THE  GOD  THEORY


by  BERNARD  HAISCH


Explaining

CONSCIOUSNESS

The spiritual worldview of the mystics is grounded on three fundamental assumptions:


* There is an ultimately benevolent Creator who seeks the good of all, despite evidence to the contrary from our limited historical perspective.


* Human beings are immortal spiritual forms that evolve through temporary bodies.


* There exist realms of reality beyond the presently known particles and forces of modern physics.


Without these assumptions, you can build a system of morals and/or an ethical view of life, but not a substantive spiritual worldview. Each moves what may start as a system of morals or ethics progressively toward a significant new vision of spirituality in nature by marrying the values of objective scientific discovery with the experience of a far larger reality.


All of these assumptions are at odds with the tenets of fundamentalist science. None, however, are genuinely at odds with either the corpus of scientific knowledge or mainstream scientific method. How is this possible? Because mainstream science limits its investigations to the physical world, thereby precluding inquiry into this larger realm. Thus, arguments against these fundamental spiritual tenets are based on dogmatic assumptions grounded in the worldview of fundamentalist scientism, not on any objective scientific evidence.


Three Views of Consciousness


The evidence of the mystics is, of course, intimately connected with the ontology of consciousness. 


What is this mysterious consciousness that is the essence of our lives? There are essentially three views we can take on that question.


The first:  holds that the material world is all there is. In this view, everything can ultimately be reduced to physics and nothing but physics. Reality consists of nothing more—and nothing less—than the space, time, particles, and forces that physicists document. In this view, of course, consciousness itself must be explained in terms of atoms and molecules, and these explanations abound. One such model views consciousness as nothing but a computer-like function of the brain and claims that thinking is akin to executing a series of algorithms. You may think you are thinking, but it really comes down to neurons in your brain interacting with each other as if your brain were some kind of mental laptop.


In this view, feelings—happiness, sorrow, inspiration, love— must also originate in the physiology of neurons and synapses. Indeed, mood-altering drugs like Prozac and the discoveries of genetics are taken as confirmation of this view. 


From this perspective, consciousness, as a strictly epiphenomenal product of the brain, can neither exist apart from the body nor, obviously, survive death. Consciousness is ultimately nothing more than a chemically driven illusion.


The second view: of consciousness holds that material reality is primary, but not exclusive. Something else has managed to come on the scene. 

[YES  INDEED  THE  BIBLE  SPEAKS  OF  “THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN”  -  I   SHOW  IN  MY  STUDY  REGARDING  IT,  THOUGH  THE  SPIRIT IN  MAN  GOES  BACK  TO  GOD  WHO  GAVE  IT (ECC. 12:9),  IT  DOES NOT  WORK  OUTSIDE  THE  BODY  OF  MAN/WOMAN.  IF  YOU  GO  BLIND  THE  “SPIRIT”  OF  MAN  DOES  NOT  TAKE  OVER  AND  SEE  FOR  YOU.  BUT  IT  DOES  WORK  WITH  THE  BRAIN  TO  MAKE  YOU  YOU,  AND  TO  BE  CONSCIOUS AS  LIKE  NO  OTHER  CREATURE  ON  EARTH.  MY  STUDY  ON  THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN   IS  FOUND  UNDER  “LIFE,  DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION”  STUDY  NO. 7  -  Keith Hunt]


In this view, something greater than material reality has arisen out of ordinary matter through some kind of complex evolutionary process. 


[NOT  AT  ALL…… IT  DOES  NOT  COME  THROUGH  EVOLUTION,  IT  IS  GIVEN  BY  GOD,  AND  GOD  TAKES  IT  BACK  WHEN  YOU  DIE - ECC. 12: 9  -  Keith Hunt]


This "something greater" is consciousness. 


This explanation of the origins of consciousness is often couched in terms of quantum laws and logic, and sometimes in terms of the non-linear mathematical possibilities afforded by chaos theory. Clearly consciousness, in this view, is normally linked to material bodies.,Whether it can exist apart from material bodies is unknown, but the prevailing sentiment appears to deny that possibility. The survival of consciousness after death is, therefore, also deemed unlikely.


[THIS  “SPIRIT  IN  MAN”  IS  NOT  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT;  IT  DOES  NOT  FUNCTION  SEPARATELY  FROM  THE  BODY  OF  MAN;  IT  DOES  EXIST  AFTER  DEATH;  IT  GOES  BACK  TO  GOD  -  ECC. 12: 9.  IT  CAN  BE  LIKENED  TO  A  CD  OR  DVD  -  IT  RECORDS  AND  KEEPS  A  CHRISTIAN’S  RIGHTEOUS  CHARACTER,  ALL  SINS  HAVE  BEEN  WASH  AWAY  BY  THE  BLOOD  OF  THE  LAMB  -  JESUS  CHRIST.  ONLY  RIGHTEOUS  CHARACTER  EXISTS  ON  THIS  CD/DVD  WHEN  A  TRUE  CHRISTIAN  DIES.  AGAIN  THIS  SPIRIT  IN  MAN  IS  NOT  SOME  IMMORTAL  MAN/WOMAN  LIVING,  TALKING,  THINKING,  WALKING,  AROUND  HEAVEN  ALL  DAY  -  SEE  MY  STUDIES  UNDER  “DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION”  FOR  THE  FULL  IN-DEPTH  STUDIES  ON  DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  -  Keith Hunt]


The third view: of consciousness holds that material reality is not only non-exclusive; it is secondary. Something else came first. 


This spiritual perspective holds that forces and intelligences in a non-material realm or realms created, or perhaps continually create and sustain, the world of matter and physical laws. Human beings have a dualistic nature—a material body and a non-material consciousness. Intelligent thought operates through the brain, but is more than just a physical process. The brain is, indeed, a data processor, but intelligence and consciousness reside elsewhere. The ability of consciousness to exist apart from the body and to survive death is, therefore, likely.


[THIS  IS  VERY  CLOSE  TO  THE  SECOND;  WE  ARE  GIVEN  A  “SPIRIT”  -  NONE  PHYSICAL  THAT  UNITES  WITH  OUR  BRAIN  TO  GIVE  US  HUMAN  CONSCIOUSNESS;  THAT  MAKES  US  FAR  ABOVE  ANY  OTHER  PHYSICAL  CREATURE.  IT  IS  A  UNQUE  SPIRIT  THAT  MAKES  US  HUMAN  BEINGS;  AS  OPPOSED  TO  A  SPIRIT  IN  ANIMALS  THAT,  ALTHOUGH  THEY  CAN  VARY  IN  WAYS  THAT  DRAW  THEM  CLOSE  OR  DISTANT  FROM  MAN,  AND  HAVE  “TYPE”  OF  PERSONALITY  -  BEING  A  HORSEMAN  I  KNOW  ALL  HORSES  HAVE  THEIR  OWN  PERSONALITY,  AS  DO  DOGS (HAD  THREE  OF  THEM)  AND  CATS (HAD  ONE  AND  THERE  ARE  THREE  AT  THE  RANCH,  WITH  THEIR  INDIVIDUAL  PERSONALITY)  -  Keith Hunt]


Indeed, proponents of this view see the physical world as a kind of school, created for the development and evolution of spiritual beings. Through this process, you rise to ever-higher levels of moral development and wisdom.


[THE  HIGHER  TRUE  DEVELOPMENT  CAN  ONLY  COME  BY  HAVING  GOD’S  HOLY  SPIRIT  UNITED  WITH  YOUR  SPIRIT  IN  MAN.  THE  BRAIN  AND  SPIRIT  IN  MAN  CAN  DO  WONDERFUL  THINGS,  EVEN  GENIUS  THINGS,  BUT  FOR  SPIRITUAL  GROWTH  IN  DEVELOPING  THE  NATURE  AND  MIND  OF  GOD,  YOU  NEED  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT  IN  YOU,  WHICH  IS  ALSO  THE  FATHER  AND  SON  CHRIST  JESUS  IN  YOU  VIA  THAT  HOLY  SPIRIT - JOHN 14: 23; 16: 7-15 - Keith Hunt]


Through a series of material incarnations, you ultimately attain perfection and are reunited with the creator of all. Thus, "the One who became many is becoming one again."


[THE  AUTHOR  GOES  BACK  TO  “KARMA”  RELIGIOUS  STUFF;  THAT  EVERYONE  IS  ON  A  JOURNEY  TO  UNITE  WITH  GOD,  SOMEDAY,  NO  MATTER  IF  A  CHRISTIAN  OR  NOT;  JESUS  CHRIST  IS  NOT   IN  “KARMA”  RELIGION  -  THAT  RELIGIOUS  THEOLOGY  DOES  NOT  NEED  HIM  -  Keith Hunt]


The issue in this view is thus not the survival of consciousness after death. Quite the opposite. Descent from a spiritual realm and subsequent existence in the material world is only a transitory state. Your natural, timeless home lies in the supernatural world of the Creator. The universe explored by astronomers is merely a physical plane (in a four-dimensional space-time sense) that subsists within that wider, supernatural realm.


[THE  KARMA  RELIGION  IS  YOU  COME  FROM  GOD,  YOU  HAVE  YOUR  START  IN  HIM,  AND  THIS  EARTHLY  JOURNEY  IS  JUST  A  RELATIVELY  TRANSITORY  STATE,  AN  EDUCATIONAL  STATE  OF  EVOLVING  TO  GO  BACK  TO  GOD  -  Keith Hunt]


The first viewpoint—that of consciousness as epiphenome-non—predominates in modern physical science. 


The second view—that of consciousness coexisting with material reality—is accepted by some, though viewed with considerable skepticism. 


The third—that of consciousness as primary—is not considered appropriate for scientific discussion today. 


Most scientists are not just committed to the belief that reality must be exclusively physical; they honestly cannot imagine any other model. Yet it is precisely this third viewpoint that warrants consideration in a world growing ever more lost in the maze of its own scientific and technological advances.


CONSCIOUSNESS AND PHYSIOLOGY


If you take a skeptical perspective on human consciousness, the question is: Do advances in medicine and pharmacology increase the likelihood that our thoughts and emotions can indeed be explained entirely as the workings of a brain in a body? If a drug can make you happy or cure depression, is it then reasonable to think that further discoveries in biochemistry will eventually explain your entire conscious world—your creativity, your capacity for love and hate, even your spiritual longings? Many reasonable and thoughtful men and women answer yes.


On the other hand, consider this analogy: 


An automobile travels from San Francisco to New York. That trip can be explained purely in terms of physics and mechanics. So much gasoline is consumed, the cylinders fire so many times, the drive shaft rotates so many times, the wheels revolve so many times. All true, but none of that explanation addresses how the trip actually takes place, much less why. It ignores the fact that the car is operated by a driver, and that the driver is motivated by feelings and desires. The reductionist analysis grounded in fuel consumption and mechanics is entirely accurate; it is just entirely beside the point. We can consider the functioning of the human body in a similar way. You can analyze all the purely physiological aspects of human actions, thoughts, and emotions and arrive at an accurate, but incomplete and irrelevant, understanding that ignores the most important factor—the driver, or consciousness.


[I  AGREE,  THE  AUTHOR  IS  RIGHT  ON  HERE  -  Keith Hunt]


This analogy is also useful as an answer to those who argue that the demonstrable effects of drugs on human emotion or the inherited abilities described through genetics are evidence against consciousness as anything other than a material substrate. The quality of the drive, the degree of control, the attainable speed— all of these things will indeed vary with the condition of the automobile. A skilled driver may be able to compensate for certain deficiencies of the vehicle, but the performance of a brand new Ferrari will be different from that of a beat-up old Chevy, no matter who is driving.


Mind-altering drugs do act upon physiology, and genes can enhance or limit the capabilities of your body and your brain. Without a doubt, the physiological effects of chemicals and genes can affect your state of mind and your apparent abilities. During your human lifetime, your consciousness is undoubtedly constrained by your brain, although perhaps not as much as you have been led to believe. But, in the third view of consciousness, there is more to it than that.


The Brain as Filter


In his book, The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley tries to make sense of his experience with mescaline, a drug used for centuries by Indians of the Southwest and Mexico to induce spiritually significant altered states. Huxley's experience was profound in a way that transcends language. Being a meticulous observer and an articulate reporter, Huxley strives to describe how his sense perception and his perception of existence itself shifted during his experience. He is only partially successful, because he has, for a time, experienced a totally different reality that cannot properly be reduced to ordinary language.


Reductionists would take this as proof of the physiological influence of a chemical, and claim that Huxley's experience reinforces their view of consciousness as chemistry. Huxley sees a deeper significance. Citing the work of Cambridge philosopher C. D. Broad, he draws the conclusion that we are all potentially "Mind at Large," meaning that consciousness is literally unlimited, as indeed it would be if each individual were a manifestation of an infinite consciousness. Huxley explains that it is the function of the brain to filter out virtually everything other than immediate consensual reality. Rather than being a source of consciousness, as reductionists claim, the brain is thus a tool that extracts a finite drop of "reality" from the infinite sea of consciousness. As Huxley puts it:


To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funnelled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet.


[TRUE  IN  THE  REALM  OF  US  AND  THIS  WORLD;  THE  OTHER  INGREDIENT  FOR  BEING  WHAT  GOD  WANTS  YOU  TO  BE,  IS  ACQUIRING  HIS  HOLY  SPIRIT,  WHICH  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  LAYS  DOWN  AS  TO  WHAT  YOUR  MIND-SET  MUST  BECOME  FOR  YOU  TO  RECEIVE  THE  GIFT  OF  GOD’S  HOLY  SPIRIT,  HIS  VERY  NATURE  AND  MIND  -  Keith Hunt]


Just as creation can be viewed as a process of subtraction from the infinite rather than as an event in which something pops up out of nothing, your personal consciousness can be viewed as a brain-filtered remnant of infinite consciousness rather than as a chemical creation of the brain. This, in fact, may provide a very natural explanation of certain psychic phenomena.


[WELL  FOR  ALL  THOSE  FANCY  WORDS  PUT  IN  A  PARAGRAPH  THE  SIMPLE  ANSWER  IS:  A  NORMAL  BRAIN  WITH  THE  “SPIRIT  IN  MAN”  MAKES  YOU,  YOU;  AND  SO  IS  AS  GOD  INTENDED  FOR  THE  NORMAL  HUMAN  BEING  -  Keith Hunt]


In Huxley's interpretation, mescaline simply puts a crack in your mental filter that allows perceptions that are normally excluded to flood in. Of course, this is not necessarily a good thing for everyday life. If this interpretation is true, your consciousness is limited and attenuated for very good reason—to permit you to exist and function in ordinary reality. The danger, which is clearly evident in the world today, is that you mistake restricted consciousness and its attendant limited reality for a complete explanation. As a result, you completely misinterpret your own nature.


[AGAIN  A  WAY  OF  PUTTING  HUMAN  NATURE,  BUT  NOT  EASY  TO  FOLLOW.  YOU,  A  NORMAL  YOU,  ARE  AT  BIRTH  IN  A  “NEUTRAL”  MIND-SET;  YOUR  NEITHER  AUTOMATICALLY  KNOWING  AND  LOVE  GOD,  AND  YOU  DO  NOT  AUTOMATICALLY  HATE  GOD.  IT  IS  THROUGH  LIFE  EXPERIENCE  YOU  MOVE  EITHER  WAY.  I  DID  NOT  KNOW  GOD  OR  SIN  OR  RIGHTEOUSNESS,  UNTIL  I  WAS  7  YEARS  OLD  AND  AFTER.  I  WAS  NEUTRAL.  IT  WAS  MY  EXPERIENCE  OF  BEING  SENT  BY  MY  PARENTS  TO  A  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  SCHOOL  AND  MOVING  UP  TO  THEIR  HIGHER  SCHOOL  WHEN  7,  THAT  I   WAS  INTRODUCED  TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  BIBLE.  WE  HAD  BIBLE  CLASS  EACH  MORNING  FOR  HALF  AN  HOUR;  IT  WAS  THEN  I  ACCEPTED  THAT  GOD  DID  EXIST  AND  HAD  FAITH  THAT  THE  BIBLE  WAS  HIS  WRITTEN  WORD,  TO  TEACH  US  HIS  WAYS  AND  HIS  WAY  OF  LIFE.  THEN  IN  TIME  FROM  ATTENDING  SUNDAY  SCHOOL,  I  ACCEPTED  JESUS  AS  GOD’S  SON  AND  THAT  THROUGH  HIM,  WE  CAN  HAVE  SALVATION.  OUR  NEUTRAL  BORN  NATURE  CAN  GO  IN  LIFE’S  EXPERIENCE  EITHER  WITH  GOD  OR  AGAINST  GOD;  EITHER  THE  RIGHT  WAY  TO  LIVE  OR  THE  WRONG  WAY  TO  LIVE  -  Keith Hunt]


Evidence for consciousness as a limited slice of the infinite appears in the amazing feats of those afflicted with dytism—traditionally called "idiot savants" (but now, more humanely, "autistic savants"). The British newspaper The Guardian tells of Daniel Tammet, an unusual autistic savant who can describe, to some extent, the process whereby he performs amazing mental feats. Tammet cannot drive a car or even tell right from left, but he can multiply 377 times 795 while carrying on a conversation. He does so, not by any analytical process, but by seeing the two numbers as "shapes" that change and evolve into another "shape" that is the correct answer. Similarly, he can recite the value oipi to 22,514 decimal places (a world record, by the way, involving a five-hour recitation in front of an adjudicator), not by rote memorization or even by thinking as we understand it. He simply visualizes the value as a story that unfolds. The answers to outrageously difficult mathematical problems just appear to autistic savants without analytical effort. This kind of process for arriving at the correct answer for complex mathematical problems is beyond the bounds of reductionist logic.


[THE  BRAIN  IS  SO  UNBELIEVABLY  LARGE (NOT  PHYSICAL)  THAT  CERTAIN  PATHWAYS  CORRECTED  CAN  MAKE  FOR  THE  “GENIUS  MIND”  HISTORY  RELATES  TO  US;  GENIUS  IN  MANY  FORMS  -  Keith Hunt]


Nor are their abilities limited to mathematics. Leslie Lemke, a blind savant, played Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 after hearing it once—without ever having had a piano lesson. Kim Peek, the real-life Rain Man, brilliantly portrayed by Dustin Hoffman in a movie, can read two pages simultaneously, one with each eye, and perfectly recall the 7600 books he has read. For recreation, he spends hours memorizing telephone directories.


[TRULY  UNREAL  CAN  BE  THE  HUMAN  BRAIN,  IT  LEAVES  MOST  OF  US  SPEECHLESS  WHEN  WE  HEAR  ABOUT  THESE  “GENIUS”  CHILDREN  OR  ADULTS  -  Keith Hunt]


The amazing abilities of savants are usually linked to some kind of brain damage or abnormality, like a blow to the head or epilepsy. Although it is easy to understand how brain damage can lead to severe disability, it is much more difficult to understand how it can create enhanced abilities, such as memorizing a million pages of books. I suggest that these amazing abilities, which we would regard as impossible for a human being to do were they not demonstrable, support the idea that individual consciousness is somehow linked to or a part of an infinite consciousness. They also support the view that your brain determines your everyday consciousness, not as a source, but as a filter, and that drugs or brain damage can crack that filter and admit a variety of experiences, including psychedelic visions and mathematical genius.


[I  SUPPOSE  THAT  AT  TIMES,  AN  OUTSIDE  WHATEVER  INCIDENT,  COULD  EFFECT  THE  BRAIN  TO  BRING  FORTH  A  GENIUS  OR  THE  OPPOSITE.  THEN  SOME  ARE  JUST  BORN  WITH  A  BRAIN  THAT  WE  CLASSIFY  AS  “GENIUS”…… SADLY  FOR  SOME,  PHYSICAL  WHATEVER  PROBLEMS,  SOME  ARE  BORN  WITH  THE  OPPOSITE  OF  GENIUS  -  Keith Hunt]


THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS


The most fundamental argument against the scientific view of consciousness is, in my view, conclusive yet ineffable. I know with absolute certainty, with an inner conviction that no amount of external logic can refute, that I am alive and conscious. Indeed, this conviction rests on more than knowledge. The fact that one plus one equals two is a matter of externally acquired and validated knowledge. The fact that I am alive and conscious is a deep, direct, inner experience that transcends all other rationally acquired knowledge. For me, this categorically rules out the scientific view that consciousness is a biochemical, neurological illusion. My inner life of thought and awareness utterly denies that my consciousness is nothing more than an inanimate, chemical creation. I know better, and so do you.


[YES  I  AGREE,  VERY  TRUE  -  Keith Hunt]


The view that consciousness arises out of material reality is fuzzy. In the broadest sense, it can accommodate the kind of ineffable consciousness I experience in myself. Yet I believe it fails in two important respects. If consciousness arises out of ordinary matter, it is really just a rather complex configuration of matter itself, and thus no different from the simple chemical interpretation, just a bit more florid and fuzzy in its articulation. On the other hand, to argue that a truly non-material consciousness evolves from matter itself is to argue for the same duality of matter and spirit that is posited in the spiritual view of consciousness. Of course, proponents of the mind-from-matter viewpoint are uncomfortable with the word "spirit," but that is nonetheless as good a word as any for the inferred trans-material consciousness it would imply.


Taken this way, the only difference between the mind-from-matter view and the spiritual view is that, in one, matter creates spirit; in the other, spirit creates matter. I believe this difference is resolved by the world of inner experience. My consciousness, my spirit, thinks and creates ideas and then actualizes them by acting upon the world of matter. But this is a two-way street. If my body is sick, my consciousness may be affected. Nor is there any doubt that the primary impulse for creativity comes from consciousness; that is where ideas originate. It is my contention, and the crux of the God Theory, that ideas created by a spiritual consciousness are the cause and basis of the physical world.


What I am saying is, of course, nothing like a proof. I am contending that the direct inner experience of consciousness trumps logic and proof.


The perspective of mainstream physical science on consciousness is in direct opposition to the possibility that consciousness is primary, rather than merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. Most of my fellow scientists are, in fact, unable to comprehend how anyone can soberly articulate a model predicated on the primacy of consciousness. The very idea appears to be supernatural mumbo-jumbo to most of them. Yet glimpses of remarkable coincidences continue to occur: the physical constants that permit the evolution of life, the deep connection between properties of matter and an underlying sea of quantum energy, the zero-point field, which recalls the role light played in the creation process of metaphysical cosmogonies.


OPPOSITE PERSPECTIVES


It is quite amazing how two people, even within the same culture, can look at the identical thing and yet "see" something as different as black and white. To make the point, let me give a perhaps emotionally charged example. A few years ago California voters approved a proposition establishing a medical marijuana law, giving people the right, by state law, to grow and use cannabis to alleviate medical problems, as attested by a statement from a physician. To provide a safe supply—you don't want sick people having to hit the streets in search of pot dealers—numerous "clinics" sprang up across the state that grew marijuana plants and processed the products, in many cases working closely with local authorities to establish acceptable rules of operation, effectively being approved and licensed by local municipalities. Of course by federal law this remained strictly illegal.


To show its authority, the federal government eventually began to selectively raid these clinics. In one particularly public confrontation, the mayor of Santa Cruz along with five out of six City Council members and other local officials gathered in the City Hall courtyard and passed out cannabis products (tinctures, cannabis-laced milk and muffins, buds for smoking) to patients coming forward—according to the San Francisco Chronicle— "in wheelchairs, on canes and with emaciated legs." All the while an unmarked green helicopter hovered persistently overhead. Clearly the city officials saw these people as patients and themselves as do-gooders helping the sick. How did the Drug Enforcement Agency see these people? According to an official statement by their spokesman (who shall remain anonymous): "We see them as victims of their traffickers." A truly amazing black-and-white difference of perspective within a common culture.


A corollary of this dichotomy is that it is virtually impossible for each side not to regard the other as irrational, if not in some fashion insane, and to experience strong emotions in connection with this judgment. It's understandable to get riled up seeing the needs of sick people subordinated to politically-motivated policies: demonstrating a vote-getting tough-on-drugs stance by accusing the handicapped granny in the wheelchair with her Alice B. Tokias brownie of being a criminal. Its easy to get angry with the perceived idiocy of the other side.


We all share the experience of consciousness. Indeed, consciousness is the sine qua non of human experience. I could not write this, nor could you read it, without consciousness. The experiences of life are like waves riding upon an ocean of consciousness. Indeed, I'll go Descartes one better. He wrote: Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). I contend that, even when I am not thinking, when I succeed in suppressing all conscious thought, the background hum of consciousness drones on. An awareness of consciousness lingers. Consciousness itself is, therefore, the fundamental inner experience. And since I, as an ordinary human being, sense that, I expect that everyone else senses it as well. But what is it that we are all sensing?


The perspective on consciousness is no less dichotomous and emotionally charged than the example of medical marijuana. I regard my own consciousness as more certain than any rational knowledge I possess. I can imagine being put into a delusional state in which I deny the reality of the outer physical world. Try as I may, however, I cannot imagine denying my own consciousness. Is there even any logical way to consciously deny your own consciousness? It simply is. I therefore regard it as utterly fundamental—tied to, yet more basic than, my physical body. Knowledge of consciousness is root knowledge, as inalienable to my very being as water is to the ocean.


And yet modern Western science denies that consciousness can be anything but a byproduct of the neurology and biochemistry of the brain. Moreover, they state this as dogma, not fact. Facts, you see, can be overturned by evidence; dogma is impervious to it.


[YES  WE  HAVE  AN  INNER  SOMETHING  THAT  MAKES  US,  OR  GIVES  US  “INNER  CONSCIOUSNESS”  THAT  IS  VASTLY  DIFFERENT  THAN  ANY  OTHER  CREATURE  ON  EARTH.  THE  BIBLE  SAYS  THERE  IS  A  “SPIRIT  IN  MAN”  -  IT  IS  UNITED  TO  OUR  PHYSICAL  BRAIN.  FOR  A  FULL  STUDY  ON  THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN,  GO  TO  “LIFE,  DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION”  SECTION  OF  THIS  WEBSITE,  IT  IS  STUDY  NO. 7  -  Keith Hunt]


"THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE FOR SOMETHING THAT IS FALSE"


In September 2002, philosopher Neal Grossman published a paper in the Journal of Near Death Studies entitled "Who's Afraid of Life After Death?" (his answer being modern Western science, by the way) in which he relates a conversation with an academic colleague. The academic cavalierly dismisses accurately reported details of near-death experiences that could only have been perceived from a vantage point outside the body as coincidences and lucky guesses. An exasperated Grossman finally asks: "What will it take, short of having a near-death experience yourself, to convince you that they are real?" Rising to the occasion in a fashion, the academic responds: "If I had a near-death experience myself, I would conclude that I was hallucinating, rather than believe that my mind can exist independent of my brain." Then, to dispose of the annoying evidence once and for all, the champion of inquiry confidently states that the concept of mind existing independent of matter has been shown to be a false theory, and there can be no evidence for something that is false. Grossman observes: "This was a momentous experience for me, because here was an educated, intelligent man telling me that he will not give up materialism, no matter what."


[WHATEVER  IT  IS  THAT  MAKES  FOR  THESE  “OUT-OF-BODY  NEAR-DEATH”  EXPERIENCES,  THE  FACT  IS  THAT  IT  IS  NOT  DEATH  THAT  THE  PERSON  IS  IN;  DEATH  BY  THE  BIBLE  INTERPRETATION  IS  NON-EXISTING,  YOU  DO  NOT  SEE,  THINK,  TALK,  OR  MOVE  AROUND.  THE  ONLY  WAY  OUT  OF  TRUE  DEATH  IS  BY  A  RESURRECTION,  A  MIRACLE  FROM  GOD.  I  EXPERIENCED  WHAT  DEATH  MUST  BE  LIKE.  I  HAD  TO  HAVE  A  MINOR  SURGERY;  AS  WAS  TALKING  TO  THE  GUY  WHO  WAS  TO  PUT  ME  “UNDER”  ONE  SECOND,  AND  THE  NEXT  SECOND  I  WAS  “GONE”  -  UTTER  DARKNESS,  NO  DREAMING,  NO  NOTHING.  I  WAS  IN  EFFECT  DEATH  AS  FAR  AS  MY  MIND  WAS  CONCERNED,  BUT  OF  COURSE  MY  HEART  AND  BODY  WAS  NOT.  THE  NEXT  THING  I  KNEW  WAS  BEING  WOKEN  UP  BY  THE  NURSE.  IT  WAS  SO  “BLANKNESS”  I  REMEMBER  BEING  SOMEWHAT  SHOCKED  BY  IT  ALL.  I  SAID  TO  MYSELF,  I  HAVE  JUST  EXPERIENCED  WHAT  DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  TO  PHYSICAL  LIFE  IS  ALL  ABOUT  -  Keith Hunt]


This conversation was a revelation to Grossman about the true nature of the concept of reductionist materialism within modern science: rather than being "an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world which is amenable to evidence one way or the other" it has become, in actuality, ideological dogma. This ideology states that there is a physical universe that consists of matter and energy governed by four fundamental forces: elec-tromagnetism, gravity, and strong and weak interactions. That simple construct is complicated by curious facts like matter's ability to convert into energy and vice versa, and the recognition of gravity as a space-time curvature in the theory of general relativity. But mainstream science still assumes that reductionism is the only way to analyze and understand the origin of phenomena: you understand the machine by looking at the functions and relationships of its pieces.


Now admittedly, things get rather fuzzy as the construct gets more complex. Chaos theory, for instance, shows how unpredictable macro effects can arise from micro causes. And things, of course, get even fuzzier when you consider the quantum realm. Current superstring and M-brane theories in physics postulate mini-dimensions, other dimensions of some kind of space orthogonal to our four-dimensional space. These are mathematical-based ideas that so far have proven to be totally beyond experimental verification. Even the most competent physicists who are not specialists in these theories admit to not grasping them in their entirety—at least, perhaps, to colleagues over a few post-colloquium beers.


Yet the dogma of reductionism persists. The details of its supporting evidence fill thousands of books and literally millions of research papers. This evidence all reports reality as something material—that is to say physical, built out of fundamental particles (leptons and quarks that may actually be superstrings, and so on) and elementary processes that are utterly unconscious. The operative word, of course, is unconscious. The litany goes something like this: Whatever we experience as consciousness can be nothing more than a complicated form of unconsciousness, because we are ultimately no more than the sum of our pieces and these are—indeed cannot be anything other than— unconscious.

………………..


THERE  IS  INDEED  SOMETHING  WE  HUMANS  HAVE  THAT  IS  NOT  JUST  BEING  ALL  “PHYSICAL”  AND  PHYSICAL  IS  ANOTHER  SUBJECT  THAT  SCIENCE  TODAY  SHOWS  REALLY  DOES  NOT  EXIST  AS  SOMETHING  SOLID;  EVERYTHING  IS  ATOMS  AND  WHATEVER  ELSE  SCIENCE  NOW  KNOWS  THAT  MAKES  UP  WHAT  WE  SEE  AND  FEEL  AS  “SOLID  MATTER”  -  FOR  THERE  IS  NOTHING  SOLID  AS  WE  THINK  OF  SOLID;  SO  IT  IS  THAT  SOME  SCIENTISTS  SAY  WE  ARE  LOOKING  FOR  THE  “GOD-PARTICLE.”  BUT  ASIDE  FROM  THAT,  THERE  IS  IN  MAN  An  INVISIBLE  PART  THAT  IS  UNITED  WITH  OUR  BRAIN.  THE  BIBLE  CALLS  IT  “THE  SPIRIT  IN  MAN”  WHICH  INDEED  GOES  BACK  TO  GOD  WHO  GAVE  IT,  AT  DEATH  -  SEE  ECC.  12:9.

THIS  “SPIRIT  IN  MAN”  I  HAVE  EXPOUNDED.  IT  IS  STUDY  NO. 7  UNDER  THE  SECTION  “LIFE,  DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION”  ON  THIS  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt