What if, in finally understanding the universe, natural philosophers were to find that the world’s great religions have been right all along?

Scientists tell us that from the beginning of the big bang the universe’s energy has gone through a series of stages of evolution. First there was the initial expansion of the universe’s energy in the form of electromagnetic waves from its unimaginably hot and dense point source. Almost immediately, however, even as most of the energy continued to expand and cool, a portion of it was converted into particles of matter, some of which further coalesced into atoms and molecules, stars and planets, and, eventually, here on earth at least, into single-celled living organisms. From these evolved multi-celled organisms of ever increasing complexity and organization until, finally, human beings appeared.

We humans are, therefore, at the most fundamental level at least, composed of the same inanimate energy as everything else in the universe.

However, because of the astonishing levels of complexity and organization possessed by humans, we can exhibit capabilities unknown to the rest of the universe’s energy compounds. Two of these, which are almost exclusively the result of the evolution of the human brain to its present form, are what I’ll call awareness and choice. By awareness I mean the ability to be aware of our own existence, the existence of the world around us, and the relationships that can exist between the two. By choice I mean that we humans have the ability to choose, within certain physical limits, our own behavior.

Along with this ability to choose our own behavior, then, it is naturally incumbent upon us to always behave in our own best interests. Which is where awareness comes in. For the greater our awareness--scientific knowledge of the universe (natural philosophy) and whatever understanding of the universe which results from this (metaphysical philosophy)--the greater will be our wisdom (moral philosophy).

But, if this is true, where does religion come into this picture? After all, many believe our religious beliefs are also about wisdom. When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai, for instance, did he not bring with him the wisdom of God’s Ten Commandments? Are we to ignore these moral laws because they are based on faith alone and not the result of scientific knowledge and understanding of the physical world?

To answer these questions let’s return to the question posed at the beginning of this work, only let me now rephrase it in a more definitive way.

What if the scientists and philosophers were to develop a theory of the universe so complete as to be able to state not only the physical laws and principles responsible for its evolution to its present physical state, and beyond, but also how and why it came to exist as well? And, even more specifically, what if, as a result of this new and universally comprehensive theory, and by that I mean strictly from the physical evidence supplied by this theory, they were able to determine that, as the world’s great monotheistic religions all agree, there is a physical world beyond the world of our senses? And that there physically exists within each human being an immortal spirit, or life force, or soul, which, upon the death of the body is somehow released, enabling the immortal soul to take up residence in that world beyond? And further still, that each human being, in order to properly strengthen and otherwise condition the immortal soul for its new, extended, and far more important existence in that afterlife, need only live in peace and harmony and love with other human beings and the world around us? And, finally, that there does exist a Creator of such unimaginable power, resourcefulness, and wisdom as to be able to create our universe, and in particular human beings, specifically to provide these immortal souls?

Clearly, if there is an afterlife for every human being, then the ultimate wisdom the human race has always searched for must include the means to achieve not just some measure of success in this life, but, first and foremost, access to the far more important afterlife which awaits us.

This, then, or so it seems to me, has been the role of the world’s great religions up to now. To provide that measure of God’s wisdom, attained through faith alone, which enables humans to successfully achieve the afterlife until such time as natural, metaphysical, and moral philosophers can provide that same wisdom--the wisdom of God--from a thorough knowledge and understanding of God’s universe.

Which brings us to the following dialogue. There I will as best I can provide a very limited and summary outline of such a theory. A theory which I am convinced natural and metaphysical philosophers will begin developing in perhaps the next few generations. Certainly within this 21st century. I say this because, as I explain in the following work, they are actually very close to this theory now. They just don’t know it yet.

How do I know the theory I’m proposing is The Right Theory? Or some version of it? Well, of course, I don’t know for certain. After all, much of it is based on personal speculation. However, if you will look at the following pages 6 and 7, there you will find listed many of the major scientific, philosophical, and theological questions we must be able to answer if we are to know the complete truth about the universe--where it came from, how and why it and we came to exist, and so on. And we must be able to answer them in a way such that they all fit together into a seamlessly understandable universe. As you scan these lists, and then read the following dialogue, should you choose to do so, keep in mind that the entire world community of scientists and philosophers cannot answer even some of these questions in a way such that they all come together and make good sense. The theory presented here, on the other hand, even in its largely unsubstantiated and incomplete current state, can do just that.

As to the general tone of this work, Albert Einstein used to say that we cannot expect to solve major problems with the same thinking we used in creating them. It is with such a mind-set, then, that I will be speaking of already familiar scientific, philosophical, and theological issues in ways which are to some degree unfamiliar to scientists, philosophers, and theologians. I do not mean to imply that this alone somehow guarantees the truth of this work. Only that you should not necessarily discount this theory simply because it requires you to think differently about the world.

With specific regard to the scientific content of this work, I’ll be explaining what I believe to be the true nature of such scientific concepts as electromagnetic waves, quantum and Newtonian mechanics, time, gravity, relativity, equilibrium, entropy, and Darwinian natural selection, but in a new way such that these all fit together logically and reasonably. Therefore some prior, very basic knowledge of these issues is almost a requirement if readers are to properly judge for themselves the truth of this theory. Thus the first three parts of the following dialogue are directed primarily at members of the scientific community. And especially for its younger members, since their scientific beliefs about the world are not as likely to be so permanently welded in place. However, the presentation is of such a general nature, with no mathematics involved whatsoever, and because, if generally true, it will eventually be found to have great meaning for most of us, I think those with only a passing interest in science might find some parts of it informative. For those not previously inclined to think of science at all as a worthy field of study, but who might still be curious of the consequences of such a theory, I would suggest skipping parts I, II, and III altogether, and begin with part IV. In part IV I summarize the evolution of the physical universe, the main particulars of which were discussed in the first three parts. Part V then goes on to describe the relationship between science and religion which clearly results, as I see it anyway, from this theory.

With specific regard to the theological content of this work, and because of the sometimes incendiary nature of the relationship some think of as currently existing between science and religion, I feel compelled to repeat here a statement which appears near the end of the dialogue. That when I speak of the world’s great religions, and the beliefs espoused by them, I tend to separate these beliefs into two general categories. Those beliefs which are specific to a particular religion, or to particular groups within a religion, are not of issue here. What this work is concerned with are those most fundamental beliefs which I’ve already talked about, upon which all the world’s great monotheistic religions are based. Certainly, these core beliefs are not always phrased as they are here, but in general I think most of us can agree their case is fairly stated, at least in principle. This theory, then, is not concerned with those beliefs separating one religion from another, but those which bring them together.

Regarding the title of this work, ever since I began putting down my thoughts on equilibrium and so forth back in the late ‘70s, I have always ended up being dissatisfied with whatever title came to mind. This was mostly because I didn’t know what I was doing.

For as long as I can remember I’ve had a very strong sense that there was something important we humans were supposed to do. That there was some higher purpose to our existence. For most people religious beliefs fill that void. For me, however, even though I was born into a Christian household, I decided early on there was no God and no life after death for basically the same reasons that others have come to feel that way. Primarily, the abundance of evil in the world and the lack of hard scientific evidence of an afterlife. So, for me this sense of a deeper meaning to life went unresolved. Then, in 1963, at the end of my freshman year in electrical engineering at Arizona State University, I became determined to begin spending some private time studying the most fundamental of our physical laws hoping to find some clue as to how human beings could come to exist here on earth. For often the how and why of things go together. At first I gave little thought to reaching some overall understanding of the entire universe. As I said, all I wanted to do was figure out how we came to be here.

As it turned out, however, the unsuccessful transition scientists had for so long been trying to make from the second law of thermodynamics as the driving force behind the evolution of inanimate energy to Darwin’s principle of natural selection as the driving force behind the evolution of living organisms turned out to be the perfect place to begin my search. Because of the work of the physicist Ilya Prigogine and others, after many years I began to think of energy’s constant search for ever more stable states of equilibrium as perhaps the ultimate driving force of the entire universe. With the second law and Darwin’s natural selection as secondary consequences, rather than the primary causes, of evolution.

Eventually, in the spring of ‘99, after decades during which scientific laws and principles tumbled endlessly over and over in my mind, I came to realize that there had to be some fundamental property of energy responsible for this constant search by energy for equilibrium. Which eventually led to the view of the universe discussed in the following dialogue, followed in turn by a complete reversal of my earlier beliefs about God and our life after death.

Returning to the issue of what to call this work, then, as a result of these mental wanderings, I at different times thought to call it “On the Reason for Us”, or “In Search of an Understanding of the Universe”, or “Conserved Equilibrium and the Order of Heaven and Earth”, or more recently, “The Theory”, “The Connection between Science and Religion”, “How I Found God”, and almost endless variations of all of these. Only in these last few days of May 2002, have I settled on the current title. Actually some of the last words of this work, it has to do not so much with the subject matter, but, because of the theory of the universe scholars are near to developing, with what I am certain future generations will come to think of us.

Finally, while the particular explanation of the universe presented here is, as far as I know, largely unique, the ultimate result of it, that understanding the universe leads to the conclusion that there is a Creator of infinite power, wisdom, and mercy, and an afterlife for each of us of eternal perfection, is not. In his book, The Physics of Immortailty (1994), the physicist Frank J. Tipler employs a mathematical theory to prove the existence of a Creator and an afterlife. However, whereas I assume the universe is only part of a larger, older, parent reality, he assumes the universe to be all there is to reality. Also, while I am concerned with the universe from the beginning of universal time to the present, he basically deals with the universe from the present out to the end of time. And, while I see the afterlife as starting immediately after this one, he holds that as this life ends for each of us, our individual immortal souls are held in timeless, suspended animation until the final judgement day at the end of universal time. How all of these issues will ultimately shake out I do not know. However, Regarding the relationship between religion and science, Physics of Immortailty is a terrific book carefully written by a really good writer.