In the ever-spiraling search for feasible answers to the question of the origin of the Universe, our lovely scientists are now postulating the idea of multiple Universes. In fact, ‘multiple’ is an understatement. They suggest an infinite number of Universes might exist, in order for the particulars of ours to be satisfied. Apparently, there are only a few ‘rules’ to be obeyed, for us to exist as we do, (far fewer than for cricket!), but the mathematical chances of these coming together at random is still infinitesimally small.
In view of this astounding contemplation of man’s insignificance in the overall scheme of things, one lovely scientist, Carl Sagan says: “For small creatures such as we, the vastness is bearable only through love”. When confronting overwhelming odds this honestly, I think that about sums it up. But the next two logical steps in the inquiry, as yet, are not being addressed. If willingness were there, (which would admittedly involve a quantum leap in perception), the questions would look something like this:
- If the mathematical chances of the appearance of a material Universe as we know it lead to the proposal of infinite numbers of Universes, what would the probabilities be of a material Universe like ours including the only practical remedy for psychological problems inherent in contemplating such vastness – i.e. Love? (Remembering too that Love seems essential in far more than consoling vulnerability!)
- In view of the above super-numeric calculations, (which tend to push infinity toward absurdity), could it just be possible that the said remedy existed before the conception of any material Universe? In other words, might the chances of a Lovely Intelligence existing before any of us or our awesome Universe be more favourable than the probabilities discussed in question one above? In plain-speak: Wouldn’t the idea of ‘God’ actually be more plausible and probable than the idea of random chance that includes not only the material Universe, but also those spiritual qualities that make it possible to exist in it?
Possibilities and probabilities are there to be posited and explored at will. One lovely scientist, Brian Cox of BBC fame, in summing up his recent programme: ‘Why Are We Here?’ speaks of “an infinite number of possibilities of you and me – no purpose – nothing special. You are because you have to be. How does that make you feel? The answer is up to you. What do you think?” My feelingful thoughtful answer would be: “Hey Bri, you scientists are doing a great job – we all love you for it! Now please complete the logic with the final two questions – the answers are not as scary as you think!”
I think it’s possible, (indeed probable), that somewhere in the background of such brilliant minds, somewhere hitherto unexplored, lurks this same insight. The problem in accessing such awareness lies in the perception of it as ‘unscientific’. The fear would be that, if acknowledged, power would shift back from science to religion – heaven forbid! The answer to this dilemma, I believe, lies in the etymology. ‘Science’ literally means ‘knowledge’, (although we have come to understand it to mean something else – roughly speaking: ‘perceptions that are provable’.) ‘Religion’ means literally ‘to bind back’ – back to the whole. So if science were to become all-encompassing, as suggested, then knowledge would include all possibilities. And if those possibilities included one in which we were not as separate and autonomous as our thoughts suggest, then there would be no real need of religion to bind us back. Having fearlessly encompassed the idea of a Source of All Love, we would unshakably feel bound back to the whole, to a common origin which precedes the material Universe – to our singular root in Love.
“And I begin to remember the Love I chose to forget,
but which has not forgotten me” – ACIM