To say that religious doubt is prevalent today is commonplace. Many would have us believe that faith is almost extinct for the thinking man and that God is dead.

Yet men and women everywhere are questioning, "What can I really believe?" Is any attitude possible these days for the thinking person, other than "I don't deny God, but, like the agnostic, I would like a little proof." The skepticism of the present day differs greatly from that of ages past in one important respect: It is of a reverent character. It is sincere, earnest, and true. It is the unbelief of men and women who really want to believe but can't because the religious principles taught them do not agree with what they know to be true from their own lifewise experiences.

There is little doubt that most common theologies have been left behind by the development of the mentality of a large portion of the human race. What all too many churchmen attempt to teach simply does not coincide with what these people know to be true.

Nor is this to be wondered at. Never has there been an age with such upheaval of thought, such expansion of the horizon, and such increase in the number of elements that make up the riddle of existence! This change has been taking place gradually over the last one hundred years so that mankind is now in the position of discovering that the teachings of the past simply do not apply to the needs of the present. Particularly in the field of religious thought are the opinions of the great giants of the past dispensation frequently out of tune with present problems, because newly discovered information has been introduced of which earlier leaders had no knowledge.

The situation today is similar to that of the Church during the early Renaissance when the theories of Copernicus were first recognized as uncontradictable scientific truth. As the concept that the Earth is not the center of the solar system--let alone the Universe--began to spread among the intellectuals of that time, the Church attempted to suppress both the idea and those who advocated it, the infamous trial of the great scientist Galileo being the most significant effort. But the Church leaders could not long hold back the truth, and in the end the world came to accept more forcefully as fact that not only is the Earth not the center of the Universe and does indeed circle the Sun once each year, but the Sun itself is traveling through space around the center of its galaxy.

Some believe this change in the Church tenets was the real cause of the development of thought that eventually resulted in the Reformation movement led by Martin Luther. Obviously, it was not without some loss of credibility to the Church that such revisions were made.

The Evolution Of Science

Since the early part of this century, the Church has been in a similar situation concerning the theory developed by Darwin and Wallace, that is, the Theory of Evolution. This theory has, in our day, divided those who should otherwise be devoted to working for a common cause, the true advancement of all humanity, somewhat in the same way that the theory of Copernicus upset thinking in the Middle Ages.

The present state of human development on the subject of evolution is similar to its position at the time of Galileo concerning the relationship of the Earth to the Sun. Fortunately for many brilliant scientists, the Church is not as powerful as in days past, or men like Carl Sagan might be forced before an inquisitional tribunal.

There is a difference this time, however. There is no need to accept one theory to the exclusion of all others, as was true in earlier confrontations. After all, either the Sun moved around the Earth or the Earth circled the Sun; it could not be both ways. This is not true today. It is possible to find a valid concept of creation that encompasses both the scientific theories of creation and the Deistic concept.

In the words of one great scientist, "The doctrines of Darwin, of Huxley, and of Spencer have opened up more questions than they have closed." Each day scientists discover more of the wonderful complexity of the process by which the Cosmos was formed. Scientists themselves have come to acknowledge the Presence of an Almighty Creator. The more we become aware of the variety of adaptation which resulted in the Universe as it is known today, the more we become unable to resist the conclusion that it is all meant to be.

If we accept the concept of the Big Bang, now in fashion in the scientific community, the question remains: Why these possibilities and not others? In fact, why, and whence, any possibilities at all? The practicality of the idea that the modern world happened by chance is about the same as if a trainload of car parts were thrown into the air and landed as a Rolls-Royce automobile. That is not to say that it can't happen, but it would be unwise to depend on this possibility for constructing an automobile. On such simple bits of logic as this the ordinary layman is far ahead of both the theoretical scientist and the religious theologian.

Because the ego of many scientists does not allow them to accept a Will or Intelligence greater than their own, they must construct a theory of existence devoid of Deity. This, of course, is the most unscientific approach of all, in that it arbitrarily excludes, from the beginning of research, one of the most plausible hypotheses for Creation. Because of this egocentric-induced position, the evolutionists have had to come up with a "scientific" explanation of Creation that is so statistically impracticable that if the same procedure had been attempted in any other scientific discipline, they would have been laughed off their respective campuses or out of their laboratories years ago.

Even the uneducated streetwise junkie knows enough to play the odds. He knows that if he wants something to happen, he had better go out and make it happen. He realizes that to expect what he desires to come to him by chance is not in the cards. He knows that conditions are as they are because it is logical and practical for them to be so.

As Jevons said on page 764 of his text, "Principles of Science," "The origin of everything that exists is wrapped up in the history of the Universe, and at some time or another there must have been arbitrary determinations which led to things as they are now."

The Power Of The Will

Try as we might, we cannot escape the conviction that the Law by which the Universe operates must be the result of a Will, God's Will. This is not a religious thought. It is a scientific one. It is provable by the science of logic, reason, and experience. These three tell us clearly that any other assumption is illogical, unreasonable, and counter to our general experience. From where did man's creations come, if not from the power and force of his will? Are we to give man abilities that we deny God?

Few there are among the common man who do not believe in God. It is the Church they sometimes cannot abide. Not because it teaches about God, but that it attempts to do so through modifications of God's Law made by men, seemingly, for their own aggrandizement or advantage.

True nonegotistical science has, in the last century, discovered a multitude of new and fascinating nooks and crannies of God's Creation. We can now see, if we but use our eyes, much more evidence of the fact that God not only created the world but that this creative effort is an ever active entity and is daily being created anew.

Surprisingly, the concepts of the evolutionists have given us a far grander understanding of God's creative power than the most devout prelate. They have shown us that the creative process of God was not something He did long ago, but is a constant, continuing effort of change toward perfection. How glorious!

Early religious thought held that in some vague way God created the world long ago, and that Creation was a settled immutable fact. History was treated in much the same way--the American Revolutionary War, for instance. We now recognize that Creation is forever continuing--a process that has been active in every stage of the history of the world and is no different today. God is no absentee landlord. He is ever present. To find the area of wisdom and unlimited noble creativity that lies between the man-made constrictions of the Church and the ambiguities of the atheistically oriented scientist, we must alter, rearrange, and correct our notions of the manner of God's working. This is not as difficult as it may seem at first, once we realize that much of what we have been taught about God was not from God, but from men who had only a partial knowledge of the Supreme Being.

To illustrate, obtain a red-letter edition of the Bible, one in which the direct statements of the Nazarene are printed in red. Read what this Great Teacher actually said about the world and God. The view of the Deity and His Creation that such a reading presents is far different than the one described in most churches. Too often churchmen concentrate on a few isolated phrases to validate, not so much what is true, but what they would like to be true.

Miracles

The scientist says he cannot accept the possibility of miracles. Therefore, he rejects biblical teachings out of hand. There is no reason for this if he would but attempt to consider historical significance. Most of what we today accept as commonplace would have been considered miraculous in biblical days. Equally true, what may be considered as commonly accepted scientific fact two thousand years hence, we today even in our enlightenment might consider as miracles. To accept the concept of a just God who has set into motion an immutable functioning Law, we must assume it to be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Therefore, what any man ever did, any man can still do--if he is willing to carry out the same experiment. This is called the "Scientific Method," and it is based on the true nature of all activity in the Universe.

That "we" do not understand the function or the meaning of a certain thing does not mean it is not based on a simple scientific fact. In other words, to say there has been a miracle is "not" to say there has been interference with God's Just Order, only the introduction into our life of an event that was not previously a part of our experience. There is always the likelihood that heretofore unknown and unexpected causes may come into operation and produce new effects. Today innumerable developments are recognized as scientific facts that in the past could not have been considered even as possibilities. This thought confirms Carlyle's suggestive saying, "To the King of Siam, an icicle is a miracle."

Obviously, with a wider knowledge of the Universe and the uniformity of the Law which obtains therein, we have to revise our definition of the miraculous. We realize that the word "supernatural" can really mean only "supernormal," and can be used only for events that transcend common experience and that could no doubt be brought under the operation of a higher Law, Celestial, if you will. Thus, miracles are but the functioning of Laws we do not understand at a particular time in our personal development.

When we consider this concept in depth, we realize what a marvelous breakthrough we have made. Here we have a common ground on which both the dedicated theologian and the authentic research scientist can meet. Darwin and God are not antagonistic. They are synergistic. The Creator has indeed created all that is, and in doing so also set into motion Laws that allow the continued development of this Creation without the necessity of His continued interference.

There was no miracle in this Creation any more than there is a miracle in the process of evolution itself. God worked with Laws that He Himself established to create Order. There could be no Universe without Order, because without Order no group of atoms would remain together long enough to produce what we call manifestation. Those Laws are the same today as they were in the beginning of time, and we are able to use them to our advantage the same as did our Father so long ago.

An Eternal Law

Thus, we find the possibility of discovering a Law of Life that can satisfy the intelligent human who is preparing to enter the twenty-first century. The sterile atheism of the egotistical scientist is left behind, just as the soporific, but regressive theology of the orthodox church is rejected.

We eagerly embrace the doctrine of Cause and Effect. Has not the Greatest Teacher ever sent to man said unequivocally, "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"? And from Saint Paul this: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he surely reap." What could be clearer? The scientist knows this Law as: For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction.

The one valid reason this Law--and such it is--is not universally accepted is: It does not seem to work in many of the events we see around us. It does work at times, of course, for we recognize the effects of this Law frequently, but not often enough. We are left in doubt that it is, indeed, the Master Law of Life.

One of the main purposes of this book is to remove this doubt. The key to that solution is what we call the "Circle of Lives." We live not just one life, but many, one after another, much in the same way we attend school, alternating each grade of study (read "lifetime") with summer vacations (read "interims between lives"). What we do not learn during one school term we come back and study again. Whatever credits or debits we do not settle during one school term, we settle the next year. In truth, we do reap as we sow, although we may not necessarily do so during a single visit to Earth (incarnation).
|Top|