Читать книгу A Philosophy for Today’s Changing World - R. B. Rowe - Страница 6

We live and die, in accordance with a process set in place by God. Now you may question this and it is agreed that despite centuries of research and learned discussion, none of us really know the answer to this question.

All we can do is to look at the available facts and these are that, ultimately, we will all die, and can only provide guesses at what happens from then on. Hopefully, this discussion may help to sort these uncertainties out, to some degree.

You will note that I have excluded any reference to religious beliefs in the above comments, as these are only factual to those who wish to believe in them. In effect, you are being asked to accept another’s truth and, while I respect the individual’s choice, it is suggested that the multitude of beliefs in existence, today, is in itself an indication of the uncertainty and lack of ultimate religious authority in this area.

My view is that religions are man-made attempts to provide an explanation of matters over which Mankind had no control and, at that time (and subsequently) were beyond his normal comprehension.

Perhaps, then, in the absence of more specific facts, you will agree that a ’balance of probabilities‘ approach is the best basis we can use to try to sort this out. In reality, life is not only a continuing and unfolding reality to be experienced, but is also a continuing problem of uncertainties yet to be solved. This is the task in which we are all engaged.

Einstein gave us a partial answer that requires an amalgamation of Science and Philosophy – a marriage, apparently, not always favoured by either party. But, because a reconciliation between these two disciplines is necessary, to any discussion concerning our existence, you may agree that this book helps to provide a reasonable basis for the inevitable union.

Science acknowledges those matters it can and can’t prove, and is in a continuing state of flux in its efforts to widen its boundaries. This is as it should be, but many of the concepts that guide our way of life today just can‘t be established in the same way – they are, therefore, a matter of opinion, or an expression of probabilities, until proven one way or the other.

Even then, this proof must continue to stand up to the onslaught of later knowledge, or be discarded as irrelevant.

Science is, in fact, a growing body of possible knowledge, some of which we are pretty sure is factual, but all of it is subject to reworking, as new knowledge and ideas emerge.

We need to know who and what we are – we need to know about our relationships with other species in our world and beyond and the confusion, caused by this failure to satisfy Man’s need to know, has caused our world to go through a ritical and very uneasy stage of upheaval over many years.

For example, consider the history of the Holy Wars of the 14th and 15th centuries between Roman-Christian and Islamic faiths and, in more recent times, the persecution of the Jews during the period leading up to and including the 1939–45 war.

Following that upheaval, for example, consider the current 60 years or so of competitive religious unrest, resulting in the present unstable situation in the Middle East, between Islam and Israel, plus the divisions within the Christian religions and the worldwide effects on the three main mono-theistic religions.

It is very reasonable, then, to say that this “need to know” about ourselves is still being held back because, just about all of our philosophical beliefs are based on opinions centuries old, which have been given the unassailable ‘mantle of Truth’.

The junction where Science and Philosophy meet should be one of cautious mediation, in which both parties can agree on mutual points of view, while accepting that there will always be a shifting area of doubt at the fringe that requires tolerance of the other’s standpoint, and the realisation – and acceptance - that we all gain from such a mutual understanding.

So the question arises – is there an approach that encompasses all of these aspirations and allows a better understanding of our world and its place in the universe? This book suggests that there is another way and outlines such an approach.

A part of this search requires that Man’s relationships with his world and his Creator are explored and, in so doing, a tentative bridge between Science and Philosophy is suggested. This is the ‘need to know’ in action and may also be an acceptable starting point for others.

An initial and general look at religions shows that the core basis of these religions is the insistence and reliance on specific interpretations of historical records and precedent, for their versions of the revealed Truth.

It is suggested here, that the continuing promotion of these differences is one of the main causes of the confusion, now, existing in the search for an understanding of Mankind’s place in the Universe.

This is not restricted to any particular religion or period of time but seems to be a general ongoing malaise that has existed for centuries. For example, in 1616, Galileo’s demonstration that the Earth revolves around the Sun, was in direct contradiction to religious teaching of the day, leading to his excommunication and to his work being restricted for many years as a result.

Other examples are the religious approval of the Crusades with attendant atrocities, the terrible tortures of the Spanish Inquisition, the Roundhead activities in Britain and the more recent atrocities in the Middle East and Europe. All in the name of God and the individual’s particular religion.

It is indisputable that the continuing usage of strict, ancient interpretations of religious texts, written for those times, often many years after the events took place, is questionable. That these original reports were often subject to later translation errors also adds to the uncertainty factor.

Of course, the problem with revealed truths is what to do when, later, it is found that a particular truth was not so infallible after all, and it seems irrefutable that any religion founded on ‘ truths’ which are not true, has to be in danger of irrelevancy. This leads me to four observations:

First, a great deal of wasted effort has gone into trying to prove what has been acceptable and comfortable in the past, rather than examining the subject afresh and making adjustments where necessary. This is still happening and is a part of the malaise referred to above.

Second, most major religions or creeds tend to apportion human emotions to their representation of God, as part of their beliefs, despite the complete lack of proof of this in the light of an unemotional examination of the facts.

Third, is the degree to which religious support is given to seemingly endless and life threatening conflicts, in the name of God, to justify particular viewpoints. This is evident in the Middle East, Europe, Asia and the Americas and is not specific to any individual religion or creed. The fact that this support is not strictly in accord with these religious teachings is conveniently overlooked or spoken over.

Fourth, is the strong probability that we are not alone in the universe and if that is the case, then the confirmation of the existence of more advanced worlds will require us to re- evaluate and realign our beliefs and many of our practices (where appropriate) in the light of new knowledge.

An example of the complexity involved in this last concept alone is that supposing we accept that there are, say, 1,000 other planets in the universe that can support intelligent life forms, and also accept that our understanding of today’s religions are true. Doesn’t this also mean then that we have to allow for the possibility that there are 1,000 other versions of these religious stories in existence?

Each would be at differing stages of unfolding or fulfilment – some more or less advanced than our own version. Perhaps a different version from our own? More true? Each will be just as true for its inhabitants. So, does this mean that Truth is a variable according to where we live, or our specific level of understanding?

If this is so, then what makes our version of these stories the correct one? Wouldn’t it be prudent to look afresh at our current spiritual development with this in mind? So, which man-made religion do you think meets with God’s approval? Why do you think this is so and, importantly, how do you know? Are you relying on someone else’s opinion once again?

The views expressed here may be confrontational, in that I am asking you to accept an unconventional view of Man’s place in the scheme of things, that not only offers an alternative non-dogmatic approach to living, but also has the advantage of allowing a greater degree of freedom of thought, thereby allowing for new truths as they arise, and providing a continuing level of certainty about our lives.

It will be apparent throughout this book, that I am also asking you to express your opinion on the various matters raised about the basis for living your life, and this is the important aspect – it’s your life, what do you think about it all?

It is hoped that the result of all this is a more balanced and sensible approach to life, with less fear and superstition to daunt you, and an increased ability to embrace whatever lies ahead.

Some of the views put forward here are similar to those of a group of writers and thinkers who lived during the 17th and 18th centuries and included such notables as Rousseau, Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and others.

But as you will see from the following, this similarity just confirms the fact that anyone today can arrive at a better understanding of a more factually based philosophy, if the time is taken to do so. However, we should always leave room for the point that some things just are – we can’t know everything. There is always the possibility that we will know and understand more tomorrow and be able to benefit from it, if we have the wit and opportunity to do so.

This work is in four parts and discusses the concepts of the existence of an Inner Self, Mind-Body Healing, Death, Spirituality, concepts of the Past, Present and Future, and proposes a basis for a philosophical and scientific reconciliation. It also suggests that history shows that God, as the Supreme Spirit who has endowed Mankind with an indestructible spirit, is probably quite indifferent to what happens to physical Man.

Finally, as all of these matters are interrelated and together are a part of the whole, keep in mind that they can’t be dismissed because a particular aspect is inconvenient or nonconformist in its nature.

Part One is a brief reminder of the development of tribal authority, the appendage of various religious beliefs to the tribe, the arrival of t h e b a s i s for t o d a y ’ s m o d e r n religions, and the part they have played in developing the world’s thinking to date, to illustrate the problem of trying to ascertain the truth of the matter.

Finally, in this section, you are asked to step aside from these points of view in order to consider Parts Two, Three and Four.

Part Two explores alternative thinking about the Self, and starts afresh to examine the individual’s make-up. It also includes a discussion about meditation, body-mind interaction and healing.

Part Three offers a discussion of a different approach when examining the make-up of the individual and provides reasons for adopting particular points of view or conclusions. For example, is there more to Man than what he sees in the mirror, and given that this is so, what form does that entity really take and, who, or what is that entity thinking about this? It also discusses the subject of Death and Beyond and offers comments about the need for grieving.

Part Four looks at the relationship between Science and Philosophy. The concept of a God, independent of man-made religions, will be of general interest, especially to those who have adopted an anti-religious viewpoint, such as Atheism or Agnosticism, who, if you like, may have a secular sacred view rather than the existing religious sacred views.

In these writings, my task was to look at the world as it seems now, rather, than as it might have seemed ages ago, and to formulate an overall concept of how it actually operates to function as a living system, taking into account the probability of the existence of spiritual entities, and the variables that have to be accommodated from time to time.

It is proposed that the underlying principle of our existence is that the one constant that applies throughout the universe is energy. Everything on Earth, including the Earth itself, can be related to its individual quotient of energy and it is suggested that this is the key to the beginning of an understanding of Mankind’s relationship with God.

This viewpoint requires that we venture into a discussion on a wide variety of related subjects to establish the point of view, and your indulgence is required where this seems a bit tedious.

This discussion will include many questions, such as does spiritual energy exist, and does it obey the same empirical rules of the laws of physics that we are in the process of discovering, or, is this a separate form of energy with different rules? Perhaps the laws of physics, we know, are just a part of a greater set of laws yet to be ascertained.

If this is so, then perhaps the concept should be considered that Man is really a spiritual energy being, who has to go through the process and appearance of being born as a physical being as a natural part of the process of changing into a spiritual being at death. This might be considered too speculative, but shouldn’t we be looking at our lives with this as an actual possibility, or even a probability? Even if you dismiss this idea as too fanciful, you will probably agree that, on reflection, it provides answers to a few questions that have been problematical for centuries.

Each individual must decide for himself the importance of the matters raised. For example, what’s the yardstick by which you will live (and die)? This is a very personal decision that no-one else can make, or should make for you. It’s your life and you only have one attempt at it, so shouldn’t you be giving this much more serious thought?

It should be kept in mind that as these decisions are of fundamental importance to each of us, each person’s feelings are the important matter here, and each of us has an unknown amount of time left to sort these out. It may be later than you think.

When considering these matters you may feel it necessary to question authoritative statements attributed many years ago. Who said that something was so? How do you know that he said it, or wrote it? Is it based on somebody else’s word or opinion,that that person said or wrote it?

Again, how do you know that this person heard or read these comments? If it’s something that was translated from another language, can it be tested today to establish its reliability? The questions seem endless and may not be fully answerable now, but they are there to be considered.

These difficulties are referred to more fully in later pages but it is undoubtedly reasonable to say that if a ‘truth’ is no longer true then it must be regarded, perhaps at best, as a conditional truth and thus be subject to change. It cannot be a part of the yardstick referred to above.

You may also agree that it is quite reasonable to ask where are the writings of recent confirmed conversations between God and Mankind. Is this a measure of Man’s progress, that he has lost his ability to communicate at this level, or has God decided to sit back and leave him to be responsible for his own destiny?

So, with all of this in mind, am I saying that all tenets of religions are false? No, but what I am saying is that Mankind’s greed for power over the centuries has muddied the waters to the extent that no-one really knows the answers, and many hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost in the struggle.

While existing religions have served their original purpose of promoting the concept of the existence of a greater power than Mankind, we should now re-assess these and base our decisions on the most reliable basis we have – that is, of reason and implications based on true knowledge. It is each person’s responsibility to carry this out as much as he is able.