News & Reviews
Four Core Paradigms and Eight Key Books for Understanding, Awareness, and Achieving Inter Group Peace
September 17, 2020
We can now explain and understand just about everything in the context of four key overarching paradigms.
Physics, biology, sociobiology, and metaphysics — as a package — can pretty much cover it all.
We have an explosion of new, enhanced, and irrefutably credible and legitimate science that anchors, grounds, explains, defines, quantifies, delineates, explicates, contextualizes and basically validates our evolving sense of reality and of the actual functional context for our existence.
We now have a much better scientific and functional understanding of the key component parts of the universe that we live in and of our role, function, and status as conscious and aware human beings in that universe.
Science is our friend.
We are in a golden age for scientific learning that gives us an extremely useful opportunity at this moment in time to build strong working belief systems and functional paradigms about the key component parts of that universe and about our role and behaviors and beliefs in it.
We have just now reached the historic point where it is very useful, intellectually legitimate and scientifically credible for us to believe and understand that we actually exist in the context of four macro paradigms that combine to functionally contain and explain the working context for basically everything.
Paradigms are extremely useful at multiple levels much of the time, and they are invaluable now.
Paradigms, at their finest, give us a construct to interpret information, understand processes, make decisions, and take actions in ways that the paradigms help guide us to think and understand about whatever the paradigm topic functionally is.
For existence, itself, it now seems to be both useful and accurate to think that we can group everything into four macro paradigms that actually include and encompass every key area that we need to understand. All four of the macro paradigms lend themselves to rich veins of scientific thought, and all four are currently in an explosion of scientific and functional learning about their contents and their composition.
Paradigm 1 for everything is physics.
Paradigm 2 for everything is life and biology.
Paradigm 3 for everything is Us — our role as conscious and self-aware beings functioning in the context of the first two paradigms.
Paradigm 4 for everything is metaphysics — cosmology, faith, and the actual underlying causation for both life and the physical universe, and for our own existence as conscious beings with free will who are functioning in the context of it all in the context of the first three paradigms.
We are in a golden age for physics.
Paradigm 1 as a science is learning about itself in powerful and expanding ways.
We are in the midst of a huge explosion in learning about physics and the world we live in. Classical physics has been replaced by relativity and by quantum physics, and we now have a rich vein of learning in quantum physics that is hugely supported by brilliant mathematics and that has given us lasers, computers, and an entirely new sense of what it means to be a particle or a wave as key elements of construction for everything around us and for us, ourselves, in the process.
Quantum physicists are doing magnificent work — and we can clump all of their learning into the current version of Paradigm 1 and know that they are benefiting from that learning and they are steering us down the right directions for us to benefit at multiple levels from what they now know.
Paradigm 2 for everything is biology and life.
Our science about biology and life is also currently exploding at a rate that matches and exceeds what we are learning about quantum physics. We are entering into new levels of composite learning about life processes that could actually be legitimately be labeled as ‘quantum biology.’
We can now see how multiple codes, processes, and intentionally inter related and interacting processes structure our lives and life itself.
This is a perfect time for learning for us.
We can now actually see and understand what functional programs and codes and interacting processes are for the first time in our existence because we now use them all in our computers and in our other physical productions and interactions, and we now have the ability and the context to understand life processes and life tools in ways that were literally not possible for Darwin and for the subsequent generations of believers in prior classical levels of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
We clearly need a blend of the old beliefs with the new science at this point in time.
We need the Theory of Evolution to evolve.
Some parts of the old Theory of Evolution will survive. Processes that clearly have situationally evolutionary outcomes clearly happen all the time in the context of that core coding for some areas of life — and we can understand that much more clearly now because we now know and understand that we have coding for potential processes built into DNA and RNA that enable that to happen.
We increasingly have come to know and understand that those tools, processes and linked channels of development could not possibly have been constructed through any classically Darwinian combination of purely serendipitous processes that were each triggered entirely by random mutations.
We now know the particular actual tools use in Evolution so well that the vaccine we just built for the Covid epidemic actually looked directly at the coding instruction kits built into our RNA and the new vaccine instructed our bodies using targeted messenger RNA to build the antibodies and create the defenses that old vaccines would have built by giving people a mild case of the disease and then having the programming built into our RNA, building a response to resist and deal with that infection.
Our growing understanding of the processes, pathways and potentials of epigenetics has also allowed us to learn more about the potentials we have built into the process by DNA to the point that we are on the verge of a golden age of life sciences learning — and that expanded learning will give us tools that we can use to give ourselves and our children and grandchildren better lives.
All of that science is being built into Paradigm 2 about biology and life.
Paradigm 3 for Everything deals with Us.
We humans are the third key paradigm of existence that we need to understand and deal with in enlightened and effective ways.
In the midst of this massive and immense universe on our own tiny and very special Eden like planet and knowing that we are a very long way down the passage of billions of years of linear time from the big bang that it has been taken to build both the physical parts of the universe and life itself in its various forms, we need to have our own paradigms as humans and we need to include our remarkable, capable and unique conscious minds as a key part of that package.
We have some clear reasons to feel special.
We seem to be alone in the level of intellectual consciousness that we have. Other living beings also are conscious and have emotions and reactions and some even have hierarchies and relationships and clearly intentional strategies for interactions with each other, but we seem to be unique and alone in actually understanding and doing mathematics and in doing creative things like music and art and appreciating beauty.
We have amazingly complex brains.
Our brains actually have about the number of neurons that we now believe exist in total as stars in the known universe.
The brain has a hundred-billion neurons and they are actually connected by a hundred-trillion synapsis.
So — we definitely are not the same as everything else around us.
We create things.
We understand things.
We have scientists of various kinds doing deeply important discovery and discernment work into biology, chemistry, energy, macro and micro productions processes, and doing that wide range of consciousness directed work with amazing competence in a wide range of sites and settings all over the planet.
We have tools and concepts and growing levels of formulas in our quantum physics and in our DNA related science of biology that let us create interactions at multiple levels with the environment at levels that we did not think possible a very short time ago.
We seem to be unique in our ability to build nuclear bombs, and to build poisonous chemical weapons, and now even to build an entirely new set of CRISPER based biological weapons that can have the ability and the potential to actually do major damage and to even destroy the human race if we channel those new powerful tools in those very wrong directions.
Potentially channeling those extremely powerful and dangerous tools in the wrong directions is sadly relevant to us right now as a current danger and as a real risk , because we also clearly have the kinds of programming for our interactions with the world that sometimes steer us into doing evil and damaging and destructive things to one another and we tend to feel very right and justified and emotionally legitimate in doing those damaging things to each other.
That’s why we clearly need to understand why we need to see ourselves as our own Paradigm 3. We need to decide with the full set of information available to us to rise to our very best sets of enlightened values and to steer our all too Human Behavior into the right channels because we are a threat to each other from who we are if we allow ourselves to go down wrong paths of purely instinctive behaviors that can sadly feel very right to us while we are on those paths.
The first levels of sociobiology thinking pointed us in some useful directions about human behavior a few years ago, but we need to go now beyond noting that we have some dangerous and interesting tendencies and we need to understand our definitely patterned instinctive behavior as people and we need to grow in both our intellectual strength and in moral enlightenment in ways that can be anchored in a full understanding of sociobiology and of human nature in its most dangerous forms.
We need to rise above our worst activations of our tribal and divisive sets of instincts and we need to turn the entire package of inter group and inter personal instincts into a tool kit for enlightened behavior and Peace rather than having it steer us to tribal animosity, inter group conflict, inter group anger and then inter group destruction.
That is not a hypothetical or theoretical concern.
Look at what is actually happening around us right now.
We have more than 130 ethnic and tribal wars going on in the world today. We also have tribal anger and instinct fueled inter group conflicts happening to us in our own country right now in very real ways.
The people on each side of the conflicts in all of those areas in the world, including the conflicts here, feel very justified in their emotions and their actions and in doing damage to one another with no guilt or adverse conscience impacts at any level for their harmful behavior.
We all have the potential to sin and we all have the potential to be saints — and we need to get intellectual control over those processes because we will be at huge risk and we will be damaged if we do not do exactly that and do it well.
We need to understand our entire set of positive and negative inter group options as clearly as we now can unravel DNA and as clearly as we can now channel electrons, and we need to use those instincts in enlightened and intentional ways to make us safe as a nation and as a world.
We need the functional science of us dealing with us to be as strong as the science that we use now for building lasers and for producing RNA enabled vaccines and in creating new species of animals or plants or chemical compositions.
We need to know and understand that we are just as predictably patterned in our approaches to ourselves and to our world as quarks or seed corn are to their existence and to their trajectories.
We have territorial instincts, sexual instincts, maternal and paternal instincts, and levels of hierarchical instincts and we build cultures in every setting to help us achieve our instinctive goals. We have hierarchical instincts, so our cultures invent chiefs or captains or heads of some kind for every setting — and we tend to feel right both following our setting’s leader and in aspiring to be our settings leader.
Our instincts to divide the world into Us and Them and to have very different behaviors and values for Us and Them are hugely important to us because they are both a blessing and a curse, depending on how they are activated
“We are all Saints and we are all Sinners,” to quote both the original Martin Luther and his more recent namesake. That potential is in each of us to go down either path.
We tend to protect and defend and support whoever we believe to be Us in any setting, and we tend to dislike, distrust, oppose and feel anger toward anyone who we define at an instinctive level to be Them in any setting.
We can’t free ourselves or separate ourselves from our instincts at any level, so we need to work with them and we need to channel them in very intentional ways to guide our communities and our lives.
The biggest danger that we face is that we can’t stop ourselves from having a strong sense of separation, division, and deep distrust against anyone we perceive to be Them.
But we can very intentionally do a number of things in any setting and in the world to significantly reduce the number of people we perceive to be Them.
We need to expand our sense of Us in most settings — and that expanded sense of Us can steer us to completely different emotions, perceptions, and behaviors in those settings.
We can create the best communities, thought processes, and effective and intentional collective strategies for safety, prosperity and Peace if we clearly understand what our instincts are and know how to use them as tools in enlightened ways to create Peace and achieve our goals.
So we need to steer Paradigm 3 in enlightened ways to the right sets of behaviors, perceptions, beliefs and emotional linkages — and we should be able to create inter group Peace at some level in almost every setting if we do that in effective ways that fit the needs of each setting.
Being Us is extremely situational — and we need to use that knowledge for good results in situational ways everywhere.
Paradigm 4 for everything is metaphysics.
Metaphysics includes cosmology, causation, belief system alignments and commitments, and personal and collective levels of faith.
The Creator, Creation itself, and The Creation Process are all part of the natural logical anchors for Paradigm 4.
We can each use what we believe to be right in Paradigm 4 to anchor our decisions, behaviors, and beliefs.
Science is pointing us to the clear conclusion that all of those highly integrated parts and pieces did not happen on their own.
If we decide to believe, from the massively increasing and persuasive body of purely scientific evidence, that all of these tools, processes, formulas, and patterns that are so clearly embedded in the first three paradigms were intentional in very clear and explicit ways — then the logical question for us to ask of ourselves to complete our understanding of the entire situation we are in is to ask:
Who or what had the intentions and the power and the purpose to create each of those pieces of existence that we can now see so clearly, and what should that belief lead to in our lives?
There are a growing number of intellectually grounded, academically grounded, and deeply and well-educated people who have been doing deep studies into their own fields of expertise with extremely strong credentials in their fields who now strongly believe that those programs and those processes were intentional and some of those extremely credible people are now both writing and speaking about those beliefs.
That set of beliefs used to be invisible in academic settings, but we have reached the point very recently where some of the best current thinkers on those issues, from a science-based perspective, have been describing their learning and their thoughts in a new set of extremely useful books that point out how clearly design elements have been intentionally embedded in their science and in their body of work.
Those academic experts know they will be attacked in some circles for sharing that belief about intentional design, but they have decided as scientists that they would be failing their science if they didn’t share what they’ve learned about those processes and issues.
So, we now have four excellent books in that space that are good to read and easy to share with anyone who wants to expand their thinking to include that set of concepts.
Frank Wilczek, George Ellis, Perry Marshall, and Francis Collinsare now taking a leading role among the physicists, engineers and scientists by writing very powerful and direct books explaining with significant depth and clarity why they as scientists each believe that core parts of those areas that they study are clearly designed and why they each believe that the designs they have learned and studied have intentional origins.
Our traditional academic community will not be inclined to steer positive thoughts in that direction.
Our traditional academics, in this country and in much of the western world for most of this past century or so, has largely been in strong and open opposition to anyone in their fields who looked at either biology or physics and speculated, or postulated, or theorized or directly contended in any way that intentional design had happened in any of those areas.
Believing that any of those areas of existence actually have an underlying external origin of clearly intentional design is clearly is not the path that our academic settings and that many of our best intellectual minds have been on for a significant number of years.
Any hint of what academics in those areas often called Deism was opposed as a teaching subject and it was not allowed in any of the published academic papers created for most settings.
The actual issue of how everything began is generally addressed by those academic thought leaders by saying that it literally “just happened.”
Some thinkers in those schools say that the universe spontaneously began because that was a natural thing for a universe to do — and some contend that life began in an equally spontaneous way because the world we live it just happens to have a set of relevant and useful chemical factors that made spontaneous combustion possible and a set of circumstances that allowed life to continue once it had spontaneously sparked into being also “just happened.”
Spontaneous existence and independent and spontaneous creation events with no external causality is the official and accepted belief system that exists in most American and Western world academic settings, and that belief tends to be clearly and even strongly held in most of those settings.
In that context, Evolution is considered to be a science — and the processes that are involved and included in the official Darwinian Theory of Evolution have believers, supporters, and advocates who reject any modifications to the component parts of that science to be academic and intellectual error, clear and significant intellectual shortcoming, intellectual incompetence and even intellectual malfeasance and disrespect if people with other perspectives persist in their challenge to the theory once they have been corrected by the experts and given the chance to get it right.
Charles Darwin is considered by many intellectuals and fully embedded academics to have produced the definitive thinking and the ultimately definitive work on those issues, and his process and theory is clear and completely accepted by many people as being scientifically true beyond contention.
He actually wrote a magnificent piece of work. He had brilliant insights. He and he was an excellent writer and an extremely competent compiler of information and data. He has many very strong believers today — and those believers tend to strongly reject any challenges to their beliefs at the direct belief affirmation level.
They have a very clear paradigm on the actual evolution process, itself, that we all need to understand very explicitly at this point in the process of building our current biological science in order to figure out what we should collectively believe about those processes now.
We need to understand the key anchor concepts.
Spontaneous is a key ancho concept for classic Darwinism theory.
Classic Darwinians believe that life somehow started spontaneously in some setting with a completely serendipitous and spontaneous chemical spark that had in it the component parts necessary to replicate itself over time as life and they believe that particular event has been successful and that process has continued to perpetuate that spark of life over the billions of years since it began.
Life is defined by many of our Darwinian-based life science scientists as being functionally self-replicating as a core piece of their definition of what it means to be alive, and that seems to be an excellent way of looking at that definition now.
Pure Darwinists believe that first spark and all of the sparks that have happened since then have been open to periodic and completely spontaneous and totally random mutations — and they believe with great and explicit clarity and rigor that when any mutations happened in an organism, they potentially carried forward to the next generations of the organism and if they survived into another generation, they became an option for the organisms.
Darwinians believe that the mutations that survived and became on going components of the organism were the ones who actually had successful reproductions that out produced and out reproduced the variations and the other forms of that organism that did not have that mutation.
Each random mutation that survived one generation had the ability to out reproduce other versions of that organism that were less successful in reproducing.
Survival of the fittest or survival of the best producer and the best reproducer were the only processes that Darwinian thinkers believed created species and enhanced species.
The mutation process was never intentional or scheduled, but the Darwinian believers felt that even though it often takes extremely long periods of time — potentially thousands of functional and linear generations for each piece and for each component of a modification to prevail in that process — the Darwinians always point out very accurately that life has existed for billions of years and they have said repeatedly with a high level of conviction that there is enough time available for thousands of generations of selection to happen with each change for each organism.
They also believed that entire new species somehow sprang into life through complex and fortuitous levels of purely serendipitous and coincidental change from a prior species, and that the fact that that thousands of generations were needed for each subpoint of each change between the species was not a reason to disbelieve the process or to suspect its validity because time is almost infinite for even those kinds of complex multi factorial species level changes to happen.
When they looked at the reality and discussed the point that some of the changes in a species seemed to have some synchronization with changes in other species — as in having the color of a butterfly wing perfectly match the flower of a plant that they nested on, they pointed out that the fact that the thousands of generations for both organisms that were functionally needed for both the plant and the butterfly to make each of the micro changes in shape or color was not a good reason to believe that it had not happened in that explicit way because billions of years have been available and because the colors actually clearly matched in that setting, so those thousands of generations simply must have happened for both species in order for that to be true.
Time was the answer. Darwinism took time. Their proponents say that it just takes time and we have had billions of years of time to spend on the process and that extremely long spans of time allow all of those changes to happen.
People with classic Darwinians beliefs said that the synchronicity effects that are sometimes so lovely and amazing were achieved piece by piece and step by step for each species for each piece of the process over long periods of time.
The lack of any transitional state evidence or the lack of examples of either other butterflies or other flowers with colors that didn’t match quite as well as the perfect fit from the current winning species of both species has been dismissed by Classic Darwinian experts as being due to the fact that those less perfect versions of both species are now extinct and both do not exist because they were out reproduced by the winning pair in each combination and setting.
We instinctively use paradigmsto organize our thinking about almost everything. We instinctively use paradigms for a wide range of processes. Building paradigms is an instinctive behavior.
We have a very strong ability when we believe in a paradigm to have the evidence make the evidence at least seem to fit the belief and we have a very strong ability when we believe in a paradigm to discard any contradictory evidence as being extraneous and irrelevant to the belief.
We also have very strong anomaly screens and anomaly rejection processes for our paradigms — and we can fairly easily remove or ignore a data point from our consideration process by declaring it to be an anomaly and therefore functionally irrelevant. Our paradigms tend to have extremely strong anomaly screens for multiple levels of information.
We have that ability and the tendency in both our emotions and our belief systems to strongly support old paradigms, because old paradigms tend to exist because they have done their positive lifting in the past and we don’t want to screw up our future by changing a working paradigm that should not be changed.
There is a major logic validity for thinking that way. We want to avoid risk. If people built a strong paradigm for their village about when to harvest acorns or when to gather blue berries — because that was functionally the best time to do those activities and because that approach has worked for a period of time.
It’s possible that strong belief on those kinds of issues might have helped keep the village alive for generations.
Those are real examples. Acorns fed a lot of tribes in California for a long time. They were gathered every year. If the people in a tribe simply changed their acorn paradigm at some point and decided not to harvest or heat and store acorns for a while, that change might cause the tribe to perish if other unexpected circumstances made it impossible for the village to harvest fish that year and if the village did not have their usual acorns to fall back on for winter calories when the fish supply failed.
Some of those kinds of practices exist for groups because they were useful at some point in time and we are supporters of them and tend to be defenders of them as patterns of behavior rather than fully understanding them and defending them based on a full sense of the processes involved now.
We have hunting paradigms and gathering paradigms and child birth and child raising paradigms and we believe and use them over time with great consistency because they work and it feels right to use them. We emotionally and functionally trust our paradigms and we prefer to be aligned with the practices of whatever culture we are in for each setting because we get support from our groups when we meet the behavioral and cultural expectations of our group.
Strong Darwinians tend to have a similar attachment to the key components of that belief system — and some people with that belief system fully in place can dismiss any contradictory information as being an anomaly rather than a contradiction — and the strong believers in classic Darwinian theory can sometimes become unhappy, annoyed, or even angry when the core belief is challenged in their settings in any way.
That strong and sometimes almost emotional defense of that particular Darwinian evolution paradigm by Darwinian believers is probably linked at least partially to the fact that many of the people who have attacked evolution most strongly in most settings have done it for religious reasons — and the people who attack evolution also tend to be people who believe in the seven day creation story and who clearly believe that the world was created in a week.
They are clearly very much Deism advocates.
The fact that those exact sets of people also attack evolution and sometimes even attack people who believe in evolution naturally triggers our basic sets of Us Them instincts in the minds of many people who believe in evolution — and that Us-Them thinking probably spills over fairly easily to the sense that any mention of God relative to evolution is probably anti science in some way.
It’s easy to blend and meld and even not perceive the arguments on issues when groups of people are being hostile to one another for other reasons and when people believe that the other side has very different motivations for interpreting the data.
Science, itself, is actually helping us get past that particular Us-Them set of alignments and conflicts today because our current science is clearly now showing us that the classic version of evolution as Darwin conceived it with all of those specific component processes isn’t actually how its evolution actually happens in the real world.
We need to enhance that theory.
There is no possible way of making enough classic Darwinian selections processes work to create RNA for a species, for example. Having thousands of generations of selections that would be actually needed to make each piece of each change actually does push us back beyond the big bang trigger time frame for the creation of complex inter locking species.
The math does not work.
Science is less credible as science when the basic math on any key part the science does not work.
Many of the selection processes and the species enhancement processes that we see in our classic evolution studies do work, but they actually work in the context of a preprogrammed set of life process options and not based on random mutations for each species.
Perry Marshall, engineer, computer program guru, and author says we need Evolution 2.0to explain the actual process and he is clearly right.
Our new science is extremely useful in giving us functional perspectives on those issues.
It was much harder at a purely scientific level to challenge those classical Darwinian evolution paradigms before we knew that DNA and RNA is actually coded with intentional code.
That’s one of the reasons why today is so relevant for creating a sense that we do actually do function in the context of those four key paradigms.
Codes are key.
We did not know what that meant to have intentional code until we actually invented computers and then started to program them, and then we gained an appreciation for the fact that our computers never program themselves.
They all use huge amounts of code but code for each computer had to come from somewhere other than the computer or it did not exist — and the computer did nothing.
Darwin could not have known how computers actually function. He would have loved the entire process today had it been available to him. He did brilliant research, and what he could have personally contributed to the science with a clear understanding of how those codes and processes work would have been extremely impressive.
Probably awe inspiring.
But he did not have that information and parts of his theory needed that information to be fully successful.
What we now know about those codes has given us great power to understand and channel key elements of our life.
People in academic settings today who continue to hold strong attachment and full commitment to the classic Darwinian processes after looking at the functional coding interaction issues for life processes should not be too critical of other people who hold other primarily faith-based beliefs about evolution.
We clearly benefit from intentional design in a number of obvious areas.
That fact that those codes exist and that they are intentional actually does not tell us who or what wrote those codes and programs. It simply tells us that they exist.
Some people doing quantum physics sometimes get to some similar situations relative to the origin of elements and component parts of that process and field of study. Some very talented physicists who have looked at the mathematics involved and at the formulas that now exist believe that there are design elements visible to them — and a number have leaned toward having a sense of intentional design there as well.
We need to factor intentional design into all of our basic paradigms as they exist and we need to get a sense of context for it all with Paradigm 4.
Paradigm 4 for everything is metaphysics.
We clearly need a fourth paradigm that explains how it all happened.
The best label for the fourth paradigm is metaphysics.
Metaphysics is a huge area of thoughts and beliefs.
Cosmology is clearly part of the picture for metaphysics.
So is religion, faith, and belief.
So are religious encounters, experiences, feelings, and personal religious interactions that people sometimes feel as individuals and as potentially spiritual beings.
When we look at the options that we have for that set of issues, it makes sense to use the term God to describe and anchor what might be the core of the Creation process.
That’s not a simple paradigm, even as a mental model.
There actually are multiple theories of God.
We don’t have very much organized scientific research happening in academic settings into those multiple theories about God, but we do have extensive generations of theologically inspired thinking and we have extensive levels and categories of faith based thinking and we do have a framework for our science from the first three paradigms that could actually lend itself to also looking at all of those issues from a metaphysical perspective in some academic settings if and when some of our academic settings decide that Theism as a paradigm is worth study.
The current theories about God have a broad range at this point in time.
Those theories range from everything being anchored on an absolutely self-generating and self-creating spontaneity and connectivity for everything at one end of the continuum and goes over to absolute intentionally created packages for everything and for each thing by a separate and involved God at the other end of the continuum.
Many people have a direct faith-based experience of God and the people with those direct personal experiences seem to have a significant consistency in their comfort with the legitimacy and the reality and the benefit to them of that experience.
The data base of believers who communicate feeling right about many of those direct and reported experiences tends to be consistently almost overwhelmingly positive.
At the purely intellectual level, some people who believe in God believe that God put a number of macro processes in place in physics and biology and then functionally got out of the way to watch it all unfold.
Some people who believe in God think that God micromanages a lot of stuff in real time and creates absolute intentionally designed parts and pieces that constitute everything in explicitly designed ways and that then function in ways that are under the constant control of God.
It’s entirely possible that both of those beliefs are true in their own way and that we live in some combination of direct interactions and macro patterns that we actually use our intellects to discern and even define.
Time is an issue.
One frequently asked question is that if we believe that the creation of human life and our functional free will and conscious minds were a key part of the overall plan, then why did it take so very long for us to get here?
One answer to the question of why this has all taken so much time for us to exist is answered at least partly by saying that time might not be relevant at any level to God — and the pure passage of time might not be important at any significant level to either us or God.
Another part of the answer about time might be that it is actually both sequential and simultaneous — and it is possible that what will be in the future might already be here now if it all also actually happens at once. Processes and events might be simultaneous and time and existence might be both a process and an outcome.
That would seem to be a very strange path to go down except for the fact that, quantum physics now gives us actual examples of simultaneous happenings and we now know from quantum entanglement and synchronicity and linkages that simultaneous and instantaneous are both possible as another way that time is happening.
We also know that the perception of time isn’t fixed into a single form and we now know that relativity happens — so the extremely long time involved in having us appear might not be relevant outside of a narrow channel of time.
The aspect of time that is most relevant to us, however, is that we seem to live very finite lives. Time is a very personal issue. We clearly don’t live forever in the form we are in now and we do not live long compared to the time frames involved in everything but us, and our time seems to be focused on us now.
Why are we so finite?
That time limitation for our lives might actually be an inspiration for us to be creative and to be productive while we are here.
Some people who have thought and written about that issue said that if we had more time, we would probably waste it.
Would the absolute geniuses who have done the heavy lifting and who put together some of the intricate mathematics of quantum physics have gotten them all done if they each had a million years to live?
But maybe not.
We clearly are motivated to learn extremely complex stuff at an intense pace — and it’s not clear how that pace would be affected if we had forever to get things done.
The most important time factor that we have is the time of Now.
We do have Now.
Now gives us a sense of presence and a sense of urgency and it possibly also gives us a perspective for appreciating and creating music and beauty and maybe even love.
The key point to know and keep in mind is that “now” is extremely relevant to us and it happens to be where we are now so we might as well take advantage of it and smell the roses now.
Different religions have some differences in how they perceive God.
Buddhists tend to have a belief that God is in everything and the moment of enlightenment for Buddha was when he reached down and touched the earth and recognized that he was connected to everything.
The Dalai Lama has written a book on science and Buddhism that embraces science and encourages belief with a scientific underpinning.
Hindus tend to believe that God is in some form in every setting, and that religion actually has hundreds of Gods.
Some of the New Age believers seem to have a belief that God is in everything and that it’s possible to be aligned with God by making the decision to create that alignment. Ram Dass and EST and Emerge seem to have belief paradigms that fit that model.
Christians and Jews tend to have a belief in the sense that God created everything and steers everything, at some level — and that God wants people to live good and moral lives and to be supportive of each other.
The various branches of those religions tend to have some elements who insist on very strict interpretation of the Bible and others who are more open to a broader access to God through a wider range of beliefs and understandings.
The authors whose books are cited in this piece who are trying to figure out what the new science tells us about God and who have strong personal faith in God each write that they believe that God is love and that God wants us to be loving to one another and not to be at war with one another.
George Ellis is an active Quaker.
The scientists who write the books cited here with these book reviews talk only slightly in those books about their personal experience of God but they each seem to have deep and reassuring levels of trust that God is inherently Good and that God wants each of us to be of service to one another in loving ways.
All four of those authors use and cite their links to their piece of the Christian Church for their personal faith base.
Some people who are fans of patterns and processes have been observing that both quantum physics and what now seems to be some form of quantum biology and even quantum sociobiology seem to be more evolutionary and developmental processes than events.
Some Faith based people with that context have been pointing out that similarity for both evolution in biology and a kind of functional evolution in big bang rollout events and having kinds of quantum elements rolling out as a type of process rather than as pure events and developments might be worth either understanding or appreciation of some kind of developmental processes as a mind set for creation and a clue about how it is all happening.
Robert Wright, the sociobiology icon, wrote a book about the Evolution of God that resembles at a macro level the tiny book that Carl Jung wrote about God — the Answer to Job — and Wright seems to have concluded that believing is credible and believing in ways that create enlightened personal behavior is preferable.
He writes with high levels of historic specificity about the evolution of specific religions as a context for his thinking.
Wright has become a Buddhist and speaks of his personal experience as a religious direct encounter in a Buddhist meditation situation and setting.
All of those science-based people who wrote books that explain why they each believe in God, are very clear that they each believe in a loving God.
Each seems to have had personal faith based religious and each seems to have had their own relevantly holy encounters with God in their own faith path and their own personal context.
They also all have deep appreciation for their own conscious minds and they value the fact that we seem to have conscious minds as people in a unique and appreciated way. They celebrate free will and conscious thought and the ability to learn important things in the world we live in today and each believes that they were born to learn as their own missions for their lives.
Every one of those authors — from every context — celebrates the remarkable fact that we have both conscious minds and some level of free will and that we actually have the ability to think in somewhat autonomous ways about the universe and events and about ourselves.
Many current academic settings will clearly not accept or even consider these sets of beliefs or conclusions about the origin of all of those components of existence at this point in time, but we need to remind the academic settings that they should not feel threatened in any way by the existence of those tools and beliefs and they should continue to use the actual tools at every functional level and enjoy having them.
The only request to the most strongly committed atheists in those settings is to not be critical of any non-threatening and non-intrusive theistic theories in any scornful or damaging ways until they can identify another mechanism for having created RNA and counting quarks.
At the other end of that continuum, the six-day creation people clearly have an uphill swim at this point in scientific history.
It is possible that some of the people who believe in the Genesis story of creation will find the fact that the sequence starts with a big bang equivalent and then proceeds through the creation of worlds and creatures, and then doesn’t add people to the mix until the sixth day — and then creates men and women explicitly “in the image of God’.
People who believe that God created people to have another set of conscious minds in the universe might find that Image of God description to be poetically aligned — because the old interpretations of what that meant always fell short when the physical body of people was chosen to be the relevant image and that created multiple logistical issues at many levels.
Creating men and women in the image of God also has an interesting new context when we realize that current science seems to tell us that the billions of neurons in our brains and the billions of stars in the known universe seem to be similar numbers.
The poetry of having Eden threatened by the first people eating of the tree of knowledge and learning about evil and good also fits the paradigms about quantum physics and nuclear bombs and genocides of various kinds.
That interpretation of Genesis isn’t likely to create reconciliation with some of the most conservative believers in a couple of faiths. We probably should definitely try to create some level of reconciliation today in our academic settings with the most anti theist people in those settings.
We might just want to declare truce.
Neither side needs to concede anything. But we could be more polite to each other in some settings.
It is absolutely fine to have differences of opinion in academic settings on the Paradigm 4, but we should at least try to get people in the science-based settings to not be disrespectful of the relevant science that seems to have intentional sources.
That difference of opinion about the component parts doesn’t seem to exist in the context of the other three paradigms other than in the sense of how it all began in each paradigm.
We are in a golden age of learning.
Paradigm 1 — physics — is in a remarkable intellectual and factual growth spurt at this point in our history.
We have evolved our thinking there from basic Newtonian physics to a shared belief in relativity, and we have now we have become deeply immersed and intellectually embedded in the fields of quantum physics — and we are making massive amounts of progress in a relatively short period of time evolving our sense of particles, waves, forces, motions, and types of matter and energy — and the entire package has become both more complex and more parts ridden than some expert people expected it to become.
The science of today is massively better than the science of even a decade ago, and we are on the pathway to enhance it even more in the future. We are on the cusp of a golden age for science that is giving us the ability to both destroy our world and enhance it in multiple ways — and the destruction potential clearly exists with the tools we now have.
So, Paradigm 1 is making progress and on track.
Paradigm 2 deals with life, itself, and with the extremely high levels of progress are happening in that field today as well.
Just as classic Newtonian physics has now evolved upwards into quantum physics, we now are in a status where classic Darwinian Evolution Theory that said everything happened in completely spontaneous ways with only happenstance outcomes and the relative survival rates for each mutation determining which random mutations survived and became species, we now have the ability to actually see what DNA and RNA actually are and how clearly intertwined and interactive at extremely complex levels they are — and we now have what is the equivalent of quantum biology steering us toward a stronger paradigm for the life sciences.
We now know that various kinds of evolution like selection processes actually do happen at various levels, and we now know they happen in the context of a set of explicit biological codes that we can increasingly use for our life sciences and even for our health care and health.
We created the Covid vaccine by decoding and then recoding the messenger RNA unit and telling it to tell our bodies how to create certain anti bodies against the new virusbefore we even have any individual and direct contact with the virus. In our earlier vaccine development approaches for every other disease, we exposed the body to the virus and then we had the RNA in our body build a response to the virus after the exposure. That’s what we do for polio — and it works extremely well.
With the new approach, we now have an almost quantum physics like understanding of the process and the tools, and we skipped the direct exposure to the virus step and we told the body to directly build the needed response.
Our science in those areas has reached much higher levels of sophistication and has done it very quickly.
That’s both extremely good news and potentially very frightening news.
The danger we face today is that our ability to easily do that level of programming to build a vaccine for the disease also gives us the ability to do new version of the disease that could kill many more people and that would be much harder to constrain and control.
We actually can now do diseases of mass destruction.
Quantum physics gives us the ability to build atomic bombs that could destroy humanity and quantum biology now gives us the ability to build viruses that could also destroy humanity.
That’s why we need full understanding of Paradigm 3 — and we need to develop the wisdom and the skill set and the clear intention to not destroy humanity with either set of tools.
The Institute for InterGroup Understanding was created to give us an understanding of those key instincts and the tools we need to turn those instincts into channels for Peace. The four books that anchor that workshould be read as grounding for people who want us to have a better sense of who we are and how to achieve Peace.
We have a very long history of doing very bad things to one another. We have more than 130 ethnic wars going on in the world today — and people in those settings are doing evil and destructive and damaging things to the people from the other group and feeling no guilt, remorse, regret or ethical wrongness or error from those behaviors and their consequences.
We far too easily suspend conscience when we have our Us-Them instincts activated and have a chance to damage Them.
Those patterns of behavior look like the consistent patterns we see for some of the most consistent elements in quantum physics, and we have those patterns because those behaviors are built into the basic structure of who we are at a biological behavioral level. We have the ability to tribalize and to do very good things for our tribe and very evil things to the other tribe, and to feel intellectually and ethically legitimate in what we do to the other tribe.
Our only hope is to learn to extend the feelings, values, emotions, and behaviors that we extend to our tribe to everyone. With the new weapons, we can’t afford to have anyone perceived to be Them.
We have the ability to create win-win outcomes, win-lose outcomes, and lose-lose outcomes and to feel absolutely right creating lose-lose outcomes when we hate the other tribe so much that we are willing to lose ourselves to make them lose.
Anyone who thinks that we have somehow evolved past that point of lose-lose outcomes based on hatred can look at the fact that we literally have suicide bombers every single day strapping bombs to their own body and taking them into position to kill the other tribe. Suicide bombings at some level happen every single day. One suicide bomber equivalent with the CRISPR tool kit could hurt us badly and it only takes one to do it.
We need to focus on Paradigm 3 and we need to get our response to those issues right.
Stephen Pinker’s wonderful, well-written and extremely well-researched book, “The Blank Slate —The Modern Denial of Human Nature,” takes us a very long way down the road to explaining the key new quantum elements and pieces of our evolving sociobiological thinking to give us excellent intellectual grounding for that approach.
We need to understand and enhance and channel in the right directions at this point in our history for the clear set of patterns, formulas, and functional realities that stem from our strong sets of emotional programming tools and instincts that can cause us to protect one another when we perceive each other to be an Us and that can also far too easily cause us to hate, damage, and even destroy one another when we perceive the other people to be Them.
The Institute for InterGroup Understandingactually was created to deal with those sets of instinct triggered inter group issues.
We can never be free of our instincts, so we need to understand them clearly and to understand what impact they have on our emotions, thinking, behaviors, values and expectations and goals for our lives.
We have strong instincts to hate traitors and to never be a traitor ourselves. That instinct is a positive and good one when we use it in good ways to protect our community and group and family — and it can be damaging when we It causes us not to have relationships with good people from other groups of people, and it can be very damaging when it causes us to damage or kill someone from our own group for being what we consider to be a traitor.
All of our instincts can be used for good or evil. We live very situational lives with multiple levels of instincts relevant to what we do, so if we end up with our turf instincts helping us make our property into an asset for our group and if we have our turf instincts kill someone from another group who trespasses on our group — both events happening in the world today — then we need to rise to another higher level to understand what we are doing and to determine the most enlightened and beneficial way we have of doing what we are doing.
The first book — Primal Pathways— explains our basic dozen inter group instincts and explains how our Us-Them instincts can cause us to do both saintly and evil things to one another.
Cusp of Chaos— the second book — explains all of the difficulties that our instincts have created for us across the planet and down through history. Cusp of Chaos explains the end of colonialism, fall of empires, and creation of more than a hundred countries that currently have groups of people in conflict with one another.
Cusp of Chaos also identifies the horrible and intentional racist behaviors that have existed as part of our own history as a nation and gets us to a description of the intergroup conflicts we experience as a nation today. The armored vehicle on the cover of that book looks like a middle east war zone but the actual photo is from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri.
The third book, The Art of InterGroup Peace, is an echo of Sun Tzu’s famous Art of War book and explains very specific and very intentional things we can do in the interest of Peace to create Peace in our country. The book explains the six triggers that can get people to align as groups, the 10 ways we can align, seven things we can do to create cultural change, and it even describes the five explicit and intentional things we need to do to change a paradigm and get people to use a new paradigm.
The fourth book — Peace in Our Time— is a book of histories, stories, and case studies and discusses and describes how the alignment pyramid and the tribal and Us-Them insights tool kit have been used in multiple settings to create Peace.
All four of the books can be ordered from the Institute website and can also be read free by the chapter on the website or downloaded for and printed for reading by chapter for people who find that a better way of getting access to the material.
We need to understand physics and biology at core levels to both benefit from their tools and to avoid being damaged by them — and we need to understand our instinctive patterns of behavior to help create Peace rather than falling into extreme tribalism and inter group anger and conflict.
We are headed for significant levels of conflict if we don’t achieve a level of both intellectual and emotional enlightenment about Peace and then do the right things for the right reasons to get to the right outcomes in every setting.
These books and the InterGroup website are intended to help with that process.
The Institute believes that when you understand the basic inter group behavior patterns and instincts, you can predict the future a high percentage of the time for most inter group settings, and you can explain the past for almost all inter group settings, and when you clearly understand those instincts, history both repeats itself and rhymes.
We need the Institute grounding, knowledge, and wisdom to give us the skill set and level of enlightenment we need to build on the first two paradigms and give us a future of Peace and enlightenment and security.
The four authors cited in these books — George Ellis, Perry Marshall, Francis Collins, and Frank Wilczek — have all chosen to be aligned with the Christian faith and to create their own connection with their beliefs in that context.
Three of those authors have posted the review of their book from this website on their Twitter Feed and the fourth wrote a very positive note saying that he liked the review and could not actually improve on the review.
So those review of those books on this site are less speculative than reviews often are, because the authors have said that they were a good representation of the book and encouraged people to read the reviews.
Their books anchor the first two paradigms — and the four Institute books anchor Paradigm 3.
The basic underlying tenant and aligning premise behind all four paradigms is that God is in Everything and that God is Love and that God wants each of us to learn and to each find our own path to linking with God and with our faith.
That belief about us actually having multiple valid pathways to God is more flexible than some people from organized religions prefer, but it isn’t anti religion at any level and it aligns with each faith for each person in appreciative ways. Alignment with Faith structures and other believers can feel very right to people, and encouraging those interactions might become a goal for people from all beliefs if the people who run those organizations want to bring people together in faith-based ways.
We should not have our faith-based settings be the context for other of our most problematic hierarchical and alpha linked behaviors except to the extent that the people who lead there in each setting truly are servant leaders to their flocks.
We can and should make those choices about our leaders and our faith.
We should each choose the faith pathway to our faith and to our faith system that feels most right to each of us — and we should find leaders within that faith who teach Peace, Love, Commitment, Caring and the highest and most enlightened values of our society as guidance for ourselves and for our lives.
All four paradigms can and should both support and encourage and enable Peace, and this is absolutely the right time for that to happen.