A Philosophy for Today’s Changing World

Part One

The Start of the Journey

The journey of life starts when you are born, but the journey of  self-knowledge  starts  when  one  realises  how  little  one really knows – Part One discusses the beginning of awareness.

Status Quo?

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