God or not

The Principle gives credit to both science and religion in maneuvering mankind from the dark ages into the twilight of present days. The introduction to the movement’s main book - called Divine Principle - describes the labor and accomplishments of both approaches. It comes to the conclusion that both have gone as far as it goes and that a new, more comprehensive approach is required to proceed.

The author avoids a discussion on the topic whether God exists or not. Instead he goes on trying to reconcile a contradiction between secular, humanistic approaches and other-worldly, religious views. In the course of doing this he does make a case for the assumption that our universe has a conscious, creative origin outside space and time. However, most people may not care to read that far.

Let’s face it, ultimately the assumption that a god exists is just that – an assumption. So is the view that no god exists and everything developed by coincidence. Like the assumptions that the sun revolves around the earth and the other one that the earth revolves around the sun, both have something going for them. Assumption one finds proof on every day with a clear sky. Assumption two reconciles the trouble we get with the first one if we look at it from a broader viewpoint, like from the moon, for example.

However, most of the time it doesn’t really matter what one believes. Columbus could still have discovered America independent of the sun’s role in the greater picture – as long as he assumed that the earth is spherical. A scientist engaging in molecular research also doesn’t need a final conclusion on the issue. Neither do his views on the origin of the universe matter here. But if the context gets wide enough, at some point all begins to matter.

I find that the assumption that the universe has an origin makes more sense than the opposite. I am not the religious type so this assumption itself doesn’t come with much obligation.

In this light it has a lot of advantages. It allows to introduce a plan and purpose into the development of the universe and that in turn can explain why such a complex system could develop out of a big ball of pre-matter within the pitifully short time of 15 billion years.

Actually, without something like a plan it is difficult to explain any upward development, that’s development from simple to less simple to complex to very complex. Without an intelligent, planned use of force, nothing worthwhile will come about. Order has the tendency to disappear in the absence of an ordering effort.

For example, if I put a piece of wood on a hard surface and strike it with a hammer for, let’s say, fifteen years, what will I get? Certainly not more than a piece of wood, most probably less. Now extend this to 15 billion years. Striking the piece that long would also do away with the hard surface and still won’t give me a tree.

A UPI article on intelligent design looks at the same issue in a bit more sophisticated way: The scientific case for intellegent design of the universe.

The assumption that something like the universe or just a tree can grow out of a large ball of pre-matter based on pre-laws if we just wait long enough is just as questionable as the one that some guy created the whole thing in less than a week (Bible) or something else.

We have three options. One is we assume a god, another one is that we assume no god exists and the third one is we don’t care. Most people seem to start out with the third one and then – may be – play around with number one and two in their spare time. This has been sufficient for most purposes.

The Principle assumes that a god exists and then uses a systematic approach to develop an interesting system of thought. Read on.