The history of humanity is awash with divergent versions of human existence. Some, we have chosen to believe, some, we have thrown into the trash, whereas some have made sense to us yet have had gaps within, hence, we have filled in the blanks with more religious beliefs and mysteries of divinity so we don’t question them further, and have adopted them. As to whether one believes a scientific version or the religious one, has always been a question of what religious or scientific caucus they subscribe to at a deeper psychological level.
Since time immemorial, science and religion have had disagreements in their models. Chiefly because one relies on belief and the other on evidence. The foundation of a belief is that you don’t question its integrity lest you be regarded as a nonbeliever, yet the foundation of evidence is about the raw facts and figures that provide clarity and could be proved repetitively.
It’s astonishing to the young generation today, now that all facts are clear, that there was once a time the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei, a man described by Albert Einstein as the father of modern science, stood trial defending science, arguing that it is the earth revolving around the sun not otherwise, putting both his liberty and life on the line to convince theologians of the day whose argument was that, the idea of “a moving earth and a stationary sun were,” in conflict with both the holy scripture and the Ptolemaic geocentric model adopted by the Catholic church’s orthodoxy. Their argument was based on the literal interpretations of scripture from the book of Joshua 10: 12-13 (NIV). “On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the Sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies…” Galileo’s trial is said to have come 17 years later after the Church’s Commissary general had ordered him to abandon his Copernican ideas and not to defend or teach them in any way.
Science has since then had numerous theories regarding the origin of existence, the origin of life, meaning of life then later on the nature of it. A number of theories have come into play including Charles Darwin’s Evolution Theory, the tree of life theory, and several others, most of which seem to point to the fact that there was once a beginning to life.
Lately, there’s been a hot discussion among Quantum physicists pointing to a likelihood that there might be endless worlds with countless versions of ourselves. Sean Carrol, a theoretical physicist and author of ‘Something Deeply Hidden‘ a book on many worlds, mentioned that “It’s possible that there are multiple worlds where you made different decisions. Just how many of you might there be? We don’t know whether the number is finite or infinite but it’s certainly a very large number.” Such thoughts as these originate from Erwin Schrodinger’s 1926 mathematical demonstrations that the subatomic world is fundamentally blurry. Citing that in the familiar, human-scale reality, an object exists in one well-defined place but in the quantum realm, objects exist in the probability, snapping into focus only when observed. Hugh Everett III’s 1957 explanation as a 20th-century physicist doesn’t sound any different. He proposed that all possible outcomes really do occur – but that only a single version plays out in the world we inhabit. He points out that all the other possibilities split off from us, giving rise to its own separate world. He emphasizes that nothing ever goes to waste in this view since everything that can happen does happen in some world.
Looking at such a pool of researches, theories and postulates posed by great scientists and philosophers of our time in areas of astrology, quantum mechanics and philosophy, perhaps there’s hope after all. Maybe we’re capable of questioning the roots of our existence, but, are we in a position to accept what we might find to be true? Would we be able to sieve and transverse through misinformed ages of compromise and aid an era of historical distortion, adapting to the new facts? Even if it meant going against what we thought was the truth for centuries?
Read – Another Look at Lust – An Article by Joseph Olofinkua, Nigeria
Would we believe if some extraterrestrial, with evidence, told us that we were a genetically engineered species? Supposing a race of native terranes came to us with facts of proof, would we accept that we are products of an accelerated evolutionary process? Would we believe claims that it takes more time for a species to evolve unless artificially induced? And that humanity has undergone dozens of extinction levels to get to a point in time of where we are now?
Is it practical for humanity to constantly view herself as the crown of creation in the first place; phasing out ideas of any native terranes of the planet from alternate universes or subterranean places? What if the meaning of life is not something ascribed but what one makes of it based on nature as an objective reality? What if science has not been able to completely understand and disseminate the true nature of the universe? What if our illogical minds are not able to see the easiest of things because they rely on the wrong mathematics and numbers?
What if it were true that copper together with other unstable materials is able to produce new stable elements if a high electromagnetic field in the right angle with high nuclear ration fields was induced to produce an over-crossing of fluctuating fields. And that the fusion of copper with other elements in such a magnetic radiation field chamber could produce a force field of special nature? One that is very useful for various technological tasks and hence other extraterrestrial species are waging war against the human race in the bid to harvest Copper off this galactic zoo. What if their idea of war is not the confrontational type but a trigger of what might seem to us as natural phenomena?
What if the human body is a vessel conjured by nature and must be maintained to serve the spirit with maximum efficiency? What if spirituality is a naturally occurring technology but at an advanced level? And what if technology is the natural process by which the vessel must maintain itself? Would our religious systems be open to accepting new truths about the gaps within religion rather than cover them with unquestionable divinity? Would the need for discovery of the truth about our species overpower the need to maintain political and religious dogma over which the meaning of life such as we know it is ascribed?
Regardless, however, if we care so much about the progress of our species, we must stand at a place of questioning our morality with both compassion and evidence. We must be open-minded and flexible to whatever we might find true rather than repel whatever doesn’t fit in our reality as we know it. Because yes, if we know the truth, the truth shall set us free.
Published in the October 2021 Edition of the WSA Magazine
