|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
PART 1
INTRODUCTION TO SALVATION SCIENCE
There is only one way to reconcile science and religion, and that is to first make science as complete and accurate a description of the Universe as we can, and then use science as the standard for completing and correcting religion.
And there is only one measure of success, namely, when the reconciled result adheres perfectly to the scientific method, yet promises real literal immortal life in perfect happiness in Heaven with God to everybody that ever lived and did good rather than evil.
In Salvation Science, such a reconciliation has been accomplished at last. If the reader does not believe it, let him read on and see for himself. If we are wrong, he will have lost nothing. But if we are right, he stands to gain, quite literally, everything.
(For a brief overview of the history of the conflict between science and religion prior to Salvation Science, see APPENDIX A).
PART 2
OUR METHOD OF RECONCILIATION
We said that we would reconcile science and religion by first completing science, and then using science to complete and correct religion. But it is not quite as simple as that. Our method of reconciliation starts with two basic assumptions: (1) that the Universe is one logically consistent whole, and (2) that science and religion are both literal, factual descriptions of that Universe.
Then we ask: If science and religion are both literal descriptions of the same logically consistent Universe, why the apparent conflict between them?
We can think of three possible reasons why two literal descriptions of the same thing can fail to agree: (1) They may contain errors, and (2) They may be incomplete, describing only limited parts of the whole, and different parts at that, and (3) They may speak different languages, each using different words to refer to the same thing.
Could there be any other reasons why science and religion fail to agree? Philosophers have speculated that the Universe may be naturally self-contradicting, or else that science and religion are different kinds of descriptions of the same Universe, science a factual one and religion a symbolic, non-factual one. But if we adhere to our two basic assumptions, namely, that the Universe is logically consistent, and that science and religion are both literal, factual descriptions of it, then the three reasons we mentioned above are the only ones possible.
And so, if science and religion disagree because they contain errors, are incomplete, and speak different languages, then reconciliation is obtained by: (1) Correction of errors, and (2) Completion of both world views, and (3) Translation between them.
These three operations -- Correction, Completion, and Translation -- are the basic method by which we shall reconcile science and religion. Let us study them in more detail, beginning with Translation.
When we translate between, say, English and French, we end up with a dictionary, or a list of "Word Equations", like for example "Man = Homme", "Woman = Femme", "Book = Livre", and so on. The same is true when we translate between science and religion. We will get Word Equations that translate scientific terms into religious language, and vice versa. One well known attempt at such a Word Equation, worked out long ago by people like Aristotle and St Aquinas, is "God = First Cause". This Word Equation clearly has at least some validity. God and the First Cause are alike in that both created the Universe. And yet, God is said to be loving and wise and conscious and so on, while the First Cause of science is a dead physical thing which has no love or wisdom or consciousness. Clearly, this Word Equation has only limited validity at best.
When we develop other Word Equations, we shall find that they too are at best only partly valid. But we cannot reconcile science and religion unless we make them fully valid. How can we do that?
This is where Correction and Completion come in. We already decided that science and religion disagree for three reasons: errors, incompleteness, and different languages. Now, in doing Translation, we eliminate the third reason, different languages. That leaves errors and incompleteness as the only possible reasons why our Word Equations are not fully valid. To make them valid, we must therefore do Completion and Correction.
Let us look at these two operations. To do Completion and Correction, we must first know where exactly science and religion are incomplete or in error. And to know that, we would need perfect and complete knowledge of the whole Universe. In other words, we would need to be omniscient like God. But we are not. Indeed, the only knowledge of the Universe we have is that given us by science and religion themselves.
This means that we cannot do Completion and Correction, at least not in the truest and best sense. But we can achieve a reasonable approximation. To do that, we must make one of the two world views our standard of truth, and if the other world view disagrees, it is in error and must be Corrected. This is not perhaps the most ideal way of doing Correction and Completion, but it is the best we can do.
So which one, religion or science, shall be our standard of truth to which the other must bend? Well, science and religion offer us different guides to truth. Science uses the scientific method, consisting of observation, logical thinking, and experimentation, whereas religion uses the revelation argument: religion is right because religion says it is right.
Most reasonable people would probably choose the scientific method over religious revelation. Therefore, in Salvation Science, we shall make science our standard of truth, and if religion disagrees with science about anything, then religion is in error and must be Corrected. And where religion is incomplete, we Complete it by simply letting science fill in the gap in religious knowledge.
Science, of course, needs no Correction, since we assume it has no errors. But it may still need Completion. To Complete science, we of course use the scientific method. That is, we must observe reality, make logical hypotheses, and then use these to make predictions which can be tested by scientific experiments.
That, then, is our complete method of reconciliation. Let us summarise it as follows:
(1) First we do Translation, and from that we obtain Word Equations that equate scientific and religious terms.
(2) Then we examine each Word Equation. If it is fully valid in every way, we have reconciliation. If not, we must do Completion and Correction.
(3) To do Completion and Correction, we first Complete science using the scientific method, then we use science to Complete and Correct religion.
What this method of reconciliation does, in effect, is to accept science as it is, then choose among all the world's religious doctrines, rejecting those that fail to agree with science, and assembling those that do agree into a single "world religion" which is equivalent to science.
Will our method of reconciliation distort either science or religion in any way? Obviously, if either world view is significantly distorted, then we will not achieve a proper reconciliation. Reconciliation is only possible if both world views are accepted as they are.
As for science. we made it our standard of truth, so science will not be distorted. But what about religion?
To start with, when we do Completion, we will be supplementing religion with scientific knowledge. But that does not distort religion. Most reasonable theologians nowadays accept that science is an accurate description of the physical Universe. For example, when God made the world, He evidently decided to make it according to the laws of relativity and thermodynamics and so on. Religion should therefore have no objection to being Completed with scientific knowledge.
But it is different when science tries to Correct religion. Here there is real danger of distortion. Let us see what errors religion commits, and how they are Corrected.
Religion is full of myths and legends, like the story of Adam and Eve, or Noah's Ark, or the infallibility of the Bible, and so on. If taken literally, these myths and legends are obviously errors. But we need not Correct them, because Translation will remove them for us. Translation acts as a preliminary filter that eliminates all those gross religious errors that cannot be Translated into scientific language.
Will the removal of these myths and legends distort religion? Well, religion generally is defined as any system of thought that includes a belief in God and Salvation. As long as these two main doctrines pass through Translation, it does not matter if myths like Adam and Eve and so on are lost. Even theologians nowadays agree that the story of Adam and Eve is not literal truth, but rather, a symbolic or poetic representation of the truth.
And so, when Translation filters out all those old fairytales, this will not distort religion, provided that the religious truth that does pass through includes God and Salvation.
But the truth that passes through will still be contaminated with certain errors. What errors are they? They are all variations on a single theme, Anthropocentrism, or "human-centeredness". We have a strong tendency to see everything through human eyes, to assume that we are the most important process in the world, and that the whole Universe exists only for our sake. Religion pictures God as a human being on a larger scale Who made us "in His image" and created the rest of the Universe only because He thought we would need it.
In Salvation Science, we Correct the error of Anthropocentrism by a process that we shall call Generalisation. That is, we Generalise religious doctrine so that God is the Father of all things equally, and the Universe is equally the home of all things.
Will Generalisation distort or diminish religion? No, quite the opposite is true. Anthropocentrism is like racism or xenophobia -- a mark of ignorance and stupidity. Getting rid of that error will free religion from distortion and diminishment. Indeed, many of the greatest theologians have already Generalised religion. In Hinduism, God does not favouritise human beings over other things. No, the Universe is equally the home of all created things. Nor is God shaped like a human being. He is so general and all-encompassing that He has no describable shape at all. The Hindu scholar Shankaracharya wrote 1,000 years ago that the human-shaped God is "a concession to the unenlightened masses". And the Buddhists tell us that it is no less sinful to step on an ant as to murder a human being.
Anthropocentrism also takes other forms. For example, it appears in the guise of Platonism or Idealism. People project not only the body onto all non-human things, but also the mind. The Universe, including even the human body, is believed to have no existence of its own. Rather, only the human mind exists, and the visible Universe is a creation of our imagination. It exists only as thoughts in our mind. In Platonism, the human mind was created by the supreme mind of God, and then Satan deceived us with an illusion of physical reality. To get rid of that illusion , we must ignore or destroy the physical world. In this sense, Platonism is not merely false, but dangerous. Some Platonists think that they can escape physical evil through suicide, or by starving their bodies and neglecting its needs. Other Platonists think that the whole human race should stop reproducing because every time a baby is born, an innocent soul is dragged away from Heaven and imprisoned in an evil physical body. Then there are those who say that the sooner we destroy the world with nuclear war the better, because only then will our immortal souls be free to go to Heaven and be with God.
In Salvation Science, we Correct the error of Platonism by a process we might call "de-Platonisation" -- we simply delete this false doctrine from religion. Again, this will not distort or diminish religion. On the contrary, it will free religion from distortion and diminishment and make it more sane and reasonable. Religion is not dependent on the doctrine of Platonism, and can stand perfectly well without it. Judaism, for example, is non-Platonic, and it is just as valid as any other religion.
Having looked at our method of reconciliation, let us now see if we can actually use it to reconcile science and religion. The first step, as we said, is to do Translation.
Before we can Translate between science and religion, we have to examine the two world views separately so that we are clear about what each is saying. Let us start by examining the religious world view, or what is the same thing, religious language, since language and world view are pretty much the same thing.
The religious world view is built around God and Satan, who are opposites of each other. God gives out love, while Satan gives out hate. And love and hate are also opposites of each other.
We can represent all this by a simple diagram:
GOD opposite SATAN
g g
i i
v v
e e
s s
o o
u u
t t
LOVE opposite HATE
Love, the creative power of God, is a many-faceted thing. It creates and sustains the whole Universe and everything in it. But all that love does can be summed up in one word: good. Love cannot do evil, it always does good. Every created thing, according to religion, is good simply because God made it.
More, every good that is done becomes a source of love that creates more good. This gives us what the French nun Mother Louise Margaret Claret de la Touche called a "chain of love" (1), which begins in God and proceeds through all created things.
Hate, meanwhile, is the destructive power of Satan. Just as love does good, so hate does evil. And every evil that is done becomes a source of hate which generates more evil. This gives us a "chain of hate", which is the opposite of the chain of love.
Together the chains of love and hate form the existent Universe with all its conflicts of good and evil. The chain of hate is known as the Beast, while the chain of love is known as the Church. The Christian Church is not, as some people suppose, a building with an altar and a bell tower where people go each Sunday to sing songs and listen to sermons. No, the Church consists in all the good people and things which, united in love, are destined for Heaven at the end of time. The Beast, meanwhile, is made up of all evildoers and evil ways of life, whose final destiny is Hell.
What else does religion say? Well, the Church is guided towards Salvation by Jesus Christ, while the Beast is led to its own destruction by Christ's evil opposite, the Antichrist.
With that, we can complete our diagram of the religious world view, as follows:
GOD opposite SATAN
g g
i i
v v
e e
s s
o o
u u
t t
LOVE opposite HATE
c c
r r
e e
a a
t t
e e
s s
GOOD opposite EVIL
c c
r r
e e
a a
t t
e e
s s
CHAIN CHAIN
OF LOVE opposite OF HATE
(CHURCH) (BEAST)
g g
u u
i i
d d
e e
d d
b b
y y
CHRIST opposite ANTICHRIST
t t
o o
w w
a a
r r
d d
s s
HEAVEN opposite HELL
Now we look at the scientific world view. In science, there is no God. Instead the world was made by a First Cause. This First Cause emits some kind of power or influence we call cause. Cause produces effect, and every effect becomes a source of cause that produces more effect. This gives us a chain of cause and effect, which, of course, is the Universe. The Universe moves according to the laws of evolution towards some ultimate destiny. And what is that destiny? The Big Bang theory says that we live in either an Open, Closed, or Oscillating Universe. Each of these has a different final end. We shall not go into details now, except to say that in all three cases, the fate of all processes is to be destroyed.
We can represent the scientific world view by a diagram as follows:
FIRST CAUSE
g
i
v
e
s
o
u
t
CAUSE
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
EFFECT
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
CHAIN OF
CAUSE AND EFFECT
g
u
i
d
e
d
b
y
EVOLUTION
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
OPEN, CLOSED, OR
OSCILLATING UNIVERSE
Let us compare this scientific diagram to the religious one we developed earlier. In both cases, the Universe has a beginning, a middle, and an end. But there are also differences. Not only do the two world views use different words, but also, religion seems to split the world in two opposite parts, while science unites everything into one.
Before we can Translate between these two languages or world views, we must divide the scientific diagram in two opposing parts. Let us begin with the scientific concept of effect. As seen by science, everything that exists is an effect, produced by some prior cause. But so is everything that does not exist. When a cause produces an effect, it also causes all other possible effects that could have existed instead, not to exist. For example, if a rock is a certain shape, that shape is an effect. But the existence of that effect means that all other possible shapes the rock could have had are prevented from existing. These nonexistent shapes are also effects produced by that same cause.
In short, there are existent and non-existent effects. If a scientist says, "The sound I hear is caused by air vibrations", he is talking about an existent effect, namely a sound. And if he says, "the absence of life on the moon is caused by the inhospitable climate", he is talking about a nonexistent effect, namely life on the moon.
Normally, scientists do not bother much with the distinction between existent and nonexistent effects. They simply put existent and nonexistent effect together and call them "effect". But in Salvation Science, we shall emphasise the difference between existent and nonexistent effect by calling them by different names. Existent effect we shall call "Effect" with a Capital E, and nonexistent effect we shall call "Noneffect" with a capital N.
And so, in Salvation Science, all that exists is Effect, and all that does not exist is Noneffect. And Effect and Noneffect are, of course, opposites of each other.
People who translate between different languages are often faced with situations where there is no simple one to one correspondence between the words in one language and those in another. For example, the Eskimos have many different names for snow, whereas the English language has only one word. To properly translate the Eskimo words for snow into English, we would therefore have to divide the English word "snow" into several small parts and call each part by a different name. These names would generally consist of short phrases put together from already existing words. Thus, the Eskimo words for snow might be translated as "light powdery snow" and "hard-packed snow" and so on.
And this is exactly what we did when we divided scientific effect in two parts and named them Effect and Noneffect. The reader can now see why we choose to divide the scientific world view in two rather than unite the religious world view into one. We would no more do that than to oblige the Eskimos to stop using their many words for snow just because the English use only one word.
Yes, but is it scientifically acceptable to divide effect into Effect and Noneffect? Or did we somehow change the concept of effect so that it is no longer scientific?
To answer that, let us ask: what would it take to make science unscientific? That is easy to answer. We would have to introduce ghosts and spirits and other unprovable hypotheses into it. But we did not do that. There are no ghosts or spirits in Effect and Noneffect. Indeed, we did not pose any new hypotheses at all, provable or otherwise. There is no call for scientific experiments to see whether there really is Effect and Noneffect. All we did was to point out the already self-evident fact that some effects exist while others do not. We simply made a point about language, nothing more.
Having settled that, let us continue to divide the rest of the scientific diagram. Scientific cause becomes creative "Cause" with a Capital C, and destructive "Uncause" with a Capital U. Creative Cause, of course, is responsible for all existent Effects, while Uncause is behind all Noneffects.
The First Cause is likewise divided into a creative First Cause and a destructive First Uncause. The chain of cause and effect becomes a "Chain of Cause and Effect" and a "Chain of Uncause and Noneffect". Let us call them a Chain of Cause and a Chain of Uncause for short. The Chain of Cause consists in all existent Effects and their creative Causes, while the Chain of Uncause consists in all Noneffects and their destructive Uncauses.
Now what about the Open, Closed, and Oscillating Universes? Since they all mean ultimate destruction for all processes, they must go on the end of the Chain of Uncause. That leaves the Chain of Cause with nothing on the end of it. Let us put a question mark there for now.
Finally we come to the process of evolution. How can we divide that in two opposing parts?
Scientists tell us that there are really three different kinds of evolution happening in the Universe. The first is the ordinary kind of evolution that works by random mutation and natural selection, and which causes amoebas to evolve into dinosaurs, or apes into humans, and so on. This is a positive, upbuilding kind of evolution that causes processes to grow ever more complex and refined. Naturally, it is not limited just to living organisms. All processes in the Universe evolve. Cosmic dust condenses into stars, while mountains rise up and rivers and lakes are formed, and so on. All these are examples of processes undergoing positive, upbuilding evolution.
But the other two kinds of evolution are destructive. One of them is called entropy. It is the reverse of positive evolution; it causes processes to fall apart, to disintegrate, until nothing is left but separate, disorganised matter particles. Entropy causes the Universe to run out of energy and grow "old and tired", until one day all processes must stop, and the Universe is in effect dead. Because entropy is the opposite of positive evolution, the latter is sometimes referred to as "negentropy" or "negative entropy".
The other destructive kind of evolution is gravitational collapse. Every piece of matter exerts gravitational pull on all other matter in the Universe. As a result, the whole Universe is being pulled in on itself, and may one day collapse totally, whereupon all processes will be crushed out of existence.
Now, scientists normally put all three kinds of evolution together and call them simply "evolution". But in Salvation Science, we shall introduce a different terminology. We shall use the word "Evolution" with a Capital E to refer only to positive, upbuilding evolution. Entropy and gravitational collapse we will put together into one and refer to it as "Anti-evolution" with a Capital A.
Note that in all this, we are once again not posing any new hypotheses that need testing by experiment. We are only rearranging words.
Let us now place Evolution and Antievolution into our divided scientific diagram. Evolution, being creative, guides the Chain of Cause towards some unknown final destiny that we represented by a question mark, while Antievolution, being destructive, guides the Chain of Uncause towards the Open, Closed, and Oscillating Universes.
Our divided scientific diagram will now look like this:
FIRST FIRST
CAUSE opposite UNCAUSE
g g
i i
v v
e e
s
o o
u u
t t
CAUSE opposite UNCAUSE
c c
r r
e e
a a
t t
e e
s s
EFFECT opposite NONEFFECT
c c
r r
e e
a a
t t
e e
s s
CHAIN CHAIN
OF CAUSE opposite OF UNCAUSE
g g
u u
i i
d d
e e
d d
b b
y y
EVOLUTION opposite ANTIEVOLUTION
t t
o o
w w
a a
r r
d d
s s
OPEN, CLOSED,
? AND OSCILLATING
UNIVERSES
Let us compare this divided scientific diagram to the religious diagram a few pages back. They are very similar indeed. In fact, they seem to be describing the same Universe, only using different words. If that is the case, we can now do Translation, and when we do, we get the following list of Word Equations:
God = First Cause
Satan = First Uncause
Love = Cause
Hate = Uncause
Good = Effect
Evil = Noneffect
Church = Chain of Cause
Beast = Chain of Uncause
Christ = Evolution
Antichrist = Antievolution
Heaven = ?
Hell = Open, Closed, and Oscillating Universes
These Word Equations form the dictionary by which we can Translate between science and religion. Note that Adam and Eve and the other fairytales were lost, as we expected they would be, but God and Jesus Christ came through; and the promise of Heaven, if not affirmed by science, has not been denied either.
PART 4
CORRECTION AND COMPLETION
Some of the Word Equations above, like for example "God = First Cause", appear to be at least partly valid. Others may seem more doubtful, while the one that equates Heaven to a question mark is not invalid so much as completely meaningless.
To make all our Word Equations fully valid, we must solve a number of problems. These problems fall into four categories:
(1) Moral problems. Science and religion differ in that, in classical Darwinian science, survival is considered to be selfish and immoral, or at best amoral, while altruism is seen as suicidal foolishness. But in religion, things are the other way around. God destroys the selfish and ensures that only altruistic and moral people survive. In other words, we have a problem of "moral reversal".
(2) Spiritual problems. Science and religion also differ in that, in science, there is no spirit, and everything that exists is part of the material Universe. But in religion, the Universe is partly or even wholly spiritual. The subject of spirit is a very complex one, and Platonism is only a small part of it.
(3) Anthropocentric problems. Science has made great efforts to be objective and to treat all processes equally, but religion has a tendency to be Anthropocentric -- it sees things from a limited human perspective.
(4) Eschatological problems. This is a theological term meaning "knowledge of the ultimate destiny of all things". Religious eschatology includes the possibility of Salvation, whereas scientific eschatology promises nothing but certain destruction for all things.
How will we solve all these problems? By Completion and Correction. Or, to be more specific, we will solve Anthropocentric and Platonic problems by Correcting religion, that is, Generalising and de-Platonising it. All the other problems --moral, spiritual, and eschatological -- we will solve not by Correcting religion but rather by Completing science. That is, we shall use the scientific method to give science a moral, spiritual, and eschatological dimension, equal to that of religion. We will show that there is scientific spirit in the Universe, and that survival is moral and altruistic, and also, we will develop a scientific "theory of Heaven", or as we will call it, a "Salvation Hypothesis" which tells us in scientific terms what Heaven is, where it is located, and how we can get there.
|
|
|
|