Evolutionary Deism: the prophecy of ellenjanuary.
Tenets according to the gwynnite hypothesis:
- God is.
- The purpose of god is for the individual to find comfort in god.
- The purpose of god is for all individuals to find unity in god.
- No purpose shall be accorded to god in conflict with the scientific method.
The tale of becoming:
On the job site one night in August of 2005, a speck on the wall caught my attention. I considered, this speck; came from the origins of the universe...
I visualized a surface covered with mathematical equations and diagrams; the calculations necessary to guide that speck through 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolution in such a way as to land on the eighth floor of this office tower, to be before these eyes, moving at the speed of the earth's rotation...
I considered being a proto-human; caught in the act of dying of freight, as I gazed at a vast and terrifying form I knew instinctively to be “the creator of the universe...”
I looked around, and saw myself on the deck of a starship; an interstellar research craft a la Star Trek, where beings in white coats busied themselves with routine tasks. Then I found myself in a hallway of metallic planks; cylindrical, with steel tubes running down the ceiling and walls. Before me, there was a man. And I knew this man to be “the creator of the universe,” along with the hallway, the beings in white coats, the ship itself, even the images on the viewscreens; all of this I understood to be “the creator of the universe,” to whom, for simplicity's sake, I gave the appellation, god.
And god gave me that certain look, and said, “I have need of a prophet...”
Thus began a five year journey; one more of mind than of time and space, one where I researched the term “prophet” and its religious connotations. One where I considered what such an archaic title could possibly mean in this day and age. One where I took every precaution to minimize potential cross-contamination lest I have been “endowed” with occult power of which I was consciously unaware; to insure that my “status” did not impinge on the faith of others.
Now I am ready to formulate an hypothesis. One which, I assume; at best will make me a figure of hatred, ridicule, and disdain. At worst, one which will see a prophecy fulfilled – that I will be ripped apart by angry mobs. But before I express this inevitably controversial hypothesis, I would like to explain some factors that have gone into its formulation.
One – god essentially “left it up to me” as to how I would fulfill the duty of prophet. Writing is the obvious choice. I have no idea if indeed I am endowed with what I call “the paranormal taint,” but I have conclusively dismissed any notion of preforming any “signs and wonders.” This, to me, seems more like showmanship that promotes the showman rather than god. I remember one time reading on a forum a discussion of these “prophet-types” doing faith healing in a tent revival setting. One poster asked, “If these guys have been given the power to heal, then why aren't they down at the ER instead of trying to make a buck?” That would be my question; for an answer, if one hears of emergency rooms mysteriously emptying in the valley, ellen might have got promoted. It is not my will to “put on a show,” but if god desires his marionette to dance, then I will be a good little monkey, and dance. But, until such a time, I shall translate “prophet” as “one who writes concerning prophetic imagery.”
Two – I came to understand that rather than the whole “creator of the universe,” what I experienced was the “avatar of the scientific aspect of the creator of the universe.” An “avatar,” I was given to realize, is the largest “amount” of “divine” that can exist in the universe without occurrence of a nasty case of divine interference. What seems to be to be most remarkable, however, is “scientific aspect.” After many false starts and trips down blind alleys, I can only conclude that the will of god concerning this prophet is that I become as scientifically aligned as possible. Which means, in a nutshell; to speak for god as if there is no god. From personal experience, from interaction with others, and from the opinions of scientists working in the field; it is my contention that religion can now be seen as an evolutionary dead end. Every time an individual probes the secrets of the universe, that individual comes across the limits of intellect and imagination; if there is religion in this individual, this tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. “I can only see so far,” the mind seems to state, “beyond that must be god.” A declaration of defeat, which others of the same religious persuasion tend to capitalize upon and invert, calling it a victory. Doing exactly the opposite of the usual doctrines of faith, and proclaiming such to be “proof of god.” This is a travesty. The benefits to the sect are small even as the detriment to human endeavor is large, and yet a sense of self-satisfaction and instant gratification allows these harmful assumptions to propagate. If there must me a limit to me, let there be no limit to mankind. This is what I believe. That knowledge comes not from being right; but from being wrong, only then learning a way that is more right. And of all what I do in my life; let it be entirely wrong, let it show others a way to be more right. I don't believe I am a man, I believe I am mankind.
As for god, I picture a shadow on the horizon; one that as I approach, remains, a shadow on the horizon. There is a Biblical passage I seem to realize beyond the conception of my contemporaries – Thou shalt have no god before me. I see religious sect and church promoting names and messiahs and prophets; but how can this be true? How can there be god but god? Therefore, I cannot but contend that terms like Almighty, Omnipotent, Eternal; all serve to indicate that there is something to compare to god. My religion is but two words – god is. There is no need of capitalization, there is no need of name, there is no need of denomination nor congregation nor continual reinterpretation of sacred texts. Despite what I feel that is a direction all religions must find offensive, I am turning away from religion. Just two words – five letters – but once the mind conceptualizes god; everything else in terms of traditional religion is the bitter taste of ash. There is no limit to god is; it is not a cage for god and man, it is a ladder to the stars. I don't believe in God the infinite, I believe in god the infinitesimal.
Three – Nothing I have read in any book comes close to what I have seen in a single instant of August night five years gone. Nothing I have read in any book concerning the power of god comes close to the potential power of the human mind advanced with an abstract hypothetical I call LNC. I have had discussions with believers who strive to describe the kingdom of heaven, as I relate what a future human being may be able to accomplish with LNC; and the differences are astounding. They cannot even conceive of the scenarios which I describe, not in the physical world; not even in the supposedly glorious kingdom of god. Yet what I consider is something any human being may be able to do; there is no supernatural being necessary, and it is not inconstant with the frontiers of quantum theory.
The tale of being:
This is why I must turn from religion. Every religion seeks to limit; but the only limit to science is the will to dare, and even Icarus would tremble at the will of ellen. A failure in religion accomplishes nothing; while a failure in scientific endeavor is a two-fold success. One is that such failure can show patterns of thought and experimental direction which are not feasible; two is that such a failure conducted along the lines of the scientific method is a source of information that is never truly discarded. The failure of today's hypothesis may be entirely the result of this day being today, and tomorrow's eyes may see a whole new wealth of potential.
Yet god is. What does this statement mean to science? For me, what speaks more clearly than Gideon's trumpet is the need to conquer space. There is no excuse to remain huddled on earth in comfort and decadence and squabble over dwindling resource. There is no excuse to vote with my money in support of corporations who do not turn their eyes to the heavens. We must take Mars. We must take the asteroid belt. We must not wait for individual innovation to develop esoteric technology to make the trip easy. It wasn't easy developing agriculture. It wasn't easy forming the social structures necessary for cities to give rise to nations. It wasn't easy to build America. Why should we now sit on our hands and consider hypocritical nonsense, that space is too difficult; when none of us have such weak-willed progenitors?
Furthermore, it is not for some vague future that we must claim the heavens; it is the turbulent present. The will of scientific endeavor does not rest. We are a species driven towards innovation; and if we remain on a single ball of mud, those innovations will consume us. To my mind, the two most pressing concerns as to why we need to claim the asteroid belt is nanotechnology and genetic engineering. It is not moral to try and restrict growth, it is insane. Outlawing technology in a supposedly moral society only forces the developers of such technology to a more receptive society. Which often means a poorer society, one looking for an angle, one that definitely would not have the safety concerns of a place like America. It is not for science to conform to outdated moral norms, it is for science to continually push the envelope. There are those among us who see science in such black-and-white terms that the wholesale slaughter of five billion people is to be considered “an act for the greater good.” How is such a thing possible according to anybody's moral standard? It isn't; they simply reduce people to numbers, numbers that they can erase from the face of the earth to fulfill their numerological prophecy: one point six billion people. That is the number many of the best minds on the planet have concluded represents sustainability without advanced technology. So that those who rule us now can continue to rule. They don't even care that expansion into space, which might lessen their fortunes but for the moment; could give their descendants the type of wealth beyond Nero's wildest dreams. They don't even care that even if they succeed, the complexity of our society has insured that the impetuous drive will remain, and within a hundred years; we'll be right here once more, only worse, with an anarchist underground.
But space, whose empty expanse fills the soul with terror; is ready-made for such technological advances. What kind of limits need one place on a nano-assembly plant on an asteroid? Men need only set it up, then tele-operate function; there could even be a buried nuke to abort the whole rock if something nasty is developed. Not only is such an advancement to the benefit of all, sticking these useless nukes into a rock as a fail-safe is beating swords into plowshares as the ancient never dreamed.
That is what I think of when I say god is. That when we dare the crucible of creation as individuals, we must consider all individuals. Every individual who ever declared, god is, has the right and responsibility to the maximum of their potential. Now is the time, when the maximum potential of the individual is enough to effect the world; and the only rational solution is not censorship and regression, it is get us more worlds. That is the only moral standard of god. We were given dominion over the earth, now the earth stumbles under our uncertain stewardship; and the reason for this is clear. We must assume dominion over the heavens.
To do otherwise is to fail god; far worse, it is to fail humanity.