This updating adds to very promising data our website has been accumulating on a relatively unexplored possibility: Could active compatibility eventually develop between a certain logical concept of God and evolutionary functions favored by a scientific plurality? Could either alone be sufficient for the continuity of achievement on this planet and undoubtedly elsewhere?

It was a welcome surprise for me to come upon two arousing articles, published recently but appearing not in science publications of the U.S. and Britain, but in Newsweek and Time. Taken together one might say there is a promising aspect in each; they illustrate how much remains to be learned about human consciousness, and how productive that might be. Especially if and when creationists reconsider the evolutionists' new attitude toward a non-exclusive compatibility between concepts of God and evolution.

In their January 29 issue, Time devoted seven pages to a feature on "The Mystery of Consciousness" by authors Steven Pinker and Colin Mcginn. In the Newsweek of September 17/07, titled "Can God Love Darwin, Too?", Sharon Begley has perhaps given momentum to a fundamental idea. Here is that idea, as straightforwardly as I can put it:

A logic is now being evoked that evolutionary theory is not necessarily "godless". A new rationale now suggests a logic arguing that: A deity is not ruled out by the process of evolution, though the operations of evolution do not require a deity.

In this updating we will focus first on basic concepts that at present oppose each other. Begley's article clearly expresses the hope that faith and evolution will agree to discard the long-embraced notion that evolution replaces God in the ongoing workings of physical maintenance and progressive changes on the planet. Her attitude reflects in general the willingness of many evolutionists to drop that outlook in favor of the above rationale.

On the other hand, the Time theme does not address the deity issue directly, but by confidently employing experimental scientific findings the authors (who share one page in the seven-page presentation) reduce the God-through-mankind theories, by implication, to naught.

They accomplish this with impressive authority by demoting the realities of consciousness itself. For example, they cite human consciousness as often being found experimentally to be interfering with activities of the physical brain. (Or rather, what has been presumed to be consciousness.)

Writers like Pinker and Mcginn do more than suggest that only a minor role should be granted to consciousness itself. They adopt the paradigmatic position that no "ethereal soul" determines how consciousness uses the brain; and this is because consciousness is no more than the activity of the brain itself. That seems enough to warrant reducing almost the entire scope of mental functioning to materiality. Such is not abhorrent to many scientists, since that makes it far easier to practice their specialties, and so far has not been sufficiently countered by those thinking otherwise.

Consider the case of near-death experiences. It has been claimed -- and not without the desired effect -- that such reports are never genuine as true happenings, though perhaps they can be interesting as personal illusions. Now bear in mind that such reports run into the millions, most of which are independently found to be closely matched, in their patterns, among total strangers.

But laboratory findings take precedence over mere likelihoods, and scientists are enabled to say that nobody's soul, after leaving the body, actually comes back with genuine reports concerning after-death continuation of human life. Everything can be explained by objectivist scientists. And they contend that in every questioned case it is all due to oxygen starvation in the brain and eyes.

To the mind of this oxygen breather -- who never had an NDE -- all the negating is instead due to the inability, thus far, to achieve perception of hyperphysical material by means and devices unsuited to the task. But "thus far" will soon be exceeded.

Which does not mean, however, that recognition will be given, anytime soon, by objective materialism to a "new level of existence". Such will be found to be dependent also upon what are subjective factors as well as upon discoveries of "more ethereal" ranges of matter.

In the foregoing I am not losing sight of the fact that objective evaluations are a necessity in such fields as particle physics, biology, etc., and in aspects of science imposed by quantum dictates. However, my intent is to suggest as a desirable and possible option for our race -- and a godlike maturation for it -- a universe that does not exist only in obedience to circumstances of matter and forces. It should instead also be able to evolve conditions capable of reaching a climax worthy of the efforts of a developing consciousness over a long universal lifetime.

The crucial demand in such a universal picture -- besides evolution plus a life-principle to reach the apex of satisfaction within it -- suggested itself to me as being Knowledge. Memories may fade. but the compounding of knowledge to improve existence and conscious life could theoretically expand, renew, and eventually find its way to an omnipresent "multiple unity".

I was once given reason to believe that the scenario sketched above could become a reality, but must require a means of preserving and expanding knowledge that could at last bring complete contentment to those who had led themselves towards participation in it.

Now believe me, all this does not invade the many domains of religions. It does, however, suggest that knowledge can be, in its highest, all-sharing sense, the essence of Godness. And also that a knowledge which grows, along with a universe that changes and evolves, can reach Omniscience and Omnipotence to the extent allowed by universal Laws. (Omnipresence can be attributed to the original, eternal Field of Being.)

Shouldn't it now be clearly stated whether or not this semi-cosmological fantasy, if one prefers to call it that, will wind up substituting human knowledge in place of the God concept?

It will not. The best way I can put it is like this:

(a) Defining an entity as a distinct being, existence, or conceptual reality, the present conjecture arising in part from ancient Brahmanic beliefs abides first by the obvious: Organized knowledge implies evolved knowers.

(b) When mature minds have achieved maximum knowledge arising from "the lifetime of a universe", as denoted in Great Cycle or earlier Vedic teachings, the mental state of "multiple unity" becomes possible.

(c) When some minds temporarily unite, the result is not wrongly called Godlikeness. When all knowers unite, it results in a single super-entity which is not wrongly called God. (Note that earlier such identifications are not thereby invalidated.)

(d) Doesn't the above situation logically qualify as omnipotence? If omnipotence as well as omniscience can be attainable through knowledge, isn't it admissible to deduce that God cannot logically be separated from at least a parallel identification with Knowledge?

All of which will no doubt fail either to inspire or discompose scientists, evangelists, atheists, sans-motivists, or the run of most futurists. Nor will it even satisfy me, until science is satisfied they have discovered states of matter and energy which are definable as super, hyper, or just indubitably different from ordinary classifications of material entities.

I cannot see any reason why the title "metaparticles" should be used in association with such hypermatter. But whatever nomenclature is adopted by science, I predict it will at length come to be accepted that the series of particle identifications is best seen as a meta-material continuum existing in Earth's region of space. The use of at least the basal second and third worldfields for purposes of habitat survival during physical clean-up periods seems inevitable. Particularly if Big Bangs turn out to be nature's way of redistributing galactic matter. Such breakups should not badly affect the matter of "higher" composition in the continuum.

The knowledge aspect of evolution could be sustained there while stellar structures become renewed. (Factors such as this could be the most likely reason why ancient prognosticators came up with a fifteen-digit "lifetime" for the universe.)

It could also be hypothesized, in passing, that the second worldfield (which is "adjacent" to ours, one could say) might have been shaken to some degree by the Big Bang, which science has been considering as the initiator of this present universe. Perhaps that shakeup is partly responsible for experiments indicating a difficult mixture of matter and energy, differing laws, and interventions between quantum and classical demands -- plus whatever describes the term "virtual" in that worldfield.

We've been restricting our comments, more or less, to the "substantive" aspects of a universe that can be seen as a cosmic structure permitting the evolution of matter and energy. But of course this vast arena depends for its meaning on the balancing, contrastual aspect labeled "conscient". Frankly, I and others may be predisposed to consider the conscient elements as the banquet and the substantive as table settings. But of course, both are equally fundamental...a finding with which diners and headwaiters decline to agree.

But after all, this is about interlinked concepts of God and the marvels of evolution. We are trying here to make a seemly case for knowledge -- born of material circumstance but captured by reason. (Nullists might argue against that too.)

Nobody really wants to do without matter of some sort; it is more worthwhile to argue against doing without such things as significance, purpose, continuity of life, and even consciousness itself. We will pass on the latter kind of amusement and proceed to irritate the nullists.

Some great conceptualist of the past (whose name I can't now bring to memory) committed to papyrus, parchment, or paper this unbeatable aphorism:

The universe grows I

Most readers of inquiries such as this will probably be familiar with the above aphorism. I'm ashamed to say I still do not know who actually originated it, though I have a feeling the average philosopher would know.

We are hoping this four-word champion, which most people feel they know the meaning of at some level, could be helpful here. Perhaps it would encourage recognition of the natural relationships between Godlike qualities such as true Knowledge and "working truths" which apply it to the substances of a universe: the parallel identity factor.

You're right, that's asking a lot of four words.

No doubt some reflect upon The universe grows I while visualizing the cosmos as an over-expanded, "mystical" sort of balloon. Containing stars and everything else. However, that "I" (which just grew? Is already grown?) is not a familiar thing under local conditions.

It is not surprising that the surface contemplator of this very large idea might be picturing a gigantic head, bearded but not bald, staring wide-eyed at all the twinklings in the darkened space around it. Someone says "Yeah, that's more like it." Someone else says "More like what?"

We'll try to be a little more analytical in the (short!) Addendum in closing, but there's no doubt the question is still going to be Whose I? His? His/hers? Everybody's? The stumbling block as usual; but we'll try to make it more complicated.

Keeping the ball rolling now, this is bigger than we are, right? So let's think big: Maybe the way around it all is simply to agree that whatever has been slowly growing "I" finally breaks through normal consciousness and feels as though he/she is the universe. (Please don't say "Breaks through what?") But more likely the discussion degenerates. Here's an actual conversation from an imaginary "group workshop":

(For remainder of Workshop the topic is going to be misinterpretation.)

So I'm prone to exaggeration at times. But to make up for it I am revealing, here and now, a way for those who are not fully fond of us to get even. We know some readers are optimists; we even know lots of them log us on just to find something optimistic for a change. We also know some readers are not optimistic. They put little stock in optimistic theories, images, thoughts, anything.

Well! For those who have been putting little stock in meso-cosmological theories, we recommend this: Take all your stock out of ours.

There is really very little motive for the prevailing order of scientists to find the slightest interest in an outline of the Great Cycle concept. The anticipated revelations sought by collider searches are, at this juncture, still only anticipated. And further, when particles or other evidence of genuinely "unearthly" matter have been verified, another year (or perhaps generation) will probably be required to decide what identities and classifications to bestow.

(We hope, of course, there will be more than slight interest when verification occurs.)

On the other hand -- the prevailing order of Intelligent Design -- I predict with regret that the entire idea of an interpenetrating continuum of "hyper-materialities", constituting other worldfields, is more likely than not to be judged contrary to established ecclesiastical teachings -- in one form or other.

So our semi-metaphysical "metaparticles", "climactic epochs", "Godlikenesses" and all...is also premature in pursuing the probability of double declamation. But let's get on with our upbeat cosmiscape; surely not every reader is established in something.

_  _  _  _  _  _  _  _

Some will surely be saying that all this goes too far beyond where imagery takes over from information. Others will immediately wonder how a non-scientist, non-organizer who sells nothing and only got a good conduct medal in WW-II could know anything of value about how a universe ought to develop, cycles or not.

Well, the answer to the second part is easy: Nobody who is still caught up in the human condition could convince others in the same fix that he actually knows anything dependable about a hundred-billion-year future. The best he or she could do is collect what seems possible and logical. That the concept of omniscience seems almost identical with the concepts of full knowledge, Godlikeness, and God... is, I think, logical and very practical. As regards the sources I've called on, I certainly hope -- and often think --- they had things right.

Before there is Knowing of the "Cosmic I", the Universe "grows everything":

(The above may be of suggestive value despite insufficiencies.)

 

P.S.:  Treatment of this subject under THE GREAT CYCLE WORLDVIEW title includes greater detail for some topics. Our website Knowledge and the Great Cycle Universe, www.KnowledgeandtheGreatCycleUniverse.com, consists of more theories and critiques in this field.

 

 

 

 

A D D E N D U M   N O T E S With Knowledge and Great Cycle

 

(A) The "I"

"Growing I" depends on the principle of Self. ...Self is created in the basic principle of Consciousness, which is a secondary, imponderable energy field exuded from the absolute Dynamic Field (or Field of Being) underlying space and the universe. ...Normal subject/object consciousness is generated when its field senses within it particles of matter and hypermatter. The sensory scale of these is physical-through- mental -- (and for "higher entities", a scale beyond that). ...

Self enters the mind as awareness or recognition of its own continuity. ...Thus it is an instrument for awareness of existence. ...When in the evolution of advanced conscious beings there comes an expansion into space, it is evaluated as an expansion of self; further expansions are felt to be permanent, deathless life-conditions -- SELF, for short.

Since such expansions of consciousness occur in universal space, they can be interpreted or referred to as "the universe". ...In this way the entity believes "the universe grows I". Which is to an extent true. However, that "I" is what could be called a subjective object, and objects belong to existence rather than to Being. ...Consequently when Buddha proclaimed that there is "no permanent self", that assertion could be accepted without abandoning the permanence of Being.

It is, I think, probable that such synthesized answers encompass a general validity. But attempts to be more specific would quickly go beyond my limits.

(B) The God/Knowledge Parallel

Knowing is the special mental ability of what in Sanskrit was called manas. That word was intended to convey the idea of "mind-stuff": an attribute of humanity and higher entities but not lower. Manas carries the banner of intelligence. ...The Knowledge we are talking about carries the banner of working truth, since only that stage of knowledge is of use to subjective powers and Laws capable of helping a universe evolve. ... I haven't a clue as to how Knowledge commingles with either matter or Laws to eventually play a leading part in the life-values of a universe...but I feel sure several of the sciences aim for that. ...

Knowledge that is of universal use must bear a cognitive relation with both matter and energies; (scientists would no doubt be able list them). ...Knowledge has to know, somehow, what it is supposed to convey to various parts of the universe. Therefore I adopt the idea that Knowledge knows because it is also being told. ...Godliness, it seems safe to say, must stay close to Knowledge -- if indeed there is any major, consequential difference between the two -- besides the fact that one is "subject-object matter", and the other a subjective entity.

I agree that Godliness has many other things to do besides dictating what evolving Knowledge should do with itself. ...But don't those two "parallel" activities deserve being recognized as such? I should think they would at least respect each other, since both are essential.

(C) Laws

Laws, which have got to remain unaffected through the interval of sleep, will remain available in their mysterious ways to re-start the new cycles of universes. On the other hand, when a new cycle wakes up, there is nothing whatsoever left of the old one except those Laws. Some of them will have been altered, no doubt for the wisest of reasons, during the climactic epochs of the prior cosmos. It seems Laws must guide opening epochs.

(D) "All-power" must come later?

In this theory there appears to be no sufficient rationale for there being an all-powerful God to take over early in the Great Cycle; not if Knowledge has to evolve or grow to Godness. On the good side there will be no memories from yesterday to cause repetition. After all, the future will be wide open for innovations by the time intellect has been established - which ought to be well after the matter-building epochs. And after all, the entire significance of the whole cyclic, uncancellable parade of a universe is to bring about new experiences for the sake of fulfilling life.