Is God and Nature Different Ideas?
Though science and religion seem posed against each other throughout our modern day society, in ancient societies they actually originated as the same thing. These ideas are now separated only by the onslaught of what we have come to call “religion” and “science”, in terms of how each person perceives what we call a higher power, or the terminology that’s now used to describe the invisible forces that underlie and serve as the substrata for the material world. Both exist as an entirely different paradigm that’s used to view the same outer, material world in different ways, and as a result, create different realities around them as a personal creation and a way of experiencing what is in fact, the same idea.
What we call Spiritual Sciences, like all fields of study, requires an even different paradigm to view the world in a cohesive manner, and while it embraces all ideas that are inherent in both the areas of science and religion, it forms more of a unification of both that form a completely different way of looking at the world in order to see its true nature and significance. Yet, Spiritual Sciences, which can also be thought of as mind, soul, or consciousness science, is the most fundamental science there is that serves to produce or make all the others possible, because the “paradigm” necessary to produce a specialized perception of the world “as” something specific and therefore different, is a product of the mind itself. So all sciences and religions are formed as a personalized conception as a product of the mind, which is what makes feeling, thinking, and imagining possible. In order to form an idea around something that doesn’t come from pure “sensory observation”, we have to form a conceptual reality out of it that “assigns meaning to it”. The meaning we give something creates a personal reality as our story about something, that’s strictly a product of the mind of the individual as a personalization (personalized version) that reshapes it by way of their own mental paradigm. Again, all of which is a product of the mind.
All versions of reality, whether we call them atheist, religious, scientific, pagan, or something else, is the result of the individual paradigm being used to form them as a “believable reality”, even if it’s only believable to the person forming it. Those who form their version of reality out of a different paradigm can’t see the same reality, and therefore it doesn’t exist as “real” for them. Other versions not only can’t be seen, conceptualized, or realized through your model, but they can’t be explained, described, rationalized, or reasoned using your model either. So an argument, which is really one mental concept or “model of the world” pent against another is a meaningless conversation with no satisfactory resolution, that usually fails to realize in the most basic sense that what you’re really talking about is what we call common terminology. All terms, such as God, mind, science, the universe, and so on, are more like symbols and metaphors meant to represent and idea that have a different meaning for everyone that uses them. And while one may feel that their contrasting evidence that disproves the other is blatant and easy to see, in fact, to the other person, who’s operating out of a different model, it seems irrational, unreasonable, and makes no sense at all. This is often because both parties fail to recognize the most fundamental law of all that they both share in common, which is what allows them to have diverse and contrasting perceptions of the same idea, and that is their “mind as a mental paradigm” or structured model that is literally producing their perception of reality.
A Spiritual Scientist walks between worlds and sees life, not as one or the other, but as a magical unified reality that holds and supports an infinite number of variations as personalized versions of a metaphorical or symbolic idea. While many are oriented within the material plane looking out, and imagine the spiritual world of invisible ideas to be symbolic of the material, the fact is, when oriented from the perspective of the spiritual (energetic) plane of cause, the material is symbolic of the spiritual, and can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways to form different versions of the same basic idea. There is no such thing as right and wrong in the ultimate sense, there’s only one version and another version, both of which are right and real to the person creating it, and come strictly as a product of their mental model which is what forms their perception of the outer reality in terms of how it “appears” to them. How things appear to us come through our perceptual lens as a filtering mechanism that activates and pull out some aspects, while deactivating and moving to the background other aspects, reformulating it to take on a novel and unique version as one possibility out of an infinite number of possibilities.
I often get asked if I “believe in God”, which many see as the defining question that puts me on one side of the fence or the other, and I never really know how to answer that question in a way that will be comprehensible to the person asking. I usually say something like, “well ya, but what you’re calling God and what I see as God are probably entirely different things, so my answer to that question probably won’t make sense to you, because my model doesn’t support that type of question in a meaningful way, and can’t be used to validate and prove the idea one way or the other”. I find the question itself a bit confusing, because that type of question isn’t even a thought process in my mind. I don’t have a “this or that” mentality that pledges allegiance to one extreme over the other, but rather see both extremes as existing simultaneously in relationship to each other as the contrast necessary to define one or the other, and see both as being different perspectives on what ultimately exists as the same thing.
All of life exists as a divine paradox, and all personalized versions of reality arise out of this paradox as one way of looking at it, and form a unique experience of an archetypal or universal idea. So to me, in my paradigm and way of seeing the world, science and God are different aspects of the same idea, and do not exist a part from each other or where one serves to disprove the other. All of what we call Nature or the material world exists as the creation of the mind that perceives it. Perception itself of an “outer world” is only possible through the mind as an invisible field of information that’s doing the perceiving, and has the ability to separate one from the other in a way that makes sense to them. Science, when looked at from a certain perspective is the realization of the mind of God, and is how we explore and come to realize God through It’s expression and creation of the material world. Science is what proves and demonstrates God as the Laws that underlie and govern the entire material world. There’s no such thing as one existing apart from the other, because they’re the same thing, varying only by degrees as an energetic state or vibratory frequency.
The division of God from the material world, or religion and science, is a man-made concept that poses one extreme of the same idea against them other. What we now call religion, formed the idea of God as a monotheistic idea that’s presented and perceived as an “entity” that lives a part from Its own creation – “out there” somewhere that we pray too – and sees the study of the Natural world that we live in as separate and different from God, and therefore the sects that supposedly “worshiped nature” are called “atheists”. And those who perceived or connected with God “through Nature”, are called Pagans. Yet, in another way, it’s the religious sects that may be viewed as true atheists and pagans, because they have formed an idea about God as a person, image, or idol that’s separate from the natural world as God’s very own creation, all without seeming to realize that what makes their perception possible, is their mind. The mind is a field of vibrating energy as information and intelligence that shapes how we perceive and experience the world that’s comprised of a set of Laws, and like all Laws exists and operates on different levels and scales, and what we call the material world exists within the Universal Mind that’s dreaming it, just like we are.
So to ask a scientist if they believe in God, is a meaningless question, because it’s based on a false or incredibly diverse idea of what we mean by the word “God”. It’s a question that only arises out of the mind (paradigm) that’s asking it, and in the very mind also that has the answer to the question that it deems appropriate or meaningful, and therefore “factual”, right, or true. And the scientist responding to the question, who usually has an entirely different take on the idea of what “God” means, forms an answer from their paradigm and perspective that seems entirely different or that doesn’t perceive Nature as God, and they conduct a controversial conversation “as if” they’re talking about the same idea. Usually without ever realizing they both exist in and live out of very different realities that are virtually incomprehensible from the others perspective.
I have made the comment that I’m spiritual, but not the least bit religious, and some know exactly how I mean this, while others find it confusing. And of course I decline having to explain it, because just the fact that I have to explain it tells me we have entirely different paradigms, and the whole basis of the conversation usually amounts to more of an argument and kind of “show down” that has no real meaning whatsoever. Because no matter how we look at something, it’s “real for us”, and therefore our “truth” about the idea as a personal creation, and that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I have nothing to prove, no need to be right (or make someone else wrong), no need to convince, or argue to defend. Because I understand, fully observe and acknowledge that everyone is operating out of their own mental paradigm, and is forming a unique version of the same idea, all of which creates how they experience the same idea to form a personalized version of it. Their version is naturally going to differ from mine, and the only actual or absolute truth that’s involved in either one, is the Law of the Mind Itself which is what’s producing our perception of reality. Truth doesn’t exist as an idea or material reality, but rather as the Universal Laws that are what’s creating them.
By acknowledging the most fundamental Laws of the Universe we’re acknowledging truth itself which fully supports all the infinite varieties as perceptions of reality that arise spontaneously out of it that are real and convincing to everyone producing an experience of reality. So to argue to defend a perspective is foolish and ultimately meaningless, because you’re failing to acknowledge and form awareness around the “Law of the Mind” as a mental paradigm that’s systematically producing it. Every single individual is producing a unique version of the same outer reality, and interprets, what is in fact an archetypal idea, in a novel and different way. No one reality is more right or true than the other, and in a sense all are illusions of our own making that when we invest in them, or proclaim them to be accurate and real, become delusions.
It’s only by changing our paradigm that we change how our outer reality appears to us. How things appear, what meaning and significance they have for us is a projection of our own mind that reorganizes everything outside of us to be of the same constitution and composition as our mental paradigm. By changing our mind, integrating and assimilating new information as ideas that serve to modify it, we simultaneously view and experience reality in a different way, seeing and able to experience things we couldn’t before. The reason we can’t see another person’s perspective and take on something, is because their mind is comprised of different information than ours and causes them to see life in a different way than we do. It doesn’t make them wrong and us right, it simply makes their experience of what we call reality different from ours. As we learn (live and earn), new ideas as the acquisition of new information that we integrate (willingly accept into) our mind that “updates it”, reforming its informational structure, we literally change the reality we live in, and can readily perceive it as real and a part of both the inner and outer reality of the mind.
Again, the only thing being right, true, and actually real, is the Laws governing the mind of the individual in producing their perspective and experience as real and true. Truth itself exists as both relative and absolute. What’s true for one person may not be true at all for another. What was true for us as a child, and formed our experience of reality, may not be true at all for us as mature adults. But it doesn’t make it “not true” because we now see things in a different light, because it came as the result of learning and growing, and served our evolution at the time. What we hold as true and therefore real today, may not be true at all in a few years, but it’s very much true for us at this moment, and in terms of how we see life. The only real truth being the Laws themselves that grow and expand our mind through the incorporation of knowledge that then becomes part of our reality. Absolute truth isn’t an individual perception as a part of reality, but the laws themselves that serve to structure the mind that’s doing the perceiving.
So to ask a religious person (meaning their reality is formed out of concepts used in a particular religion) if they believe in science, which is formed out of entirely different ideas as a type of information, can be a fruitless question that makes the false assumption that they’re talking about the same thing. Likewise, to ask a scientist if they believe in God, which indicates that there’s a difference between science and God, may be a contradictory idea, because the reality of both arise out of and can only be explained and verified by the model that’s producing them, and can’t be used in a meaningful way to answer questions that are foreign to its way of thinking. The truth is, there’s “no fence” to take one side or the other, there’s only the mind of the individual that’s producing the perception of “one or the other”. In fact, both ideas of religion and science are simply different perspectives and subjective realities of the same objective, neutral reality that only sees within that same shared natural environment what matches and can be adequately explained and described, and therefore made real, using its paradigm.
Integrative Health Consultant and Spiritual Mentor
In the Hermetic Arcane of the Tarot, the archetypal idea of the “star”, which is Key 17, follows th...
This idea can be a bit confusing to understand in the practical sense, because different spiritual ...
We now know that the consciousness associated with the brain that serves to operate it isn’t produce...
Thought comes as the activity of the mind, not just as the verbal thought of what we call the ...
I was born into this life a natural skeptic and never took anything at face value. From as far back...
In order to truly comprehend any idea, we have to start by defining the meaning of the terms being u...