BEFORE
PLEASE READ OUR BOOK "LOVE - IN SEARCH OF A REASON FOR LIVING” OR OUR
“LIFENOTES"
[download from our web site - http://www.ws5.com/love and
http://www.lifenotes.org]
PLEASE READ THIS PARAGRAPH BEFORE PROCEEDING - Our book and LifeNotes contain what we believe is the path to answering
questions. If you have not already read the book or the LifeNotes,
these notes may not make sense, and may seem trivial or simplistic. If you
disagree with anything that is said in the book or lifenotes,
or if you simply don't believe what we are saying is "useful" to you,
please finish reading the entire book, including the appendices, and/or the LifeNotes. Even if you agree with what is being said, and
think you understand what we are talking about, please read all the sections.
If you are to find the true reason for living it is necessary that you
understand what is discussed in all the "chapters", including the
last section of the book and all the lifenotes. We
believe that if you have read the book, and taken the journey through your
heart, mind, and soul that it urges you to take, you
will understand the book and these comments.
When you read any comments that we make in these notes, please keep in mind that they are only valid to the extent that we do not stray from the path described in our book. We believe that you must search your heart, mind, and soul to know and understand if our notes and comments are valid, or not. After you have completed your search, and know and understand love, you must decide for yourself whether or not our answers to difficult questions are based on love, or not. We believe they are, but perhaps they are not.
I have almost absolute faith that you can and should choose to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself". God commands you to do nothing more, nothing less. The answer to all questions, no matter how difficult, is to choose to love as God commands. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself".
------------------
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE BOOK AND APPENDICES ARE COMPLETE, WE BELIEVE THAT THEY CONTAIN THE COMPLETE MESSAGE THAT WE WANT TO COMMUNICATE TO READERS.
IN THE FUTURE WE MAY, OR MAY NOT, EDIT THE COMMENTS AND FOOTNOTES. THEY REPRESENT AN ONGOING ATTEMPT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. SOME COMMENTS MAY CONTAIN ERRORS AND SOME MAY NEED FURTHER EDITING. PLEASE VISIT THIS PAGE PERIODICALLY TO VIEW ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
THE COMMENTS MAY INCLUDE REPLIES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WE HAVE BEEN ASKED. SOME OF THE REPLIES WERE ORIGINALLY DIRECTED TO PEOPLE WHO HAD NOT READ OUR BOOK, AND THEREFORE MAY INCLUDE QUOTES FROM THE BOOK. IF YOU HAVE READ THE COMMENTS BEFORE, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE NOTES ARE MUCH SHORTER THAN THEY USED TO BE. WE HAVE INCORPORATED MORE OF THE NOTES IN THE APPENDIX OF THE BOOK AND IN OUR LIFENOTES TO GIVE READERS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OUR CONCLUSIONS. THESE NOTES MAY BE MODIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME, HOWEVER THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE.
REFERENCES TO BOOKS AND LINKS TO INTERNET SITES ARE PROVIDED TO ALLOW READERS TO RESEARCH SOME OF THE SCIENCE AND LOGIC BEHIND CERTAIN OF OUR CONCLUSIONS. WE HAVE NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER OVER THE CONTENT OF ANY BOOK, SITE, OR OTHER MATERIAL THAT WE DID NOT AUTHOR, THAT IS REFERED TO IN THESE NOTES. SOME SITES MAY CONTAIN CONCLUSIONS THAT WE COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH. OTHER SITES MAY CONTAIN MATERIALS THAT WE WOULD FIND OBJECTIONABLE, AND THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED US NOT TO PROVIDE THE REFERENCE OR LINK IF WE HAD BEEN AWARE OF THEM. THE CONTENTS OF THE OTHER SITES MAY CHANGE WITHOUT OUR BEING AWARE OF THE CHANGES, AND MAY NO LONGER BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR BOOK. PLEASE NOTE THAT REFERENCES OR LINKS IN THESE NOTES OR OUR BOOK DO NOT IN ANY WAY IMPLY THAT WE AGREE WITH CONCLUSIONS FOUND IN THE MATERIALS, OR THAT WE DO NOT OBJECT TO SOME OR ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF THE REFERENCE MATERIALS OR THE LINKED SITES.
(last revisions
CONTENTS: (please allow file to load completely before using the following
hyperlinks)
Selected passages from the Judeo-Christian Bible
Comments on religious and philosophical studies
Comments on life after death and nihilism
Comments on the limits of logic
Comments on proof of the existence of God
Comments on what we can and should do
Comments on a lesser love and living a normal or a fanatic life
Comments on living a fanatic life
Brief comment on doing less than you can and should do
Brief comment on possibilities
Brief comment on men and women – marriage and divorce
Comments on real, pure, true love
Comments on violence, killing, and self-defense (discussion of a very difficult topic)
Comments on our ability to use logic and reason to answer questions
Comments on observations of human choices
-------------------
Comments about modern physics contained in our book were assembled from many sources. While we may or may not agree with his conclusions (especially some of his conclusions regarding consciousness), at the time of the writing of this note (1996), Roger Penrose's book, The Emperors New Mind, Penguin Books (1989), contains perhaps the most complete discussion of modern physics for the non-scientist reader. The book includes complex discussions for those who want to consider the math behind quantum mechanics, relativity, etc., but with some effort the non-scientist can discover the logic behind the math. If you want to explore the paradox of modern science in detail, his book is worth the effort required to read it.
We should note that some of Penrose's comments could lead to the conclusion that he does not believe in the existence of God. My interpretation of his comments is that at this point in his life he is a rationalist or an agnostic, probably not a theist, yet also probably not an atheist. I interpret his "jokes" as jokes pointed at believers in strong artificial intelligence, and not directed at theists, as some might think. I see in his writings a reverence for God, even if it is not clear that he has reached his own understanding of who, or perhaps from his standpoint "what", God is.
------------------- Return to first page
The following is a leaflet we publish that contains selected passages from the Judeo-Christian Bible. After you complete your search or your heart, mind, and soul and know and understand love, you will decide for yourself whether or not you have faith that Jesus and God are One. No matter who, in your heart, mind, and soul, you believe or have faith that Jesus was, and perhaps is, we believe that his words proclaim fundamental truths:
LOVE
LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR
HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, WITH ALL YOUR MIND,
THIS IS THE FIRST AND GREATEST
COMMANDMENT. THE SECOND IS LIKE IT:
LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
ALL OF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS HANG
ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS.
What is love? In our hearts we know.
WHEN I WAS HUNGRY, YOU GAVE ME FOOD;
WHEN I WAS THIRSTY, YOU GAVE ME SOMETHING TO DRINK; WHEN I WAS A STRANGER YOU
TOOK ME IN, WHEN I WAS NAKED YOU GAVE ME CLOTHING; WHEN I WAS SICK YOU TOOK
CARE OF ME, WHEN I WAS IN PRISON YOU VISITED ME. THEN THE RIGHTEOUS WILL REPLY,
LORD, WHEN WAS IT THAT WE SAW YOU HUNGRY AND GAVE YOU FOOD, OR THIRSTY AND GAVE
YOU SOMETHING TO DRINK, A STRANGER AND TOOK YOU IN, OR NAKED AND GAVE YOU
CLOTHING? WHEN DID WE SEE YOU ILL OR IN PRISON, AND CAME TO VISIT YOU? AND THE
KING WILL ANSWER, I TELL YOU THIS: ANYTHING YOU DID FOR THE LEAST OF MY
BROTHERS HERE, YOU DID FOR ME.
Who should we love? God and our
neighbor.
AND WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR? JESUS REPLIED, A MAN WAS ON HIS WAY FROM
If you choose to love, many people will
hate you. If you choose to hate them back you give up love.
YOU HAVE HEARD THAT IT WAS SAID, AN
EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH. BUT WHAT I TELL YOU IS THIS: DO NOT
RESIST AN EVILDOER. IF ANYONE STRIKES YOU ON THE RIGHT CHEEK, TURN AND OFFER
HIM YOUR LEFT. IF ANYONE WANTS TO SUE YOU FOR YOUR SHIRT, LET HIM HAVE YOUR
COAT AS WELL. IF ANYONE FORCES YOU GO A MILE, GO WITH HIM TWO. GIVE TO THE ONE
WHO ASKS YOU TO GIVE, AND DO NOT TURN AWAY FROM THE ONE WHO WANTS TO BORROW
FROM YOU.
YOU HAVE HEARD THAT IT WAS SAID, LOVE
YOUR NEIGHBOR AND HATE YOUR ENEMY. BUT WHAT I TELL YOU IS THIS: LOVE YOUR
ENEMIES.... DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE YOU,.... PRAY FOR THOSE WHO ABUSE AND....
PERSECUTE YOU; SO THAT YOU MAY BE CHILDREN OF YOUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, WHO MAKES
HIS SUN RISE ON THE EVIL AND THE GOOD, AND SENDS RAIN ON THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE
UNRIGHTEOUS. IF YOU LOVE ONLY THOSE WHO LOVE YOU, WHAT REWARD DO YOU HAVE? DO
NOT EVEN THE TAX COLLECTORS DO THE SAME? AND IF YOU GREET ONLY YOUR BROTHERS,
WHAT MORE ARE YOU DOING THAN OTHERS? DO NOT EVEN THE TAX COLLECTORS DO THE
SAME? BE PERFECT THEREFORE, EVEN AS YOUR FATHER IN HEAVEN IS PERFECT.
AND NOW A MAN CAME UP AND ASKED HIM,
GOOD TEACHER, WHAT MUST I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE? JESUS SAID. WHY DO YOU
CALL ME GOOD? NO ONE IS GOOD, EXCEPT GOD ALONE... IF YOU WISH TO ENTER INTO
LIFE, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.
If you love those who hate you, you will
forgive them.
DO NOT JUDGE, SO THAT YOU MAY NOT BE
JUDGED. FOR IN THE SAME WAY YOU JUDGE OTHERS, YOU WILL BE JUDGED, AND THE
MEASURE YOU GIVE WILL BE THE MEASURE YOU RECEIVE. WHY DO YOU LOOK AT THE SPECK
OF SAWDUST IN YOUR BROTHERS EYE, BUT PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE GREAT PLANK IN
YOUR OWN EYE? OR HOW CAN YOU SAY TO YOUR BROTHER, LET ME TAKE THE SPECK OUT OF
YOUR EYE, WHEN ALL THE TIME THERE IS THAT PLANK IN YOUR OWN? YOU HYPOCRITE!
FIRST TAKE THE PLANK OUT OF YOUR OWN EYE, AND THEN YOU WILL SEE CLEARLY TO TAKE
THE SPECK OUT OF YOUR BROTHER'S.
WHOEVER WISHES TO BE GREAT AMONG YOU
SHALL BE YOUR SERVANT, AND WHOEVER WISHES TO BE FIRST AMONG YOU SHALL BE YOUR
SLAVE.... ALL WHO EXALT THEMSELVES WILL BE HUMBLED, AND ALL WHO HUMBLE
THEMSELVES WILL BE EXALTED.
THEN PETER CAME UP AND ASKED HIM,
LORD, HOW OFTEN AM I TO FORGIVE MY BROTHER IF HE SINS AGAINST ME? AS MANY AS
SEVEN TIMES? JESUS REPLIED, NOT SEVEN TIMES; I TELL YOU, SEVENTY-SEVEN TIMES.
THEREFORE I TELL YOU, PEOPLE WILL BE
FORGIVEN FOR EVERY SIN AND BLASPHEMY, BUT BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE SPIRIT WILL NOT
BE FORGIVEN. ANYONE WHO SPEAKS A WORD AGAINST THE SON OF MAN WILL BE FORGIVEN,
BUT ANYONE WHO SPEAKS AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL NOT BE FORGIVEN, EITHER IN
THIS AGE OR IN THE AGE TO COME.
You will be tempted over and over again
to do things that you would not do if you loved God and your neighbor. If you
do these things you give up love.
ENTER THROUGH THE NARROW GATE. THE
GATE IS WIDE AND THE ROAD IS BROAD THAT LEADS TO DESTRUCTION, AND MANY GO THAT
WAY; BUT THE GATE IS NARROW AND THE ROAD IS SMALL THAT LEADS TO LIFE, AND THERE
ARE FEW WHO FIND IT.
THEN THEY WILL HAND YOU OVER TO BE
TORTURED AND PUT TO DEATH, AND YOU WILL BE HATED BY ALL NATIONS BECAUSE OF MY
NAME. THEN MANY WILL FALL AWAY, AND THEY WILL BETRAY ONE ANOTHER AND HATE ONE
ANOTHER. AND MANY FALSE PROPHETS WILL ARISE AND LEAD MANY ASTRAY. AND BECAUSE
OF THE INCREASE OF LAWLESSNESS, THE LOVE OF MANY WILL GROW COLD. BUT THE ONE
WHO ENDURES TO THE END WILL BE SAVED. AND THIS GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM WILL BE
PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, AS A TESTIMONY TO ALL THE NATIONS; AND THEN
THE END WILL COME.
DO TO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM
DO TO YOU.
It is your choice, to love God and your
neighbor, or not to love God and your neighbor.
THEN HE WILL SAY TO THOSE ON HIS LEFT
HAND, 'YOU THAT ARE ACCURSED, DEPART FROM ME INTO THE ETERNAL FIRE PREPARED FOR
THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS; FOR WHEN I WAS HUNGRY YOU GAVE ME NO FOOD, WHEN I WAS
THIRSTY YOU GAVE ME NOTHING TO DRINK; WHEN I WAS A STRANGER YOU DID NOT INVITE
ME IN, WHEN I WAS NAKED YOU DID NOT GIVE ME CLOTHING; WHEN I WAS SICK AND IN
PRISON YOU DID NOT VISIT ME. AND THEY TOO WILL REPLY, LORD, WHEN WAS IT THAT WE
SAW YOU HUNGRY OR THIRSTY OR A STRANGER OR NAKED OR SICK OR IN PRISON, AND DID
NOT DO ANYTHING FOR YOU? AND HE WILL ANSWER, I TELL YOU THIS: ANYTHING YOU DID
NOT DO FOR THE LEAST OF THESE, YOU DID NOT DO FOR ME. AND THESE WILL GO AWAY INTO
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, BUT THE RIGHTEOUS INTO ETERNAL LIFE.
LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR
HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, WITH ALL YOUR MIND. LOVE
YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
----------------------
A copy of the
leaflet may be downloaded here: www.ws5.com/leaflet
----------------------- Return to first page
COMMENTS ON LIFE AFTER DEATH AND NIHILISM
This is a very important topic. For that reason we have written a separate essay on the subject for those who have yet not read our book. It is available at www.ws5.com/nihilism. It duplicates some materials that are included in other topics in the comments and sections in our book. Please excuse the redundancy. Because many modern philosophies attempt to avoid nihilism, it is important that you recognize the rational and logical conclusions that accompany death without life after death, a "nihilistic" death.
Also, here are some additional comments:
In the book we argue that there is no realistic possibility that
human beings have a physical existence that might provide them with a
meaningful life. We say that:
“It seems that if we are to believe that there may be some kind of
singular physical (rather than non-physical) consciousness that survives
physical death, then we must accept that there is some unique physical
consciousness that is "me", that somehow incorporates all of the
conscious events of my life, and that is not dependent on the continuing
physical existence of my biologic body. While current interpretations of
popular theories do not totally rule out the possibility of a perpetual
individual physical consciousness, there is no known method that is both
rational and realistic (i.e.- a theory that appears capable of modeling
physical reality), to construct a physical (as opposed to a non-physical) model
that preserves the singular human physical consciousness of an individual after
the physical death of that person. Modern theories suggest the possibility that
multiple instances of a physical “me” exist in space-time, but they do not
offer even a clue as to how to unite all of those instances into a single
physical “me” whose consciousness spans space-time. Indeed, current
interpretations of quantum superposition seem to deny the possibility of a
“single” physical reality in which a unique “me” might exist.”
“I can visualize and accept a “non-physical consciousness” that
survives physical death, yet I am unable to have any confidence at all in the
existence of a singular “physical consciousness” that survives the physical
death of a human being. To do so, it would seem that I would have to discover a
new physical process that incorporates all the “events” in a human life, and
that creates a unique, singular physical consciousness that continues to exist
in space-time as that human being, or at least as something that we can call a
singular past that belongs to the human being. This seems to me to be an
impossible task. I may be wrong, yet I simply cannot find an accepted physical
theory that supports a unified "physical" consciousness that survives
physical death. Furthermore, I do not know of any credible objective physical
evidence that such a “physical” consciousness might exist. I can say that after
many years of thought I am thoroughly convinced that any attempt to construct a
model of permanent physical consciousness does far more damage to the centuries
of accumulated scientific knowledge, than does the acceptance of the
possibility that a permanent non-physical consciousness may exist.”
“We have concluded that no current,
or reasonably foreseeable, rational theory provides us with a singular physical
consciousness that continues to exist after physical death, so that a single
physical "me" continues to exist after my death in my physical
“past”. We have said that if we do not have a singular physical or non-physical
consciousness that continues to exist after physical death, then those who
believe in nihilism are probably correct, and some type of
"nihilistic" void awaits all of us. It may be a true void, like the
void that preceded our birth, or it may be a very strange void where billions
of "me" merely co-exist. Whatever physical form it might take, it
would seem to satisfy the definition of a "meaningless" void.”
This argument that we present in the book goes against the commonly, indeed almost universally, accepted belief that human life has fundamental meaning. We recognize that when we say:
… “What should our response be to all of this? We strongly believe
that there is absolutely no reason not to live for the possibility that life
has meaning and value. We think we are right about the transitory nature of
physical consciousness, but we may be wrong. If our conclusions are wrong,
perhaps we do in fact have a physical consciousness that survives physical
death. If we are wrong, we may have a perpetual physical existence that gives
meaning and value to our physical lives, even if there is no non-physical life
after death. We will not pursue this possibility, yet you should recognize that
it exists.”
Yet toward the end of the book we again emphasize that we do not
believe that physical existence has meaning.
“This is one of the very most difficult questions we face. Perhaps
if God does not exist and there is no life after death, then if our physical
consciousness has a meaningful existence in the physical universe we should
minimize the negative and maximize the positive physical aspects of each of our
lives by living a “normal life”. Yet we have already said that nothing in
modern physics suggests that there is, or may be, a unique physical (as opposed
to non-physical) consciousness that is "me", that somehow
incorporates all of the conscious events of my life, and that is somehow not
dependent on the physical existence of my biologic body. Classical
interpretations of current theories suggest that if God does not exist, then
there is no life after death, and we are all faced with an endless cycle of
creation and destruction, the meaning of which, if any, is beyond
comprehension. If God does not exist, I strongly believe that science is
telling us that our physical existence has no “meaning”, and that each
generation's death results in the physical annihilation of the past, present,
and future of the members of that generation.”
It is possible that physical life itself has “meaning”. Simply
living your life from birth to death may be a meaningful life. The true nature
of physical existence is unknown, perhaps unknowable. Almost every human being
who lives or has lived, no matter what their cultural or religious beliefs,
view or viewed their life as meaningful. Almost everyone (except perhaps for
true nihilists) believes that the human life they live has true meaning and
value, even if they are unable to describe or quantify it. It is not fair to
say that we can conclude with certainty that, absent a permanent non-human
existence, human physical existence, human life, is meaningless. We strongly
believe that if there is no life after death, science is telling us that our
physical existence has no meaning, yet we may be wrong.
In the book we talk about two major possibilities, yet readers
should recognize that there are three. The possibility we favor in the book is
that science tells me that after my physical death either multiple instances of
a physical “me” exist in space-time, or no physical “me” exists in space-time,
so that no single physical "me" continues to exist after my death,
and therefore my past, present, and future are annihilated by a
"meaningless" void.
The second possibility we also favor in the book is that we are
somehow more than our physical bodies, that we can exist beyond and apart from
those bodies, and that each of us survives physical death and continues to
exist, in some manner and form, beyond the grave. We conclude that we are, or
become through living, unique individuals who possess the ability to engage in
rational thought and exercise freedom of choice transcending biological processes
of determinism, and that we have an existence beyond our physical mind and
body.
Even though we do not believe that the third possibility is a real
possibility, you need to recognize that most people believe that it is.
Essentially it argues that if we are, or become through living, unique
individuals who possess the ability to engage in rational thought, then we have
a meaningful physical existence that is a fundamental part of our physical mind
and body.
To some extent almost everyone believes that the daily lives they
lead have meaning. If we are little more than doomed animals, this universal
belief is to be expected, as we say in the book: “Yet if we are little more
than doomed animals, our intuitive feeling of meaning and value would not be surprising.
From the very beginning, to assure survival of any species, evolution would
certainly have instilled in living creatures the feeling that there is a reason
for them to exist, a reason for them to crawl out of the ocean and build
cities. If there is no life after death, and our lives are in fact consumed by
"nothing", it is no wonder that our genetic heritage argues so
strongly against that possibility.” Yet the universal belief may be more than
wishful thinking, it may be a profound insight recognizing that physical
existence does have meaning.
No matter how strongly we may believe that we are right, no matter
how strongly we believe that physical existence without non-physical existence
is meaningless, we are not willing to conclude with certainty that the rest of
the world is wrong. Perhaps physical life has meaning in and of itself, perhaps
not. In any event, we can say with certainty that we strongly believe that
there is a non-physical life after death that gives meaning and value to human
existence.
We would add that if the third possibility is correct, if there is
no life after death and physical life does have meaning, we do not reach a
conclusion as to whether that physical life would be maximized by living a
“fanatic life”, a “normal life”, or some other life like the “normal life” we
describe in the book. We believe that if there is no non-physical life after
death, physical life has no meaning. We simply do not consider what humans
might do to maximize a physical life if there is no life after death and if
physical life does have meaning.
A brief comment on determinism. In our book we discussed at some length the popular conclusion among scientists that we live in a universe "whose destiny was forever set at creation by the forces between its constituent parts, and whose future unfolds in a billiard ball like progression of predictable actions." We noted that quantum uncertainty "argues for a determinism as certain as any, one that also sees humankind governed by forces beyond its control."
We went on to note that "In a universe that had no living organisms, determinism would not be as hard to accept as it is in our universe inhabited by living creatures. One can visualize a universe devoid of life where every rock, every speck of dust, every atom, every sub-atomic particle, follows a pattern which was forever fixed at creation, and which expands into the future with absolute precision. In an inanimate universe, it not as difficult to accept that rocks, specks of dust, etc., or even groups of these objects, have no ability to alter the course that the laws of physics dictate they follow."
"It is much more difficult to accept that our universe, populated as it is by living organisms, is a totally deterministic one. If super-determinism is correct, we reach the intuitively unlikely result that the absolute time for every blink of our eyes is predetermined, every breath that we take is taken at precise moments and in exact amounts, there is nothing we can do to alter any of our preset physical motions - from moving our head to sneezing. Every change of our minds is inevitable, every thought we have ever had was predetermined and occurred without any chance of alteration. If we live in a deterministic world, I was destined before birth to write precisely the words contained in this paragraph on the day and at the time and on the computer I wrote them on, and when the universe was formed you were destined to read precisely the words contained in this paragraph on the day you are reading them and at the time you are reading them and, not only in the precise location you are reading them, but also wearing the clothes you are wearing, having your hair the exact length that it is, going through the preprogrammed physical motions you are going through, etc. Every thought you are having about what I am saying was predestined to occur without the slightest variation, even your instant reaction to this very sentence was set at creation. This simply does not "seem" to be what actually happens, we intuitively "feel" that we can make choices among alternatives, perhaps so, perhaps not."
It is clear that humans possess a strong intuitive feeling that they have some form of "control" over their lives. You may feel that science already tells us enough about our current existence to be comfortable with the reality of an existence that is purely deterministic. Yet an intellectual belief in determinism is not sufficient to overcome the intuitive feeling that we have some mechanism that allows us to exercise "free will" control over at least a portion of our existence. If you have not already done so, you should perhaps read Penrose's "Emperor's New Mind" (I don't necessarily agree with his ideas, but the book contains a good summary of cosmology) and read what you can on the "many-worlds" theory to familiarize yourself with the absolute mess physics is in.
The classic quantum mechanical paradox of Schrodinger's
cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, tells us that we have
little idea how our perceived universe really works. The
"many-worlds" theory, which states that each time we face a quantum
alternative the universe splits in two, with one alternative occurring in one
universe and the other alternative occurring in the other parallel universe
(i.e., the cat is alive in one universe and dead in the other) is, so far, the
only solid mathematical theory that avoids quantum uncertainty (the collapse of
the wavefunction) and preserves absolute determinism.
I do not really believe that the many-worlds theory as proposed is correct, yet
the traditional
Penrose's book contains an excellent discussion on the possibility that consciousness arises from quantum uncertainty, and that uncertainty is the basis of "free will". I strongly believe in free will, but tend to believe that its origin is more profound than quantum uncertainty. Perhaps quantum uncertainty is a large part of the answer, yet it would seem that the individual must have an ability to somehow "select" among the possible outcomes allowed by quantum uncertainty if meaningful free will exists. Perhaps we have some ability to "alter" the outcomes of the series of quantum events that make up a conscious decision, perhaps not. Recent articles by Penrose suggest that we may indeed be able to maintain quantum superposed states that, if I understand him correctly, we may "choose" between (what he calls Orch OR). This may indeed be the mechanism that allows the free will we intuitively believe we have. If so, we truly have the ability to make unique choices among alternatives. Interestingly, a selection process associated with quantum actualization would probably be time asymmetric and could account for the arrow of time we intuitively believe exists. Even with continuing advances in consciousness research, at this point in history, it appears that science is unable with any degree of certainty to explain, prove, or disprove the existence of a consciousness that allows for meaningful free will choice among alternatives. If free will exists, it exists, period.
From a philosophical viewpoint it is equally unclear what role determinism plays in our lives. Many philosophers have pursued tortured paths of logic to find a mechanism for meaningful freewill in a fully deterministic universe. We believe that is an impossible task. A brief essay by Dr. Norman Schwartz (http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm) provides an example of the difficulty of reinterpreting scientific determinism to allow for a “philosophical determinism” that is less restrictive. Perhaps the best humanistic discussion of the true implications of determinism is to be found at (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm). Professor Honderich offers many references to philosophers who are interested in determinism. While extraordinarily difficult to read, his papers highlight the incredible difficulty, perhaps impossibility, of reconciling determinism and free will (see also http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/quicklistroute.htm ). The following quotation emphasizes the philosophical dilemma of determinism:
“What this comes to is that the culmination of a life, say, is a matter of plain determinism, but there seems also to be the possibility of some kind of explanation of it that is different in kind. Some kind of departure from determinism, or unexpected addition to it. At any rate there is a problem or paradox here. The putative explanation would be consistent with determinism, indeed within it, but different in kind. I have wondered, entirely unsuccessfully, if the thing is worth reflection in connection with determinism and the attitudes in which we can find ourselves persisting. But I offer it here as another indication of the extent to which we should start out anew with determinism and freedom.”
We are thoroughly convinced that quantum gravity (not quantum mechanics) will eventually offer the sought for departure from physical determinism, giving us a non-probabilistic, non-deterministic, mechanism that allows for meaningful free will.
COMMENTS ON HEAVEN AND HELL
There are many theologians who believe that hell does not exist as a place of eternal punishment. While we do not agree with all the comments in the following article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), it offers a summary of Catholic theology at the time it was written: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm We believe there is a physical hell. We also believe that God does not determine who will be punished in hell, rather human beings make the choice to do that which if they do they will live forever in heaven. If they do not choose to do so, then we believe they will live forever in hell. I have absolute faith that if God exists and if there is a hell, no one will live in hell unless they have been given the choice not to do that which if they do they will live in hell. I have absolute faith that if there is a heaven and a hell, no one will live in hell unless they have been given the choice to do that which if they do they will live forever in heaven, and they have not chosen to do that which if they do they will live forever in heaven.
LIMITS OF LOGIC
A number of philosophers and logicians refer to the universe as being "constrained" by logic, and some assert that this is a statement which is subject to logical proof. While it may or may not be true that the universe is constrained by logic, logic cannot be used to prove the truth of that statement. Being a part of the whole, logical arguments are subject to the same uncertainty that scientific theorems are. Confusion between definitions and "truths" leads to the assumption that logic is a fundamental truth. Since logical arguments can be formally stated in mathematical language, a simple addition example may be useful to see the limits of this "logic". It is true by definition that 1 + 1 = 2. Further there is an underlying reality which affirms that if you have one electron in a box, and you introduce another into the same box, you have two electrons in the box. This is true because it is assumed that electrons are identical so that one cannot distinguish among electrons. Assume, however, that the laws of the universe allow the following to happen. Let us say that at some unknown fundamental level all electrons are mere disturbances in a universal wave equation such that when an electron is added to a box the entire wave is affected and the first electron is in some fashion altered (this is contrary to current knowledge, and perhaps is not possible, however since we cannot prove anything we cannot know if this is or will be possible, or not). If this alteration occurs, adding an electron to the box would result in two "electrons", but they would not be the same electrons that existed before they were placed in the box. To some extent it would still be true by definition that when one item was added to another item in a box, the result was two items in the box. However, this definitionally true statement would not be sufficient to support a logical system that requires one item plus one item to equal two of the same items. In other words, since the underlying rules of the reality of this universe may or may not be subject to change, any logical system existing within this universe is subject to change. It is possible that 1 + 1 will not equal 2 in any meaningful sense, that true + true may be false, and therefore that the foundations of our logical system may disappear. Or they may not, we simply cannot use logic (or anything else) to determine which statement is true.
A brief comment on Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor basically says that given a choice between two equally possible solutions, we should accept the simpler of the two solutions over the more complex solution unless proven otherwise. It is often used by atheists to suggest that we should accept the "simpler" solutions of science over the "more complex" solutions that recognize the existence of God. It is one of those logical/philosophical concepts that seems to fit what one is predisposed to believe it fits (it certainly could be said to argue against the complexity of quantum physics). I really do not find it useful at all, but for those who do, I would suggest the following. I find that the suggestion that the universe we live in was formed by the interaction of physical laws is far more complex, approaching infinitely more complex, than the suggestion that God exists and somehow has "control" over the physical laws. The universe we live in is a universe of incredibly low entropy where matter is "arranged" in the most complex ways imaginable. To be like it is today, at creation our universe had to have initial conditions that would be present in only one out of an almost infinite number of possible other universes. This suggests to me that one who follows Occam's Razor would accept that God exists rather than accepting the more complex solution that has a chance of occurring of only 1 out of an almost infinite number of alternate possibilities. Again, I do not believe that Occam's Razor can be used to logically "prove" anything, and I equally do not believe that it can be used to "disprove", or to suggest the probability, that anything is untrue.
As I walk down a street and look at bricks and mortar and asphalt and dirt and grass and paint and trees, I realize that every single thing I see is made up of billions upon billions upon billions of tiny atoms, all arranged to be that which I see. All of the atoms are made up of an unimaginable number of sub-atomic particles that possess incredibly complex and strange properties. I recognize that each of the atoms and the sub-atomic particles are actually "lumps" of matter made entirely out of disturbances of energy. And in the middle of this world of something made from "nothing", I stand with the conscious understanding that I am made of the same stuff, yet with the intuitive feeling that I am somehow "more". I will not accept that it is logical to assume that both I, and the almost infinitely complex world around me, are creations without meaning.
COMMENTS ON PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
I have absolute faith that if God exists God is good.
I strongly believe that it is not God’s will that bad things happen to people.
Therefore, I strongly believe that God never causes bad things to happen, rather God allows bad things to happen.
I strongly believe
that God allows bad to exist because to do good we must have the choice to do
that which is good or to do that which is bad. To do that which is good we must
make the choice to do that which is good. If during our life on earth we could only do that which was good,
if at some point in our physical existence we did not have the free will choice
to do that which is good or not, we simply could not do that which is good. To
do good during our physical lives we must choose to do good instead of evil.
This fully explains to me why some human beings choose to do that which is bad, and why God allows them to choose to do that which is bad.
Another question arises. Why do bad events (like disease – as opposed to bad acts like murder) occur in the life of those who do that which is good?
The first question is do bad events actually occur in the life of those who do that which is good? Some suggest that bad events happen only in the life of those who do that which is bad, not in the life of those who do that which is good. I strongly believe that, just as bad events happen in the life of those who do that which is bad, bad events happen in the life of those who do that which is good. Illness and accidents cause a large percentage of people to suffer, missionaries get cancer, masses of people are killed in warfare, natural disasters take the lives of large groups of people. I may be wrong, yet it seems clear to me that many of those who do that which is good suffer bad events in their lives.
So the question is, does God cause bad events? And if the answer is no, why does God allow bad events to happen?
Many answer that God allows bad events to test us. Yet this answer seems less than satisfactory to me. It is clear that God does not want any human being to choose to do that which is bad, so it is clear that God does not want any human being to choose to do that which is bad so that another human being might be tested by their acts. It seems similarly clear to me that God does not want any human being to suffer from that which is bad, so God does not want any human being to suffer that which is bad so that the human being might be tested. I may be wrong, yet I strongly believe that God does not want any human being to do that which is bad, and that God does not want any human being to suffer from a bad event. So why do bad events happen?
This is a very difficult question. There is an answer that I strongly believe is true.
Perhaps if there were no bad events in human lives, then human beings would have no choice between doing that which is good and doing that which is bad. If every human being had only good events in their lives, then every human being would have plenty of food, drink, clothing, etc. There would be no reason for a human being to do that which is bad to another human being, simply because each human being would live a life that is filled with good events. Yet even among those who have maximum physical comforts, there are some who for their own physical pleasure choose to do that which is bad to other people. So with or without bad events human beings may choose to do that which is bad or that which is good.
Perhaps it has more to do with the essence of free will? If we know that our choice to do that which is good or that which is bad will determine if the events in our life are good or bad, then we are presented with the absolute choice to do that which is good and receive good events, or the absolute choice to do that which is bad and receive bad events. The choice no longer is to do that which is good because it is that which is good, rather it is to do that which is good so that good events will occur in our life. The choice no longer is to do that which is bad because it is that which is bad, rather it is predetermined that bad events will follow a bad act, and we know that if we do that which is bad then bad events will occur in our life.
It seems clear to me that giving human beings the absolute choice between receiving good events or bad events eliminates their choice to do that which is good, just as much as not allowing human beings to choose to do that which is bad takes from them the choice to do that which is good. I strongly believe that God allows bad events to exist because to do good we must have the choice to do that which is good or to do that which is bad, without the absolute knowledge that if we do that which is good then good events will occur in our life, and if we do that which is bad then bad events will occur in our life. A similar reason also exists.
There is another very difficult question that appears to be left open. If those who experience only good events can choose to do that which is good or choose to do that which is bad, why would God not cause only good events to occur in the lives of all human beings? If only good events occurred in every human life that would seem to not necessarily take away the choice of each individual to do that which is good or to do that which is bad. Does that mean that bad events might be caused or allowed by God to test human beings?
There is a final, essential, point, that I believe answers this question. It is clear that God could make his existence known beyond any reasonable doubt to every human being who is living today, perhaps by appearing to each of us. Why does God not appear to us in such a manner that faith becomes knowledge for all of us? It seems clear to me that God will not make his existence known to humankind beyond any doubt, because by doing so God would take from human beings the choice to do that which is good or to do that which is bad. Why is this true?
During our life on earth God gives us the choice to do that which is good or to do that which is evil, so that we may do that which is good. It seems clear that after they have made their choice, God will gather together those who choose to do that which is good so that they may be in the presence of God, the One who is good. It also seems clear that after they have made their choice, God will gather together those who choose to do that which is evil so that they may be separated from those who choose to do that which is good and who will live in the presence of God, the One who is good. It seems absolutely clear that those who choose to do evil will not live in the presence of God, the One who is good. That is what human death does, physical death is when God separates those who choose to do that which is good from those who choose to do that which is evil. Those who choose to do that which is good go to heaven to live in the presence of God, the One who is good, those who do not choose to do that which is good go to hell.
If human beings knew for an absolute fact that God exists, and knew that if they do that which is good they will live in heaven and if they do that which is bad they will live in hell, then their choice would no longer be to do that which is good or that which is bad, their choice would be to live in heaven or live in hell. It seems clear to me that this is true.
If only good events occurred in every human being’s life, it would seem to be either absolute, or at least very strong, proof of the existence of God. If no falling tree ever hit anyone, if there was no disease to bring pain, if no automobile driver ever had an accident, then the physical world would be like a “heaven” on earth, a place only God, the One who is good, could create. If every event in the universe was a good event, and only human acts were bad, it would be absolute, or almost absolute, evidence that the Universe was created by a Supreme Being who is good. If there were no natural disasters, no accidents, no diseases, no bad events, if the only bad things on earth were bad human acts, then it would be clear that the universe is ruled by One who is good. A universe in which only good events occur would allow for no, or almost no, possibility of creation and evolution without the existence of God, leaving no doubt, or almost no doubt, that God, the One who is good, exists.
It seems that if God did not allow bad events to occur, then human beings would know that God exists, and would not have the choice to do that which is good or to do that which is bad, rather the choice that they would have would be to live in heaven or live in hell. I am convinced that without the choice to do that which is good or to do that which is bad, human beings could not do that which is good. Therefore, God allows bad events to happen so that human beings will have the choice to do that which is good, so that they may do that which is good and live forever in heaven.
This fully explains to me why God does not make his existence absolutely clear to human beings.
This also fully explains to me why God allows people to do that which is bad to those who do that which is good, and why God allows bad events to occur in the lives of those who do that which is good.
I have absolute faith that if God
exists, and if there is a heaven, then if we choose to do God's will, we will
live forever in heaven in the presence of God, the One alone who is good. After
one moment in heaven, we will know that every single moment of our existence,
for the rest of eternity, will be filled with the joy of real, true, pure love.
We will know that our entire being will be totally filled with real, true, pure
love, forever. All the illness, pain, and sorrow we experienced during our life
on earth will vanish completely. In an instant, memories of even the worst
tortures that happened to us before our death will be overwhelmed by the love
that surrounds us, and will "disappear" forever. All the bad events
in our lives, the disease and accidents and other horrors, along with all the
bad acts that people did against us, will be completely overwhelmed by love,
and it will be as if they never happened. We will exist in the presence of
real, true, pure, perfect love, forever. We will exist in the presence of God,
the One who is good.
COMMENTS ON WHAT WE CAN AND SHOULD DO
A brief comment on what each of us can and should do. I have faith that we can and should choose to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength, and to love our neighbor as we love ourself. God commands us to do nothing more, nothing less. Think about this carefully. We may choose not to love as God would have us love, yet what we actually choose to do does not change the fact that each and every one of us can and should choose to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength, and to love our neighbor as we love ourself. At every moment in each and every one of our lives we should do nothing more, we should do nothing less, period. Again, this does not mean that we will do what we can and should do, yet at every moment we may make the free will choice to do what we can and should do. We may not choose to do so, but every moment of our life we can and should love as God would have us love.
It is very important to understand that, whether we choose to do what we can and should do, or not, each and every moment of our lives we can and should love as God would have us love. There is no reason to search for something more, something less. There is absolutely no reason to search for anything else that we should do. There is nothing else that we should do. An example, what if you are not willing to share your ample harvest with a hundred people, but you are willing to share it with fifty people. The question is not "should" you love your neighbor as yourself and share your food with the fifty, for the answer is always the same, you "can and should" love your neighbor as yourself and share your food with the hundred people. The fact that you "can and should" love your neighbor as yourself and feed the hundred, does not mean that you "should not" feed the fifty people. This is where many become confused. It is wrong to say that if you are not willing to do what you can and should do, love your neighbor as yourself and feed the hundred, then you "should" feed the fifty. The fact that you are unwilling to feed the hundred does not change the fact that you "can and should" love your neighbor as yourself and feed the hundred, period. Yet this does not mean that you should not feed as many people as you are willing to feed. If you feed the fifty perhaps God will forgive you for having not chosen to do what you "can and should" do, for not loving your neighbor as yourself and feeding the hundred (see our comments in the next topic).
We should never do less than we can and should do, we should never do more. We should not do less for if we choose to love as God would have us love we will do our best, and our best is something that we can always choose to do. We do not need to do more for if we choose to love as God would have us love we will do our best, and our best is all that we can do. I believe that if I sat down to decide what God would have me do every moment of my life, what I can and should do about feeding the poor, caring for the sick, visiting the lonely, what I can and should do about everything in my life, and I thought and thought and thought and thought about it for a day, a year, or a lifetime, at the end of the day, year, or lifetime I would always reach the same conclusion, I can and should love God with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, and with all my strength, and love my neighbor as I love myself. Whenever we are asked what we can and should do, I have faith that the answer always is that we can and should choose to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength, and to love our neighbor as our self. There is never any time when the answer is to do any less, or any more. Think about this very, very carefully, we can and should choose to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength, and to love our neighbor as our self.
Jesus said: “You have heard that it was said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But what I tell you is this: love your enemies.... Do good to those who hate you,.... Pray for those who abuse and.... Persecute you; so that you may be children of your father in heaven, who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? Be perfect therefore, even as your father in heaven is perfect.”
Some people will love you, some will hate you, some will love you one minute and hate you the next. If you complete your search of your heart, mind, and soul you will know and understand love, and you will know and understand that no matter what your neighbor does to you, you can and should love your neighbor as yourself. If you complete your search of your heart, mind, and soul and know and understand love, then you will know and understand that if you love your neighbor as yourself you will communicate God’s word to them with the hope that they will love God and their neighbors as God would have them love. Those neighbors who love as God would have them love are doing all that they can and should do, it is those neighbors who do not love God and their neighbors as God would have them love who need help from their neighbors.
If you love a neighbor who hates you, you will give them food if they are hungry, water if they are thirsty, and shelter if they are homeless. If you love a neighbor who is your enemy you will care for them if they are sick, visit them if they are in prison, and comfort them if they are lonely. If you love a neighbor who does not love God and their neighbor as God would have them love, you will communicate God’s word to them so that they may choose to love as God would have them love, and after their physical death live forever in heaven in the presence of God.
If you know and understand love, you know and understand that it is right and good to love your neighbor as yourself, period.
COMMENTS ON A LESSER LOVE AND LIVING A
[Please note that we have published a website with notes primarily intended for those who are unwilling to live a fanatic life: www.lifenotes.org ]
Most of this section was moved to the Appendices of our book. Additional comments may be added here in the future.
There are two logical arguments we want to repeat here that we believe support our conclusion that we should live a “fanatic” life. They are based on that which I have absolute faith in. I have absolute faith that if God exists, God is good. I have absolute faith that if God exists, God is perfect. I have absolute faith that if God exists, God does that which is good. I have absolute faith that if God exists, God would have us do that which is good.
First: If
I love a neighbor who is hungry and thirsty what will I do? The answer is that I
will give them food and water. No matter how hard I have tried to find another
answer, if I love my neighbor and my neighbor is hungry and thirsty, I cannot
imagine not giving them food and water. If you know and understand the love
that God has given us, you know and understand that there is no other answer.
This alone tells me that if we love our neighbor, we will not live a
"normal life", we will live what we will call a "fanatic
life".
I simply
do not see any way whatsoever to reach another conclusion. If our neighbor is
hungry, or thirsty, or sick, or homeless, or cold, we should give them food and
water, and care for them and give them shelter and clothing. You will almost
certainly always have neighbors who are hungry, thirsty, sick, homeless, and
cold. If you love as yourself a neighbor who is hungry, or thirsty, or sick, or
homeless, or cold, I do not see how you could use money that would buy food and
water and shelter and clothing for them, to take friends to a restaurant, go to
a movie, buy a television, etc. If you love as yourself a neighbor who is
hungry, or thirsty, or sick, or homeless, or cold, I do not see how you could
take the time to go with friends to a restaurant, a movie, a store, etc.,
instead of giving your neighbors food and water and care and shelter and
clothing. I simply do not see any way whatsoever not to reach the conclusion
that we should live a fanatic life.
Second: If
we can kill a neighbor and prevent them from killing two other neighbors, it is
not God’s will that two people be killed, it is not God’s will that one person
be killed, it is God’s will that the person who would kill repent and that no
one be killed. Each and every human being who has not totally rejected God, can
repent, be forgiven, and do God's will. The person who intends to do physical harm can, at any time up to
the very moment that they cause physical harm, repent and choose not to inflict
physical harm.
I strongly
believe that to prevent one neighbor from doing physical harm to another
neighbor, God would have us communicate God's word to our neighbors so that all
might know and understand, and choose to do, God's will. If we do God's will,
we will communicate God's will to our neighbors by both word and deed. We will
communicate God's word to our neighbors by telling them God’s word. We will
communicate God's word to our neighbors by our deeds, by giving food to our
hungry neighbors, water to our thirsty neighbors, shelter to our homeless
neighbors, and by not doing physical harm to neighbors who hate us and who are
our enemies.
I simply
do not see any way whatsoever to reach another conclusion. It is not
God’s will that two people be killed, it is not God’s will that one person be
killed, it is God’s will that the person who would kill repent and that no one
be killed. The person who would kill another person can repent and choose not
to kill that person. God is perfect. It is not God’s will that we kill the
person who would kill, it is God’s will that the person who would kill choose
to repent and not kill. It is absolutely clear to me that it is God’s will that
the person who would kill repent and not kill. I do not see any logical way
whatsoever to say that it is also God’s will that we kill the person who would
kill. The person who would kill may not repent, but they can repent, and it is
God’s will that they do repent and not kill. Again, I simply do not see any way whatsoever not to reach the conclusion
that we should live a fanatic life.
I am
convinced that these two logical arguments support, indeed require, the
conclusion that we should live a fanatic life.
Even
though I strongly believe that each and every one of us can and should live a
“fanatic life”, I intuitively believe that very, very, very, very few will
choose to live such a life. Almost everyone who chooses to love God and their
neighbor will choose to love God and their neighbor with a “lesser love” than
God would have them choose, with the hope that God will forgive them. Almost
everyone who chooses to love God and their neighbor will choose to marry and
have a family, to have a successful career, to support government use of
minimal physical force to minimize physical harm, etc.
If you are
unwilling to live a “fanatic life”, read again the description of a “normal
life” in Appendix B of our book, “Love – In Search of a Reason for Living” and
read the materials on our LifeNotes website. If you
are unwilling to live a “fanatic life”, live a “normal life” like the “normal
life” we describe in the appendix. If you are unwilling to live a “fanatic
life”, communicate God’s word to your neighbors so that they may choose to love
God and their neighbors. If you are unwilling to live a “fanatic life”, give as
much food, water, and shelter, to as many of your hungry, thirsty, and homeless
neighbors as you are willing to give. If you are unwilling to live a “fanatic
life”, do as little physical harm to your neighbors as you are willing to do to
minimize the physical harm that they do to their neighbors. Choose to live a
“normal life” like the “normal life” we described, with the hope that God may
forgive you.
--
A brief
additional comment on living a fanatic life. I have absolute faith that God
will do that which is good toward those who know and understand God’s will, and
I have absolute faith that God will do that which is good toward those who do
not know and understand God’s will. For some time it has seemed to me that the
fact that God will do that which is good toward those who do not know and
understand God’s will, makes it ok for those who choose to live a fanatic life
to rest between efforts to communicate God’s word to people. If it was not
true, which it is, that God will do that which is good toward those who do not
know and understand God’s will, then I would conclude that we should do as much
as we physically can in as little time as possible to communicate God’s word to
people, and I would conclude that we should do so at the expense of giving food
to the hungry, etc. In other words, I would conclude that it was essential that
we communicate God’s word to as many people as we can in the shortest possible
length of time so that people might not be punished because we had not
communicated God’s word to them and they did not know and understand and do
God’s will.
If we
communicate God’s word to someone, and they know and understand God’s will, God
will do that which is good toward them. If we communicate God’s word to
someone, and they know and understand God’s will, then it is their choice to do
God’s will or not. If we do not communicate God’s word to someone, and they do
not know and understand God’s will, God will do that which is good toward them.
The fact that God will do that which is good toward those who do not know and
understand God’s will, tells us that those who do not know and understand God’s
will shall not be punished because we have not communicated God’s word to them,
allowing us more time to communicate God’s word to our neighbors and give food
to hungry neighbors and give water to thirsty neighbors and care for sick
neighbors.
Yet having
more time does not in any way mean that there are times when we should not
communicate God’s word to our neighbors, not give food to hungry neighbors, not
give water to thirsty neighbors, and not care for sick neighbors. Indeed it is
God’s will that we do all these things. The question is how quickly must we
communicate God’s word to our neighbors?
It is an
interesting question whether or not if we love the Lord our God with all our
heart, with all our mind, with all our soul, and with all our strength, and
love our neighbor as ourself, we will act at the
maximum possible speed that we are physically capable of sustaining. I think
that is not what will happen. Rather, I believe that if we love the Lord our
God with all our heart, with all our mind, with all our soul, and with all our
strength, and love our neighbor as ourself, we will
do that which is good toward our neighbors, yet our actions will not always
reach the level of maximum physical and mental ability. I do believe that
knowledge of the fact that God will do that which is good toward those who know
and understand God’s will, and that God will do that which is good toward those
who do not know and understand God’s will, gives us certainty and peace that
allows us to move steadily, yet not feverishly, forward as we communicate God’s
word to our neighbors, give food to hungry neighbors, give water to thirsty
neighbors, and care for sick neighbors.
I may be wrong, yet I believe that if we live a fanatic life
it is right and good to move steadily forward at a rapid, yet not a frantic,
fearful, pace as we
communicate God’s word to our neighbors, give food to hungry neighbors, give
water to thirsty neighbors, and care for sick neighbors.
--
Some additional comments - I do not believe that I can in good conscience conclude anything less than that the almost infinitely small probability that the universe was created at random tells us that it is almost infinitely likely that God exists (see an excerpt from the Roger Penrose book reprinted below under Miscellaneous comments). Yet, I also do not believe that I can in good conscience conclude that there is absolutely no possibility that God does not exist. As we have said before, the possibility / probability that God exists does not alter the truth, if God does not exist God does not exist, if God does exist God does exist, period. The concepts of possibility and probability only have meaning until we have knowledge of which of the apparently possible alternatives is true. At the point we know which of the apparently possible alternatives is true, all other proposed possibilities become impossibilities, and we know that the probability of their being true is zero (as in fact it always was). Even though I believe it to be infinitely unlikely that God does not exist, I do not believe that I have sufficient knowledge to know with absolutely certainty that God does exist, therefore I am unwilling to conclude that it is not a possibility that God does not exist.
With that said, I am also unwilling to conclude that it is not possible that, as we say in our book:
“a ‘normal
life’ is the life that maximizes human needs for food, water, shelter,
companionship, procreation, etc., along with intellectual needs for self-worth,
compassion, humor, self-satisfaction, altruism, etc. Perhaps all human lives
are maximized when each human being focuses on, and loves, the members of their
family and extended family. If so, it would not mean that those who love family
members should not love other people, it would simply mean that their lives
would not be maximized by loving all human beings with the same love.”
It is
possible that a “normal life” maximizes human existence, a normal life that is
the result of millions of years of human biologic and environmental
development, modified by human communication and intellect. If so, perhaps the
relatively self-centered, or at least family-centered, human being who is
“self-fulfilled” by successes in romantic relationships, procreation, career,
sports, etc., is the human being who lives a physical life that is maximized? I
strongly believe that such a life is not the life that human beings can and
should live, I strongly believe that such a life does not maximize human
existence, yet I may be wrong.
While I believe it to be impossible, I am also unwilling to
conclude that it is not possible that such a normal life has meaning even if it is a finite life that ends
at the grave. My conclusions about physical death annihilating the physical
past, present, and future of human beings are controversial, if for no other
reason than the fact that the greatest physicists of our time do not understand
the fundamental physical nature of space-time. I am unwilling to rule out the
possibility that every human life acquires meaning and value as that physical
life is lived.
None-the-less, I am convinced that if God does not exist and there is no life after death, our physical death does annihilate our physical life, rendering life meaningless (please remember, we strongly believe that life does in fact have meaning and value). So even though I am unwilling to conclude that if God does not exist it is not possible that human physical life has meaning and value, I do conclude that if God does not exist the probability of human physical life having meaning and value is virtually nil. I may be wrong, I may be right.
I have
faith that God exists. I am convinced that we can and should live a “fanatic
life”. If you are unwilling to live a fanatic life, then choose to live a
“normal life” like the “normal life” we described in our book, with the hope
that God may forgive you.
COMMENTS ON LIVING A FANATIC LIFE
[Please note that we have published a website with notes primarily intended for those who are unwilling to live a fanatic life: www.lifenotes.org ]
Some additional comments on living a fanatic life.
From our book – longer version of Appendix B:
What will our life be like
if we love God and our neighbors as God would have us love? What will our life
be like if we love God and our neighbors with a "lesser love"? These
are very, very, difficult questions. It is intuitively true that if we love God
and our neighbors we will give food to a starving child, water to a thirsty
stranger, shelter to someone who is homeless and cold. This intuitive truth is
strong and basic. Is it always good to give a drink of water to a thirsty
neighbor? There may be situations where we must choose to give water to one of
two neighbors who are literally dying of thirst, based on our evaluation of
which neighbor must have the water immediately to live and which one can
survive without water at that moment. There may be times when we are physically
prevented from giving water to a thirsty neighbor, or when there may be other
negative consequences of doing so. Yet it is intuitively clear that the basic,
fundamental, statement "we should give water to a thirsty neighbor"
is always true.
So where does all that we
have said leave us? Does it leave us with pragmatic, situation ethics, where
that which is "good" is determined by individual circumstances? I do
not believe that it does. There is a single answer for all situations, that
answer is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your
soul, with all your mind, with all your strength"
and "love your neighbor as yourself". As we have said, whether or not
that which we do is good or bad, right or wrong, is determined by whether or
not we love God and our neighbor as God would have us love.
Perhaps God will forgive
us if we love God and our neighbor with a lesser love, yet that does not change
the fact that you can and should "love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength" and
"love your neighbor as yourself", nothing more, nothing less, period.
There is no question that if because I love God and my neighbor as God would
have me love, I give my neighbor something to eat or drink, then I have done
that which I can and should do, I have done that which is good.
So if we love as God would
have us love, what actions will we take in what most people consider to be
typical daily situations? We have already talked about people who live lives
that are called "normal" because they mimic the lives of those who
surround them. Beyond a "normal" life being nothing more than a life
style that has been adopted by many, there is a general consensus that there
are normal lives that are also "good lives". There are many, many
different ideas about what kind of life is both a
"normal life" and a "good life", what kind of life is truly
happy, pleasant, exciting, positive, etc. Let us look at a life that most would
consider, for a middle age man or woman, to be characteristic of a "good
life", a life where each individual has:
1. Strong spiritual
beliefs and faith:
Faith in
God. Strong spiritual beliefs and faith that provide a
foundation for daily living. Active membership and
participation in a church, synagogue, or other place of worship.
2. A strong family unit:
Marriage
to a spouse who has strong positive characteristics, few negative traits, and
is both loving and supportive. A life long relationship filled with love
between husband and wife. Living as "one flesh"
with our spouse, never lusting after him or her, but rather loving our spouse
and out of that love welcoming the physical pleasure that accompanies sexual
relations. Two children, a boy and a girl, who are
healthy, bright, energetic, loving children. Parents and close relatives
who are healthy, supportive, loving, individuals. Friends who
are loving members of an "extended family".
3. Economic and personal
security:
A well paying job that
gives employees plenty of time at home and provides sufficient income for the
family's comfort, including a pleasant, yet modest house in a pretty setting
that has enough room for the family, a yard for the children to play in, and
that is in good repair. Modest furniture, including a nice couch, soft chairs,
pretty tables, comfortable beds, etc. A simple but nice television, vcr, stereo, stove, refrigerator,
microwave, personal computer, etc. Two late model, medium
size cars with safety and basic comfort options. Nutritious and tasty
meals, including reasonably priced restaurant meals several times a month. Protection from criminal activity and threats from foreign governments,
provided by government agencies using social programs, diplomacy, and the
minimum police and military force necessary to prevent one person from doing
physical harm to another person.
4. Recreation and sports:
Participation
by the adults in a sport at least a few hours a week. Participation
by the children in one or more sports. Two to four weeks of family
vacations each year in pleasant, inexpensive locations. Hobbies such as
electronics, photography, crafts, woodworking, cooking, etc., that cost little
to participate in.
5. Lifestyle:
Several
hours a day with our children, helping them with homework, games, sports,
reading, learning, etc. Several hours a day with our
spouse, talking, playing games, working around the house, etc. Several hours a week with other members of our family and extended
family, enjoying games, sports, hobbies, etc. Several hours a week for
volunteer work at hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. Several
hours a week for volunteer work with children and adults who are lonely and
need companionship. Generous donations to international,
national, and local charitable organizations. A
pleasant, happy, positive attitude toward all our neighbors – including family,
friends, and strangers. A pleasant, happy, positive
outlook toward our “normal” daily lives.
This is what most people
would call a "good life". It appears that years of human biologic
development, modified by human communication and intellect, have led to the
majority view that this is the life we should live. Indeed, most people believe
that this is the life that God would have us live. It is a life that focuses
primary love and attention on family and self, and secondary love and attention
on friends, while at the same time providing what each individual considers to
be their fair share of love, care, and help to those outside what is commonly
known as an extended family.
Is such a "normal
life" really a "good life", a life that God would have us live,
or not? It is possible that a
"normal life" is the life that maximizes human needs for food, water,
shelter, companionship, procreation, etc., along with intellectual needs for
self-worth, compassion, humor, self-satisfaction, altruism, etc. Perhaps all
human lives are maximized when each human being focuses on, and loves, the
members of their family and extended family. If so, it would not mean that
those who love family members should not love other people, it would simply
mean that their lives would not be maximized by loving all human beings with
the same love.
It seems likely that many
who live a "normal life" would have success building their personal
wealth, and would then have large amounts of money to give to those in need.
Perhaps that would lead to everyone having far more food, clothing, and shelter
than they would have if people simply shared their limited resources with each
other. If this is true, then both those who are hungry and those who are not
might have their lives maximized by every person focusing their love and attention
on their family and extended family.
Perhaps building a healthy
economy is better for everyone than distributing food to satisfy immediate
hunger. Perhaps all lives are maximized by living a "normal life",
and not by loving all human beings with the same love. If this is true, perhaps
if we love our neighbors we will live a "normal life". Indeed, it may
be that each of us should be happy when most of us live a "normal
life", that each of us should be willing to accept a lesser life so that
the greatest possible number of us can have this kind of "good life".
If such a life is the
"best life" we can live, it is clear that God would have us live a
"normal life". Furthermore, on our death God would grant eternal life
in heaven both to those who lived such a "normal life" and to those
who lived a lesser life so that others could live a "normal life".
Perhaps if you "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your
soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength,
and love your neighbor as yourself", you will live a "normal
life", and you will help as many neighbors as possible live the same kind
of life.
The collective wisdom of
generations of human beings who want to do that which is good,
is that God would have us live a "normal life". The vast majority of
people believe that we should do the best that we can to maximize the positive
physical aspects of our lives on earth, while minimizing the negative. Most
view life after death as a separate existence from life on earth, where those
people who lived a normal life on earth will live a joyous life in heaven.
Human beings intuitively believe that they should do the best they can to make
physical life on earth as “good” as it can be. They seek a normal life, even if
that means feeding only half of their neighbors a hearty meal instead of giving
something to all of them; taking their family on vacation instead of building a
shelter for a homeless family; killing someone to prevent someone else from
being killed; etc. We live in the present, and seldom question whether or not
the "normal life" we seek is the life that God would have us live.
This is one of the very
most difficult questions we face. Perhaps if God does not exist and there is no
life after death, then if our physical consciousness has a meaningful existence
in the physical universe we should minimize the negative and maximize the
positive physical aspects of each of our lives by living a “normal life”. Yet
we have already said that nothing in modern physics suggests that there is, or
may be, a unique physical (as opposed to non-physical) consciousness that is
"me", that somehow incorporates all of the conscious events of my
life, and that is somehow not dependent on the physical existence of my biologic
body. Classical interpretations of current theories suggest that if God does
not exist, then there is no life after death, and we are all faced with an
endless cycle of creation and destruction, the meaning of which, if any, is
beyond comprehension. If God does not exist, I strongly believe that science is
telling us that our physical existence has no “meaning”, and that each
generation's death results in the physical annihilation of the past, present,
and future of the members of that generation.
Perhaps if God does exist
and there is a life after death, God would have us live a normal life on earth,
so that the sum of our existence before and after physical death might in some
sense be as positive as possible. Perhaps we should concentrate on living the
most positive physical life we can, with the hope that
if we live a “normal life” on earth we have done the best that we can to live a
“good life”. Yet I do not believe that this is true. It is possible that a
"normal life" is not a "good life". Indeed, I believe that
a "normal life" seems like a "good life" to the vast
majority of people simply because most of us have not completed our search of
our heart, mind, and soul, and do not know and understand the love that God has
given us.
If I love a neighbor who
is hungry and thirsty what will I do? The answer is that I will give them food
and water. No matter how hard I have tried to find another answer, if I love my
neighbor and my neighbor is hungry and thirsty, I cannot imagine not giving them
food and water. If you know and understand the love that God has given us, you
know and understand that there is no other answer. This alone tells me that if
we love our neighbor as God would have us love, we will not live a "normal
life", we will live a "fanatic life".
If you have completed your
search of your heart, mind, and soul, your very being, you know and understand
the love that God has given us, and you know and understand that you can and
should "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul,
with all your mind, with all your strength" and "love your neighbor
as yourself". If a person lives a “normal life” he or she focuses
attention on their extended family, and favors them to the exclusion of those
outside it. I do not believe that it is reasonable to conclude that those who
focus attention and love on an extended family, but not on neighbors who are
outside their extended family, love their neighbors as God would have them
love. I simply do not believe that it is reasonable to say that someone who
purchases an automobile for their family instead of using the money to feed
hungry children, loves those children as God would
have them love. If you love a child as yourself, and the child is hungry, I do
not see how you could use money that would buy a meal for that child, to take
friends to a restaurant, go to a movie, buy a television, etc. Those who focus
attention and love on an extended family may not hate their neighbors, yet it
would seem that they do not love them as they can and should.
So what will we do if we
live a "fanatic life"? If you love your neighbor as yourself, you
will do what you can so that each and every one of your neighbors knows and
understands that they can and should choose to do that which is good, that they
can and should choose to do God’s will. We know that if God exists and there is
a heaven, then if our neighbors choose to do God's will, our neighbors will
live forever in heaven, there is nothing better. We know that if God exists and
there is a hell, then if our neighbors do not choose to do God's will, they
will live forever in hell, there is nothing worse. It seems clear that if I
love my neighbors as God would have me love them, I will do all that I can so
that each and every one of my neighbors will know and understand God's
commandments, so that they may choose to do God's will and live forever in
heaven. If we believe that life and love have meaning, if we believe that there
is a heaven, how can we do anything less? If you love your neighbor as
yourself, how can you do anything less than the best you can so that each and
every one of your neighbors knows and understands that they can choose to do
God's will, and live a joyous life forever in heaven?
You can and should
"love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength" and "love
your neighbor as yourself". If you choose to do so, I have almost absolute
faith that you will do the best you can so that each and every one of your
neighbors will know and understand that each and every one of them can and
should "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul,
with all your mind, with all your strength" and "love your neighbor
as yourself". I simply cannot imagine that there is any other logical
conclusion.
If and when each and every
one of my neighbors knows and understands God's commandments, and chooses to do
God's will, then I have completed my task. Yet, my neighbors include millions
who are born each year, and millions who live in isolated locations. I cannot
imagine that it is physically possible for me to complete telling every one of
my neighbors what God would have them do. Furthermore, I may need to spend more
time communicating God's word to those neighbors who know and understand God's
will, but who have not chosen to do God's will.
So it seems clear that if I love my neighbor as myself, I will use every
moment of the rest of my life to do all that I can so that as many of my
neighbors as possible know and understand God's commandments.
If I literally do the best
that I can to tell each and every one of my neighbors about God's commandments,
then it would seem that I would spend every waking minute of my life seeking
out as many of my neighbors as is physically possible. If I literally do my
best to communicate God’s word to my neighbors so that all my neighbors will
know and understand God's commandments, I will not have time to feed as many
hungry people or care for as many sick people. Yet if I do not give food to a
hungry neighbor, water to a thirsty neighbor, etc., then I am not loving my
neighbor as myself, and I am not doing God’s will. If I am not doing God’s
will, if I am not loving my neighbor as myself, if I am not giving food to my
hungry neighbors, it would also seem clear that I am not communicating to my
neighbors that God would have each of them do God’s will. If I do not do God’s
will, if I do not love my neighbor as myself, then I am not communicating to
you that God would have you "love the Lord your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, with all your mind, with all your strength" and
"love your neighbor as yourself".
What can and should I do? It seems
absolutely clear that if I do God's will, I will do my best to visit my
neighbors and help them know and understand God's word so that they may choose
to do God's will. It also seems absolutely clear that if I do God’s will, I
will give food to each of my neighbors if they are hungry, water if they are
thirsty, shelter if they are homeless, etc. It seems absolutely clear that if I
do God’s will, I will care for my neighbor who is sick until they are well,
visit my neighbor who is in prison, and comfort my neighbor who is lonely. I do
not see how I can reach any other conclusion.
I strongly believe that
this means that if I do God's will my life will be a truly "fanatic
life". If I do God’s will, then every moment of my life for the rest of my
life I will do the best that I can to communicate God’s word to my neighbors by
word and by deed. If I do what I can and should do, I will go from neighbor to
neighbor, conveying God's word to them and helping them if they need food,
water, shelter, etc. I will stay with each neighbor only as long as is
necessary to see to that neighbor's needs and to tell them about God's
commandments. This is a very difficult life, yet I cannot imagine that I should
do anything less. I simply do not believe that there is any other life that we
can and should live.
If you choose to love your
neighbor as yourself, and to live a "fanatic life", it does not mean
that those you love will choose to love you. It seems most likely that the vast
majority of people, including most or all of the neighbors you love, will not
choose to live a "fanatic life". Day after day you will love your
neighbor as yourself, yet most of your neighbors will not love you with the
same love you give them, many will not love you at all, and some will hate you.
Many of your neighbors will live a “normal life” like the life we just
described. Seeing people choose to live a normal life, day after day, month
after month, year after year, while you choose to love your neighbor as
yourself, is very, very difficult. It is very, very difficult to love people,
but not be loved by them. Yet nothing that anyone else does changes the fact
that you can and should love as God would have you love, you can and should
love your neighbor as yourself, you can and should
live a "fanatic life".
What we have said does not
mean that if you love your neighbors as yourself you will not focus attention
on one neighbor so that you may spend a few days caring for them if they are
sick, or spend a couple hours visiting them if they are lonely, rather than
caring for and visiting the greatest number of your neighbors that you
physically can visit during a given period of time. Loving your neighbor as
yourself is far more than mechanically doing the greatest number of good deeds
that you can do for the largest number of neighbors. If you love your neighbor
as yourself you will do the best that you can for each and every one of your
neighbors.
If you love your neighbor
as yourself, you will communicate God’s word to your neighbor. You will give
them food, water, clothing, and shelter if they are in need. You will care for
them if they are sick, visit them if they are in prison, comfort them if they
are lonely. If you love your neighbors as yourself, you will not leave one
neighbor who is in need to go do that which is good for another neighbor
without first considering the needs of both of those neighbors, and of all your
other neighbors. You will give food to a neighbor who is hungry before you go
visit a neighbor in prison, and you will care for a neighbor who is sick until
they are well before you go comfort a neighbor who is lonely.
If you do God’s will, you
will do that which God would have you do for each and every one of your
neighbors. For example, if you love your neighbors as yourself, you may invite
them to a hearty meal to welcome and celebrate the choice of a particular
neighbor who has declared that they want to do God's will. It is right for you
to be filled with the happiness of loving your neighbor as yourself. It is
right for you to prepare a “feast” for your neighbors, and to celebrate with
them the joy of loving as God would have us love.
What living a “fanatic
life” does mean is that if out of love for our neighbors we serve a hearty meal
for some of them, and one or ten or twenty or fifty other neighbors are in the
street in front of our house, if we love as God would have us love we will go
out and invite every one of them to share the meal and experience the joy of
those who do God’s will, even if there is not enough food and drink for
everyone to satisfy their hunger and thirst. I am unwilling to conclude that if
I love my neighbor as myself, I will turn away even a single hungry or thirsty
neighbor from my door. If I love my neighbor as God would have me love, I will
love each and every neighbor as myself, and out of that love I will give each
and every neighbor food, water, shelter, care, and companionship, with the hope
that they will all choose to love as God would have us love, and that they will
all experience the true joy and happiness that accompanies the choice to do
God’s will.
My conclusion is that each of us can and should live a fanatic life that is focused on all our neighbors, a life that offers us little time for a particular neighbor. This is very troubling to me. If we live a fanatic life it will most likely be a life filled with the most severe physical hardship and emotional trauma. It is a life that abandons all of the comforts of a "normal life" and replaces them with endless days of travel to communicate God’s word to all the neighbors you can, both by word and by deed. Days spent feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, providing shelter for the homeless, caring for the sick, visiting with those who are lonely and in prison, helping each and every neighbor know and understand that each can and should "love the Lord