith Hunt]
The God of the theory will never punish us, because it would ultimately amount to self-punishment.
[ONCE MORE UTTER THEOLOGICAL GARBAGE - FOR STARTERS SEE HEBREWS 10: 26-31; AND THERE IS MUCH MUCH MORE, BUT ANYONE READING THE BIBLE CAN SURELY KNOW, UNLESS THE WORDS GO IN ONE EYE AND OUT THE OTHER, NOT ENTERING THE MIND - Keith Hunt]
There is no literal heaven or hell.
[ONCE MORE AS FAR FROM THE TRUTH AS PLUTO IS A PLANET, WHICH SCIENTISTS NOW SAY IT IS NOT A PLANET - Keith Hunt]
These corollaries of the God Theory do not, however, relieve us of duty, responsibility, or ethical behavior. Quite the contrary. In fact, if you follow the God Theory to its logical conclusion, the golden rule in which we were all schooled—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—becomes far more than merely a pious maxim. It becomes a reflection of what I call the law of action and reaction in "spiritual physics." It becomes the essence of Eastern karma. Everything we do has consequences— for good or evil. If this simple maxim were universally accepted, it would essentially solve all the problems of humanity.
[OF COURSE IF ALL PEOPLES WOULD READ AND FOLLOW THE BIBLE, THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT IS GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS, EVIL AND SIN, AND GOING GOD’S WAY WOULD BRING UTOPEA TO EARTH - Keith Hunt]
Imagine the change in compassionate and ethical behavior if people knew for a fact that whatever they did unto others would, sooner or later, come back upon themselves full force: that there was no cheating possible, that the bullet dodged in this life would find its way to the target in some future existence. Now that's a motivator for good behavior.
[THE AUTHOR IS BACK WITH HIS “KARMA” RELIGION - ANOTHER LIFE, OR MANY LIVES, AT SOME OTHER TIME, TO MAKE SURE YOU DID NOT GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING - Keith Hunt]
Good and bad are contentious terms, especially in the eyes of the righteous, who tend to prefer condemning the bad to praising the good. Ultimately, however, there is no absolute good or bad, no timeless right or wrong, only that which does or does not advance our (i.e. God’s) existential purpose. Rules of proper behavior depend upon time and place, because the consequences of the things we do largely depend on the context in which they are done. Consider how the sex act can be a crime or a consummation of love, depending solely on the context in which it is performed.
[TRUE SOME THINGS HAVE A CONTEXT AS LIKE THE SEX EXAMPLE GIVEN, BUT NOT ALL IS SO, SOME HAVE THE CONTEXT OF ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME, I.E. THE SABBATH KEEPING COMMANDMENT WAS ALWAYS SIN TO NOT OBSERVE IT; BUT THIS TAKES STUDY FROM THE WORD OF GOD TO KNOW WHAT SIN IS, AND TO SEE THAT ONCE SIN ENTERED, THEN BREAKING THE 4TH COMMANDMENT WAS SIN FROM THE BEGINNING, AND WILL BE TO THE NEW HEAVENS AND THE NEW EARTH - Keith Hunt]
What does have absolute meaning, however, is the way in which we treat others, including animals. We shape our universe by the love or malice, the compassion or indifference, we bring to our relationships with our fellow beings. Under the God Theory, the requirement that you treat others with respect and compassion is, for all practical purposes, a moral absolute, since all beings participate in the infinite consciousness that created them.
[YES, SO THERE IS A TRUE ABSOLUTE SIN AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND IT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING; THE BIBLE MAGNIFIES WHAT IT MEANS TO TREAT OTHERS LIKE YOU WOULD WANT THEM TO TREAT YOU; YET THERE IS ALSO INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ACT TOWARDS PRACTICING SINNERS IN YOUR HOME AND COMMUNITY; THE BIBLE COVERS MANY MANY SITUATIONS AND HOW TO RESPOND, BUT YOU HAVE TO READ THE BIBLE TO KNOW IT ALL, WHICH I’M WONDERING IF THE AUTHOR HAS EVER DONE - Keith Hunt]
Other rules of morality may be judged by how well they do or do not serve the common good, which is not the same at all times and all places. Remember, tribal customs change. But if you accept the God Theory, compassion and love become moral imperatives, since to inflict pain on a fellow being is to inflict it on the universal consciousness, and thereby on yourself.
[WOW…… SOME THEOLOGY! SO WHAT ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY IN ANCIENT ISRAEL? WHAT ABOUT HOW THE CHURCH IS TO ACT TOWARDS THOSE IN ITS MIDST, WHO ARE PRACTICING GROSS SINS - SEE 1 CORINTHIANS 5. WHAT ABOUT GOD DESTROYING UN-REPENTANT SINNERS IN THE LAKE OF FIRE, OR THE SECOND DEATH - SEE REVELATION 20. THERE IS PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL PAIN IN THIS PRESENT WORLD, AND GOD AND THE CHURCH OF GOD ARE IN IT ALL…..(not that the church should ever inflict physical pain on anyone), THIS IS JUST THE CLEAR TRUTH OF THE MATTER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE AUTHOR SAYS - Keith Hunt]
But under the God Theory, you never have to worry about whether God himself is offended by your behavior. That can never happen.
[WOW….. SOME THEOLOGY! THE GOD OF THE BIBLE SAYS REPENT - TURN AROUND AND GO THE RIGHT RIGHTEOUS WAY OF LIVING; THE GOD OF THE BIBLE CAN AND DOES NOT LIKE YOUR WAY OF LIVING IF IT IS NOT IN LINE WITH HIS WAY OF LIVING - Keith Hunt]
The God of my theory cannot be made unhappy or angered by you, since you participate in his infinite consciousness and he in you.
[SO GOES THIS GUY’S THEOLOGY - HEBREWS 10 WHICH WE’VE SEEN IS PRETTY CLEAR ON HOW GOD FEELS, IF YOU TRAMPLE UNDER FOOT THE SON OF GOD - Keith Hunt]
Think about it: how arrogant to assume that we could ruin Gods day!
[GOD DOES HAVE EMOTIONS; WE SURE CAN’T DAMAGE HIS HOLINESS, BUT HE DOES HAVE EMOTIONS THAT ARE SHOWN VERY CLEARLY AT TIMES; SEE ALL MY STUDIES ON “ALL ABOUT GOD, CHRIST, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT” - Keith Hunt]
When the minutiae of this particular creation have all played out, all will return to God, all will be well, the purpose will be fulfilled.
[OH YES, ALL WILL BE WELL IN THE END OF THE MATTER; BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH “UNIVERSAL SALVATION” - THERE IS A SECOND DEATH, A PUNISHMENT FOR ALL ETERNITY (SOME NOT EXISTING AT ALL; GONE FROM THE UNIVERSE LIKE THEY NEVER EXISTED) - IN THE LAKE OF FIRE, THE SECOND DEATH. ANY THEOLOGY NOT INCLUDING ALL THIS, IS A THEOLOGY FROM THE MIND OF MAN, WHO IS MAKING GOD FROM THEIR OWN IMAGINATIONS AND PHILOSOPHICAL SURMISING, INSTEAD OF LETTING GOD’S WORD TELL US WHAT HE IS ALL ABOUT - AGAIN SEE MY ALL MY STUDIES ON THE MATTER UNDER THIS SECTION OF MY WEBSITE “ALL ABOUT GOD, CHRIST, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT” - Keith Hunt]
Of course in the meantime, you still have the law of karma to contend with . . .
[BACK HE GOES TO EASTERN RELIGION - Keith Hunt]
and that could prove to be rather unpleasant if you have behaved badly toward other sentient beings. I would imagine Hitlers consciousness is having a pretty difficult time of it now. I suppose it is possible that even his karma can eventually be purged, but a rabbi with whom I studied esoteric matters for a time made the claim that a consciousness can become so corrupted by evil that no purification is possible; that such a consciousness can only be dispersed into its tiniest bits, losing all history and identity, effectively being recycled. I am agnostic on this point.
[HE JUST DOES NOT KNOW; BUT THE BIBLE GIVES THE ANSWER; NOT ANY RABBI, BUT THE BIBLE GIVES THE ANSWER - SEE MY STUDY “THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT” UNDER “SABBATH AND FEASTS OF GOD” - Keith Hunt]
So too with the fanatical bombers plaguing the world today, who are as close to my conception of evil as one can get, but seem to believe (in their deranged way) that they are doing what is right and good. Where will they find justice? Whether driven by pure malice or by the misguided view that they were accomplishing some good, consequences will follow which may well be hellish. Under the God Theory, that justice will be meted out by the action and reaction of the law of karma, which is built into the fabric of creation as surely as conservation of momentum is built into the laws of physics. It is only your snapshot view from the perspective of a single lifetime that outrages your sense of justice or causes you to demand a day of divine judgment and reckoning. Better to think of karma as a multi-lifetime process of reeducation, rehabilitation, and inescapable balance.
[INTO HIS EASTERN “KARMA” RELIGION HE GOES ONCE MORE; MANY LIFE-TIMES FOR ONLY THEN CAN JUSTICE COME TO EVERYONE, SOONER OR LATER - Keith Hunt]
Some evidentiary support for the concept of multiple existences comes from those who have had near-death experiences. The life review associated with these experiences accords with the philosophical view that, when you die, your consciousness enters a non-physical realm where the consequences of all your actions come flooding in upon you. You then experience the pleasures or pains, the joys or terrors, that you have inflicted on others. As in the laws of conservation of energy and matter, the balance is simply inescapable. It is built into the creation process. So while you may avoid the consequences of your actions in one life, balance will be achieved in a future existence. This balancing requires neither divine retribution nor punishment; it derives from the fundamental laws underlying your existence as an independent entity. It no more requires God’s judgment or intervention than does the working of the law of gravity.
[HE’S INTO THE LAW OF “KARMA” - EASTERN RELIGION, MORE THAN ONE LIFE, SO YOU GET YOUR “DUES” EVENTUALLY IN “MULTIPLE EXISTENCES.” HE TRIES TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THIS THEOLOGY BY THE SO-CALLED NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES SOME HAVE HAD. IT IS CORRECT THEY CALL IT “NEAR-DEATH” FOR THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, THEY ARE NOT DEAD, BUT MAYBE NEAR DEATH. THE MIND CAN PLAY ALL KINDS OF “TRICKS” ON US, SOME JUST IN GENERAL LIFE HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT. WE HAVE DREAMS THAT SEEM TO BE VERY REAL WHEN IN THEM, DURING SLEEP. AND THE DEMONS CAN ALSO PLAY WITH OUR MIND, SOME HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT WHEN NOT IN SLEEP. THE BIBLE TEACHES DEATH IS DEATH WHEN YOU ARE FINALLY IN IT. YOU ARE NOT IN HEAVEN OR HELL. WHEN DEAD YOU ARE DEAD NOT ALIVE IN SOME OTHER “SPIRIT” WORLD. YOU NEED TO STUDY ALL THE STUDIES UNDER THE “LIFE, DEATH AND RESURRECTION” SECTION OF THIS WEBSITE - Keith Hunt]
You must be careful, however, not to attribute all your personal misfortunes to the action of karma. That can be a dangerous and slippery slope. Those living particularly unfortunate lives may be balancing and cancelling negative karma from a previous life.
[HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH EASTERN RELIGION - KARMA OF MANY LIVES WE MAY HAVE; I MEAN IT MAY TAKE MANY LIFE TIMES FOR EVERYONE TO GET THEIR JUST DESERTS FOR LIVING THE WAY THEY LIVED - TONGUE IN CHEEK I SPEAK - Keith Hunt]
On the other hand, they may simply have chosen a life of suffering for the benefits this can bring. Suffering and hardship can bring growth and wisdom, and this may be the path chosen by benevolent souls to advance their spiritual evolution.
[OH LIKE YOU CHOOSE IT, RIGHT! WHO ON EARTH WOULD JUST CHOOSE TO HAVE SUFFERINGS, ALL KINDS OF HARDSHIPS ETC. TO STRENGTHEN YOUR INNER SELF. MAYBE SOME “TWISTED” MIND-SET WOULD CHOOSE SUCH A LIFE. PAUL HAD SUCH A LIFE, BUT NOT BECAUSE HE CHOSE IT; GOD TOLD ANANIAS PAUL WAS CHOSEN TO SUFFER MANY THINGS FOR GOD’S SAKE (ACTS 9), BUT PAUL DID NOT CHOOSE IT! I HAVE TO ADMIT, I LIKE MY LIFE TO GO VERY NICE AND SMOOTH, JUST NO SUFFERING PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY OR EMOTIONALLY; IT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE SO, BUT I WOULD SURE CHOOSE THE SMOOTH, NO RUFFLES LIFE… NOT ALWAYS HAD IT, BUT WOULD SURE CHOOSE THE NO RUFFLES IF I HAD A CHOICE. I’VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND WISDOM AND GROWTH DURING MY LIFE, WHEN NO RUFFLES HAVE BEEN THERE….I MEAN WHO IN THEIR LOGICAL RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO CHOOSE A LIFE OF SUFFERING? Keith Hunt]
The logical consequences of the God Theory lead us to some inevitable corollaries:
The purpose of life is experience; God wishes to experience life through you.
[OKAY I AN ACCEPT THAT - Keith Hunt]
God desires your partnership, not your servility. If you choose to praise and worship him it should be out of love not fear, and is for your own benefit, not his.
[OKAY I CAN ACCEPT THAT - Keith Hunt]
The consequence of your negative actions is negative things happening to you, though not necessarily immediately; in this sense, you create your own hell.
[WELL YES, SO IT IS “HELL ON EARTH” IF YOU DECIDE TO LIVE SOME REALLY BAD WAYS OF LIVING - Keith Hunt]
Ultimately, your individual consciousness will be fully reunited with the infinite consciousness of God; this can be characterized as heaven (or Samadhi).
[BACK INTO HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM - EASTERN RELIGION - TRUE CHRISTIANITY TEACHES WE SHALL BE WITH GOD, FULLY PART OF HIS IMMORTAL FAMILY - Keith Hunt]
The point of a created universe is to experience it. Life is God made manifest.
[OKAY, YES CAN ACCEPT THAT - Keith Hunt]
It is in your own best interest to live a life worthy of the creating intelligence, because that is the path to spiritual evolution and ultimate satisfaction.
[YES CAN ACCEPT THAT - Keith Hunt]
Your consciousness can be transformed, but it can never die. Your body and mind are merely tools for experiencing physical existence.
[NOPE! JUST NOT SO! YOU CAN BE DESTROYED FOREVER, GONE LIKE YOU NEVER EXISTED; THAT’S WHAT THE BILE TEACHES - Keith Hunt]
The pursuit of experience through physical life is how the infinite mind actualizes its infinite potential.
[FANCY SENTENCE HERE, BUT THE MIND OF MAN MUST BE NORMAL TO UNDERSTAND AND FINALLY HAVE YOUR POTENTIAL - Keith Hunt]
Why should you believe this (some may say audacious) attempt to summarize an answer to the mystery of the ages?
Well, certainly not because I claim to be any kind of prophet. I am not. As far as I know, God has not chosen me for any special revelation nor to be his enlightened spokesman. I am neither guru nor divinely sent messenger. [HE GOT THAT RIGHT - Keith Hunt] And I am certainly not attempting to organize any new religion. Heaven forbid! Indeed, it is my view that the probable facts of spiritual reality are at odds with a great many of the claims of religion. And I have no intention of adding to that confusion. I am interested only in exploring the nature of spiritual reality.
One reason to consider what I propose is that it is so beautifully rational. It answers key paradoxes of good and evil, of divine benevolence and human malice, of God's justice and the persistent Problem of Job. It transcends the impossible contradictions of competing religions. It opens the door to an unprecedented world peace based on universal self-interest. It is a worldview, I submit, that grows on you with time. It is elegant.
[OF COURSE HE DOES HAVE MANY TRUTHS IN HIS THEOLOGY - ALL FALSE THEOLOGY HAVE TRUTHS, HENCE MANY CAN BE DECEIVED - Keith Hunt]
But does this elegant construct contradict anything we know from modern science?
I don't think so.
I am not touting myself as any "great scientist," but I do know about the process and the philosophy of science, the nature of scientific evidence, the role of theory, all from years of first-hand experience.
For nearly three decades I have been actively engaged in scientific research and in that time I have published scores of papers, many in top level journals such as Science and Nature, served as referee and proposal reviewer for NASA and the National Science Foundation, have been principal investigator on numerous NASA projects, have chaired conferences sponsored by the International Astronomical Union at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley. For ten years I served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal, and in that time I was responsible for accepting or rejecting somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand articles for that prestigious publication. All in all I have learned a fair bit about the structure and evolution of the Universe, the Big Bang, and the fundamental ideas embodied in relativity and quantum theory. Of course you will have to decide for yourself whether I am right or wrong, but I am pretty certain there is nothing within our modern corpus of scientific knowledge that contradicts the God Theory.
Ultimately, of course, you will have to decide for yourself whether or not the God Theory makes sense to you.
[THE TRUE GOD OF THE HOLY BIBLE DOES MAKE SENSE; BUT TO KNOW THAT GOD YOU WILL NEED TO STUDY, I MEAN REALLY STUDY HIS WORD; THEN ALSO TO KNOW HIM, YOU’LL HAVE TO LIVE BY ALL HIS WORD, AS JESUS TAUGHT US, SEE MATTHEW 4;4 - AND YOU’LL NEED A VERY PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST THE SAVIOR, AND GOD THE FATHER, FOR “HEAD KNOWLEDGE” WILL SAVE NO ONE - Keith Hunt]
The God Theory and Reductionism
There certainly are many hardcore dogmatic reductionists who scoff at the idea of any reality other than the purely physical reality of atoms and molecules and the four known forces of physics (electromagnetism, gravitation, and the strong and weak interactions). I use the term "reductionist" here to indicate someone who truly believes there is nothing beyond the physical. Reductionists, for our purposes, are those who believe that the greatest achievement of mankind will be to uncover some ultimate equation or set of equations that govern the fundamental particles of matter, and thereby, the entire universe—including us.
Reductionists believe that complex things or processes can always be reduced to the actions of their parts. To them, consciousness is nothing more than brain chemistry. When the ultimate equation has explained the tiniest particle, they claim, the job of science will be complete. In their view, there is nothing beyond the here-and-now; when your body dies, you are gone forever. If you point out that this seems fundamentally unsatisfactory, the best they have to offer is the tough-love maxim: "Get over it and move on."
The stoicism of those who believe this and still manage to live good, decent lives without promise of reward in the hereafter is, perhaps, admirable. And I freely grant that even reductionism is preferable to a belief that slaughter and destruction in the name of a vengeful God will result in immediate passage to heaven. But I think it is wrong nonetheless. In fact, in its most rigid form, reductionism becomes essentially a matter of faith and simply another kind of orthodoxy that goes by the name of scientism.
The word "science" is used today in two very different ways— in the service of epistemology, which is a way of investigating reality, and in the service of ontology, which is a conceptualization of reality itself. It is in this second sense that dogmatic science is invoked today and should more properly be regarded as the religion of scientism. While scientific orthodoxy boasts no churches, it is nonetheless a faith—a faith whose ritual is skepticism. Indeed those skeptics who scoff loudest at all things spiritual hold professional gatherings that bear an ironic resemblance to revival meetings, at which they pump up the faithful to go forth and combat anything that smacks of non-reductionism. I contend, on the other hand, that, although the material investigations of science are absolutely correct, they only penetrate the lowest level of reality—that of the physical and the material.
Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev introduced the idea of civilization types: Type I civilizations harness the energy output of an entire planet; Type II civilizations harness the energy of an entire star; Type III civilizations harness the energy of an entire galaxy. While this idea certainly prompts some exciting scientific speculation, it is ultimately just an expanded version of the same tired old reality. I propose a revolutionary idea: that a truly advanced civilization will not be classified on the basis of the physical energy it harnesses, but rather on its ability to understand and use the literal creative energy of divine consciousness that is the fundamental nature of all living beings.
THE AUTHOR FINISHES WELL….. TO BE AGAINST THE SCIENTIFIC ATHEISTS; AND THAT I CAN FULLY AGREE WITH - Keith Hunt