More To Life Magazine

We live in a world where science reigns supreme.  Over the past few hundred years the study of material science has yielded amazing insights into all aspects of life.  It has allowed us to view our own planet and the universe in which it exists in minute detail.

It has increased our ability to treat illness and prolong life, and it has yielded an abundance of technological advances which are intended to make our lives easier and more enjoyable.  It is, then, unsurprising that many people today view the study of material science as an infinite source of knowledge which must, one day, provide us with all of the answers to the workings of the universe.  Many of us are now willing to accept that, although we ourselves do not understand everything around us, the answers are nevertheless already known to science, or one day will be.  This attitude has contributed significantly to today’s commonplace lack of belief in an intelligent creator, and it is not uncommon to hear it asserted that ‘we no longer need to believe in God because science can provide us with all of the answers‘.

As a scientist, I used to subscribe to this view, until in reading a book entitled ‘In The Light of Truth’, by Abd-ru-shin, I came to realise how short sighted and misplaced was my blind trust in the material sciences when it comes to the fundamental questions of life and its origin.

I can see now that the real purpose of material science is to explain and elucidate the effects of the natural laws in the world around us. I among many others in the scientific community had failed to differentiate fully between the effect and the cause. As a result, I had become ever more introspective and was unable to see the bigger picture.

To explain what I mean, let us take a simple example: we see someone move their arm to wave to a friend.  Now, what is actually happening here?  An electrical signal is sent from the brain, along the nervous system, to the muscles which control the arm.  This results in chemical changes in those muscles, which then contract or relax in such a way as to cause the desired movement.  Material scientists then deduce from this fact that the forces controlling the body are chemical and electrical, and thus, that they can be seen and investigated using physical, scientific means.  But this deduction is wrong!  What actually happens is that a decision is made by the human spirit to move the arm.  In order for this movement to take place, a physical process must occur, since our bodies consist of physical matter, and so, necessarily, the process of electrical and chemical changes results and the arm moves.  But the process of physical movement, or in other words, the chemical and electrical changes are the effect of an originating spiritual movement, not the cause of the movement we saw.  Of course there must be physical changes, otherwise the spiritual decision could not be acted upon, but these changes are (in a healthy body) completely subordinate to the spiritual will.  If one considers it objectively, this must be the case.  If it were not, then where does the impetus to make the movement come from?  The scientific explanation is that the decision is a thought process which, by extrapolation, also consists of chemical and electrical changes (albeit of much more complex character) which occur in the brain. But on a very basic level, this does not make sense.  Physical matter cannot make decisions, no matter how chemically complex it is.  Imagine a highly complex computer which can carry out complicated calculations, control operations, even movements.  What makes it do this?  It is the rearrangement of electrons within the circuits of the computer, but these rearrangements are purely physical operations and are ultimately controlled by the programming provided by a human spirit, even if that human spirit is way back  up a long chain of other computers.  It is the same in the human body; the chemical and electrical changes cannot be just the result of other chemical and electrical changes.  Ultimately there must be an origin, and this is the human input, or in other words, the spiritual movement. In the same way that the electronic operations of a computer are the manifestation of the programmers intent, so the chemical and electrical changes in the body are the manifestation in the physical world, of a spiritual intent.  It is an effect, not a cause.  Of course there are those who contend that, one day, computers will be able to think for themselves. The fact that this erroneous assumption is so easily embraced by many people shows how much the idea that science will one day yield all the answers has taken hold. But this not the case.  Undoubtedly more complex programming will yield computers that can mimic human thought processes to a greater and greater extent, but a computer will never be the origin of a creative thought as distinct from the deductive reasoning at which it excels.  It is not possible for this creative event to happen because physical matter cannot generate creative thoughts no matter how complex it becomes.  Neither will musical instruments ever write music that can stir the soul, or Valentine’s day cards fall in love.

Naturally, the question then arises ‘Well, what programmed us to be able to think….how did this come about?’, and the scientific community will usually respond by saying that we are a product of ‘evolution’, and, indeed, looking just at the human body, this is evidently true.  We have ‘evolved’ from simple life forms.  But again, there is confusion between cause and effect.  ‘Evolution’ is the effect in the physical sphere of unchanging, natural laws which have existed from as far back as human beings are able to contemplate.  These laws include the natural laws of gravity and reciprocation and the forces which govern sub atomic attraction and repulsion. The natural laws have always existed, have never changed, and whilst they appear to be simple, their design is so perfect that a process as extraordinary as ‘evolution’ occurs as a natural consequence of their interaction with matter.  In other words ‘evolution’ is the effect of their natural working, and is not the cause of anything.  If we wish to contemplate the magnificence of the process of evolution, then the credit for causing it must go solely to the creator of the laws of which it is merely an effect, not to the scientists who observe this effect, give it a name and then call it the cause of our existence; who concentrate on studying the effects of natural laws to the nth degree and yet choose to ignore the question of where the laws come from.

The painful shortcomings of modern scientific theory have been borne in on me by my ongoing study of ‘In The light of Truth’, by Abd-ru-shin, a book of cosmology, in fact, which addresses all of the major questions of life and which explains with absolutely lucid logic how we must rule our intellect with our spirit if we hope to be able to make sense of the world and find the meaning in our own existence.

Dr Daniel Paige