this is taken from the law of love enshrined by hatcher and hatcher, and is one of the most amazing things I've ever read.
first of all, they start by elaborating a bit on the scientific method. the scientific method consists of first observing things in the world and then formulating theories or hypotheses about them. the theory uses abstract terms, whereas our statement about the observations are concrete. due to human limitations, our observations will never be absolutely perfect. this is especially so for extremely small or big phenomena, but is equally true for general, everyday phenomena. what we conceive to be scientifically true/proven is when our observations have shown our theory to be more plausible than any other outcome. however, this can always be disproven by just one observed occurance of another outcome. in other words, there is nothing in science which can be called absolute truth. as our methods of observation improve, so do our theories and predictions about reality - there is always room for improvement. something that is scientifically proven is then just one outcome that seems more likely than any other known possible outcome. proving the existence of God thus means that we prove that it is more plausible that there is a God than any other alternative (and more precisely, that He does not exist).
we start out by observing that there is a part of reality which is not visible, ie that there is an invisible part of reality. there are forces in this world which we do not see, but act upon us.
simple proof: take a pen, hold it in the air and let it go. what do we observe? it falls down. even though we don't see anything pulling it down, we say that the unseen force of gravity acts upon it, and it falls to the floor.
based on the configuration of our system, there is nothing in the visible world that suggests that downwards is the most probable outcome. the observations we do show a distinct deviation from randomness though. the fact that we do see a consistent deviation from randomness leads us to believe that there is indeed a cause, an invisible force, behind this behavior. we are logically justified in our assertion that there indeed is a force, which we call gravity, that acts upon the pencil. believing otherwise is indeed possible (it can be an extreme case of incredible coincidences that all loose objects have fallen down), but it would be neither scientific nor rational to claim so.
we have now managed to "prove" (or at least claim that it makes sense) that there are invisible forces in the world that act upon observed reality. whenever we see any observable, persistent deviation from randomness that does not have an observable cause, we are justified in inferring that there is an invisible force acting upon it.
the theory of entropy (second law of thermo-dynamics) explains that random, disorderly states are more probable. the improbable, orderly states require some sort of force, invisible when there are no observable causes.
to show that this makes sense: compare a pile of bricks (disorder, probable) to a well-built brick house (order, improbable). to transform the brick house into a pile of bricks, we can take any brick in any order to create a pile. however, going from disorder to order, were we to transform the pile of bricks into a well-built brick house, there is a certain order we must follow - we can't put the top bricks before we have laid the foundation of the house.
to take it to the extreme: if you left a brick house in the woods and came back a long time later (say 50 years), you would not be surprised to see the forces of nature turn it into a brick pile. if you were to leave a brick of piles in the woods and come back to see a well-built brick house, you would be quite surprised to say the least...
a system left to itself, an isolated system with no incoming energy, will degenerate by itself until it reaches a state of maximum disorder, which is its stable state. so any process that goes from randomness/chaos (probable) to order (improbable) needs an external source of energy that is applied in the right amount and way. (why? look at the growth of plants - they need the heat of the sun to grow; but they won't grow if you bring them too close to the sun - or if you simply put them in front of a fire, it has to be the right type of energy too.)
now let's have a look at the physical world and the most complex, the most highly ordered, the most structured system. which one is that?
the answer is quite simple: the human being, and more specifically, the brain and the nervous system. so by what we have just stated, we can conclude that we human beings are the most improbable of all physical systems, and thus it's very unlikely that we have been produced by a random process. we call this process evolution.
we know from fossil records that this process was not just randomly happening, but that it was a quite clear of complexification, species evolving from simple and disordered to complex and higher-ordered. it all started as some sort of blue-green algae, the first invertebrate animals appeared about 600 million years ago, and the mature human being emerged about 50000 years ago. this relatively short timespan means that there was no time for experimentation in this process of evolution. in addition to that, it is estimated that about a thousand species intervened between the first algae and the mature human being, each step from a lower to a higher order. and finally, the steps were not gradual and smooth, but rather stable, plateau-like for a while, and then with sudden jumps.
so clearly, this process of evolution is exhibiting significant, persistent deviations from randomness. therefore it would be unscientific and irrational to claim that this was due to simple chance. the step from one species to another could, if left to itself, take a lifetime to occur. now multiply that by the thousand of intermediate steps that we have, and the process would take ages if left to itself. so we have not only the right, but we are compelled if we are to adhere to the scientific method, to deduce that the process of evolution is the result of an invisible, unobservable force, and we humans have reason to believe that we are the end product of it. we can reasonably call this force 'God', or if that's uncomfortable, 'the evolutionary force'/'the force that produced evolution and thus produced the human being'. beyond that, this force of evolution is unlike any other force we have seen, since none of the forces that we know of has the capability to produce the phenomenon of evolution.
in the same way that a skeptic would refute the theory of gravity, he could claim that the process of evolution is random and nothing but a series of coincidental steps. but that, again, would be neither logical, rational, nor scientific. according to the scientific method, we are bound to choose the most likely among the known, logically possible alternatives. it is logically possible that evolution is a completely random process, but it is not the most likely or logical possibility. so if we are practicing the scientific method, and have no trouble to believe in gravity or the strong nuclear force, why refute a belief in the force of evolution? that seems highly irrational...
finally, why do we call this force of evolution God? are we justified in doing this? does it not seem a bit arbitrary to do so?
let's begin by establishing that this force has the capability of bringing into being a being with all the capabilities that we human beings have. (read that sentence again.) we do not call the strong nuclear force or gravity 'God', because they don't have those same capabilities. would it not then seem reasonable that this evolutionary force that has created us has these same qualities that we do, and quite possibly to an even greater degree?
we know for sure that this force has one quality that we don't: bringing into being of the human race. this force was behind everything that drove the process of evolution forward - we owe our existence to it. we have previously established that invisible reality produces visible reality and that it encompasses and even surpasses it. so this evolutionary force might very well surpass us human beings in the qualities we have. look for example at our free will and conscious intellect - would it not be reasonable to assume that the evolutionary force possesses these qualities to an even greater degree than us? or does it seem more plausible that a blind, unconscious force without any sort of intelligence has created us?
if we know anything, we know that we have a conscious subjectivity, as our knowledge of anything is mediated through this subjectivity. it is the most basic condition of our existence, and we know that it is produced by the results and actions of this force of evolution. so the best way of exploring and knowing this very force, is by simply gaining a deeper knowledge of that which is closest to us: our inmost selves.
"He hath known God who hath known himself."
how to do this? it is best done through the teachings of the Manifestations of God.
first of all, they start by elaborating a bit on the scientific method. the scientific method consists of first observing things in the world and then formulating theories or hypotheses about them. the theory uses abstract terms, whereas our statement about the observations are concrete. due to human limitations, our observations will never be absolutely perfect. this is especially so for extremely small or big phenomena, but is equally true for general, everyday phenomena. what we conceive to be scientifically true/proven is when our observations have shown our theory to be more plausible than any other outcome. however, this can always be disproven by just one observed occurance of another outcome. in other words, there is nothing in science which can be called absolute truth. as our methods of observation improve, so do our theories and predictions about reality - there is always room for improvement. something that is scientifically proven is then just one outcome that seems more likely than any other known possible outcome. proving the existence of God thus means that we prove that it is more plausible that there is a God than any other alternative (and more precisely, that He does not exist).
we start out by observing that there is a part of reality which is not visible, ie that there is an invisible part of reality. there are forces in this world which we do not see, but act upon us.
simple proof: take a pen, hold it in the air and let it go. what do we observe? it falls down. even though we don't see anything pulling it down, we say that the unseen force of gravity acts upon it, and it falls to the floor.
based on the configuration of our system, there is nothing in the visible world that suggests that downwards is the most probable outcome. the observations we do show a distinct deviation from randomness though. the fact that we do see a consistent deviation from randomness leads us to believe that there is indeed a cause, an invisible force, behind this behavior. we are logically justified in our assertion that there indeed is a force, which we call gravity, that acts upon the pencil. believing otherwise is indeed possible (it can be an extreme case of incredible coincidences that all loose objects have fallen down), but it would be neither scientific nor rational to claim so.
we have now managed to "prove" (or at least claim that it makes sense) that there are invisible forces in the world that act upon observed reality. whenever we see any observable, persistent deviation from randomness that does not have an observable cause, we are justified in inferring that there is an invisible force acting upon it.
the theory of entropy (second law of thermo-dynamics) explains that random, disorderly states are more probable. the improbable, orderly states require some sort of force, invisible when there are no observable causes.
to show that this makes sense: compare a pile of bricks (disorder, probable) to a well-built brick house (order, improbable). to transform the brick house into a pile of bricks, we can take any brick in any order to create a pile. however, going from disorder to order, were we to transform the pile of bricks into a well-built brick house, there is a certain order we must follow - we can't put the top bricks before we have laid the foundation of the house.
to take it to the extreme: if you left a brick house in the woods and came back a long time later (say 50 years), you would not be surprised to see the forces of nature turn it into a brick pile. if you were to leave a brick of piles in the woods and come back to see a well-built brick house, you would be quite surprised to say the least...
a system left to itself, an isolated system with no incoming energy, will degenerate by itself until it reaches a state of maximum disorder, which is its stable state. so any process that goes from randomness/chaos (probable) to order (improbable) needs an external source of energy that is applied in the right amount and way. (why? look at the growth of plants - they need the heat of the sun to grow; but they won't grow if you bring them too close to the sun - or if you simply put them in front of a fire, it has to be the right type of energy too.)
now let's have a look at the physical world and the most complex, the most highly ordered, the most structured system. which one is that?
the answer is quite simple: the human being, and more specifically, the brain and the nervous system. so by what we have just stated, we can conclude that we human beings are the most improbable of all physical systems, and thus it's very unlikely that we have been produced by a random process. we call this process evolution.
we know from fossil records that this process was not just randomly happening, but that it was a quite clear of complexification, species evolving from simple and disordered to complex and higher-ordered. it all started as some sort of blue-green algae, the first invertebrate animals appeared about 600 million years ago, and the mature human being emerged about 50000 years ago. this relatively short timespan means that there was no time for experimentation in this process of evolution. in addition to that, it is estimated that about a thousand species intervened between the first algae and the mature human being, each step from a lower to a higher order. and finally, the steps were not gradual and smooth, but rather stable, plateau-like for a while, and then with sudden jumps.
so clearly, this process of evolution is exhibiting significant, persistent deviations from randomness. therefore it would be unscientific and irrational to claim that this was due to simple chance. the step from one species to another could, if left to itself, take a lifetime to occur. now multiply that by the thousand of intermediate steps that we have, and the process would take ages if left to itself. so we have not only the right, but we are compelled if we are to adhere to the scientific method, to deduce that the process of evolution is the result of an invisible, unobservable force, and we humans have reason to believe that we are the end product of it. we can reasonably call this force 'God', or if that's uncomfortable, 'the evolutionary force'/'the force that produced evolution and thus produced the human being'. beyond that, this force of evolution is unlike any other force we have seen, since none of the forces that we know of has the capability to produce the phenomenon of evolution.
in the same way that a skeptic would refute the theory of gravity, he could claim that the process of evolution is random and nothing but a series of coincidental steps. but that, again, would be neither logical, rational, nor scientific. according to the scientific method, we are bound to choose the most likely among the known, logically possible alternatives. it is logically possible that evolution is a completely random process, but it is not the most likely or logical possibility. so if we are practicing the scientific method, and have no trouble to believe in gravity or the strong nuclear force, why refute a belief in the force of evolution? that seems highly irrational...
finally, why do we call this force of evolution God? are we justified in doing this? does it not seem a bit arbitrary to do so?
let's begin by establishing that this force has the capability of bringing into being a being with all the capabilities that we human beings have. (read that sentence again.) we do not call the strong nuclear force or gravity 'God', because they don't have those same capabilities. would it not then seem reasonable that this evolutionary force that has created us has these same qualities that we do, and quite possibly to an even greater degree?
we know for sure that this force has one quality that we don't: bringing into being of the human race. this force was behind everything that drove the process of evolution forward - we owe our existence to it. we have previously established that invisible reality produces visible reality and that it encompasses and even surpasses it. so this evolutionary force might very well surpass us human beings in the qualities we have. look for example at our free will and conscious intellect - would it not be reasonable to assume that the evolutionary force possesses these qualities to an even greater degree than us? or does it seem more plausible that a blind, unconscious force without any sort of intelligence has created us?
if we know anything, we know that we have a conscious subjectivity, as our knowledge of anything is mediated through this subjectivity. it is the most basic condition of our existence, and we know that it is produced by the results and actions of this force of evolution. so the best way of exploring and knowing this very force, is by simply gaining a deeper knowledge of that which is closest to us: our inmost selves.
"He hath known God who hath known himself."
- Bahá'u'lláh -
how to do this? it is best done through the teachings of the Manifestations of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment