The Big Question Revisited

It occurs to me that I haven't fully discussed The Big Question that I previously talked about.  That question is "why are we here?" and, as I said before, I believe it is the fundamental question that we are all trying to answer.  The problem with my previous view is that I failed to discuss the two ends of this question:

1. The first way of looking at this question is, essentially, historically and ask the question "how did we get here?"  In other words, we can look at the processes that the universe went thru to get where we are now.
2. The second way of looking at this question is, essentially, futuristically and ask the question "where are we going from here?"  In other words, we can look at what the universe may progress to in the (potentially far) future.

In the first way of looking at The Big Question, I see only two possible answers to the question of "how did we get here?":

1. The universe came about due to some random noise that led to the creation of all that there is.  This solution posits that something was created from nothing and, therefore, there was no creator needed.  Physicists like Stephen Hawking have supposedly worked out the mathematics that would show this to be a possibility, but this is way above my knowledge.  However, I am willing to accept this hypothesis.
2. The universe came about due to the influence of some outside force.  That force might be a creator (as in GOD) or just some other force outside this universe as yet undiscovered.  I, however, see nothing to suggest that a god or gods is influencing the direction of this universe now that it has been created.  Everything that happens within this universe still seems explainable by scientific means.

In both cases, once the universe was created, an evolutionary process took over.  That process coalesced the dust of the early universe into stars thru gravitation, brought the stars together into galaxies, coalesced planets around the stars, populated some of those planets with the chemistry of life, kicked off life, grew intelligence, and so on.  This process is leading us into a (speculative) answer for the second part of The Big Question.  That is that evolution is more than a process that applies only to life -- it applies to the entire universe itself!  Looked at this way, you might justifiably consider the entire universe to be a living entity in its own right that is going thru an evolutionary process in much the same way that we have gone thru evolution from mere amoebas to the human beings we are today.  The question is what might the universe be evolving toward in some future billions of years from now?

Might the answer be, as I postulated previously, that we are evolving toward becoming GOD!

Answering the Big Question

As I've already said, I believe the Big Question in religion is "why are we here?"  Ultimately, this is what I believe all religions are trying to answer in some fashion.  The problem is that (most?) all religions answer this question in an egotistical and anthropomorphic manner.  The answers that I've heard to this question basically come down to "give glory to God" which is a terribly small answer in my book.

To say that our reason for existence is to "give glory to God" makes very little sense to me.  To go thru all the effort to create reality to merely get followers who "glorify" the name of God is to reduce to nothing the importance of both Man and God.  It would seem to me that an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing God could come up with a better reason for this creation.

I think a much more appropriate answer to the Big Question is that we are here to become God.  Note that this answer is not religious in nature and actually works from a scientific perspective.  I am not saying how creation came about in this answer and you could choose to say that it happened due to random events or the divine plan of God as both views can still lead to the same answer to the Big Question.

Also, note that the answer to the Big Question may not come about for billions upon billions of years.  This fits into the theory of evolution quite nicely in that it may take this long for us to evolve into being God.  This gives us something to aspire to over the long time of existence yet to come as evolution into God would represent the end of creation.  After all, where could existence go once it achieves being God?

The notion of becoming God may seem like a circular definition.  If God created us to evolve into being God, which came first -- Man or God?  Actually, that question is a non-sequitur in the face of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing God as such a God could break the loop in any fashion he wishes.  The circular definition actually (to me) seems to fit nicely with the notion of everything was created from nothing as it just needs to be viewed in the reverse direction (everything was already here and created itself) which is no problem for God.

I'm sure there is much more to this theory which I'll need to work out in the future of this blog.  Let's see if it generates any interest...

Making Science and Religion Compatible

It has been said that science and religion are incompatible with each other.  The more you scientifically understand reality and our place in it, the less you need a religious answer to help our understanding of reality.  That being said, though, until we understand the workings of all reality, there may still be a place for religion or God in our thinking.  At the very least, a good definition of God gives us something to aspire to.

In this blog, I want to explore the idea of how science and God can be made compatible.  To begin with, though, I should layout my view of the idea of God and religion.  My personal views are different than most people and I arrived at them over many years of contemplation, but they are still moving and adjusting as I learn more.

I would say that I am anti-religious, but agnostic when it comes to belief in gods.  Having grown-up in a Christian family and society, I still tend to think in terms of the Christian God, but I'm willing to consider all religious gods.  At this time, though, I feel that all religions that I know of have gotten the notion of God wrong and are, therefore, incompatible with science.  The two will naturally butt heads because the two attempt to address how life works, and should work, on a day to day basis.  The day to day workings of reality are the province of science whereas religion should be attempting to answer the Big Question.

The Big Question that all religions attempt to answer is "why are we here?"  All other questions in the religious sense ("is there a God?", "is there an afterlife?", etc.) are in some ways a derivative of this basic question.  In my view, though, the religions have answered this question wrong by being too egocentric in the answer.  The main answer I have heard to this question is "to give glory to God" which, to me, is very egotistical in that it gives us far more importance than we probably deserve.  To think that God has created all of this reality for this one little tiny dot in one small corner of the galaxy which is yet another small part of the universe is, to me, the highest definition of hubris that I could imagine.  Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot probably expressed this best.

I actually have a larger answer to the Big Question.  My answer is that we are here to become God!  It may take us billions upon billions of years to achieve this, but evolution says that we should eventually achieve this.  This is where I think science and religion can come together.  The religious idea that some higher power created everything and kicked it off then becomes compatible with science.  My answer to the Big Question gives us something to aspire to and continue to use our (some would say God given...) free will to attempt to achieve.

However, there are still questions that I've left unanswered in this that I will explore in the future.