Third Millenium Metaphysics A G-d Atheists Can Believe In.

Metaphysics is the study of reality. It is probably the precursor of physics, the study of the material world.

The metaphysical theory to be presented here is merely a reiteration of myths and theories from the past 3,000 years using modern day language.

The Hindu and Buddhist mystics claimed that this reality is an illusion. How could that be?

The Greek, Roman and Hindu gods were eternal but came to earth as normal beings who were subject to death.

Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and that he was part of the holy trinity of G-d. Jesus was immortal but came to earth as a human and suffered what finite beings do. He died a painful death but is believed to still exist as an infinite immortal being.

In 1975 a mathematician proved the existence of fractals in every living thing. Fractals are geometric shapes in everything and are infinite. So the finite is also infinite.

The Hindu mystics describe the nature of G-d as Sat, Chit, Ananda. Sat is truth, Chit is consciousness and Ananda is joy.

Those who study the Kaballah believe that G-d thinks the universe. It is the product of G-d's infinite consciousness.  They also believe that not a single leaf falls that G-d did not intend.

A Zen mystic named Suzuki - Roshi claimed that there is only infinite consciousness but there is also the finite.  The Buddhists refer to big minds and small minds (infinite consciousness and finite consciousness.) Hindu mystics say Atman is Brahman - the individual soul and the universal soul are one. The Roshi also said that we meditate (zazen) we do it to work toward enlightenment but are enlightened while in deep meditation. There is no sense of self. The mind is still, so only the infinite (big mind) is available.

Jewish mystics believe that we have both an infinite soul and a finite one - the spark of the divine or the G-dly soul and the other the animal soul. The divine (infinite consciousness) must rule the animal soul.

There is a much quoted Zen koan:  if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Bishop Berkeley, 18th century metaphysician and Empiricist theorized that nothing can exist without consciousness. It was called "immaterialism" or later "subjective idealism." He was challenged by those asking how does a fire keep burning when no one is present to see it. He responded that G-d was watching it.

Those who believe in reincarnation believe that while the body is finite, the soul is infinite.

So what does this all mean in modern terms?

Today's language allows us to better describe the nature of reality simply and clearly -  one that agrees with all of these spiritual realizations.

Here is one interpretation:

Everything is and has consciousness - infinite and finite. Nothing preceded infinite consciousness. The tree falls in the forest does not exist without consciousness - infinite consciousness. Since everything is consciousness, the finite world is a product of consciousness like characters in a dream. Unlike characters in our dreams, living things both are and have  consciousness. We are objects of consciousness as well as subjects in the finite world.

That means that we have two different basic drives, one led by love, because we are infinite and love is the unifying force and the other led by fear, since we are finite. We have a beginning and end. We will suffer from many forms of entropy. We are separate and must survive.

We are driven by love, fostering intrinsic motivation - loving what we are doing. We do something for its own sake.

Since we are finite, we do things because that we feel we have to in order to survive. We work to earn money to pay our bills. We eat food to nourish the body.

The goal then could be to do everything as a means to an end - ( a need), and an end in itself - (a want.)   If we love to eat and do it whether we are hungry or not, we will get fat. If we don't enjoy eating the food that is available but must in order to survive, we eat less and have no pleasure in it. If we eat because and when we have to and love the food we eat, we will be more able to maintain a healthy diet.

When we pray to the Creator, we are praying to infinite consciousness of which we are a part. The
 G-d in us hears our prayers.

How does this metaphysical theory answer the question "Is there free will?" Physicists generally do not believe there is free will, that everything is a piece in the cosmic puzzle. Hindus and Buddhists believe that we are predetermined by karma from past lives. Jewish mystics believe that everything is a product of G-d's consciousness. He said "let there be light." He wasn't talking to anyone because there was no one to listen. Our only free will is our belief in G-d.  Jesus believed that this belief is only by the grace of G-d.

Yet all religions exist on the thesis that there is free will. It's what makes us human. Since we are infinite, part of universal order, we have no free will. Since were are finite beings, we seem to make independent choices - we can be right or wrong.  I chose to write this and you chose to read it.

But if we are infinite as well as finite, what happens when we die?

We lose our finite body and maintain our infinite soul.  That soul reincarnates to be part of another finite reality. The soul brings its attributes to the new form. Edgar Casey, a mystic who explained the process, suggested that we usually incarnate in alternate genders. If in the past we instead came back as male in several consecutive incarnations and are then born female, the soul will still identify itself with the former gender and feels a strong male influence. This explains transgenders. They are born as one gender but identify with the other. Those with fewer consecutive incarnations in one gender could become homosexual. They still identify with the past gender and want to act as though they still were.

Reincarnation also explains child prodigies. Why does a three-year-old play the piano so well? Why does a five-year-old know advanced math or science? Because their souls carry those talents into their  new incarnation and carries other attributes like curiosity and compassion but also accounts for our deepest fears and our worst behavior.

Why is there evil and destruction in our finite world?

Entropy. It is the disorganization of a specific finite consciousness - physical or mental. Without entropy, nothing would ever end. We would have no motivation to work or protect our selves because  no matter what, everything that is would always be. We would know no fear. We would not need to have armies because diplomacy would keep this world relationship organized. We would need no police, lawyers, judges, hospitals, doctors, psychologists, social workers or firefighters because there would be no crime, illness to cure or fires to extinguish.

Heaven has no entropy because there is no time or space there. Everything in heaven in eternal, eternally now.

This then is a third millenium attempt to update of three past millennia of metaphysical theory and mythology.
                                                                                                                                            

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

During my career in city government I met people who are very liberal and those who are very conservative. I still get Facebook posts from liberal and conservative acquaintances. Both groups have become more extreme. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." The further right we go, the further left others go.

When conservatives came to power, many are very conservative while in response liberals have become more liberal. So how are they really different?

It seems that liberals think with their hearts while conservatives feel with their minds. If liberals find underdogs in need, they want to do everything they can to help, regardless of the cost the many victims of our country's system. During the recession, some liberals wanted the unemployed to get payments until they ever find a job. The former Speaker of the House told us that every dollar we spend on the unemployed creates $1.50  to our economy. If that were true, shouldn't we all get extra money since it doesn't seem to cost anything?

Conservatives are for the top dogs. It is they who will create jobs and improve the situation for low income workers, they say. Conservatives feel that people should be held responsible by being more self reliant and will become so if their social services like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Food Stamp benefits are decreased. It should be the survival of the fittest.

Those further to the left are the less likely to say they want anyone to have a gun or rifle, if only the 300 million firearms held by Americans could be eliminated. Those more moderate want an end to bump stocks, assault weapons, have the minimum age to purchase firearms raised to 21, improve background checks limit magazines (clips) to a certain number, like 10 and improve mental health services.

The strict conservatives, like those loyal to the NRA, want to keep their weapons including assault weapons, saying we should improve our mental health system, not assault their Second Amendment Rights. Their slogan has been "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." They feel that any change in our gun policy is a slippery slope toward banning all firearms.

Liberals want open borders and that for all those here illegally should be given a path to citizenship. The people come here because they can no longer bear living in their beloved country. They should be welcomed with open arms and provided with housing, food subsidies, medical coverage, education, and given a bit of an advantage in hiring over Americans. They cite a line from a poem on the Statue of Liberty written by a young poet as though it was official government policy or that it should be. They feel good about their generosity without realizing that this open door policy will inspire millions to come here illegally hoping for the American dream. They will take entry level jobs like gardening, housekeeping, furniture moving, care of young children, farming, construction work, and hotel and restaurant work. Liberals with a college or even a professional degree see no problem with our uninvited guests because there will be no competition for their own jobs. They must feel hiring illegals is an act of compassion and a way to get their services for rock bottom prices. They don't seem to realize that the people they are hurting are those with no more than a high school diploma and are most likely to be minorities, the left's favorite underdogs. We have more than 600,000 homeless. We have 40 million American who live below the poverty level (before getting government subsidies). Why can't we help are own first?

Strict conservatives want the southern border made impenetrable, and have those here without documentation deported. They want to not admit more refugees and to limit visas to half of what they are now, get rid of the lottery system and limit those who can be sponsored to come to just spouses and children instead to anyone even distantly related in what is "chain migration." Some want the 14th Amendment amended to end birthright citizenship, denying it to those here illegally who want an anchor to keep them from being deported. "How can people be deported if they have American born children,"they ask as though families don't usually stay together when moving to different states and different countries.

Liberals want the Affordable Care Act to remain with just minor adjustments even though it is a failed program. Those more liberal favor a single payer system without realizing the costs and the many downsides. There are now about 30 million Americans who want coverage. So for them, instead of finding ways of helping them by not only making it voluntary, as it now is, and to let insurers reject anyone for medical reasons. Those denied coverage and those in the states that refused to expand Medicaid would be given the "public option" which would be federal program with a share of cost based on income. Private and public providers should also offer a more limited coverage including necessary hospitalization, office visits, medical supplies like medicine, and lab work. These are the services most people need covered. We could stop giving $8 billion in subsidies to private insurers to cover their losses due to serious medical conditions. The $100 billion fraud and waste each year could be dramatically reduced. The liberals know this as did candidate Obama but perhaps they think that when the ACA completely falls apart people might be ready to accept single payer healthcare.

Conservatives want only the pre-ACA system where those with medical conditions were charged more than were healthy applicants.

It seems that the farther left people are the less likely to believe in religion or the Creator. They believe that it is the State which must grant our wishes. They applaud religious, sexual and ethnic diversity reminding us that it made our country great. They support getting more refugees who subjugate women, detest members of the LGBTQ community, beliefs that we usually don't tolerate. They even support people who want to change their gender to use restrooms and showers with those who have not changed their gender identification. They want no employer or business to refuse service or employment to transgenders.

Those on the ultra right are more likely to be very religious, usually Protestant. They believe that being gay, bisexual, transgender or atheistic is a sin. Gay marriage is unacceptable.  People with religious beliefs should be able to deny service to anyone or group that violates their beliefs. They don't think that diversity is a necessary road to American success. They point out this was and still should be a Christian nation. Our people should share out beliefs and values.

The liberals support free speech as long as they agree with it. U.C. Berkeley, the successful advocate of free speech in the '60s, rioted recently when students heard that two conservatives were invited to speak. Those who objected were not being forced to attend but they wanted no one to hear this alternative view. They rioted and damaged campus buildings while the school's liberal police force stood by and watched. The left has found a new way to limit free speech that conflicts with their values - they label those who disagree with them in order invalidate their claims. They label some haters and they hate the haters. They label some intolerant and are intolerant of them. The recent most popular labels are misogynist, racist, and Xenophobe but they ignore those characteristics when one of their own transgresses. Those accused have a modern day scarlet letter and are available for abuse.

The conservatives realize there are differing opinions but maintain that those on the left are bleeding hearts who misrepresent the news to reflect their bias. They don't realize that conservative commentators also skew the truth to reflect their biases.

The far left liberals want to judge the actions and opinions of our famous political figures by current standards rather than understanding how it was considered back then. They want all symbols and statues of those who violated these current standards. Some had slaves, some led an unsuccessful attempt to secede from the Union in part because they wanted to keep slavery. Statues of Confederate generals must be torn down even though they have been there for as long as 100 years. Princeton students wanted the name of the past president and their own school's president, Woodrow Wilson, to be removed from campus. He said or did something that by today's standards would be unacceptable. The school refused to comply. Some students wanted the term "dorm master" to be changed because it might offend some people. They did not ask to have the Master's degree nor terms like "chess master," master builder, mastering and so on changed. So we should rename every building, state or city name including the streets with names like Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and even Teddy Roosevelt who did not consider Americans of African descent equal to those of European descent. Rename Washington, D.C., the state of the same name, all schools that bear these names and so for all these former American heroes. They want to rename Columbus because he invaded what is now America and caused many to be killed. Discovering America was not enough.

Those on the right want to preserve history. They fight against those who want to tear down every statue of someone who did more for this country than they ever will. They don't blame these historical figures for what are now transgressions. They look to early America with pride and fear that our culture's values, beliefs, and traditions are eroding. They are considered "what supremacists" by those who disagree with their position.

The rare moderate sees a middle path through these conflicting views. These people think with their minds and feel with their hearts and by so doing can solve most of our problems be they homelessness, poverty, crime, inadequate education, income disparity, free speech, and immigration -  legal and illegal, compassionately and practical, objective, not biased.

Who should be held responsible?

Where are the moderates when we need them?