All-That-Is vs Godthoughts & comment — 05 Jan 2010
I AM CURRENTLY READING THE BOOK The God Theory by Bernard Haisch. The book contains interesting information and Haisch is certainly scientifically literate [he is a leading scientist after all], but I can't help feeling that bringing in a "God Hypothesis" just throws in an unnecessary variable in the equation. After all, if what we label "God" is All-That-Is in every dimension and in every multiverse, then calling it anything that differentiates it from All-That-Is only distorts this understanding.
We give things and beings names to differentiate them from other things and beings, so labeling All-That-Is as "God" is unhelpful except to those who have a cultural proclivity to religious labels. And to compound this unhelpfulness, this "God" label is associated with so many different and limiting belief systems and dogmas.
People kill in the name of God; people are fanatics in the name of God. But do people kill in the name of All-That-Is? Do people become All-That-Is zealots? Of course not… All-That-Is is just too inclusive to be used as a justification for cruel and fanatical behaviour. You can't kill in the name of All-That-Is. But you can kill in the name of a portion of "All-That-Is" that you consider to be "good" — God.
And does it even make any sense to use the label "creator" for All-That-is? The term is meaningless in this context. Again, it actually only makes sense when you use this label for a portion of All-That-Is — the God or Good portion. Otherwise creation is a spontaneous manifestation out of nothing, a concept that may confound our everyday minds but one that may be a lot closer to the truth.
So Haisch brings in a lot of good borderline science but sabotages his efforts at integrating it with a spiritual outlook by using outdated "God" labels. I can understand that he may be doing this to redress some balance between Science and Religion, but what he does not seem to grasp is that, even though Science and Religion are competing belief systems, they actually have a lot in common with each other. They are what might be called macro-conceptulisations used to control populations and justify heartless behaviour. (Sure, there are conceptual differences, but the context of that conceptualisation is quite similar.)
But an All-That-Is based belief system cannot be used in the same way for manipulation. So it would be good to see more books written on borderline science and spirituality that redefine both into a unified whole rather than trying to meld outdated belief systems.