- At a recent lunch meeting with a friend, I was asked
to identify a single ability or asset human beings must have in order to
live successfully. Put to this test, my initial instinct was to blurt out
such answers as, "Love! Courage! Forgiveness! Inner peace!" But
I forced myself to pause for a moment of introspection, and almost immediately,
the answer came to me.
-
- "The greatest asset anyone can have is the ability
to tell what is true from what is not."
-
- And my friend raised his eyebrows, seemingly both in
pleasure and surprise. He agreed that this is this the most essential ingredient
to successful living -- and furthermore, it is a quality that much of humanity
has always lacked.
-
- We have difficulty distinguishing between truth and falsehood,
because so often, our real choices are misrepresented. If one is told that
the path to truth can only be found on roads A or B -- but in reality,
both roads lead to a bottomless chasm -- what true choice does one have?
-
- This problem is exacerbated in contemporary society,
where a handful of huge corporations have bought the majority of TV, radio,
and print media. Meaningful debate is stymied by the (often deliberate)
misrepresentation of our choices. Incredibly complex and multi-layered
issues are distorted so that they appear as simple matters of black and
white, either-or.
-
- In political discussions in the U.S., people who call
themselves either "conservative" or "liberal" take
turns engaging in polemics and ad hominem attacks. Rarely do popular political
commentators offer positive ideas for action, but endlessly accuse one
another of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and sleaziness. This breeds divisiveness
and close-mindedness in the populace, feeding the myth that a "two-party,"
left or right political system is the only possible reality in America.
And it actively discourages true intellectual vision -- a desire to learn
as much as possible wherever that path might lead.
-
- This perversion of reality by popular media touches every
area of human interest. Take, for instance, recent coverage of the so-called
Science vs. Religion debate. This phrase is used with increasing regularity,
as natural disasters, terrorism, fears over coming "pandemics,"
and warfare have many wondering if we are living in the "end times"
prophesied in the Bible. The phrase is also used to frame the evolution
vs. "intelligent design" debate - a debate forged by a kind of
hidden cooperation between the two sides. Both are happy to "debate"
the question, as if the debate precludes other possibilities. One side
or the other MUST be correct. For most in the news media, all of this comes
down to choosing either the literal interpretations of scripture advocated
by Christian fundamentalists versus the disciplined, rational, feet-on-the-ground
observations of respected scientists. It's simply a case of "blind
faith" vs. "rationality."
-
- Personally, I have no religious beliefs, and I am happy
to see the "historical accuracy" of the Bible put to the test
by science. But I don't think it is "irrational" either to believe
in an active "intelligence" in the universe, or to question the
tenability of popular scientific theories such as Darwin's model of evolution
by "natural selection." In fact, I suspect that the Evangelicals
framed the debate in these terms because they know that most humans have
a dependable level of good sense: most will not accept the idea that mere
biological mechanics could account for the unfathomable sophistication
of living organisms. So if you side with intelligent design, the Evangelicals
think they win, which is nonsense.
-
- I agree that a literal interpretation of Biblical accounts,
including the story of Creation, is not tenable. But I will not be tricked
into believing that the best alternative to religious dogma is atheism
and its counterpart materialism (the belief that physical matter is the
only reality). In truth, science lends no support at all to the materialist's
ideology. Increasing numbers of scientists are exploring questions of spirit
and consciousness, and their findings contradict the empty and disconnected
Universe envisioned by materialists.
-
- The movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" achieved
immense popularity because it spoke for what so many individuals have long
recognized, even if they could not express the conviction in words: that
there is more to "reality" than the three-dimensional world.
"What the Bleep" featured scholars like Dr. Masaru Emoto, who
has demonstrated that thoughts and feelings have a measurable effect on
physical matter (i.e. water.) Also featured were esteemed scientists like
quantum physicist John Hagelin, Ph.D., who discussed a study in Washington
D.C., which showed a direct correlation between a group's practice of transcendental
meditation, and a reduction of crime in their area. (For an overview of
this study, see www.istpp.org/crime_prevention).
-
- Other scholars whose works argue against the philosophy
of materialism include Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (the psychic connections between
humans and their pets), Dr. Gary Schwartz (psychic mediums and the afterlife),
Dr. Larry Dossey (the effects of prayer on physical healing), and Dr. Raymond
Moody (life after life). None of these researchers have provided "proof
positive" of God or a spiritual dimension, but they certainly have
experience that goes above and beyond the blind faith of institutionalized
religion and/or materialistic science.
-
- But of course, true spiritual discovery is not about
proving or disproving this or that "phenomenon" in the eyes of
others. Even if it were possible to empirically prove the existence of
God, I don't believe this would necessarily be of benefit to the human
race. To live a spiritual life, one need not believe in "mystical"
or "supernatural" principles, but only to devote oneself unconditionally
to seeing the truth in every situation.
-
- And more and more people are waking up to this not-so-little
secret. Many spiritual guidebooks have emerged in recent years which teach
a philosophy contrary to the Christianity of modern Evangelicals. In my
opinion, the works of people like Eckhart Tolle ("The Power of Now"),
David R. Hawkins ("The Eye of the I"), and the spiritual manual
"A Course in Miracles" are of more value than any religious doctrine,
because they deal directly with a destructive thought system. ACIM states:
"You may believe that you are responsible for what you do, but not
for what you think. The truth is that you are responsible for what you
think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice. What
you do comes from what you think."
-
- And what I think is that the inane Science vs. Religion
debate has little or nothing to tell us about the nature of God, spirit,
or the Universe as a whole. Skepticism of the Bible is NOT a repudiation
of spiritual reality. I have no use for dogma -- scientific OR religious.
Given the choice between a smug man and a straw man, I choose neither.
|
