Miloslav Král

What is the meaning of human life

(How has the whole cosmic action been created)

My reflections after my encounter with God

Prague 2016

Contents

1. Instead of preface: About my views 5

A few notes about my great self-conceit 5

How do inexperienced people understand the objective world 6

What else belongs to the objective reality 6

Unconsciousness as a problem ……….. 7

Life does not end with death 8

Has anybody ever seen God? 9

How it is possible to get to God 10

2. What interested me in life 11

2.1 The first cognitive orientation in my looking for the meaning 11

2.2 My university studies 12

2.3 How I got into the mechanism of political institutions 13

2.4 Twenty years of the all-sided existential persecution 14

2.5 New return into theoretical life 15

3. What I found out about paradigms of sciences 17

3.1 Contribution of physical sciences 17

Einstein´s theory of relativity18

Quantum mechanics 20

3.2 Contribution of cybernetic sciences 22

3.3 Creation of the Popper´s theory of truth 25

3.4 Contribution of depth psychology 28

4. I recognized the encounter with God 29

4.1 My first entry into unconsciousness 31

4.2 My second entry into God´s conscious memory 33

4.3 Events after my encounter with God 36

4.4 My present attitude towards religious beliefs 36

4.5 How far reaches the search for the meaning of human life 37

4.6 The overall representation of being 40

God 41

Creation of the matter-energy world 41

Unconscious human memory 41

Conscious human memory 42

5. Social institutions responded differently to my changes 43

5.1 Response of scientific institutions 43

5.2 Views of the natural scientist Lawrence M. Krauss 44

5.3 Media discussion on the relation between science and faith 46

5.4 The new “physical theory of everything” 48

5.5 Problem of the cosmic Akashic field 51

5.6 Do the natural scientists still look for God? 53

Georgie C. Williams: A Package of Information 54

Stephen Jay Gould: The Book of Life 55

Richard Dawkins: A Survival Machine 55

Brian Goodwin: Dance of Life 57

Steve Jones: Why Is There So Much Diversity? 57

Niles Eldredge: A Battle of Words 58

Lynn Margulis: Gaia Is a Tough Bitch 59

Marvin Minsky: Smart Machines 59

Roger Schank: Information Is Surprises 60

Daniel C. Dennett: Intuition Pumps 60

Nicholas Humphrey: A Powerful Moment 61

Francisco Varela: The Emergent Self 62

Steven Pinker: Language Instinct 63

Roger Penrose: The Unpredictable In Our Consciousness 63

Martin Rees: The System Of Universes 64

Alan Guth: Universe At Our Doorstep 65

Lee Smolin: A Theory of the Whole Universe 66

Paul Davies: The Way of Synthesis 66

Murray Gell-Mann: Plectics 67

Stuart Kauffman: The Order for Free 68

Christopher G. Langton: Dynamic Figure 69

J. Doyne Farmer: The Second Law Of Organization 70

W. Daniel Hillis: Close to Singularity 70

5.7 Conversational search 73

Introduction 73

The Human Legacy of a Great Mind and a Wise Man 73

The Spirit as an Emergent Life Force 76

Discovering the Globalization of Medicine 80

Creation as an Unfolding Reality 84

About the Limits of Religion and Science 89

The World Feels More Spacious

Science That Liberates Us From Reductive Analyses 98

Knowing How to Heal Ourselves 102

The Nature Of Human Vitality 106

On the complementary nature of science and religion 112

5.8 Scientific search for spiritual God 119

Search for the Creator of cosmos 120

Search for the value of faith 121

Search for the truth about Jesus Christ 123

6. Science explores the after death 126

6.1 In the introduction about some of my friends 126

6.2 The famous sceptic Bertrand Russell 128

6.3 The versatile scientist Samuel Huntington 133

6.4 Deepak Chopra about knowing God 135

6.5 Matthew Fox about cosmic Christ 139

6.6 The post-mortal experience of Eben Alexander 142

6.7 Potential threats to humanity in the secular civilization 145

7. Conclusion: What is the truth about all people 149

What is at the end of the book 149

Requirements on proving of the existence of God 150

The role of particular sciences in proving the existence of God 150

Popperian-Jungian search for truth 150

Common mistakes in proving the existence of God 152

For our contemporary atheists 152

Brief biography 154

Literature 156

Index 167

1. Instead of preface: About my views

A few notes about my great self-conceit

Already more than twenty years ago I told to my beloved ones about my incredible encounter with God. Almost all of them imagined God differently than the real, provably existing God whose I had met during my first spontaneous immersion into my unconsciousness. I recognized it as a human who, almost all his life, had worked as a scientist at different universities and then at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (Akademie věd české republiky - AVČR). At that times, I was one of the well-known atheists in our country who developed the theory and methodology of science. But my activity was interrupted for twenty years when I left my employment because the communist dictatorship had banned my scientific activities; and when I wanted to make living for ma family I had to leave science behind and work manually; I went to the State Fishery (Státní rybařství) in Prague. The Velvet Revolution and rehabilitation returned me to the scientific profession again. A met my friends but they could not understand, at no cost, why I behaved differently after my encounter with God. After the encounter with God I become pretentious, they said.

I remember the occasional meetings with my friends in the office of the senior lecturer L. Křížkovský, where also the professor J. Srovnal and the senior lecturer J. Šindelář and more of my well-educated friends went. They were very surprised when I started to write the book “My Way To The Truth” (Moje cesta k pravdě) and they considered it to be great pretension. They advised me not to do it. What can a person of my type to write about, a person who had been forgotten for the last twenty years in the period of persecution? And these people were atheists and sceptics that recommended me to have a rest finally and to stop having an incorrect image of my abilities. They, similarly to other physically educated employees at AVČR knew that God is only a speculatively created image that has nothing to do with science.

But I thought that if the Catholic Church, in whose ideological influence I had spend my youth, learned about my new paradigm on the provable existence of God, its representatives would enjoy my new discovery. But I experienced probably a much more greater disappointment. After the initial favourable acceptance of my new scientific experience a lot of dignitaries and scholars of the religious dogma found something else. My scientifically provable God was supposedly not the God who had sent his only son, Jesus Christ from Heaven to save us. So I became again a pretentious person for them and they might have thought that I wanted to put forward all the churchly authorities.

The academic atheists as well as the religious dogmatists told me not to meddle in things that I apparently did not understand. And they also told I was not a socially recognized celebrity who should be respected at least for the social status he had achieved. I have apparently reached such a high age that it is possible to presume that I am only a confused sclerotic man. But despite all this advice I do not want to give up my spiritual mission that I have accepted spontaneously from the provable God and this is the reason why I am writing this book.

How do inexperienced people understand the objective world

Those people who do not have enough scientific experience think that people directly see the world existing independently on them. This is a common mistake of a naive human being that does not understand that what we see, thanks to our sights, is only a kind of message about the objective world which brings only a visible light. If our visual sensations would react do a different kind of light, for example the X-rays or laser, then we would not be able to know the commonly seen sensory reality about which we naively think that in this way the independently existing objects look like.

These are messages that we use to perceive some of the partial characteristics of the objective being that are important for us only in the view of ordinary human self-preservation. But, behind this sensory experience, the large being is hidden that is not available to our senses. To know the world better, we create complicated and our own cognitive technologies. And the more sophisticated technologies there are mainly thanks to science.

What else belongs to the objective reality

But there are also other messages that are not transmitted by signals the human senses respond to. Since the humankind had arisen, they always got messages not only from their ordinary outer world that we learned about thanks to our technologically improved senses. Today we know that these different messages came from the human unconsciousness. Long before they had told that the source of them are various visions, deep dreams or the enlightenment of sensible people. Objectively, there are real visions and some of them are prophetic and some of them are spiritual, and they may have a fateful meaning for certain human communities. For example, in the near past the Hindu mystics had visions of this type, also Buddha and Muhammad or various other Jewish and Christian prophets, like Moses, Abraham and Jesus Christ, had them too. These mystical visions, that do not come from the sensuously accessible world and that are not necessarily similar to them, are so significant that large global cultures have been created from them. Also we, the members of the Western civilization, belong to a culture that has its origin mainly in the statement of the Jewish and Christian prophets but their messages have not come from the world that was not accessible to the technologically strengthened senses.

We still link up to this spiritual world and we are born with it, in a certain meaning. But from which objective being do these visions on the wondrous world come into us and what does this world include from the existing objective being? Where should we look for the real truth if the messages about this world also include the messages from our unconsciousness? But most people are still unaware about the existence of unconsciousness. When people talk about consciousness, this consciousness is always wakeful; people feel that they are the conscious “me”. But when we experience visions our conscious “me” is not awake any more and we get deep messages from elsewhere, not in the terms of the accessible world. These messages come from the unconsciousness.

Unconsciousness as a problem

Unconsciousness is an objective memory that we do not live over in a conscious state. So most people have not met directly with unconsciousness. Depth psychology was developed not a long time ago and the people were finally able to know the researches of S. Freud, A. Adler and S.G. Jung who empirically and analytically approached the depth psychology. Carl Gustav Jung is the main founder of depth psychology and this discipline has become a verifiable science. I only want to say that, besides the perceptions that bring us messages about the outside world, that there are also inner messages and we often even do not know where they come from. They belong to the spiritual memory and not to the wakeful conscious “me”. Here I just want to briefly say that unconsciousness is a very long memory of being that has been here among us, the people living today, since the Big Bang that had happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

Some people still do not understand what the term “memory” means, the term that we have known since its cybernetic interpretation. The objective memory is not stored in the brain but the subjective memory of the whole cosmos has been here from the Big Bang until today to all of us. In general we are talking about the term “memory” as it is understood in cybernetics. We know that the initial cosmic action, called the Big Bang, disappeared a very long time ago, but the memory has been still here in the material world. Using the memory, its elements appear again and again in the repeated stories of the matter-energy world, such as the various organic and inorganic processes.

The evolution of memory has taken place there, it has lead from the physical and chemical changes to the creation of life and of the human being. This development of the memory was not simple at all, not all of its evolutionary changes resulted from each other so that we would be able to predict them based on the precise knowledge about the material process that had preceded them. The evolution of the memory includes “emergents leaps” so that it includes the creation of new developmental levels that has not arisen only from the material evolution, of course. Today we know and it has been proved too that our universe is not infinite in terms of space and time, but it has not got any space and time boundaries that would divide it from something that would exist beyond these boundaries. Some people may find it strange but we and our Earth are also part of this curved world. Then we can explain that scientifically we are able to observe also the disappeared world, up to the distance of approximately 13.7 billion years, that is about that time when the Big Bang started.

I have been an atheist, educated in natural sciences, almost all my life, and therefore also a great pessimist. I knew that human beings are dying since they are born. We live for a certain period of time in a material world and we are looking for something that we can devote ourselves to but we cannot find anything permanent. Finally, we usually ask a question what would be worth the effort to live in such a strangely ending story. As a materialist and atheist, educated in natural sciences, I always asked a question why I should not end this absurd situation by a purposeful death. But my great pessimism was changed by two spontaneous experiences that scientifically proved the existence of God as a conscious spiritual memory of the whole being (see chapter 4).

Life does not end with death

Finally, I came to a provable conclusion that our earthly life is only a preparatory stage and after death we return to the real life. At the time when I was still an atheist who did not believe in God, I proved that God cannot exist in terms of natural sciences. But then I suddenly familiarized myself with something that I could have not believed at all. I learned that there is a scientific truth that is integrated in the memory paradigm of being and that it is possible to scientifically prove that God really exists and that the posthumous existence of the human spirituality exists too.

Our soul permanently belongs to the spiritual cosmic memory - even after our death. It doest not permanently belong into our human brain. The spiritual memory has existed in us since our creation. The soul was emergently created as a self-reflexive conscious conceptual memory and no other creatures on Earth have it. It is a memory that exists on such a high conceptual level where we are able to evaluate ourselves.

We, the human beings have spiritual psychics and thanks to it we are able to evaluate ourselves in such a way that we recognize our own mortality and we are able also to ask a question about the meaning of our life. We have a conceptual level of spirituality and in this way we are similar to the self-reflexive spirituality of God. But our human spirituality will never be able to achieve everything that is included in the spiritual memory of God about the whole being.

Has anybody ever seen God?

God does not really resemble a human being as we know him from arts or from religious images. I myself experienced an encounter with God (see chapter 4) and therefore I know that it is possible to come closer to God thanks to some analogies. We can imagine it as an assignment of a small element from our spiritual memory to the universal spiritual memory of God. And both these memories are structurally similar.

When I met God I identified myself with him in memory. I found myself in a different being where I would not meet God that would be similar to a human being perceived by senses and that would live somewhere above us in the cosmos. We usually imagine such an encounter with God in a way we have been visually taught in the history. Questions about the material universe from which we were born are usually understood in terms of what is an “understandable encounter”, which we have gradually come to thanks to the current sociological and cultural knowledge.

My scientific knowledge about being has moved to a higher level than my older scientific knowledge. It probably happened because I was preparing myself during my long life for a point where I can understand better what I had already known before. So I got into different objective being I had not know in details. Also in my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje) I tried to describe everything as clearly as possible, but in this book I would like to describe some other events that happened on my quest for the truth.

How it is possible to get to God

Each of us has been a spiritual being since our creation, a being who is intuitively looking for the way how to get to God. Also the human inhabitants of rainforests already know the initial forms how to get to God in the unconscious memory. Various mystics, such as Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews as well as Christians, tried to get there in different ways. Although we have come to the term of the universal spiritual memory, the Christians still call it their God.

But today there are also other ways into the unconsciousness and they are also simpler than before. In depth psychology such methods as holotropic breathing, hypnosis and phenomena have developed that are called near-death experiences (NDE). These are conditions when people, during clinical death, have strange spiritual visions and they often do not know what they mean exactly. Their spiritual psyche leaves their bodies and they sometimes see the world from outside, they see the unconscious operation of their own body. Then these people are sometimes able to describe what happened during the operation and what they saw around them when they were unconscious. And sometimes they even describe also those things that happened somewhere else. All these things can be tested and proved today. Today scientific books and magazines are published that help to study the results of the near-death experiences; these experiences are multilaterally analysed by a lot of scientists of different disciplines. This results then in the fact that the human spirituality may separate from the body during the physical death and then return towards God. I clearly explained similar facts relating to the spiritual area in the book called “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje).

There I prove that the main criteria of our return to God is the initial assessment of our posthumous moral earthly life. It relates to our entire lifetime activity when the course of events was controlled by our free will and in this term whether it was unifiable with such a world that God originally had created for the human beings. This is about understanding the moral principles of God and each of us has his or her own attitude to them. When looking for our moral way we have a free will and our own conscience. But the human beings often focus only on gaining money and accumulation of material things during their earthly life. People hunt for money and they do not know that they should also focus their efforts on spiritual God.

Based on my entry into unconsciousness, I know that the posthumous return to God must not necessarily always succeed so quickly. But when the human beings achieve this they may experience such beatitude that the earthly creatures cannot even imagine it. But I also provably know that the human immoral behaviour, that we choose in our earthly life as free human beings, is never without impunity.

2. What interested me in life

In fact, since the times when I became a conscious self-reflexive human being I have been interested in the issue if there is an unmistakable meaning of our life. Before I reached the age of eighteen, I had started to study scientific literature and I had learned that it is possible to doubt everything I had firmly believed before. I especially asked the question if people are born just to enjoy something in their life and then they finally die forever.

2.1 The first cognitive orientation in my looking for the meaning

I was born on 5 April 1930 in a Catholic family where our belief in God was something really natural. In this belief I was brought up till I started to talk. I have had a very good memory since my childhood and I easily understood various things. Later, at the real grammar school in Kutná Hora I was interested in humanities as well as in exact mathematical subjects. As for literature, I was not interested in the optimistic one. My permanent author was for example Franz Kafka whose books I could start from any page I randomly opened and I was able to really identify myself with him.

I understood the novel “Martin Eden” really well, it was written by Jack London; the main character Martin Eden is only a simple sailor who is fascinated by education and he gradually saves the necessary amount of money to have such education himself. When he achieves it he becomes a celebrity and commits suicide because his amazing knowledge does not prevent him to remain an atheist.

At grammar school I was well acquainted with the existentialist philosophy that was spread in fiction in the novels of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Camus´ novel, “The Stranger” (Cizinec) emotionally outraged me and here I tried to understand why such a young man, who comes to the funeral of his mother, tries to find some feelings of sorrow for this event in himself. I found it really too immoral. I compared this “stranger” with my relationship to my mother and to my family but I had never fallen as deep as Camus´ stranger. And I did not accept the remaining part of the novel “The Stranger” (Cizinec). When his main main character killed an unknown Arab without any reason, he was imprisoned, sentenced to death and sent to execution but he did not feel anything, it seemed to him too speculative. I was more naturally impressed by the Sartre´s novels, especially by his novel “The Roads to Freedom”.

As a grammar school student I really liked the novels of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky and I read his novel “Crime and Punishment” several times. Similarly, I studied in detail some of the works of Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, such as “War and Peace” or “Anna Karenina”, even our Czech teacher could not understand that we, in our youth, could understand the psychology of a married life this author deals with.

Besides the world-famous novels, I liked the thoughtful poetry of the Cursed Poets, especially of Franҫoise Villon whose poems I still remember very well, even today. This “naughty master of ballads” lived his life and even death in a problematic ecclesiastic environment and he finally ended in his thirties in an unknown place. Other authors of this group also include Charles Baudelair and his “Flowers of Evil” or Paul Verlaine, Arthur Rimbaud, Jehan Rictus, Edgar Poe etc. and their poems. I also would like to say that I immensely loved the ancient Chinese poetry, e. g. “The Songs of Old China” as well as the ancient Japanese poetry, “The Poems Written on Water”.

From the Czech authors I admired Vladislav Vančura because of his language and I notices what impact his original language had on the semantic content of his books. I read with enthusiasm the books of Karel Čapek, Jaroslav Hašek and also of Bohumil Hrabal as well as the ironic poems of Karel Havlíček Borovský or Jan Neruda. From poetry I particularly liked Jaroslav Seifert and only some poems of Vítězslav Nezval.

Already at grammar school I was very fond of mathematics and physics, and about the age of eighteen, I began to study some of the writings of Albert Einstein. It was a great adventure of knowing when I discovered that my grammar school physics teachers do not know this physics issue and they calmly live in a sensory visual world of classical natural sciences.

When I finished my grammar school studies in Kutná Hora I had to decide what to prefer in my university studies and after considerable uncertainty which had arisen from my ignorance of the structure of universities, I finally decided for exact studies. I still think this was an absolutely right choice that allowed me to deeply knew the whole reality of being during my next life.

2.2 My university studies

I soon found out that my decision to study civil engineering at the Czech Technical University (ČVUT) was incorrect. I gradually found out that this field is exact but for the understanding of natural sciences, which I was primarily interested in, it included only some mathematics and theoretical physics. I clearly realized this when, at the very beginning, Dr. Zdeněk Matyáš opened quantum mechanics, who was an external lecturer and who gave lectures on the introduction to physics also at the Faculty of Civil Engineering. I had an intention to discontinue my technical studies several times but someone there persuaded me to stay. Finally, I finished the Faculty of Civil Engineering, that was difficult mainly because of designing and terrain works, in 1954 as a civil engineer and I decided to continue my studies at the Charles University as a post-graduate.

I was enrolled to the Department of Marxist Philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Charles University because no other philosophy existed in the totalitarian system and the senior lecturer Ladislav Tondl became my tutor. For my distant perspective, it was important to give lectures in philosophy at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of the Charles University (MFF UK) after my post-graduate studies where the exact philosophy provided for the education in which the philosophers, without previous exact education, were not interested in. During my post-graduate studies I gained knowledge in physics and mathematics at the MFF UK where my acquittance, Zdeněk Matyáš worked, at that time he was already a professor. I was also forced to joined the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ) because without this “qualification” it was not possible to give lectures in philosophy at universities. For several years I devoted myself to intensive theoretical study of the philosophy of science in such a way that the world-famous scientists cultivated it (see my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje), 2013).

At that times I was really fond of analytical thinkers, such as Arthur Pap or the new positivist scientific philosophers from the “Vienna Group” that was lead by Moritz Schlick. I bought their books and read them which later perhaps most excited also my students at the MFF UK where I then started to teach theory of science instead of Marxism-Leninism. I was doing well and I enjoyed it until the inspection from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KSČ) came to inspect the social sciences. In advance, the revisionists led by Ladislav Tondl and Karel Kosík, had been recorded down, and when I refused to be included among those who had organized this “fight for cleaning the party ideology”, and I found myself among the revisionists who were dangerous for KSČ.

2.3 How I got into the mechanism of political institutions

I was punished for the shown disobedience to the totalitarian party so that I improved my party morale. I was placed into the party apparatus for a whole year where I had to learn about the correct party morale. I experienced there something that Franz Kafka wrote in his excellent books (see my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)). After this “amazing experience” I was offered a chance, as a better social actor, and went to teach at the Party University at ÚV KSČ that we ironically called “the Veleslavín Sorbonne”. I was told that the Party really needed me there. I had a permission to determine the conditions so I asked them to give me permission for the creation of a completely new department of management theory. At that time I fully studied cybernetics and I paradoxically thought that this school really needs it.

At this Party University I had unexpected possibilities to study theoretical literature and I had also some space for practical activities. And when the department of management was really established we started to export social management not only to Czechoslovak universities but also into the neighbouring socialist countries. The Party University at ÚV KSČ was changed to the Political University at ÚV KSČ and we suggested to extend the economic reforms by the possibility of the cybernetic reform in the whole system of the social management. And I was surprised how the various institutions in the neighbouring countries reacted to us and we established professional contacts with some of them (see my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)).

At our department of management a new professional research team was created that I called “ The issue of the function of politics in social management”, and also professionals from other universities and institutions got together there. Our team was connected with other research teams that were led by Radovan Richta or Zdeněk Mlynář and I also became part of the management of the magazine “Reporter” (Reportér) where some of our famous journalists and scientists worked. I thought everything is on the way to the democratization of our political situation - until the August invasion of the army forces in 1968.

2.4 Twenty years of the all-sided existential persecution

After the August invasion of the army forces, all the valuable things one could achieve in politics gradually disappeared. The well-know period of “normalization” began. Those people who had defended the progressive democratic orientation, were forced, by using various totalitarian means, to give up the past “incorrect opinions” and everything returned from the democratic thinking to the revived totality. I met then with Ota Šik, who was in Belehrad at that times, to emigrate with him but after proper thinking I refused it, mainly because of family reasons. My old mother was not able to leave her native cottage to which she clung even more than to me. I was her only son but thanks to my atheism we had drifted apart.

Therefore I returned to Prague and I came to terms with the then dean of the Political University at ÚV KSČ, M. Hübel, to go to “The Research Institute of Industrial Economics and Civil Engineering at VŠE” (Výzkumný ústav ekonomiky průmyslu a stavebnictví při VŠE) led by my friend, Věněk Šilhán. It seemed that there I could wait out the upcoming period in political retirement. But this was a mistake because the cops from the Party noticed a new chance for their opportunistic goals. I was visited by one of the members of my department and he offered me a possible position. He told I had signed the manifesto “Two Thousand Words” (Dva tisíce slov) a few months before but I could save myself if I had said publicly that I would have made a mistake and if I announced my new attitude to politics, for example in the magazine “Tribune” (Tribuna). Then the Party would place me in retirement where I could continue my scientific research but I would not participate in the wider public forum.

Because I refused this I had to take on the role of a political outlaw. As such, I could not find any professional theoretical position, although at that time the state enterprises looked for specialists for the optimization of their activity. At the beginning they welcomed my offer but when they found out at the Party secretariat who I was, they refused to employ me without giving any reason. And then again the well-known method of “the leading role of the Party” began in all its original state that I knew from my own experience and against which I also often acted. Then I had no choice but to look for work only in the manual area. Coincidentally, I met an interesting man, Vojtech Jiráček of “The State Fisheries in Prague” (Státní rybařství Praha), who decided to take an entire group of the “Dubček followers” for the recultivation of the ponds.

At the same time, some of my friends and acquaintances got this job too, such as Věněk Šilhán, Rudolf Zukal, Oskar Bizik and Jan Hon, who had also been labelled as the enemies of the Party and therefore they were dismissed from the University of Economics (Vysoká škola ekonomická - VŠE), allegedly for their disqualification for theoretical work. Then a period began when the apparatus of the Communist Party started to organize and focus on the hunt for the democrats, who refused to return to the old principles of “the leading role of the Party”, as it had been before the year 1968. The newspaper began to publish pamphlets about the sell-outs that had betrayed the working class to apparently work for the money of the capitalists and thus they betrayed the Communist Party. I found out that even some of my former friends had started to step aside me and crossed the street just not to meet me and in case somebody could have seen me with them. Then morally fallen people started to get into the politics who took advantage of the new political situation to build their career. And often they were those people about whom I would have never assumed this.

Most of us, the “condemned”, would have never imagined that the hatred of the repressive regime might persists for so long. But gradually we got accustomed to the new fishing environment and we found out that there were interesting people with interesting life experiences. I started there as an excavator driver, but later, when my spine collapsed due to an sciatic syndrome, I was graciously allowed to work as a construction engineer of the lowest order, so as a fish farmer I knew a large space. So while performing my activities, I had also some new helpers and I could even drive a car with the manager of the facility, Ing. Jiří Cacák. And the time went slowly by, until the Velvet Revolution in 1989 when the totalitarian regime collapsed like a house of cards (see also the book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)).

2.5 New return into theoretical life

I was sixty years old, and I could not believe that the fishing era had ended and that I could now return to my field of theory and methodology of science. “The unbelievable happened”, as Bohumil Hrabal writes in his books, but this was only the beginning of “the unbelievable” that I started to experience.

After I had signed the Charter 1977 (Charta 1977) I met a lot of politicians that started to work hard in politics after November to quickly get to everything that they had been publicly denied for so many years. In “Špalíček” at the end of the Wenceslas Square, the politicians discusses on the changes in the political system with various groups of specialists. Among them were such politicians as Václav Havel, Zdeněk Jičínský, Petr Pithart, Josef Vavroušek, Miloš Zeman etc. and some of them really wondered why I was among them. They did not know I did not come into politics because the power career had lost its significance for me in the 1960s. I wanted to gain new theoretical knowledge that I had not pay attention to during my fishing era. After the rehabilitation I returned to the University of Economics (Vysoká škola ekonomická) where I tried to search for a new science.

I was welcomed there by my former student, professor Miroslav Maňas and he also assured me that they did not forget my knowledge. They knew my book called “Science and civilization” (Věda a civilizace) that I had published already in 1968. Reportedly, they taught philosophy and methodology of science using this book at the most exact 4th faculty of VŠE where he was the dean at that time. Even though they could have not quote at that time, he offered me a job of a lecturer and I could teach there my own theory of science. I asked him for some time to think it over but I finally refused his offer because strange things started to happen that will be discussed later (see chapter 4).

3. What I found out about the paradigms of sciences

3.1 Contribution of physical sciences

Scientific knowledge was not created without any relation to the previous history of knowledge when the Christian culture had already existed. Traditional Christian orders were established and some of them also addressed the natural world. At those concepts, where scientific terms were defined, not all researchers returned to traditional faith but they remained at higher Christian institutions. The Era of Enlightenment started with some excellent scholars like Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Gallilei. This was an era when such issues as the geocentrism or heliocentrism were being solved and what religious faith is based on them in connection with the meaning of the man in cosmos.

In the history, from the philosophical point of view, René Descartes proved his worth, at that time with the natural substantial concept of being. This still applies in a lot of institutions today. Descartes saw the world in three substances - with God, of course, and then the soul (or “the thinking thing”) and the matter (or “the spacial thing”) while the latter two are not so dependent on each other even though both had been originally created only by God. And exactly the relative independence of the soul and the matter enabled the scientists to ask, in their research, the question why God had created it like that. In my books I call Descartes´ philosophical act as a “Cartesian cut” and I consider it to be important for the creation of the Enlightenment atheism.

The Enlightenment era scientifically influenced only the partial aspects of the world because its cognitive impact did not relate to all partial scientific findings. Because it had no paradigmatic impact yet. We can notice what changed in the image of the cosmos when the paradigmatic theory, which included classical physics, was formed.

The first paradigmatic science was the classical physics that begun in 1687 when Isaac Newton published his book “Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica”. It is a classic physical paradigmatic model of the cosmos that was not based on God as it was intended in the Christian doctrine. The Newtonian physics was built on an ancient idea of the atomists when it accepted the corpuscular model of the cosmos. Isaac Newton tried to reduce everything that happens in the cosmos to small spherical and invisible material particles that move in an empty interstellar space.

Newton in his paradigmatic science used the already known “law of inertia” according to which the body, which is not affected by any external forces, either permanently remains at rest or is in a regular, straightforward movement. Unlike the antique period and the Middle Ages where the natural state of all things was the calm, now the natural state of the bodies was a regular, straight forward movement. This was considered by many contemporaries to be an outrageous phenomena. Isaac Newton with the law if inertia also formulated his second basic law of motion F = m.a where F is the force that is the reason of the inertia of material bodies, m is the mass of the body, given by the amount to the matter in a certain body, and the acceleration of the body a = dv / dt is the change of the speed v in the course of time t. And finally, Newton´s third law of the equal and opposite action-reaction force stating that the forces are always mutual. Using these three laws it was possible to predict the paths of the mechanical movements of both heavenly and earthly bodies.

When Newton wanted to measure the movement of bodies towards the interstellar emptiness, the issue of the absolute space arose which thus got into the relative systems. And Newton refused to invent other hypotheses for this purpose. And probably this was the reason he was regarded to be a person nobody understood and it was even said that he had not understood himself too. In his scientific theory there are a lot of places that might have given this impression. But the greatest shortage in Newton´s theory was that this theory had not been able to explain the known interference of light. Despite the great effort, the scholars and philosophers of that time were not able to explain the interference of light using the corpuscular model.

James Maxwell and Michael Faraday created a different scientific theory that was able to explain the interference of light. They used a new wave model for light that could explain light using continuous, non-corpuscular processes. Using the classical science, the problem of the corpuscular-wave dualism was defined. It seemed that this problem could not be solved because “a wave” is an issue that does not occur in a particular place and it is spread in all directions while “particles” are always present in a particular place and they move on a line trajectory. And precise Michelson-Morley experiments were suggested that should have definitely resolved the existing inconsistencies in the interpretation of the physical world. This should have resolved the problem if the bodies might absolutely move in the interstellar emptiness.

Einstein´s theory of relativity

In 1905 Albert Einstein stepped into the issue of the explanation of light with his special theory of relativity. He familiarized the public with unexpected solutions when he assessed the Michelson-Morley experiments that had not led to the knowledge on the absolute movement of bodies in emptiness. In other words, Albert Einstein was looking for the absolute movement using “the light ether” and he corrected the Maxwell´s electromagnetic theory of light. He accepted the provable principle that it is not possible to look for the absolute movement and that now it is necessary to look for the relative movement among the significant movements of “the inertial systems” if the ether or the absolute space do not exists. He also stated that the speed of light c is an unexceedable interstellar constant. The principle of relativity today applies for all other physical variables that the classical physics had regarded to be independent on the movement of bodies.

Not only the image of the absolute time, that should have previously flown in the whole cosmos uniformly, was abandoned, but also the Newtonian idea of the mass, in terms of the amount of the material substance in bodies. The Einstein´s equation E = m.c² is valid where E is the energy of the body, m is its mass and c is the speed of light. Similarly to the energy of the bodies E, that had previously been constant in the whole cosmos, also the mass of the bodies m must change, according to the theory of relativity, because c is always constant in the equation and it cannot be changed. Modern physics has come to a very significant conclusion that all the basic variables are variable and change if one of them changes, all the others must change too.

In 1916 Einstein extended the existing special principle of relativity also to the gravitational field. He collaborated with prestigious mathematics while he was more devoted to theoretical physics, and together they came to the discovery of the general principle of relativity or the new theory of gravitation. According to the general theory of relativity or according to the Einstein’s theory of gravitation we can now understand gravity as a curvature of the space-time. Instead of the intensity of the gravitational field, we can now talk about the degree of the curvature of the space-time, which is not Euclidean, as it had been commonly assumed in classical physics, but it is non-Euclidean. It has such a curvature that we can find by the use of real measurements.

At that time the measurements of the curvature of the space-time were conducted and all the results matched the calculated changes in the layout of the same stars in the sky. The curvature of the gravitational field was provably confirmed using the degree of the deviation of light beams from the Euclidean lines. The tracks of the light beams are still one of the most direct geodetic lines in the gravitational field but they are not Euclidean lines as we had thought in the period of classical science.

Because in the cosmos there is not only one universal time and space, we have to get used to the idea that even the present or the time sequence are no longer valid for various spatially distant events. The objectively valid present or time sequence must be proved also by casually connected events when each of them may influence the other ones by their energetic exchanges. This is conditioned by their spatial distance when one would reach the other by the quickest possible energetic movement that is given by the speed of light c. According to their distance, some of the events are then so distant that it would not be possible to determine either the present or time sequence for them.

For the great cosmic events it is not possible to guarantee that “the own time” lasts. Most people certainly have heard about the literary reflections on space missions when the travellers in super-fast rockets could return to their Mother Earth and there to see that its inhabitants aged much quickly that they did. While their friends already died they returned there relatively young because, in comparison with the dead earthlings, they would be still alive. Although the readers always want to know what things influence the human life span, the physical knowledge cannot be simply transferred into other areas of being.

Einstein´s general theory of relativity has led us to the Big Bang which even the greatest physicists could not become reconciled with. For example Fred Hoyle, who invented the ironic name “big bang” due to the incomprehensible beginning of the matter-energy being, was an opponent of such a nonsense during his whole life. And Einstein himself wanted to avoid the idea of cosmos with a big bang. And therefore to achieve this goal, he added a cosmological constant to his gravitational equations so that the universe remained stationary and the Big Bang would not result from them. But later he apologized for this addition and he regarded it to be the greatest mistake of his life.

Alexander Friedman dealt with the concept of the non-stationary cosmos from the Einstein´s gravitational theory and the consequences for the Big Bang resulting from it, but the physicists did not accept it immediately because Einstein´s discoveries had not been experimentally proved yet. This happened only in 1964-1965 when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson unexpectedly discovered the cosmic radiation, coming from all directions to Earth, when testing some cosmic antennas. Then, based on the their relatively measured values, they proved that this is real relic radiation after the Big Bang. The existence of the relic radiation had been theoretically discovered also by George Gamow and his two assistants, and their calculations were sufficiently consistent with the experiments.

So Einstein eliminated the problem of the corpuscular-wave dualism, even for the price of the non-visualization of our ideas on the objective world and at the same time he is the one who led us to the Big Bang. Thanks to him, physical science has become very abstract. But a new, maybe a greater surprise occurred in physics when quantum mechanics was developed.

Quantum mechanics

The new testable entry into the micro cosmos of tiny dimensions, that is hidden to our senses, was born with the discovery of a new universal constant h that was created by Max Planck (1858-1947) at the beginning of the 20th century. He proved that the influence of energy on the objective world cannot be so small that its effect can be reduced to zero: even when exploring all the physical objects, we must use energy that is transmitted through tiny energetic doses or “quanta”. The name of the new physical theory, quantum mechanics, is derived from this.

The great changes in the micro cosmos were created again in the corpuscular-wave dualism. When we hardly resigned to the fact that the macro cosmos is absurd, the absurdity of the micro cosmos has appeared. Who does not know also some of the new statements of the well-known physicists who said that the absurdity of the theory of relativity is acceptable compared to quantum physics? Niels Bohr became famous also for his assessment of the truth in quantum theory when, after a quick read of the new discoveries of his aspirants, he claimed that their theory is not absurd enough to be true. He used his “principle of complementarity” for this, if someone still cannot imagine how the micro particles can also be a wave.

In 1927, Bohr´s aspirant, Werner Heisenberg found a new principle of uncertainty that extended the above-mentioned absurdity to the prediction of all physical processes. W. Heisenberg found a mathematical inequality according to which we must always come to principal uncertainty. If we want to measure two necessary dynamic parameters, which are the position and the impulse of the micro particles or their corresponding wave parameters, then we find out that the more precisely we determine one of the parameters, the less precise is the other parameter. But their inaccuracy never exceed the constant h specified by Planck. In physics, this principle raised a long philosophical debate and even the most important physicists took part in it.

Erwin Schrödinger discovered the law of dynamics for the movement of micro particles so this can be predicted. But he found other parameters for this new law than had existed for the classical laws of movements of the macro world. His equation of movement does not address the experimentally found parameters of micro particles, they must be determined only by using the wave function ψ, from which the real physical variables can be mathematically determined. And there is a new speciality in physics that only statistical values can be predicted for the objective data, or this is only about the determination of their probability.

We can also imagine how the absurdity of the corpuscular-wave dualism may “hide” into the wave function ψ, so it is not possible to clearly determine the objective correlative. Albert Einstein never accepted the statistical quantum mechanics. He regarded this new scientific theory, he himself contributed to its establishment, to be only a temporary one in this form. He was waiting if new hidden parameters could be found when the quantum mechanics could become a deterministic theory, as it was in the theory or relativity and in the classical physics. But nothing like that happened and its statistical nature still persisted.

In the next development of modern physics some new significant changes have occurred. In the objective depth of the cosmos towards the Big Bang, still finer fields of the mutual interaction occurred. Compared to the beginnings of the quantum physics, only few micro particles were known, but then dozens of new micro particles were discovered in the sub-atomic material fields. A new scientific theory of the physical vacuum was created, this is the new super-string M-theory or also the subtle-substance torsion theory (see my books “Civilization and morality” (Civilizace a mravnost) and “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje).

The concept of the world, which the quantum physics and the entire modern physics have come to, lacks the aspect of the memory that the cybernetics came with already in the middle of the last century. And the predictions of the quantum physics are quite problematic, if we recognize only the stable inorganic lifeless world. Erwin Schrödinger himself showed this when he, only to entertain his students, calculated the quantum prediction: the famous future “Schrödinger´s cat”. Statistically his “cat” would be alive or dead in the future, but also only slightly alive and slightly dead. Because this prediction came from Erwin Schrödinger, it became again the subject matter of philosophical discussions and there were also speculations if we could assume also the existence of such cosmoses where all the states of “the cat” would be met, if this had been proved by using the wave function ψ,where also the non-zero probability was taken into account.

Now we only call up that the objective order of quantum physics includes certain statistical uncertainty for predicting the future, that is necessary for the cosmic concept of memory that we will deal with later. But even if the cosmic order is of a Deistic type, that was predicted by Baruch de Spinoza or Albert Einstein, the free will of conscious beings would not exist and everything in the cosmos would be strictly given in the spirituality of God. Exactly Einstein regarded this to be right because for his God it would be not be dignifying “to play dice”. But why would the objectively existing God create reality where it would not be possible to create nothing new that had not been already given in the general order? If God has his conscious “me”, that is similar to the human conscious “me”, then God would be very bored in the unchanging cosmos.

We should realize that human beings cannot be seen as objects with higher weight that the micro particles have (see chapter 5.4). Then we would not experience the unsolvable surprise that we can see at the atheistic scientists who try to solve things only physically today. Then it would be just enough for them to know only energy and the natural scientists would come only to the knowing of the material cosmos to get to the entire existing knowledge, even without the depth psychology (see below in the next chapter 3.4 or in chapter 4). The further development of physics is mainly described in chapter 4.5 as well as in chapter. 5 and chapter 6.

3.2 Contribution of cybernetic sciences

Modern physics, which has come to the Big Bang, has a certain paradigmatic deficiency, not including the memory evolution of the cosmos. In the universe in which the entire time memory objectively exists, the history would not be interpreted in the physical universe as we know it today. The theory of relativity showed that in the partial cosmoses there is a causal time sequence, but it does not enable us to get to the creation of the universe before the Big Bang. We understand the evolution of the cosmos not thanks to the action of the force of quantum physics to get to the level of being, such as the creation of life and of human consciousness (see also my books “Civilization and morality” (Civilizace a mravnost) and “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)).

L. Boltzmann and J. Maxwell had already tried in thermodynamics to physically explain the incomprehensible degenerating memory in thermal processes. Let´s, at least briefly, to go to the era of classical physics when this issue was understood as a physical problem. Imagine a physically closed system of gas that we heat to a certain temperature where an irreversible process automatically starts, and this then leads to temperature compensation in its whole volume of the gas. If we want to imagine this physically, that all the molecules of the gas were in various movement states before they had been heated. But what forced them, after reaching the temperature in the whole closed system of gas, not to return automatically? And mainly why the particular molecules of the gas never returned from this balanced state into their originally various states?

We have no choice, only to recognize the new thermodynamics and the creation of its new principle that describes the entire original degenerated memory of all the systems. Based on this, entropy was formulated, and using it, the degenerated thermal balances of all the systems cannot return to the original evolution of the non-entropic direction. This “second principle of thermodynamics” allegedly has a statistical exception. The traditional biological processes then take place also differently, this means, also in the evolution of an opposite direction, to the higher organization of systems.

Only after the creation of cybernetics in the middle of the 20th century, the new universal variable called “memory” was discovered, that is able to orientate towards a certain goal, and “the information” was created that is the measure for the memory process. And this memory can naturally rise as well as fall. “The information” was called “negative entropy” or “negentropy” thanks to the mathematicians. Among them were the main creators of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener (1894 - 1964) and also Claude Shannon (1916 - 2001).

Cybernetics was created as a by-product of military contracts during World War II, when it was necessary to technologically design simple mental processes that should become a real military defence against the attacks of the fast and skilful planes. The whole process of simple mental activities was divided into partial operations which were later put together into a system model that itself directrs the processes to achieve certain goals. The purposeful human process was then subjected to a team study , consisting of the knowledge of various scientific disciplines, and the result was stunning. New theories were created, such as the terms of information, systems, regulation ans feedback. And finally, electronic computers were created on the basis of these theories, which replace some human mental technological activities.

A wide rage of problems occurred and one of the most significant ones was the relation between information and energy. This is about understanding the value of information. The amount of information, that relates to systems achieving certain goals, can be used to measure the saved energy. The information inserted into the target matter can be used in varying amounts. The inserted information thus became an exactly measurable variable. I was very interested in this issue at the times when I worked at universities and I described it in detail, I think for the first time, in the book “Science and civilization” (Veda a civilizace) (1968) and then later again in my other books.

The term “information” is not used precisely by people in their everyday communication. Indeed, this is about almost all scientific terms that various social actors use to communicate with each other, but they do not understand them all the same. Each message that people understand and that they consciously store into their inner memory is not accurate information at all, that is used to improve some target matter. This happens only when it is really about the reduction of energy to achieve some goal. Who would not know the well-known model of “the behaviour of mice in an unfamiliar maze” where you can put a mouse into the maze in order to determine the amount of the energy necessary for its activities towards finding a path to food, and how the mouse gradually gathers information on this path for self-preservation. When the mouse gets it and stores it in its internal memory, the energy consumption of the target activity is then less and less. In general, the same rule applies for humans, who, in comparison with the mouse, have much higher levels for their self-discipline for preservation.

The higher evolutionary memory in the direction of the future is not simply created as a linear growth, progressing always according to the same rules. Qualitatively higher levels of evolutionary memory have been found, which cannot be derived only from the level of lower animals, even if we know all of the essential, already formed laws incurred from the memory information paths. The problem of existence of information jumps to qualitatively higher stages is called “emergence”.

The study of theory for various sciences has had a considerable importance in the cybernetic analysis of the human cognitive process. Recently, cybernetics has approached the entire evaluation of sensory and rational levels of human knowing. The famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant regarded the whole world available to us for sensory phenomena and unavailable to us for rational knowledge, which he called “a thing in itself”, to which the sensory phenomena are related to, but they cannot be completely known. For us, the area of the available “sensory knowing” is then created, but at the same time also the unavailable existence of the “conceptual knowing” that would help us to get to the objective “things on themselves”.

In the book “Science and Faith” (Věda a víra) (Prague, 2007) I write about the fact that in the continuation of the idea of Immanuel Kant the analytical philosophy was formed, that started to systematically deal with the analysis of our cognitive process. Such philosophers excelled in it that devoted themselves to the analysis of the process of sensory perception, and they found out that sensory illusions do not exist. Those things that we wrongly consider to be illusions, are only our erroneous judgements that belong to conceptual knowing. The sensory illusions cannot differ from the sensory givenness in the objective situation that we are given, and we cannot ask a question if they are true or false.

Then the analysis of Arthur Pap appeared, as well as of other philosophers, that logically proved that it is not necessary to understand only the subjectively perceived certainty, but it is possible to get to the objective truth. Also the Austrian scientist, Erich Jantsch was an important contribution with his book “Die Selbstorganisation des Universums” (1979) where he gave an accurate description of the self-organization of our objective universe. Knowing should not be understood only as a logical relation between the human subjectivity and the ontic world, but this is always an empirical relation whose truthfulness can be improved by a cybernetic feedback.

In cybernetics, there are two different levels in the explanation of the informational changes. With the theoretical negative feedback among the real systems, the developmental changes decrease towards the future. But if we want to anticipate also the creations for greater differences of the evolutionary levels, then we should use the model of positive feedbacks where this deviation would increase with time. We call this fact, as already mentioned above, the emergence, that can be sometimes also applied if we want to understand the qualitatively different evolutionary systems. The findings about this positive feedback were brought by the Brussels School of Ilya Prigogine (see also my book “Science and Faith” (Věda a víra) (2007).

For us it is important how far the objective memory goes into the history, which would enable us to scientifically explain who the man is and if our life has some meaning that would overreach us. It is about understanding the question why the form of the developed purposeful memory had been created on Earth that we ourselves belong to and thanks to which we can think over the problem of the meaning of life. And do we only need the natural memory for it, which is subject to the general rules of cybernetics?

3.3 Creation of the Popper´s theory of truth

The natural scientific understanding of the truth was described only in the analytical works of the philosopher Karl Raymond Popper (1902-1994). He achieved the valuable understanding of the objective truth and he found a method to test the truth using scientific theories. At the times when the philosophers were discussing about the objective application of the scientific knowledge, Karl Popper came with a suggestive idea of “the third world”. He recommended to use “the first world”, which includes the external objects, in searching for truth, and “the second world” is our subjective experience. And, finally, “the third world”, that includes theoretical knowledge, and he described it as the method for knowing the truth. We should consider our scientific terms to be directly the objective truth, without taking into account the large system of conceptual knowing, while this conceptual network consists of scientific hypotheses, scientific theories and the partial paradigms of scientific disciplines and their integral paradigm then forms the knowing about being.

A certain language term, as it is described in one conceptual network, does not necessarily mean the same for the similarly marked terms in another conceptual network. For example the contents of the terms in physics, such as mass, energy, movement, space and time, may significantly differ in various physical disciplines where these terms have the same origin, enabling them to be market in the same way. Popper´s “third world” should be understandable to be valid for all the participants of the scientific process who should communicate them among each other.

Popper´s truth is cognitively significant also because the scientific hypotheses and theories are not necessarily true or false forever. But they may still come closer to the absolute truth as the target scientific knowing. As we come closer to the historical truth, the new truth is becoming more and more true but the absolute truth has not been reached yet. In knowing, we should be satisfied only with the relative truths because they are valid too.

K. Popper named the procedure, that we should use to reach the truth as fast as possible, as the method of falsification that exists for the scientific hypotheses and theories. According to this method, it is not only about trying to search for the preliminary theories to be valid but we should try to search for situations where there m not be any theories and they should not become falsified. If we reached falsification then we had to find new hypotheses and theories that would be more true than the older ones. In this way our knowing would reach the truth, that we explain in new objective situations, faster.

Some scientist explained the Popper´s method of falsification as a fact that each scientific theory must be eventually falsified. They did not understand that scientific theories are not necessarily incorrect and that they can be formulated provably precisely from the very beginning. We should really know when suggesting theories for falsification what objective facts we can assume already before their beginning. But this does not mean that such facts must always exists to be really found. If we do not find them then we regard these theories to be already scientifically true enough.

The Popperian truth is relative because we understand it always only in a systemic segment from the objective being in which we have not reached the absolute truth in science. And therefore we do not know whether, in the search for truth, we have found only the apparent testable truth that only contained a lot of faith. Using our history of the most exact natural science, such as the physics is, it is possible to know that the knowledge of the partial disciplines still remain in the relative truth that have occurred in the area of knowing of the more modern disciplines, but they go further. Also the knowledge of the Newtonian mechanics is still valid for certain sectors of the world, even though it is overcome by the relativistic and quantum mechanics. Also in this sense we can say that the relative truth contains certain elements of the absolute truth in itself.

The Popper´s way to the truth is inter-subjectively understandable. It leads us outside the sensory experiences into Popper´s “first world”. So the scientific theories are not mere speculative conceptual networks, that we can often find in traditional rationalism. But they are conceptual networks that come to the interpretation of human rationality, by which the intellect is improved using the technological resources to the knowing of being. Instead of our human senses, powerful technology has been created, by which the sciences overreached, through our bodies, the data that were still understood by the various positivist or phenomenological philosophical trends. Now we give cognitive questions to the material world with the depth of knowing about the objective world and with the terms of philosophical empiricism and rationalism.

Although Karl Popper explained very exactly everything that the natural sciences recognize, he remained basically clueless in the scientific explanation of intuitive messages that come from human unconsciousness. Although this statement is strange, Popper did not see such an approach to the human psyche that Carl Gustav Jung saw in depth psychology. When talking about human psyche, he respected only the method he had used for the material world according to the natural sciences. It seems that Karl Popper believed that, in the objective world, it is possible to scientifically prove some non-human conscious spiritual memory. Plato and Aristotle assumed its existence in the religious and mystic philosophy where this objective world could not be influenced. Karl Popper regarded similar philosophical thoughts to be speculative ideologies that can be misused in the positions of power, and therefore he criticized them very strictly. And therefore he maybe never accepted the Jungian psychology to be suitable, that he wrongly included among them. His opinion on Jung is very famous, published in his book “All Life Is Problem Solving” (Život je řešení problémů) (1994) where he tendentiously wrote that the Swiss psychologist believed he had found the new upswing of the German soul in Hitler´s hell.

K. Popper, who himself experienced the Nazi persecution, was very sensitive to any ideological concessions of scientists in the political sphere of power. And therefore he himself always strictly assessed the responsibility of scientist for all their moral failures and he regarded the Western democracy to be the best moral system people had achieved to protect human freedom.

Karl Popper regarded also historicism to be an incorrect approach to social changes, which incorrectly deduced the social laws from the objective reality. He always strictly distinguished natural and normative laws and he regarded only the laws of nature to be the objective reality that has to be respected. According to Karl R. Popper the normative social laws are not derived from the objective facts, but they are only guidelines for our behaviour that we create ourselves and that we are morally responsible for. We are those who introduce our morality into the world and if it fails, the nature or God should not be blamed for it. According to him, also Marxism was a dangerous form of historicism, where a certain type of superior morality was presented as an objective historical mission of the whole mankind. According to Popper, Karl Marx was a false prophet who was later misused by Russian students who misused social engineering, to use this violent method to eliminate labour pain in the creation of a new socialist society.

Social engineering, that K. Popper regarded to be a suitable method for an open society, does not search for historical tendencies or the fate of the man that is forced on him from outside. It assumes that the man is the master of his own fate and therefore he is able to influence himself and, step by step, to be formed by gradual reforms in small portions. In society there should not be a political struggle for some utopian good, but only such technologies should be introduced there that we could use to gradually eliminate the greatest existing evil. It is an analogical way to come closer to the knowing of the truth where we gradually eliminate the false theories on the way to the absolute truth. Popper understands the implementation of political democracy and he sees it as fair treatment of equal individuals. It is about the protection of individual freedom that does not hurt other citizens and it is about the fight against aggression and crime. There, we must not allow that the economical power rules over the political power and that money become an uncontrollable source of human power.

Karl Popper believed in democratic systems where institutions and control of political as well as economical power exist. The democratic power must be institutionalized power, not power that is dependent on particular individuals. According to K. Popper, democracy is not the rule of people, but it is a system of social institutions that allow for the public control of rulers by the ruled ones so that they can achieve their appellation without using any violence. Violent revolutions may lead to new tyranny. Karl Popper admits violence but only as a form of defence against the attacks on the democratic constitution, it means against the attempt to throw off democracy.

Popper´s philosophical system is coherent and consistent. This thinker of the twentieth century knew very well that only the knowledge of the natural science, he devoted most of his time to, is objective and he assumed that the ethical standards are created by us, the people. And therefore we can bring a better sense into history, when, instead of the morality of glory and power, we can implement industrial and scientific cooperation.

In his works, Karl Popper did not solve the natural scientific explanation of the human psyche and the formation of human values. His interesting and inspiring concept of social engineering related not only to the external social life, but mainly to the scientific insight into the psyche of the inner “me” of each human being. Our values, in the consideration of Karl Popper, are conceived only as democratically controlled human values. But it is necessary to ask a question if human values have an objective validity. What objective existence is the human society linked to?

The issue of the objective origin of human values cannot be solved only within the Popperian scientific paradigm of reality. In fact, he was always the supporter of natural sciences, he already had written about them in his reflections. To understand the objective values and the meaning of human life, he should have taken into account, as we will see later, also the scientific values of the Jungian depth psychology, but this did not happen.

3.4 Contribution of depth psychology

Depth psychology first found out that our spirituality does not stop at the conscious psyche, which can be found in the human wakeful state. Sigmund Freud, already in the analysis of his patient´s dreams, found out that certain innate patterns of thoughts and ideas can be found in our unconsciousness, and the patients may get to them on the basis of conscious empiric experience. Freud, who studied sexual dreams, knew that there are certain basic sexual archetypal patterns that regularly occur in this dream domain. And also Alfred Adler, who was interested in the study of various innate patterns of self-assertion and control of other people, came to similar results in another unconscious area.

Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) was originally considered to be the future successor of Sigmund Freud, but this did not happen. C. G. Jung did not deny the findings of his predecessors, but he enriched them by an unexpected discovery of new verifiable archetypes of the human unconscious memory. He proved that the human self-reflexive memory is fundamentally different from the memory of all animals. There are completely new archetypal patterns, such as the search for the meaning of life, which have their origin in the earthly life. He found the collective human numinous archetypes, arising from the previous animal forms that give rise to the creation of the human body. He scientifically proved that all human cultures, which occurred in the evolution of Earth, looked for the experience in the inaccessible numinous areas of God. All existing religions and civilizations clearly contain innate archetypal patterns that cannot be reduced only to sexuality or desire for power. Carl Gustav Jung therefore asked the question, where this newly discovered inborn human memory comes from.

Taking into account our genetic connection to the animal world, that had been there before people, our newness of the unconscious would be understandable. In terms of cybernetics, our archetypes were explainable from the areas of our genetically close ancestors that can be found in the matter-energy organic world. The Jungian archetypes, however, relate to the memory spirituality that we cannot find anywhere else on Earth. It is a purposeful search for human life, where all the natural processes reach. And in cybernetics we may ask what objective memory the Jungian archetypes relate to.

Carl Gustav Jung was probably interested in the same question and he devoted a few decades to it in the cooperation with Wolfgang Pauli. If we take into account that Jung had died before the questions about the Big Bang were answered, it was certainly interesting that his firm belief in the existence of God is objectively provable. Carl Gustav Jung declared that he did not have to believe in God because he knew that God existed. But the experimental depth psychology provided such faith only in the form of in inner assurance. Similarly, his successors, such as Stanislav Grof, Raymond Moody, Miluše Soudková as well as Bernard Jacoby brought only clear inner experiences within the depth psychology, but nobody is able to scientifically prove the existence of God, to explain God based on scientific paradigms (see also the book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)).

At the recent visit of Raymond Moody in Prague, I noticed that he is still looking for the theoretical scientific explanation of the experiences of those people who had near-death experience (NDE). R. Moody studied thousands of cases of different people, old and young, sick and healthy, people of different nationalities and gender, who experienced it, and, without any bias, he has come to an absolutely unequivocal finding that their statements about it were similar, even though they did not know each other and they did not have a chance to agree on the assessment of their experiences. R. Moody, like C. G. Jung, asked the question what changes in the concept of the objective cosmos should occur to be able to provably understand something like this. He admitted that he would like to find this concept in cooperation with science, but that he has not known it yet.

In fact, Stanislav Grof has come to similar findings in his books. In the book “Human Consciousness And The Mystery Of Death” (Lidské vědomí a tajemství smrti) (Prague, 2009) he analysed the psychological experience of various scholars on the assessment of death. He is convinced too that the objective reality of the near-death experience (NDE) really exists. Also Miluše Soudková deals with the analysis of the depth psychology researches in her book “Light And Hope” (Světlo a naděje) (Prague, 1999) and she herself as well as others were waiting for a completely new explanation. You can find more about depth psychology in the new chapter 4.

4. I recognized the encounter with God

I will be always thinking about my spiritual experiences and I will study them in the entire context of my life experience. At my lectures, the people ask me how it is possible that exactly me, who was an important sceptic and atheist, try to scientifically prove the existence of God today (see also chapter 1). I must always tell them that I am more surprised that they are and I understood this answer only recently after my second encounter with the conscious interstellar divine spirituality - with God.

When at the age of sixty I returned to the University of Economics (Vysoká škola ekonomická), immediately after “the Velvet Revolution” (see chapter 2.5) I wanted to try to understand how far the global scientific knowing reached during those twenty years when I had been outside the scientific world. So at a few lectures at VŠE I tested my ability to give lectures, but the I could not recall the ideas very well, because my age progressed. I asked professor Ladislav Tondl to go to him to the “Research Institute Of Theory And History Of Science At ČSAV” (Výzkumný ústav teorie a historie vědy ČSAV) where he worked as a director. But before this could happen strange events happened and me and my family was very surprised.

I found out that my previous knowledge started to return, suddenly and incomprehensibly, and they were enriched by new scientific knowledge too. I had no idea about the origin of this state. I was suddenly able to explain to everybody what I had not know before. I admit I really enjoyed this strange game that, as I found out soon, had its moral rules too. Whenever I showed that my knowledge is “my own”, I lost the ability to explain it further. The new knowledge simply stopped to emerge.

I got used not to take possession of that knowledge that was not mine and in this way I learned how to be modest. I am going to explain further these new events using depth psychology, that I did not know at that time. In this new situation, when my unconsciousness was open towards the understanding of the conscious spirituality of the cosmos, I returned to the most important question, that I had been always interested in: if there is a provable way to the objective study of the meaning of human life.

And the answer, that I had not anticipated, to this problem came from my, already open unconsciousness. The answer was to look into the Bible, as I understood it intuitively. It seemed to be meaningful when the metaphorical stories from the Bible really deal with the meaning of human life. I immediately got a Bible and started to read it from the beginning, form “the Moses´ Genesis”. I was really surprises that in the light of my open unconsciousness the biblical truth about the origin of the universe and the man started to appear to me in a different way than I had read about when I had been an atheist. Thanks to the metaphoric descriptions and the scientific knowledge, I was able to understand everything. I recognized that Moses would not be able to think of such a good story about the evolution of cosmos, that I was reading about. It was metaphorically precise and I was able to understand many things from the Bible using the modern scientific language. I realized that Moses´ message had its origin not only in the Jewish interpretation of the world, but that it had its origin also in some kind of his inner intuition.

And if the inner intuition exists, then God must exist too because he can be the only source of it. At that moment I knew that also my awakened inner intuition must come from God. And as a consequence of my epiphany, I experiences an inner catharsis when I tearfully thanked God. And then this helped me to know the meaning of life, even though, almost my whole life, I tried to scientifically prove that God and the meaning of life cannot exist.

4.1 My first entry into unconsciousness

Infiltrated by my inner catharsis and after reading the Bible, I went to the Church of St. Margaret in Břenov, that is situated close to my home. I did not know that the afternoon service was on schedule then. I still felt my entire epiphany as an undeserved grace that was given exactly to me, an atheist. I was influenced also by the service and at night I went to sleep. And during my sleep I experienced my “own personal final judgement” that only strengthened my assumptions about the existence of God. For the first time in my life, I was spontaneously nested in my unconscious memory where, thanks to my own experiences, I knew that God forgave me everything I had done before, also as an atheist. I will try o describe the course of my “last judgement”, because my experience can be useful also for those people who has not heard anything about the personal last judgement. My spiritual experience occurred in sleep and it lasted less than an hour. During this hour I internally experienced a much longer time than my entire life took.

Based on the religion, I assumed that the man is responsible for his actions. But now my own experience confirmed that everything I had experienced are not only my memories or experience taken from the spiritual experiences of other people. I found out in my experience that the existence of free will and responsibility for own deeds are beyond all my doubts. During my “final judgement” my life story started to unfold backwards and in in this retrospective course of time I recalled all those events where I had behave immorally and I consciously committed a sin against the meaning that God inserted into our unconsciousness. And it was always on me to understand my wrong deeds. The siltation was more difficult because other characters appeared in my story as accomplices of my deeds.

I knew from the beginning that this is my “final judgement” where they decide about my possible return to God and that it will be only me who will be found guilty. Therefore I experienced an enormous crisis. During my “final judgement” I still had my free will and I was frightened that my admission of truth could endanger my possible salvation. I had such ideas that I could shift part of my guilt also to some of the participants of my past. But despite this, I did not do it. I intuitively felt that God knew everything about me. During my “final judgement” I got to a phase when I became a morally innocent man, in such a way that, in the deep past, God created Adam, and I finally realized that I had been forgiven everything. Of course, this happened because I had experienced the deep inner catharsis when knowing about the existence of God.

At that time I did not really understand what I would do in my conscious state when I spiritually return into my living body when I would be coming out from my vision. At that time I had made a lot of mistakes that I understood only later. At that time, it was almost midnight when I woke up my wife, calmly sleeping in the next room, and I told her that every man would have his own “final judgement” for his deeds and that this has a significant meaning for all people. I wanted to tell this message immediately to all people but I did not know how to do it. We stayed awake together with my wife and I described to her my experience in detail. But she could not understand it very well because she had not had such an experience. Perhaps she thought I had suddenly got mad. In the morning my wife went to work and I stayed alone in our flat. I immediately called my son that I wanted to talk to him and we agreed to me only in the afternoon because he had some work.

Now I am going to describe how I behave after ma return from unconsciousness, from God, and I myself understood this only in nine years time (see the next chapter 4.2). When my wife left I got an idea to remove from my material body all those things that did not belong to the first morally clean man, as it probably was Adam, according to the Bible, and now I became a completely “clean man” after my real “final judgement”. I had a foreign element, a golden crown on one of my teeth in my mouth. So I took the punches and I pulled it off my rear molar. But then I immediately regretted it, because a sharp point remained there and it cut my tongue, and I also realized that I could not be able to chew food. But I still felt that I was not completely woken up from my overwhelming past experience.

The experience continued and I wanted, even in my conscious state, to prove God that I was infinitely devoted to him for his great grace he had given to me. I took a pointed knife from the drawer and pointed it to my heart and pushed it. In this way I wanted to prove God that I was willing to die for the gained faith. The knife hit my rib, blood began to flow out, but it did not get to my heart. And my wife stepped into the flat at that moment, coming home from work, because she was worried. She could go mad seeing me like hurt like this and she could not understand at any price why I had done this. In her place, I would go mad too. I, as an atheist, without such an experience, would not understand her if she was in my situation. But I started to tell her that we could welcome our son naked because I felt being a morally clean man, like Adam in the Bible, who had not known at that time what a sin was and therefore he had not feel any shame.

This event ended when my family, after some discussions I had not taken part, decided to have taken me, against my will, to the psychiatry in Bohnice as a completely incompetent person. But I do not blame the professional psychiatrists there that they had easily accepted me as a fool and I experienced for the first time in my life that they know nothing about spirituality. They deal only with the human body and the neural processes in the brain as they were taught at the faculty of medicine. Depth psychology has got to them not more than in the Freudian form. I was forced to give into their methods of treatment (see the book “The Twilight of Atheism” (Soumrak ateismu)) and approximately after six weeks I could finally return to my work, at that times at ČSAV.

4.2 My second entry into God´s conscious memory

At the academic institution, where I had gone in 1990, I studied the theory and methodology of science. I was mainly interested in the fact if it was possible to scientifically prove the existence of God so that this would be objectively valid also in terms of the recognized method as “a scientific truth” (see chapter 3.3). Therefore I wondered whether it would be possible to give a new evidence, to prove God using the method of K. Popper that has been used in natural sciences. I did not know well the writings of C. G. Jung, similarly to other academic scientists, I had not become familiarized with his depth psychology. I read a huge amount of natural scientific literature, that dealt with “the theory of everything” because I thought this was useful for the understanding of the entire cosmos, including God.

At that time I wrote to smaller books, the first was called “Change in the Paradigm of Science” (Změna paradigmatu vědy) (1994) and the second was its continuation with the title “Where Does the Civilization Go?” (Kam směřuje civilizace?) (1998). I have always been interested in the relation of science to the human civilization and culture. I also wanted to morally cope with the phenomenon I had experienced during my final judgement. In many aspects I have got closer also to the elimination of the natural scientific understanding of the human psyche. I wanted to free the psyche of its materialistic and atheistic determination from the function of the human brain and of the traditional dependence on the religious mysticism (see similar searches below in chapter 6). But this till was not the right thing and I started to be really desperate.

At the end of July 1999 I started to clearly feel the stronger stream of information from the unconsciousness as it had been before my first encounter with God. Once again, I managed to easily solve problems I was dealing with at that time. When I learned how to understand physically and cybernetically “the theory of everything”, I wanted to make an appointment at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic to report it. But then, at night from the 3rd to the 4th of August 1999, I had my second spontaneous insight that reached up to the memory of God.

I was alone in the flat. My wife was at the cottage with our grandchildren and I was sitting in my pyjamas in the evening at my desk and I was about to going to bed. I was evaluating my concept of “the theory of everything” but because I had got up to the physical and cybernetic concept, I still missed something to understand how the Big Bang had happened. I did not now quite precisely the role of the Holy memory spirituality of being, it means the role of the conscious God in the cosmos.

And again I had a clear inspiration to take the Bible. I had it readily at hand in my bookcase. It was the Bible of Kralice and I brought it to the desk and started to react to other very strange intuitive instructions. But I did not understand their meaning then. The instruction told me “to read the Bible” but this seemed absurd to me because it was almost eleven o´clock at night. The Bible has more than 1,200 printed pages and it is not possible to read even in several days. I did not really want to obey the strange instruction, but under the influence of a strange pressure from the unconsciousness I still and all started to read the Bible from its beginning. When I read about 30 pages, a new instruction came. I had to stop reading the continuous test and had to read only the particular sentences with an asterisk (*), a marked link to major religious texts. I immediately obeyed this instruction even though I had to pay more attention to this to further understand the meaning of the Bible without reading it as a whole, it means only in the meaning of these few sentences.

My tiredness grew and I started to sweat but at the same time I clearly understood that I could not stop reading even I could have died of exhaustion. Then again a strange instruction came according to which I had to notice only the nouns that appear next to all biblical references. I still tried to understand their conceptual content but without the context of words in sentences it was not possible. I wanted to continue in reading and stay awake but then suddenly my surroundings vanished away and I found myself in the conscious spiritual memory of God himself.

When I was reading the Bible I thought that my reading is necessary to prove God, but the opposite was true: my scientific al search for the evidence of truth about God does not exist in the Bible. This was then the loss of my search for truth as a possible evidence, that I had thought about the biblical interpretation of God. My recent search for God and its content had to be emptied so that a new, previously not known information could enter into my spirituality that followed. Because I encountered the real conscious spiritual God and from his memory the whole universe informationally emerged into me. God reacted to all my problems. My encounter with him was like nothing else I knew as an encounter with God from the biblical world where there are only metaphorical encounters with God. Now, this was a real encounter with God, such as the memory of God in which everything, that has been and that God has had and has his goals, exist.

Anything I just thought about was immediately available for me, regardless the entire real time-space that separated me from there. In the memory of God, I was now interested in such question that related to the creation of the entire cosmos and the entire meaning of the human life. The answers to my questions came “semantically”, this means with their meaning and I really understood them well and in detail. This was not “the scientific syntax” that we use here on Earth in the form of sentences and words that I had always understood well. To precisely understand this meaning, I was probably prepared, in my unconsciousness, for similar semantic enlightenment by God. For example I was ready to ask bout my mother, who had died two years ago, and I immediately saw her with eyes lost in thought, wearing those clothes I had liked the most when she had been alive. With my entire moral responsibility I declare that I knew everything that I wanted to know then and that I was able to ask about.

At the end of my entry to God I was given a strange question. If I wanted to prove scientifically the existence of the memory of God. This was not “an instruction”, it was “a question” because God always respects the free will of human being and he never imposes on it. I did not have to accept the offer because I was an old, tired and ill man. But I was thrilled from knowing what God himself had offered me before and what I has been looking for all my life. I accepted his offer without any hesitation. So I accepted my mission and a kind of “contract” was concluded between me and God and I write books about this. I will outline it later too that after that certain miracles happened in my life (see also the book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)).

After approximately nine hours of the earthly time I returned spiritually back into my body that was sitting on a chair at the desk as if nothing had happened. I still had the book in my hands. I had my experience also from my first spiritual experience but I made the same mistake again: I again wanted to tell my family about my new conceptual experience and as soon as possible. And thanks to the mobile phone of my son I started to tell this message to my wife, who was in the country and she herself had never had a mobile phone. I tried to pass the information as fast as possible as I knew it in the eternal memory of God even though I was not there then.

I should not have done it. My son noticed my strange attempts when I wanted to send a message to my wife using his mobile phone and he guessed that it was the recurrence of my first experience. And instead of taking me to my wife and grandchildren in the country by his car, as we had originally agreed, my son called the psychiatric hospital in Bohnice and he only came to tell me this fact. And two strong employees came in an ambulance with a beacon and without compromises they took me to the neurological department in the madhouse.

A young female doctor was at the reception and she started to ask me various questions. First of all, she asked me if I knew what date it was and then she asked me what I did in my job. When I told her the truth that I was working on “the theory of everything”, she stopped examining me. My work on “the theory of everything, on which the most experienced specialist in physics worked all over the world, was enough for her to accept me as a crazy person without any further discussion. She told me to leave the room and again two strong employees came and took me to the hospital because I did not want to go with them voluntarily. Despite my protest and any explanations, I got an injection there and again everything was similar like nine years ago (see the book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje). But there was a certain exception because I refused to stay in the hospital till the end and after approximately one month I went home after signing a waiver. And, in front of the psychiatric specialists, I had to sign that I will take the responsibility for all the consequences that would arise from my ill-considered deed.

4.3 Events after my encounter with God

When I returned home and stopped taking all the pills I had had to swallow in the hospital, something happened that was regarded as a miracle by my neighbourhood. For many years I had suffered from serious and permanent physical illnesses. I had had cardiac arrhythmia that caused that I could not run event to the street car or do anything strenuous. I still suffered from arthritis and my diabetes worsened and I also suffered from the repeated Lyme disease. My specialist doctors, I regularly visited, claimed that this would not change and that I had only to try not to make these disease make worse and therefore I had to take pills and go for follow-ups. After my second encounter with the memory of God everything immediately changed and all my diseases disappeared at once. I did not take any medicine and I hated them and suddenly I felt physically fresh as if I rejuvenated. After some specialist examinations the doctors could not believe this so I stopped visiting them.

At the same time I spontaneously changed my eating habits. All the “meat”, except of fish, became disgusting meal for me. When I just felt “the smell” of it I wanted to vomit and after smelling some meat products, that I had previously considered to be delicacies, I had a tendency to faint. I started to eat in a different way than my family. I watched their “feast” with aversion, but they sincerely felt sorry for me, they maybe thought I was violent to myself because I ate what I had not liked before. I also stopped drinking alcohol and coffee that I could drink in larger amounts. I hated also the tobacco smoke even though I smoked until I was fifty. My body wanted all these without any conscious interventions. Only after ten years I started to eat again some kinds of meat food but only in small amounts.

But the greatest change occurred in my mental abilities and my moral values. My earlier sclerosis permanently disappeared and my condition was much more better that before the second experience. I remembered even the literal quotes of various authors and entire poems that I had read during my whole life but that I forgot. When talking about morality, in fact I recognized the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. I did no want to lie and if I felt that something that was true might hurt some people then I would prefer to be quiet. I easily understood also the atheistic or spectic argument of my opponents but I wanted to express them more precisely so that I would easily disprove them.

I also gradually found out that the miracles do not relate only to me but that I, by the help of God, can do various miracles for others. Just as an example I tell about a change that I called out at Lubomír Fendrych, who had called me when my book “Cosmic Memory” (Kozmická paměť) was published. He was a theorist in the area of classical music and he had a huge amount of recorded musical studies at home. I was interested in it and I listened to many of these studies. L. Fendrych wanted to know then what was in my books but it was too complicate for him because he did not know science. And therefore I explained their content to him. But he also had some problems due to his bad health condition, but he did not talk about this. He walked only with difficulty and had to lean on the surrounding objects.

All this between us lasted for several years. Once I went to him with my friend to visit him. Fendrych´s wife, who came to welcome us, told us a terrible news that they had visited some specialist doctors and these had told them that Fendrych had cancer in his entire body and nothing could be done and he could die in a week´s time. When I and my friend come to Fendrych, I ask God to help him in his serious illness. And briefly said: a miracle happened because L. Fenrych did not die in a week´s time and he returned his normal life and died only one and a half year later until his ordinary death. During this period he understood everything what followed after life.

I should also explain why I got rid of atheism at the age of seventy, in a broad sense. I found out that atheists are pretentious people when they themselves say that nobody is wiser on Earth that humans and they regard themselves to be these humans, the atheists. But if the existence of God is provable then they should lose their right for their atheistic wisdom if they decide what might or might not happen in the cosmos and they give the famous “Sisyphean lost rocks” to “the incorrectly thinking people” (see my books “Civilization and morality” (Civilizace a mravnost) or “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)).

Also the opposite extreme deification of the man evokes similar conceit in me, when some dogmatic theologians say that their human prophet is God. In their imagination, they only identify their real God with their enlightened human prophet - the Godman. The similarity between them and the atheists is quite surprising. No ideal human being should be identified directly with God.

4.4 My present attitude towards religious beliefs

People often ask me how I assess the mystic and religious opinions, now after my encounter with God. My answer is unequivocal: I am completely tolerant towards them. I repeat it again that I respect the right of every human being to freely choose their own path in life. The free will has been given to us since our creation on Earth, it means at least more than five million years ago when the emergent human being was created up to the conceptual spirituality. And this is not just a matter of a few tens of thousands of years where usually the preserved written traces of our cultures date back. The archetypal innate search for God has existed much longer than today ś culture, since the human being has searched for the understanding of spirituality for searching something that is higher than the human beings and that we call God today. Even though people scientifically did not understand their worshipped gods and they did not imagine them inherently different from the present religions that search for the return to God on a moral level, as people had searched for this long before in connection to the natural world and to other people.

Nowadays, most religious people still do not know that there has been a scientific evidence of the existence of God. They are accustomed to their different beliefs how to search for God and where to go to meet him. The learned to fanatically defend their faith against “the false prophecy”, where they sometimes mistakenly include also the partial scientific knowledge. The wrong “false prophecies” really exist but this is the issue of the insane prophets. People should know that the verifiable evidence of the existence of God should be used to strengthen their faith as a way to God. If I want to explain them the existence of God that is independent on us and that had existed before the beings were created in cosmos, this should not hinder their religious beliefs.

So scientists do not become fanatical people but rather the religious people become fanatics who want to fight and kill for the arguments of their beliefs. Also some of them are really able to kill unbelievers just to remove them from their path to their true victorious faith. But I would like to say that also the scientific supporters of atheism often have very passionate arguments and deeds for their atheistic beliefs but I do not believe that they would be able to spread even terrorism in the name of this “pseudo faith”. Terrorism is only a passion of fanatical people who would like to get into “paradise” that the leaders of their religious beliefs promise to them. Religious people often mistakenly identify the provable truth with their only believed faith. Therefore the terrorists are not often corrupt and they are able to die for their religious belief. If we want to bring the truth beyond the inner intensity of religious people then no objective truth would appear in any of the religious beliefs.

I reject the idea that I would like to drag the religious people to science as to their “new religious belief”. It is not possible at all because science is not faith. The scientific evidence of God should give deeper knowledge to human beings (see also the next chapters) that the search for the way to God is already provable truth. But not all people may come to the understanding of the knowledge of God of the integrated scientific knowledge as not everybody has sufficient knowledge to understand such truth. If somebody wants, at least, emphatically understand the scientific truth, he should regarded as a kind of help and he should not reject the real science as something false, that is forbidden in dogmatic beliefs.

4.5 How far reaches the search for the meaning of human life

When searching for the meaning of human spirituality, it is not possible to prove that our entire conscious spiritual memory would have its origin in the conscious memory of the entire being, it means of God. The spiritual memory of God is not the source of everything that has ever happened in the material universe. It is not possible to prove that our spiritual memory resembles the conscious self-reflection of the memory of God if we said that we were not able to achieve all our “possible abilities”. In searching for the existence of God we do not have to find everything that we have creating in our free will, such as “the cosmic evil”, such as the “ cosmic Satan” and “apocalyptic evil” which had been portrayed in the period of existence of the antropogenic and geocentric conception of the world; these belong only to “the fairy tales”. I reminds us a puppet show, by means of which the fear of “various gods” had been evoked that had been once required also by some mystic speculative religions.

The evolution of the scientific knowledge has led also to the development of cognitive technologies. Without them we would not have found the objective story that is hidden under the phenomenal surface of our knowledge that is not available for our senses. People like stories and therefore they are grateful to the philosophers and artists that create many of them and mainly because it is possible to see in them something that may lead us to the meaning of human life. We intuitively looking for this because this search is innate for us. Paradoxically, the artists search also for opposite stories which show that human life has no meaning at all.

Educated people might appreciate the recent results of modern science, when our cognitive technologies have led us to the “invisible being”, where you can see that story that is directly connected with us, people (see also chapter 6). We ourselves are the co-authors of it, thanks to the existence of our free will. And this story objectively overreaches us and is transcendental in relation to us. Only in it we can provably understand why the memory of God has allowed that also the human spiritual elements have taken part in the changes of the material cosmos.

People often ask me if I am able to give them a scientific evidence of the existence of God and of the meaning of human life in a concise form. They apparently think of that form of a evidence that we are used to in mathematics when we can directly, at school in front of the blackboard, prove that something is valid. Evidence of this type really belong to the privilege of mathematics that is , in fact, a form of logical thinking for those areas that overreach our common, everyday life. But if, in modern science, we discover those areas that overreach the sensory being, then this does not mean that mathematics is not enough to use its methods for the explanation of everything that we see in the cosmos.

Also some of my older atheistic friends were really convinced that if there was God he would be a mathematician too. Perhaps, we should not be surprised very much if we think of the role of mathematics in the creation and development of the modern natural science. Mathematics was important already in the atheistic tradition of science in the period of Enlightenment when modern science did not find out that all the scientific theories had to be formulated mathematically. We mentioned this already in our assessment of the Jungian depth psychology (see chapter 3.4). In the spiritual area of being it is not possible to formulate mathematical models that could be used to determine our “inner spiritual experience”.

The evidence for the existence of the conscious spiritual memory include all those scientific theories that will be used in the existence of God and that will be objectively provable. We have noticed that the partial paradigms of sciences must be related to each other and they must bring the paradigms from physics, cybernetics and depth psychology to an overlap so that the human paradigms can be integrated into a single unit. And therefore we have to come to the formation of a single paradigm of the entire science that can also be called “the theory of everything”.

It can be argued that we should include also the process of various cultures into “the theory of everything”, that belonged to the original basis of the world, such as the religious beliefs. But it is not necessary to study the religious beliefs deeply for the scientific analysis of religions and mystiques because this deep study belongs to the assessment of depth psychology where various spiritual experiences, including their historical visions, are scientifically analysed. And in this term, “the theory of everything” includes also the experience from those times when the unified theory of science did not exist. The global scientific study is not only about rational knowledge that belong to the historically old inner emotive elements, that some philosophers tented do prove. They wanted to justify that if we want to know the world it is enough to the beliefs of their theological views and that we may ignore the complex view of the science.

The objective evidence of God and of the meaning of human life do not only depend on the degree of the inner fervour of experience of various enlightened prophets, even those who were later declared as “saints” by the religious institutions. The real inner beliefs of prophets are surely an important element of the experience of the entire mankind, but this element is not sufficient because it cannot convince the mankind of the developed civilization of the objectively provable meaning of human life. Only those facts apply for it that also apply for the partial paradigms of the knowledge of cosmos that only in this way it is possible to really prove the existence of God and the meaning of human life.

I would like to note once again for our contemporary atheist, to whom I once belonged too, that it would be very important for me to be convinced by them on the scientific wisdom that is hidden in the depth of psychological visions. These experiences have accompanied mankind throughout our existence. Despite the atheistic arguments, that the existence of God had been definitively disproved, such as Paul Kurtz or Richard Dawkins said, these spiritual visions are continually renewing and sometimes also in the vision of scientific atheists (see chapter 6). The deep human experiences cannot be ignored, also because their atheistic notions lacked their inner aspect of the world. And they cannot be replaced by inner sensory knowledge that the atheists usually prefer instead of them.

Our spiritual memory of human unconsciousness has a direct relation to the conscious memory of God. The conscious memory of God is only one and the unconsciousness of “all real cosmic creatures” are directed to it. And it is true that more their knowledge from “the unconscious” becomes more conscious, the more their knowledge about the whole work of the real God enter into them. In this way, the individual spiritual cosmic creatures recognize the activity of the God himself. But we should not consider the real objective God to be the various images of idols that people gradually created in the evolutionary history.

And I will briefly summarize this part at the end of this book (see chapter 7) if you still agree with it, even though you have carefully read everything.

4.6 The overall representation of being

I was also inspired by my friend, Ing. Petr Šlouf, who, after reading my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje), wrote a symbolic scheme that I used to better organize the understanding of the general order of spiritual terms. I described the terms starting with the most comprehensive memory, which is God, up to less comprehensive terms, such as we, the people, to be able to search for the meaning of our life and to try to return to God again.

God

is a divine spiritual self-reflexive memory, that includes the entire being. It is about the entire being that God uses to control his will informatively. If after the Big Bang the material being had been formed, including the entire process, God would have suffer from something like “unbearable loneliness”, that can be figuratively expresses by a saying that “God would be bored” in this being. So God purposefully created the entire temporal matter-energy world.

Creation of the matter-energy world

with big bangs and crashes include also spirituality and free will. So in the material being, determinism was formed, with uncertainties, and there is no strict action of God. So in this world self-reflexive spiritualities could be formed then. It is only a definite, space-time cosmos with its own curvature. The overall meaning of the process is understood only in relation to the spiritual memory of God. Our conscious spiritual memories were then created emergently from the human unconsciousness.

Unconscious human memory

or also collective human unconsciousness is part of the evolution of the material memory. Various paradigmatic sciences deal with it, such as depth psychology. In its scientific knowing there are surely some other partial scientific disciplines, such as the history of human cultures and religious studies, that study mainly the acts of conscious human memory as they gradually developed in a variety of preserved human artefacts.

Conscious human memory

is created in the conscious cognitive process that progresses from mystical beliefs to the formation and development of sciences. In the process of development of the scientific knowledge, paradigms were created from physical, cybernetic sciences and depth psychology, when we go back to the objective knowing. Human spiritualities are part of the divine spirituality of the entire being. The demonstrable process shows that will be deeper understanding of the feedback with God and deeper understanding of the meaning of human existence. This is in fact our return to the memory of God. In this way we get into changes, that are not previously not certain, using our free will that even God does not know in advance in our particular decisions.

If God knew exactly everything in advance, then the free will of our spirituality would not be formed, because its result would always be given in the memory of God. Then the possible human conscious spiritual creatures would not exist, those that would be responsible at “the final judgement”, where it would be decided about their punishment. It is also clearly known that God had not created the world in such a way that Albert Einstein imagined.

5. Social institutions responded differently to my changes

5.1 Response of scientific institutions

The issue of the meaning of human life is still the subject matter of various philosophical and theological speculations. Some of them think that God has always known all the details of the world when the human beings have made decisions in all their situations. The even consider this to be the correct understanding of “the omniscience of God”, as we have just mention if omniscient God would exist who knew all the human acts and would have them in the memory of God. Human beings and cosmic creatures would not have free will then so they could get rid of the already known punishments of God.

I do not share the opinion that the real God created the previously known universe, because nothing new would happen in it. But why would God create only the material world, that we know from the post-relativist physical sciences, when there is no strict deterministic order in the cosmos? Why would this evolution lead to the man who could not choose other alternatives for the future in his life situations? If this omniscient God really existed, then people, instead of real decision making, would have only “seemingly felt freedom” and we would lose the entire objective meaning for our own responsible actions.

But this is not exactly like this. The man always decides only according to his knowledge and in his decision-making uncertainty he uses his conscience, that is not so strict to make decisions as God would do. But despite the fact that God has a current insight into everything, he gives us “free will in decision-making” in the uncertain cosmos and therefore we ourselves are responsible for our decisions. And only when the man makes free decision that his choice enters into the omniscient memory of God and only God himself can remove the incorrect decisions. It is interesting that God created a variable temporary material world and that he integrated human beings, with their spirituality, exactly into this world. And they are self-reflexive people who have only a limited possibility to influence the small part of the universe so that we cannot recognize the whole cosmos. Our limits are also given by the properties of our physical bodies, including our technology.

Our conscious spirituality is limited also by our actions that we have achieve in our morality. People, in their morality, would soon destroy our inadequate power-based efforts so that we could technologically negatively influence the vast areas of our surroundings. When we are changing in our negative morality, then we can soon destroy also the possibility of a more permanent existence on Earth. People themselves have created their “idols” that they then worship as “their real God”. Historically, such situations have always been occurred, when people had only little insight into the objective world. They knew only a small portion that was necessary for their earthly self-preservation. There were even times when people created their worshipped idols also in the form of animals that had been important for them in historical periods for their self-preservation values.

For various reasons, it is difficult tu understand the hidden meaning of the story in the entire being (see chapter 3). It can thus be achieved only in the empirical understanding of human stories. Also the content of terms used by us is extended, such as mass, energy, space-time, memory and information, and also such terms exist as spirituality, God and soul. And finally all this shows that our improved knowing of being is nothing else than knowing of God that we, the people have been searching since we were created.

If we accept only “the phenomenal likeness of God with the man”, it does not mean that God or the man is not a creature. “Being a creature” is the same thing as to have an innate developed spiritual memory, that we, the people have thanks to our conceptual level. The physical personification of the man with God does not relate to his material body. If we wanted to find only the physical personification with material creatures and with God in the entire cosmos, there would be surely more cases that there are on Earth, as evidenced in the concept of searching for cosmic Christ (see chapter 6.5).

5.2 Views of the natural scientist Lawrence M. Krauss

I have chose the natural scientist Lawrence M. Krauss because of his interesting scientific views. He has visited the Czech Republic recently and in his lectures he wanted to persuade his listeners on the validity of atheism. He himself wrote several books (see for example his “A Universe from Nothing”) in which he claims that the universe has the ability “to be created from nothing”. Lawrence Krauss (*1954) is an atheist that likes discussions with theologians and likes showing them science as opposed to religious faith. I personally know the philosopher Richard Dawkins, who agrees with his opinions, and I wrote about his passionate atheism in all my books (see the last book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)). L. Krauss is interested in physics and cosmology where he advocates for publicly understandable science.

I carefully listened to Krauss´ opinions in his televised debate for the programme Hyde Park Civilization (Hyde Park Civilizace) where the TV presenter Daniels Stach gave him a few questions. The discussion started with the relict gravitational waves that come to us from the cosmos. And on that occasion also Jiří Grygar said a few words just to commend Krauss and his importance for science and politics. It was about the issue when the universe had begun and if we are able to connect the laws of the theory of relativity with the laws of quantum mechanics and if we could go further with the help of physics.

Lawrence Krauss says that the issue what had been there before the universe cannot be solved because there had been nothing before it. So no space and time had existed before. But above all, he ruled out the existence of God, similarly to his friend Richard Dawkins who “excluded” him in biology. Accoridng to him, the solution of similar “pseudo-problems” is just playing with words but science is something where it is necessary to validate and submit evidences. According to Krauss, only one billionth of a second has lasted since the Big Bang and we observe those gravitational waves that had been formed at the beginning of the cosmos. And we also know inflation theories, according to which the expansion and contraction of the cosmos was much faster than the speed of light. But he said he is still a sceptic.

The TV presenter, D. Stach then ask a question about the theory of strings and L. Krauss answered that this theory is not a scientific theory yet, that it is only a link between the theory of relativity and quantum theory. According to him, such a physical theory of everything may not even exist because we have to be satisfied with the theory of something. He says that there are also arts, such as music and literature, and all these influence and change us. He says that we can do with the universe whatever we want. Krauss answered the question about the formation of another big bang that we do not know this but there is enough energy in the cosmos for it. Universes are always formed and they have not been created for us. For example the mass bends the space but we do not know how because we still do not know what the dark energy is. It is mainly about the search for answers. Scientists are not politicians, they do not need to achieve something. He says that there is “a possible multi-version” that might have a completely different rules that the cosmos has.

D. Stach asks him about creatures are there in the cosmos. L. Krauss talks about the possible creation with a dominant form, such as computers with their own consciousness, but these would need “a huge amount of energy”. Maybe we avoid this in the development because nobody knows where the science leads us. He only statistically concludes that we are not alone in the cosmos, but the possible intelligent life is rare and it might be very far away from us. D. Stach again asks a question what had been there before the Big Bang. But L. Krauss says that he does not know it. We do not have to believe in the Big Bang. People should teach children to ask the right questions and to eliminate the wrong ones. He does not like questions with “why”, there should be only question with “how”. The questions with “why” necessarily assume that something must have some meaning and this may not be true. We do not know what is certain, we only have to further modify our theories.

To confirm Krauss´views, there were some other questions from his film “Unbelievers” (Nevěřící) where Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins mutually agree in their opinions so as to prove the universal validity of atheism. They say that God becomes irrelevant. In the fight against the religious myths, Krauss thinks that it is correct to question everything. He says he wants the people get excited. The material, from which we, the people were created, had been formed inside stars, so we form the universe too. Krauss answered the question what is the difference between Krauss, the physicist, and Krauss, the man, that he likes to watch screenwriters who do not know what should be solved, but they still keep trying. According to him, the greatest problem is why dark energy exists. He himself searched for adventures at the lectures but he does not solve them, because he is not a priest. According to him, it is not possible to learn about the world in a short moment of our existence.

Using the cognitive opinions of L. Krauss, we can verify what mistakes we may make durting the assessment of the scientific knowledge if we identify science only with physical sciences and if we are trying to find the highest level of being in the area of the Big Bang. Several scientific researches such as Krauss still believe that the physical reductionism gives us the deepest possible starting point for how far can science grow. And that from this point we should start to recognize the real world we are living in today. I do not want to repeat it again here what has been said about the contribution of physics in chapter 3. And Lawrence Krauss, with pleasure, pointed out the incompleteness of physical approaches to the real world, when he presented all these thing on himself.

5.3 Media discussion on the relation between science and faith

There are more reasons of doubts about the scientific evidence of God. One of the most popular here is that this evidence is impracticable. This opinion is spread not only by those scientists, that are very focused on their specialization, but we can see this also among some supporters of various religious beliefs, who are still searching for the answer why it is not possible to find the scientific evidence of God. According to the view on the evidence of God, it is not possible to find it even in partial paradigms that the believing scientist often rely on.

A few years ago, I confirmed it myself when one of my friends sent me a copy of the debate among three specialists about the relation between science and faith that had been broadcast at the radio station Leonardo. Rudolf Zahradník, Jiří Grygar and Marek Orko Vácha attended this debate. And because their debate is typical for the solution of our problem, I am going to mention it again. First, these specialists talked about the issue how they had encountered with science and faith. All three stated that they encountered with Christian faith already in their childhood. But then their opinions on the relation between science and faith differed.

The former director of AVČR, Rudolf Záhradník, allegedly discovered that he as “a chemical soul” and then he became a scientifically reasoned atheist. Jiří Grygar fulfilled his childhood dream and became an astronomer and he believes in science as well as faith but their knowledge can never meet because they exist next to each other like parallel rails. And Marek Orko Vácha became a microbiologist but later studied theology and became also a priest. So each of them thus obtained certain professional scientific assumptions to be able to informatively comment on the relation between science and faith and also on the issue of whether science and faith may influence each other.

Rudolf Zahradník is an atheist who is tolerant to faith. He believes that one day he overreaches his natural scientific focus and understands sociology. Those things that he seems as inexplicable miracles today, may become explainable one day. But he still cannot imagine supernatural creatures but we may know something about them thanks to science. He has never heard about a scientific researcher who would say that something was solved in religion so no other solutions were necessary.

I personally think that his atheism is not necessarily definite and hopelessly sceptical. But the opinion of Rudolf Záhradník that only sociology may change his atheism does not seem like it is enough to me. I myself do not know any scientific researchers who would prove that religion solved something so no other solutions were necessary. Also theologians in their works usually use the same words as scientists but their semantic content may be very different. For the scientific analysis of atheism, I would recommend to work with depth psychology instead of sociology, but the scientist still avoid it, as far as I know. Also Rudolf Záhradník did not notice that even the Jungian depth psychology belong to science.

Jiří Grygar is not a complete atheist, in his private life he keeps his original Christian faith. I think that he paid for his traditional faith in God with something like informational loss in the assessment of truth in sciences. According to him, truth is only natural and therefore he only believes in the laws of nature that we have discovered so far. And we apparently do not know what is happening in the nature. J. Grygar here comes into conflict with the verifiable knowledge that is apparent also from a different way of searching for truth in being. If he understood that there is an integrated paradigm of science, the verifiable truth would increase (see chapter 3.3 – 3.4) and it could be assigned to the objective world. I know the opposition of these scientists very well when they have to admit that also depth psychology of the human unconsciousness might be included in science. And this must also be reflected in Grygarś rejection of the perspectives of scientific knowledge.

Similarly, Marek Orko Vácha has never become an atheist. Although in terms of his profession he is a scientist today, he believes in Christianity too and he tries to keep his faith to be acceptable for science as well as for our entire society. According to Marek Vácha, scientists allegedly deal only with measurable phenomena and this is the reason of their methodological atheism. They wold not be able to express their opinion on the existence of angles or devils. M. O. Vácha says that the soul cannot be found by a telescope. This is true, but the telescope cannot be also used to prove some of the phenomena from the material being but we are able to express our scientific opinions on their existence.

In his explanation, Marek Orko Vácha comes to a much more precise definition of the concept for the lack of possibilities in science: Science is not able to provide a single evidence of the existence of God but it is not able to provide a single evidence of the non-existence of God. According to M. O. Vácha, positivism has become an illusion because the age of reason has not come. He says that it is not possible to define which concept is more rational than the other. So for Marek Orko Vácha science, faith and art are only three separate views on the same reality. And there is truth in science, faith and art but they reflect reality in a different way. But at the first glance, his tolerant view on science, faith and art seems to be acceptable, but he also has some fundamental weaknesses that we will deal with later.

Science, in which the power of brain has a very significant position, is not what he describes as “positivist rationalism”. Each scientific knowledge must be objectively verifiable, but this does not mean that the knowledge of depth psychology is not verifiable because it also deals with such objects that the faith deals with. But scientific paradigms, opposed to faith, are able to prove the truth. The rationalism of modern science is not only a philosophical and speculative religious phenomenon. It is possible to objectively verify also those things that may seem to be superficial and meaningless for philosophical rationalists.

Modern science, as we have already noticed (see chapter 3) does not work only with philosophical speculations. Thanks to cognitive technologies, science can compare its theories directly with the objective reality. The cognitive feedback of modern science overreaches the traditional concept of philosophical rationalism due to real inputs into being. And this is true regardless the fact if someone philosophically or theologically described any parts of being as knowable or not knowable.

The debate of these scientific experts showed that it is not possible to find the truth if we identify the entire science only with partial paradigms. Each of them is good at his own partial scientific discipline and therefore he is a scientist, but none of them gets to the knowledge that relates to the integrated paradigm to change the whole situation and scientist would find an ability to correctly comment also the truth of God (see chapter 3 and chapter 4).

5.4 The new “physical theory of everything”

Today the representatives of physics often ask questions that relate to the unity of science, using “the new physical theory of everything”. But the nature of this theory ha always had a desire to connect to physical theories that were developed by Albert Einstein. And also Werner Heisenberg theoretically tried to discover the quantum theory that included the already know physical phenomena into the mathematical scheme of the general equation of matter. We can see the non-substantial approach to the unification of sub-nuclear reality also in the so-called “bootstrap centre” that was designed by Geoffrey Chew, or in the theory of “holonomic reality” of David Bohm.

At the present, the so-called string theories of being have the best chance to unite these large physical theories. We can find a detailed explanation of the scientific effort to unify the sub-nuclear reality in the physical theory of everything at John D. Barrow in his book “The Theory of Everything” (Teorie všeho) (in Czech, 1996), t Steven Weinberg in his book “Dreaming About the Final Theory” (Snění o finální teorii) (in Czech, 1996), and at Brian Greene in his book “The Elegant Universe” (Elegantní vesmír) (in Czech, 2001).

But “the string theory of everything” was not immediately formed in an elegant form as we know it today. In the 1990s, there was a change in the relation to “the theory of strings”, mainly thanks to Edward Witten, who is considered to be Einstein´s successor in the role of the greatest living physicist, when the second “super-string revolution” occurred. E. Witten, with a number of his colleagues, demonstrated that the five existing string theories had been linked together and thus the only “theory of M-theory” was formed. And finally, an eleven-dimensional super-gravitational M-theory (or the so-called Magic or Mystical or Maternal theory) was formed that represents the long-sought “theory of everything”. It is assumed that the universe has eleven dimensions, among them there are four “developed” dimensions and the rest of them are “folded” and besides these there are possible “folded”, one-dimensionally vibrating strings, and there may be also “folded micro objects” that can be two-dimensional, three-dimensional etc. until the all the dimensions are used (see B. Greene in his book “Elegant Universe” (Elegantní vesmír) (in Czech, 2002).

Finally, there is the question, how these “folded” dimensions and dimensional objects not available to our senses “look like”, and their mathematical model was discovered by Eugenio Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau. Using the M-theory, it was then possible to elegantly explain also “the worm holes” and “the black holes” that had been previously explained only by using ad hoc theories. And a new idea was born that the centre of “a black hole” can be the gateway into “another cosmos” which is linked to our universe exactly there. And the time that ends in our universe starts in this “other universe”.

The M-theory allowed for new reflections on the beginning of our universe as understood in the standard theory of the Big Bang. It turns out that when we go back in time to the beginning of our cosmos, the temperature steadily increases until the moment when the universe is measured, in all directions, by the use of the Planck´s length 10-35m. In this development stage, allegedly all the spatial dimension are “folded” into a seed of the Planck´s size, and they are allegedly equal and symmetrical. If we use mathematical calculations, we can prove that after reaching the threshold of temperature, this temperature starts to decrease, and the first phase of the reduction of this symmetry occurs. In in, we have three spatial dimensions for expansion, while the other ones retain the original Planck´s size. Robert Brandeberg and Cumrun Vafa mathematically derived that there is great chance that also the three spatial dimensions get out from the original “folding”.

Physics, in many super aspects, overreached the standard theory of the Big Bang when talking about the evolution of cosmos. Maurizio Gasperini and Gabriela Veneziano have coma with a suggestion that there is the pre-history of the universe that had occurred before “the time zero” and the concept for the Planck´s universe was created. Allegedly, this is a “pre-Big-Bang scenario”, according to which super-hot millimeter universes were created in the cold and unstable universe ocean that look like the universe after the Guth´s inflationary expansion. The universe, in which we live, might have been part of a lager super-cosmos - the so-called multi-universe. According to Andrei Linde, small islands with the Guth´s inflationary expansion are created in many places, and each of them may have its own method of this expansion inflation. These nascent cosmoses may have differed also in the number of created dimensions, from zero to eleven, and there might not be conditions for the same life that exists in our universe today.

Physicists ask also questions that are philosophical in nature, similar to the Leibniz´s question “why is there something rather than nothing”, or if there are any cognitive limits for our understanding of being. Brian Greene in his book “Elegant Universe” (Elegantní vesmír) for example says that just below the surface of things that we normally experience, there is a new amazing world hidden, and he comes to a philosophical conclusion that the study of the M-theory has brought new flashes and wonderful realm in the universe that are waiting under the Planck´s length, and there the terms of time and space might not exist. Our entire universe may be only one of the countless number of “bubbles” on the surface of the vast and foamy ocean, also called multi-universe. At the very end of the book, he characterizes the final goal of scientists as well as all people saying that each of us is searching for truth somehow and all of us want to find the answer to the question “why are we here”.

We will show that physical sciences are a necessary, but not the sufficient condition for finding the answers to those questions. For its explanation it will be necessary to extend the scientific insight into being by the results of cybernetic disciplines and also by the knowledge of the Jungian depth psychology of our human unconsciousness. Then we might have a realistic hope for a scientifically provable answer to the aforementioned questions.

Even in Russia, like in the western countries, scientific attempts have occurred to understand what was the cause of the Big Bang. The young physicists Tatjana and Vitalij Tichoplavov published a few books on this topic, especially the book “Physics of Faith” (Fyzika víry) (in Czech, 2004) that I described in my book “The Twilight of Atheism” (Soumrak ateizmu). We also should mention their book “The Gateways For the Soul” (Brány pro duše) (in Czech, 2004), with the subtitle “How and Where Do Souls Go After Our Death” (Jak a kam směrují duše po naší smrti). The main representative of the Russian approach for the explanation of the Big Bang is a very famous physicist, Gennady Ivanovich Shipov, with a number of other scientists from different disciplines. And the book “The Gateways For the Souls” (Brány pro duše) gives considerable attention to the concept of human death and reincarnation, which is perhaps a form of posthumous journey to God.

At the end of the twentieth century, natural science has come to the concept of a subtle-substance world, as the physicists and cybernetic scientists call this mutual interaction. And Gennady Shipov himself considers this reached area to be a kind of “an information bank” where everything about the information field is stored as well as everything we know about the material being. However, there is a danger that this area should not be identified with God, who is a conscious spiritual memory, from which the whole universe had been created. These physicists discovered a special way to explore the subtle-substance world as the so-called torsion or information field that is evolutionarily closer to the Big Bang than any other field of mutual interaction. There is certainly a barrier for the entry to such a torsion field because there are specific effects in it that cannot be found in physical fields. If we understand that we get into an area, that the Tichoplavovs also call the subconsciousness, we surely come across those effects, which are also known in depth psychology.

C. G. Jung instead of the term “subconsciousness”, which he probably considered to be too materialistic, preferred using the term “unconsciousness” and he distinguished individual and collective human unconsciousness. And unless the natural scientists understand that depth psychology has to do something with spirituality, which cannot be studied only physically and cybernetically, serious differences in their understanding of the cosmic psyche will occur. This is also reflected in their approaches to reincarnation as a posthumous return of human souls to God.

The Tichoplavovs correctly distinguish the various concepts of reincarnation, as manifested in Buddhism and in Christianity. The original reincarnation as a recurring return of individual souls, is not what is in the conception of Christianity that had accepted reincarnation. Christianity had in mind rather the common reincarnation of souls that should occur after the apocalyptic final judgement, after which the return to the “eternal paradise” follows, which is mentioned in the Bible. All mystical reincarnations are anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. Reincarnation is based on ancient sensuously vivid images of the memory that we may encounter among amateur believers. They do not understand the universe that was discovered by modern science about the unseen areas of the universe.

The torsion fields are quite interesting, how our bodies receive messages that permeate the natural substances and the material world. But the impression of the material effect towards divine spirituality does not apply. The mathematical expression of the torsion field on the effectiveness of information is still in full agreement also with modern cybernetics. Even in the partial paradigms of physics and cybernetics there is no spirituality because they do not respect depth psychology.

But the torsion fields do not react to everything we already know about the material memory world. If the torsion systems responded to the soul, then their inner memory should penetrate into the plans of God - the Creator. But the subtle-substance torsion field is still only in the material field.

5.5 Problem of the cosmic Akashic field

Once I one met a famous scientist and philosopher, Ervin Laszló, who deals with similar problems like me, when I found his book “Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything” (Věda a ákášické pole: integrální teorie všeho) (in Czech, 2005). His study was also accepted as a way to the integral theory by the representatives of various scientific discipline. Ervin Laszló (*1932) has the highest degree at Sorbonně, and has numerous honorary doctorates and awards and he worked as professor of philosophy in the United States, Europe and the Far East. Ervin Laszló reviewed all his previous search as “the integral theory of everything”.

In the introduction of his book, E. Laszló wants to justify why he prefers science and his way of understanding the world and why he wants to achieve his goals. His attempt is quite interesting for me, because he wanted to combine scientific knowledge, which originated in the Western culture, with the different philosophical thinking of the East, where science had not been created. It is certainly worth noting that, what benefits should bring the new connection according to E. Laszló.

In his book, Ervin Laszló got beyond the Cartesian cut, which is implicitly included in modern natural science. He says that scientific knowledge is able to move beyond the borders of the quantum vacuum, which is essentially identical to the super-string theory and M-theory and it apparently overreaches them up to the theory of the universal cosmic memory. He calls it, in terms of Eastern mysticism, as “the Akashic field” in which it has been gradually stored as a spiritual memory since the establishment of the scientific integral memory of being.

But Ervin Laszló, coming to the end of the book, has doubts that cannot be solved only in the scientific way. If he assumes that all the universes come and go in time and they only transmit the already received information, he would logically come to the problem, how the universe itself was created, which had preceded not only the formation of the known universe but of all universes. But not only this, he wonders how the entire “meta-universe” was created, in which all these universes are created.

I cannot agree with Laszló on the knowledge about the creation of the meta-universe. God or a designer, whose we are accustomed to understand as the original creative activity, can be scientifically proved, but the partial scientific paradigms are not sufficient for this (see also my book “Science and Faith” (Věda a víra)) (2007). In contrast, I agree with Ervin Laszló that the debate about the origin of life and the human psyche must move towards the search for the questions about the new meta-universe. The neo-Darwinian explanation of the origin and evolution of life is already outdated and in terms of modern science it is invalid.

But in his text Ervin Laszló says that the material world is nothing more than the accumulation of “energy” which comes from vacuum. And finally he addresses the fundamental problem of consciousness, both human and cosmic. It is about whether consciousness exists also elsewhere in the universe and if our consciousness is immortal. Because people are most interested in such issues so we can notice how this is understood by the author, E. Laszló himself, who has versatile knowledge. After all findings he came to the conclusion that our activities are all stored in the Akashic field, but most people had no idea about its existence, and what would be true about the human immortality. Those things that happen in our lives will be apparently preserved forever only in the Akashic field, while we, as individuals with a specific conscious “me”, are all mortal.

If we look into Laszló´s books, we find out that the divine spirituality of the Eastern mysticism is behind the creation of the multi-universe, and this has an impact on the posthumous fate of the human psyche. We, the people will not only stay as a conscious “me”, but we will disappear in Brahman. We can say that E. Laszló used almost nothing from the inter-psychological findings of C. G. Jung and he probably lacks his own deep experience of the encounter with God. His own Indian philosophical concept bears the features of the Hindu materialism, which was theoretically overreached by C. G. Jung in his concepts of the fundamental “me”.

I am convinced that Ervin Laszló, without analysing the human “me” and the consequences of free will, did not understand how the man should behave morally and what constitutes good and evil, because everything in the human activity is only written into the Akashic field. And all these should be equal for us if we do more good or evil. The Eastern mysticism solves this problem using beliefs about reincarnation (see below in chapter 5.7).

When E. Laszló denied, on the basis of science, the reincarnation, which had its organic place in the Eastern mysticism, then in his theory there is no motivation for people that would lead them to prefer good, leading them to achieve the salvation of the soul. Why would then people ever reach the evolutionary level of free that makes us responsible for our own actions? In Laszló´s book, that lacks this issue, the author is not even able to explain the serious problems of the activity of mystical systems. According to Carl Gustav Jung, it archetypal for human activity, because it is a priori innate for them.

In his book Laszló did not adequately explain the emergent leap that occurred when people were created. The creation of the people, as he saw it, is incorporated into the Big Bang on the basis of the anthropic principle, but, without the interpretation of the human memory, it is not possible to understand the way of human activities towards God. This fact has been understood not only in depth psychology, but the theologian and palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin suspected it in his book “Man´s Place in Nature” (Místo člověka v přírodě) (in Czech, 1967).

I can not imagine how important it would be for the man to learn that the messages on all his activities are permanently written in the Akashic field, but then, at his physical death, his conscious “me” definitively ceases to exist. How could then be possible posthumously get the fair retribution for the evil that the man commits during his earthly life? It is not satisfactory for the man to be written into the memory of the cosmos and then to have his individual conscious “me” ended. Even the Buddhist idea of ​​reincarnation had some meaning for the man in Brahman, and the terrestrial life then has some sense in unmaking evil. C. G. Jung himself, instead of the outdated theories of reincarnation, worked out “the theory of individuation” that, using the individual conscious “me”, may get to the identification with God.

While reading the inspirational book of Ervin Laszló, various question may occur, but they are not resolved up to the relatively complete state of today’s scientific knowledge. He opened the issue for an integrated theory of everything, but he also solved many problems that have led some scientists to unnecessary scepticism or even atheism. We will deal with this in the next chapter 5.6 and in chapter 7, as well as the new nature of the intelligent memory of God that Ervin Laszló even had not noticed in some results of modern science, and in some ideas that exist in Eastern mysticism.

5.6 Do the natural scientists still look for God?

John Brockman (٭1941) is a writer and the founder of The Reality Club and the leading person of the Edge Foundation. He is the author of many books, mainly of the book “The Third Culture” (Třetí kultura) (in Czech, 2008) with the subtitle “Beyond the Scientific Revolution” (Za hranice vědecké revoluce) which we will refer to. I also taken the whole procedure of Brockman´s interpretation from this book. He addressed 23 eminent scientists from various sciences that can evaluate the scientific development of “the third culture” and its importance for modern civilization.

Already in the comprehensive introduction to the book, Brockman chose those scientists who deal with the formation and understanding of the “third culture”. Scientists empirically, and not just speculatively, study the objective world to get closer, in their activity, to the problem of who we are or what we are. The traditional intellectuals are said to avoid a lot of cognitive achievements of our time. The author himself shows that they themselves excluded those outstanding scientists who do not communicate with the “third culture” because they do not understand modern science. Brockman believes that only the empirical science reveals the real problems and brings them back into knowledge And the knowledge of the science on “the third culture” then becomes a great, unforeseen story.

The particular ideas, that Brockman chose from many scientific disciplines, are certainly remarkable. They tend to conform in assessing the significance of the humanities, but there are some interesting differences among them, especially in the valuation of philosophy and its inspirational significance for modern science. The positive fact among them was emphasized mainly by those scientists who are already among the greatest figures of modern science. They themselves write about the period of post-modernism that it was a subjectivist philosophy that apparently often absurdly attacked science. Brockman says that it is only a historically transient and replaceable phenomenon that soon would be forgotten in the educated world. Only the historians of philosophy will probably assess them because historical errors always belong to history, and we can be learn from them as well as from every historical negative experience.

Many participants of the Brockman´s selection also found out that in the cultural institutions, such as the editorial editorial teams of magazines and books, there are also people who have no significant knowledge of science. They learned everything at the educational institutions of real states and have become judges of opinions for the contemporary assessment of general cultural education.

I have also had some experience with them during my research work. On the one hand there are the holders of traditional, mostly outdated concepts about the world, and on the other hand, there are representatives of academic atheism, who learned mainly from the methodology of science. I encounter with the idea that atheism itself is the right way to the verifiable knowledge. The atheists brought themselves into a hopeless situation, when they reached the verifiable concept of the Big Bang, but they cannot get further because they are not open to further knowledge because of their atheism going against science today (see my book “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)).

For me, the theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin is an important scientist of the “third culture”, according to him, the most important thing is the scientific idea that the world is not static forever, as the natural scientists had believed about the formation of the theory of relativity. Modern science applies temporariness and variability not only to biological processes, but also to the entire universe. In the following interpretation we will find put that also Lee Smolin overestimated the materialistic view on the natural selection, according to which the material world should be able to organize itself and develop itself. Virtually all scientists, who belong to the participants of this book, did not appreciate the contribution of depth psychology, without which it is not possible to get before of the creation of the cosmos.

George C. Williams: A package of Information (Balíček informací)

George C. Williams (1926-2010) was a biologist and professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York. He was among the scientists who have distinguished information and substance. He noticed that information expresses a kind of organization. It would be appropriate if he asked what the information and organization relate to and what new information they provide. In cybernetics and genetics, it is called “the memory”, without which the information itself does not exist in the world independently. On the contrary, we cannot say that somewhere in the space-time there is a special memory that enters to the real processes from there and causes their organization to some goal. The information enters into processes, not the memory. The memory, whose organization is measured by the information, may be material, energetic or even spiritual. The “memory” itself has a meaning and it is possible to gradually know it in the entire scientific being.

After the experience of cybernetics, it is certain that the information cannot be reduced to matter or energy. And therefore, the George Williamson´s critique of Richard Dawkins was completely correct; he identifies the information itself with the genes as a material unit, as we will see in Brockman´s book. For now, we should remember that reductionism does not apply universally in science, as it is still possible among natural scientists. The findings, reached by cybernetics, cannot be derived from physical disciplines and vice versa. And we will see again below that the same goes for depth psychology and its relation to sciences.

Stephen Jay Gould: The Book of Life (Obraz dějin života)

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was an evolutionary biologist, palaeontologist and a geneticist in the field of gastropods and a professor of geology and zoology at Harvard. He even criticized Richard Dawkins for his views, what competes in the evolution, whether they are the genes or organisms. S. Gould denied evolution which would lead to some goal. If we say the opposite, then we make a mistake, which results from our short-term perspective on the evolution of life. Sometimes we think that the natural selection has to be directed somewhere, but this is not actually true. The organisms only solve their own specific problems, but their solution lead tot he creation of what does not direct anywhere, especially to a certain goal, which would have previously been planned by some God. The erroneous conception of the goal focus of evolution could come to the mind only of someone who thought only within a very short space-time interval, which would be only short in the segment of the earthly process. S. Gould also says that the progress towards some goal has not been applicable since the beginning of the universe, so it should be since the Big Bang. If this was true, “an organism” would have been created that would have probably solved this since the Big Bang, when nothing so complicated could not exist at that time.

The atheist biologists, as we see with Richard Dawkins, create also empirically unprovable hypotheses. They try to tackle the existence of God that has been completely unscientific for them since the very beginning and therefore it is condemnable. That´s why they insist on the original Darwinian hypothesis on the natural, uncontrolled and blind development that apparently automatically goes somewhere. The atheists cannot answer the question why could it be like that and how they would get from the disordered Big Bang to the blind self-activity. Nowadays, the original Darwinian hypotheses are irretrievably outdated. We will see in the next section how R. Dawkins tries to adapt the new genetics instead of the original concept of Darwinism. But Stephen Gould wants only to achieve something in his report, if anybody wanted to empirically prove their claims.

Richard Dawkins: A Survival Machine

Richard Dawkins (٭1941) is a philosopher and evolutionary biologist; he is a professor of zoology at Oxford. He is also one of the greatest supporters of atheism I have ever met, so I gave him a lot of attention in all my books published after 2002. In this essay, Richard Dawkins, in fact, only repeated the famous “theory of the selfish gene” that he understands in biology as the most natural interpretation of the Darwinian hypothesis. The entire evolution, from its starting point, does not have even a hint about some future goals. According to R. Dawkins, the biological process is given by the causal continuity of successful “blind genes”. He thus invented material physical machines, the living organisms, including humans would be these machines too, which would be able to survive in this form as far as these organisms controlled the blind genes in a causal, inefficient selection. If the genes fail, they disappear from the real scene, and the natural selection will continue on other blind genes that would existed better in new conditions. And those that continue, will remain in the evolution process without any future goal.

R. Dawkins starts form his own idea that genetic systems may persevere in the surrounding systems that are causally simple. But it is strange how the causal memory can be transferred to “the blind genes” which apparently have no inner structure. We may ask how this “genetic memory” could objectively be formed. At first glance it might seem that all this is only acceptable on Earth where life had already existed that has such a genetic memory available. But if we wanted to scientifically explain where this genetic memory had come from, that is suitable for reductionism, as R. Dawkins wanted for the physical science itself, we come to a crucial problem, because the entire materialistic science cannot imagine the material memory whose evolution we encountered and saw in science (see chapter 3).

First, we should reductionistically explain the origin of life from a certain systemic organization in the chemical processes on Earth. But this would not be enough, because Earth itself had been formed from processes that are evolutionarily more primary than the chemical processes. So we would get to the systems, that are primarily dealt with in quantum mechanics and micro-physical field (see chapter 5.4) and all this would, materially and definitely, lead us to the inability to explain the formation of the Big Bang. But where does the Big Bang itself come from, that had the material universe with the space-time beginning in advance? The Big Bang cannot be scientifically explained from any empirical material memory. And those that followed after it, do not have any causal explanation that Richard Dawkins requires from science.

It is odd when Dawkins criticizes even the organized religions that they supposedly work with the poor “medieval universe” which cannot be compared to the real universe, which has been reached by science in the course of its development. But he has no universe where his “theory of the selfish gene” could be applied. Dawkins does not even have “a small fictitious universe” that could be systemically included into the real universe of science, which had began with the Big Bang. Dawkin´s universe is designed only to demonstrate the validity of the atheistic neo-Darwinism. It is scientifically unprovable and is also confusing for believers because it incorrectly takes away their real hope of the posthumous life.

Brian Goodwin: Dance of Life

Brian Goodwin (1931-2009) was a biologist and wrote a number of books which dealt with the explanation of the changes which he experienced during his life. Brian Goodwin consider new biology to be an exact science in which he used “the dance of life in the morpho-space” instead of the metaphors about genes. If he had understood the expression better, he would have used paradigms instead of metaphors. B. Goodwin refers to post-modernism, so we can forget what is the evolutionary progress. Evolution has no direction and we cannot talk about reaching higher levels in any direction. Thus, the concept of evolution is apparently a kind of “a dance”, which does not point anywhere, it only explores the space of a certain selected natural system.

It is also said, that in we should not think of the evolution of civilization in society in a certain developmental direction. According to B. Goodwin, we begin to recognize the values of different indigenous cultures, which should be allowed today to develop in the morpho-space. And those, that are created, are likely to be less drastic regarding the morpho-space than the dance of the capitalism.

Maybe, within the Goodwin´s philosophical thinking, we can proceed like this, but it will hardly have any significance in social life where there are innate archetypal patterns of behaviour that were proved only in depth psychology. We must incorporate them into the exploration of values ​​and we must respect them according to the state of the society in terms of the achieved technological level. All this goes far beyond the Goodwin´s concept of “the dance of life”.

Steve Jones: Why is there so much diversity?

Steve Jones (٭1944) is a biologist and professor of genetics at the Galton Laboratory at the University College in London. He wrote several books, one of them was published with the title “Language of the Genes: Biology, History and Evolutionary Future” (in Czech, 1996). In his article he deals with the problem of what happens in evolution. He does not want only to praise Dawkin´s reductionism, but he rather wants to incite the man to search for the truth, not to stay on the surface during this search, as it is in the traditional religious beliefs.

According to Jones, everything is fine, if everything is entrusted to theological genetics, where God always takes care so that everything fits. Steve Jones somehow mitigates the idea that R. Dawkins and his concept of the theory of evolution, based on the idea of ​​the “selfish gene”, was as naive as it could seem at first glance. He says that he obviously knows that organisms are not just “machines” for the self-preservation the selfish genes, but that he wants a suitable, scientifically productive metaphor that would allow us to explain something reductionistically. Maybe Steve Jones is right about Dawkin´s statements about the hypothesis of the “selfish gene” which sounds so relentlessly. But S. Jones, in this way, brings a series of unprovable claims and inaccuracies in his default materialistic position.

He would go up to the Big Bang, where he would stay helplessly, because nothing can be materialistically further reduced to “the natural phenomena”. But if take into account that there is also the subjectivity of being, which is in the interest of depth psychology, the scientific explanation may continue up to the memory of God of the entire cosmos. But no atheist wants to enter there. The atheists, during their education at natural science institutions, acquired mainly materialistic reductionism.

I wish the reader deeply think of the last paragraph. A relatively large number of scientists, such as S. Jones, think that date rule the science, not the theory. At first glance, it may seem that first we have to collect a lot of the initial empirical data, and then they can be used for something like a general hypothesis or theory (see chapter 3.3). But has anybody, who says this, tried if he himself can make a selection of some initial data for a certain hypothesis or theory? The man is certainly an extremely sophisticated creature and the level of his spirituality, with which he is born, is hidden in the unconscious memory. During his development, he gradually recognizes that the man is always able to use a conceptual memory. People do not start with the empirical data to get to the hypotheses and theories.

Niles Eldredge: A Battle of Words

Niles Eldredge (٭1943) is a palaeontologist of invertebrate animals in natural sciences at the American Museum in New York. He is an author of numerous books dealing with evolution and life on Earth. Eldredge noticed that neo-Darwinism is only concerned with the evolution of “the blind genes”, which is insufficient. He also acknowledges also the theory of interrupted balances that is more on a higher than lower level. This finding is correct, but, by itself, it is not sufficient. What is missing there is the analysis of the area, which goes beyond the evolutionary biology and which should involve even the field of the modern physics. But also in this case, the entire hierarchy of evolutionary levels would end up in the theory of the Big Bang, but from there it would not move further in the scientific transition to the analysis of spirituality. And it would also have to deal with the areas of the social and cultural development, which is linked to the genetic evolution, without which it still cannot be explained.

The living nature itself is not a sufficient system to understand the entire being and especially to understand who the man is and if his life has a deeper meaning than just to survive on Earth from his birth to his death. And in the hierarchical arrangement of the evolutionary levels it is important to understand the emergence among all the degrees of different levels. Especially the higher evolutionary levels are not linked to the lower ones so that they would be easily predicted. Quantum mechanics experienced this problem when the objective order is not strictly deterministic. Evolutionary biology studies similar problems, but understands them only in a relatively small period of time in certain forms of life on our Earth.

Lynn Margulis: Gaia Is a Tough Bitch

Lynn Margulisová (1938-2011) was a biologist and professor at the Department of Biology at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. She dealt with problems concerning the evolution of cells and the origin of species. Lynn Margulis is right when she proves that the time of the evolution of life is much longer than the last five million years during which people have existed. But she should also realize that in her complaint, addressed to the evolutionary biologists, chemistry is not enough to understand the evolution of life, because evolution is not linked only to chemistry in the understanding of life and mankind. The entire science is necessary there, such as modern physics, cybernetics and depth psychology. But if we consider only one part of the scientific knowledge, we always bump into a limit and we will be forced to find out how to move our knowledge further. And therefore only chemistry or consideration to the mechanism of symbiosis are not enough, which was emphasized by Lynn Margulis.

But her observation is correct, that it is difficult, if not impossible to change the attitude of scientists towards new, unusual hypotheses and theories. For the entire history of the social and cultural development it is possible to prove that sometimes the famous supporters of the outdated views had to die first and only after that the human knowledge could move further. New ideas usually encounter the opposition from those people who already have some authority in science, and others are waiting for their conclusions if something new appears there.

The notice of Lynn Margulis that “Gaia Is a Tough Bitch” (Gaia je pěkná bestie) is very interesting, because any other evolution of “Earth or Gaia” will continue even without people, if people would cut their own branch and make the life on Earth impossible. But Margulis should not forget that Earth will end once too, at the latest when the gravitational collapse of the Sun comes over. Without the material existence, it will not be possible to save the attempt for a perfect “earthly paradise”. The man has the real meaning for the hope of survival only if he understands the existence of all realities, when people will be necessarily understood in the integrated science, which includes the cosmic conscious memory of God.

Marvin Minsky: Smart Machines

Marvin Minsky (٭1927) is a mathematician and computer scientist of media arts and sciences at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Massachusetts Institute. He is the winner of the Japanese Honor for Science and Technology, Japan Prize (1990), and he wrote a series of books. M. Minsky has technical , cybernetic and psychological education and he also focuses on the research of the thinking. He is interested in the fact how we could implement the idea about “the thinking machines”. He focused on the functions of our brain. In his article he mentions psychology that could be engaged in spirituality and that, since Sigmund Freud, no reliable programme has been found that might implement efficient thinking machines and artificial intelligence.

I think it is very important to distinguish the area of the psyche and the neuro-physiological functions of the brain in science, which is linked to the mental activity, but they cannot be determined from them or identified with them (see chapter 6.). I think that M. Minsky is trying to understand whether the appropriate modelling of the brain activity may help in achieving the goal that the designed thinking machine included “me” that is in the centre of attention of depth psychology. I find this effort to be interesting but vain. A similar view is some residue of materialism, that we can see among like-minded scientists, when atheism seems to be another good method to search for the psyche for them. It is also remarkable that he deals with the problem of whether and how to transfer personal qualities to the supposedly imaginary inner “me”.

In the field of artificial intelligence a lot of theoretical and technological work has been done, but human thinking has not been explained yet. It is probably the consequence of the fact that the research work oriented like this cannot come to the truth of who the man is and why conceptual thinking was created for him. Marvin Minsky´s conclusion is that there is no secret of intelligence and it is something totally unsatisfactory. This is the consequence of the fact that he accepted the inappropriate materialistic basis as the truth (see chapter 3 and chapter 4).

Roger Schank: Information Is Surprises

Roger Schank (٭1927) is computer scientist in psychology at the Institute of Educational Sciences at North-western University. He also works as an electric engineer with computers and he is a professor of psychology for social politicians. He wrote books dealing with creativity, learning and artificial intelligence. Roger Schank is primarily engaged in the study of the human mind. Among other things, he deals with such a problem that the linguistics works with and whether its significance is independent of the language. And here he logically encountered with traditional linguistics, whose main representative is Noam Chomsky. He considers syntax to be the basis of language. It is interesting that N. Chomsky started, with such a hostile zeal, to criticize the semantic content of the language and that it suppresses the content of our thoughts.

R. Schank also points out the relation between the information and surprises. The message itself, which is syntactically well formed, must not give us any information leading to the changes in the knowledge of the external world in which we operate in our activities. But if the message contains a surprise, then the message must contain something semantic what we had not known before. Roger Schank is very critical to the school curriculum under which the students are prepared to receive new knowledge. I think that this problem affects even our educational institutions, which are often based on already culturally outdated ideas. It is related to the educational and cultural level of those who prepare students for their future life in a changing society. And it is therefore worth considering whether these activities have the nature of anti-learning that is criticized by Roger Schank.

Daniel C. Dennett: Intuition Pumps

Daniel C. Dennett (٭1942) is originally a philosopher. He is the manager of the Centre of Cognitive Studies and a professor of selected arts and sciences at Tufts University. He is also the author of numerous books dealing with consciousness, mind and free will. The philosophically thinking D. C. Dennett has reviewed the history of philosophy as intuition pumps, which have always inspired to new ideas, when the old intuitions started to be insufficient. The recognized scientists, such as A. Einstein or W. Heisenberg, searched a source of new hypotheses and theories in the conscious intuition and they themselves appealed to it, because the Greek word “philosophia” meant a tendency towards wisdom. But where does this intuition come from and how does it get into our consciousness? All these questions were answered in the depth psychology of the human unconsciousness. It was necessary to understand the existence of the human unconsciousness and the innate archetypes.

But then , the Dennett´s “intuition pump” should be shifted in time from the human consciousness into the unconscious memory of the mankind that no beginning in anything material. The truth then does not exist in “the blind evolution” or natural selection that the neo-Darwinists write about. D. C. Dennett thinks that the most important exploration of human consciousness consists of the research of our brain. He says that technology will change also our philosophical views on the functioning of the brain and appreciates Darwin because he disproved the best argument for the existence of God that any theologians or philosophers had had invented. If Dennett is partially right, then today nobody wants the evidence on the existence of God from the area of the brain, because we are able to prove the existence of God much more convincingly by the knowledge of science. So this is not a source that Dennet takes the credit for in something opposite.

Creationism, which D. C. Dennett refers to as a desperate activity of the believers, has nothing to do with the scientific evidence of God, and it is not based on science at all. But in this sense, any of the Darwinian ideas is victorious as Daniel C. Dennett writes about.

Nicholas Humphrey: A Powerful Moment

Nicholas Humphrey (٭1943) is a psychologist and researcher at Darwin College in Cambridge. He is the author of several books on consciousness and soul, and he focuses primarily on the possibility to implement subjectivity which we know from the inner experiences. He took a piece of matter from being that could add the feeling of self to each of us and that could be a human body and human brain and at the same time a human soul. The science of depth psychology deals with the human private area and then it recognizes the human “me” through the memory of “the collective human unconsciousness”. This memory is detectable in any human psyche. But the very fact of “looking for a piece of matter” and the scientific self-reflexive memory, or the search for some other creatures do not conform the integrated science. If we did not know what experiential subjectivity exists, which are only in the “natural world”, then it would be difficult to communicate this fact to those people who do not theoretically deal with science or philosophy so that they actually understand also everything else that may not be clearly similar to the objective world about which we know only thanks to our human senses.

Science has got, through cognitive technologies, far beyond the “natural world” that we know from our perception. We know from the integrated science that only one “true world” exists that we, the people inhabit as physical beings. The world, sensually not perceptible, is much larger than anything we know from our “natural world”. N. Humphrey mentioned positivism and behaviourism, where people recently have tried to work only with those phenomena that are directly given to us. Today we know that there were various philosophical attempts, which not always led to verifiable results. Science does not count on them, but, despite this, it appreciates these theories at least as negative experience of the human knowing. Our subjectivity, as an inner side of our experiences, exists and we cannot exclude it from the universe. People cannot create spirituality as a separate material and energetic universe the universe as God had done it (see chapter 3 and chapter 4).

Nicholas Humphrey is right that if we managed to implement technologically feeling machines, they would not have any inner life, which we know as our inner life. He correctly notes that our inner feelings depend also on the specific history of life, tit means also on the evolutionary journey, which is stored in us as an unconscious memory. Only self-reflective beings, that we belong to, have this memory created also with the entire evolution of the cosmos. But did Nicholas Humphrey search for anything else?

Francisco Varela: The Emergent Self

Francisco Varela (1946-2001) was a biologist and managed the research at the National Centre of Scientific Research. He was also a scientist of cognitive sciences and epistemology at the Polytechnic School in Paris. He wrote the book “Principles of Biological Autonomy” (Principy biologické anatomie, 1979) and collaborated with Humbert D. Maturana and other scientists in many other books. His intellectual contribution to science was influenced by his Buddhism. It was an area of ​​a particular religion or mysticism, which, like all other beliefs, should not be understood as a direct part of the knowledge that belongs to the scientific truth. We can see other merge science and faith at other scientists too, such as Ervin Laszló in his book “Science and the Akashic Field: Integral Theory of Everything” (Věda a ákášické pole: integrální teorie všeho) (see chapter 5.5). Their interest is given by the need for the most accurate interpretation of God, who has not been scientifically achievable in the entire being.

If the science itself did not provide such an interpretation, they turn to a faith of a certain type, which could replace, in their opinion. Unlike them, I do not think that something like this has led to the scientific truth. Likewise, the Tichoplavovs pointed out this in their books (see “Physics of Faith” (Fyzika víry) (in Czech, 2004), when they tried, with the help of the philosophy of Buddhism, to understand the physical torsion fields and this mystic could explain them the Big Bang (see chapter 5.4).

Francesco Varela in his psychology, mixed with Eastern mysticism, came to the denial of the permanent objective existence of the human “me”, which should vanish in the indefinite Brahman after some time. In Buddhism it is not about achieving the spiritual immortality, the people want to get rid of the reincarnation for other individual existences. It is about the understanding of the meaning of existence, which is the opposite in Western views, which are based on depth psychology.

F. Varela is right when he notes that his view on our mind was influenced by his Buddhist understanding. In his mental world he does not recognize the objective world, but he recognizes evolution for the direct Buddhist world. The development of his individual knowing is indistinguishable from the development of reality. And the human mind has then to be distributed to some network in the background, which could form the Brahman. Many of Varela´s and Maturan´s ideas were accepted by the Western philosopher and physicist, Fritjof Capre in his book “The Tao of Physics” (Tao fyziky) (in Czech, 1992) and later also in his book “The Tissue of Life” (Tkáň života) (in Czech, 2004). But Capra did not overcome the difficulties that had arisen from the merge of science and faith.

Steven Pinker: Language Instinct

Steven Pinker (٭1954) is an experimental psychologist at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is also the director of the McDonnell-Pew Centre for Cognitive Neurophysiology at MIT. He is also the author of books dealing with the study of language and human nature. Steven Pinker deeply thinks about the nature of human language that belong only to the man as a specific mental tool. So he is interested in the question how the language emerged. Because S. Pinker is a materialist in understanding the world, he says that the language had got into the human genetics similarly to other our body dispositions of the neo-Darwinian natural selection. What other way could be accepted by a materialist or naturalist as the only provable way? Otherwise, he might have to return to God but he does not do it. S. Pinker considers neo-Darwinism to be the only physical process, in which we could justify by the emergence of complex natural processes from the evolution of lower organisms. And that is exactly what Pinker is wrong about, just like the other neo-Darwinists.

The biological system cannot be understood only from the evolution of the matter, because primarily the event, which is called the Big Bang in modern science, should be understood from this matter. Matter and energy cannot be considered to be a default fact, because both were created after the Big Bang. This fact is proven by modern science. These scientific facts are opposed by the new supporters of neo-Darwinism, outside the integrated paradigm. Also Pinker´s argument is valid, that language is a human intellectual instinct but he does not explain what his previous neo-Darwinists had tried to explain as a new phenomenon.

Roger Penrose: The Unpredictable In Our Consciousness

Roger Penrose (٭1931) is a professor of mathematical physic and mathematics at Oxford University. He wrote many inspirational books about human consciousness. Together with Stephen Hawking, he engaged in space-time and quantum gravity. The reflection of Penrose, who, as a mathematical physicist, got beyond the human “natural world” in his search for the cosmos and this could now also be challenging for science. Penrose is trying to form a specific “theory of twistors” in order to explain the nature of human consciousness. Gödel´s findings that there are no clear results in the deductive conclusions, are seen by R. Penrose as similar so that he could make use of Gödel´s finding for a completely new future scientific thinking.

Also Penrose´s idea on the survival of the outdated theories in science is precise: the objective theory does not end with the formation of a new partial paradigm, but the theory is valid, although it is limited in new theories. This is also proved by the fact that the Newtonian mechanics is still sufficiently true for the fact for which it had been confirmed. We have noticed that, even with higher social and cultural development, our past theories and paradigms will still be involved in the portion of truth (see chapter 3.3). Penrose expects this also in the future, more comprehensive theories and paradigms of natural sciences.

Despite his scientific caution, Penrose commits theoretical inaccuracies regarding his views on the human consciousness. From the point of view of the duration of consciousness in sciences, he believes that our consciousness could be moved in our brain if we assume that inside the neurons in the brain there is also a deeper level of the so-called “micro tubules”. If we used them we might come to the understanding of consciousness where we recognize our subjective experiences without having to recognize them. On the contrary, I think that we we will not get to the inner spirituality. When we understand the spiritual memory of God, only then we can recognize also the transformation of information to energy as well as the truth why and how the entire material universe had been created.

Martin Rees: The System Of Universes

Martin Rees (٭1942) is an astrophysicist and cosmologist. It is also a researcher at the Royal Society at King’s College in Cambridge. He wrote a number of books about the universe and also about the possible way of how the mankind may survive. Martin Rees rightly wonders why the public is still attracted to the origin of the universe and the various mysteries that relate to the creation of the man. He thinks that modern science is already able to quantitatively precisely solve a lot of mysteries that have haunted the man since his creation. He studies this with a great passion.

But I think that Martin Rees, in his atheistic scientific approach, fails to satisfactorily resolve some deep scientific problems. He has not recognized depth psychology, without which it is not possible to understand even the verifiable answers to the innate human archetypes, so then he also fails to recognize the meaning of human life. The natural materialism has trapped Reese in a maze of incomplete answers, Andrei Linde and Steven Weinberg has dealt with, but they have not found the correct and scientifically satisfactory way-out.

It is interesting why Martin Rees (similarly to S. Weinberg) finally trivializes the search for the anthropic principle. If this search could lead to a valid objective anthropic principle for the entire universe, the compulsory atheism, that has professes natural science since its creation, would fall too. But the scientists emotionally cling to this dubious theory and they are exemplary advocates who are be able to strenuously defend it, even though their efforts today do not have anything to do with the search for the scientific truth. Martin Rees says that he is not the one who can solve the delusion in order to create new knowledge in the integrated science. I know something like that from my own past (see chapter 4).

But why does M. Rees not hold the true claim in his article, that in the large scale the universe is homogeneous and that the laws of physics are in all the observable universe similar? If he supported this opinion, then perhaps he did not get to the idea that the meta-universe is so diverse as it is represented by Andrei Linde, and that the anthropic principle, for the same laws and for the same cosmoses turned out to be valid and it did not turn out to be valid for some other cosmoses. Then, according to Reese, the basic laws of the cosmos should be derived from the cooling of the Big Bang, which is very doubtful. Why did atheists not reach the memory and the information to incorporate them into their natural scientific thinking? They probably think some kind of matter will be discovered, which will include in itself also the existence of humanity since its beginning. But would it be still matter?

Alan Guth: Universe At Our Doorstep

Alan Guth (٭1947) is a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1997 he wrote the famous book called “The Inflationary Universe” (Inflační vesmí). And Guth as a scientist supports the view that the contemporary cosmology is an experimental science, when we cannot create objectively valid theories only by the use of philosophical reflections in the home environment on the couch. And this is apparently cannot be justified for his theory of the inflationary universe, and it could be laicly verified if an improviser thought of experimental facts without any coercion. According to Alan Guth, in “the standard inflationary theory” they assumed that the matter was still the same since the beginning of the Big Bang, while in “the Guth´s inflationary theory” the matter was completely different. According to him, already in the first second after the Big Bang, there was a mighty repeat of the inflation of the universe. The insanely fast inflation and shrinking of the universe was repeated about 1025-times. Almost everybody asks there why so many times. Alan Guth replies that this would explain the homogeneity of the entire universe, so this could happen with the validity of the universal constant c. And in natural science, this is proved for all existing causal effects.

In accordance with the theory of relativity, natural scientists recognize causality as the only possible way of transmission of each effect in the matter-energy cosmos. Each causal effect should be directed from the present to the future and should be accompanied by a transfer of some energy. And if the speed limit c is valid there, then the material universe could be so homogeneous after its formation. Alan Guth, using the theory of the inflationary universe, saved the homogeneity of the cosmos.

But his theory gives the impression of “an ad hoc theory” when, “out of necessity”, we introduce a certain theory that does not empirically result from all partial paradigms. We should expect here that the explanation of the inflationary theory of the expansion of the cosmos might rather come from the theoretical explanation of quantum gravity. But the Big Bang itself is still seen as a singularity, where matter was formed in “the white holes”, while, on the contrary, the mass irreversibly disappear in the better-known “black holes”. A better solution to this problem today should come from the already existing theory of super-strings and the theory of torsion waves (see chapter 5.4). But neither of these theories is complete because they scientifically do not solve how and why the Big Bang occurred. Guth´s last remark that science will always include unanswered questions, is a good point if we understand it in the sense of partial paradigms. Because today we know that there is also an integrated paradigm (see chapter 3).

Lee Smolin: A Theory of the Whole Universe

Lee Smolin (٭1955) is a famous researcher in theoretical physics and a member of the Centre for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University. He wrote several books, where he deals with a new perspective on cosmology and string theory. And Lee Smolin deals with the theory of the entire cosmos and wants to know what the man searches for in it. He is obviously interested only in objectively valid theories that science works with. There is an obstacle and this is what we have found at all natural scientists that we have dealt with so far. His efforts are focused only on the findings of natural sciences and he ignores what one would look for in “the cosmic spirituality”. So if the theory of strings is not enough for his explanation, then he uses the anthropic principle as a possible selection rule in the evolution of the cosmos. But even here L. Smolin does not find such an explanation that he searches for. It stands n his way that this principle could lead to the promotion of the religious ideology, which is unacceptable for him as a natural scientist, because religion is not science. Finally, he prefers to choose the universe, which is governed by the rule of biology and he chooses neo-Darwinism.

It is interesting that Lee Smolin does not mind that the universe itself has chosen its evolutionary path, as if it needed a living being from somewhere, and he chooses the known principle of “the natural selection”. But how is he forced to use “the natural selection” and from where, if, according to atheism, there is no permanent conscious memory in the material universe? We can take a hint there, and then no objective evolution can result from the matter that would be created by the use of natural sciences. It should be then empirically accompanied by some spiritual qualities that cannot be derived from any matter. However, there is an inner spirituality and we can subjectively experience it and also it can be proved by the use of depth psychology.

I can hardly imagine how Lee Smolin could respond to his existential questions without changing his existing atheistic beliefs. I myself have fought with this almost all my life. But finally I have come to a provable cognition that atheism is not only false, but that it is faith that is even dangerous for the mankind (see chapter 4).

Paul Davies: The Way of Synthesis

Paul Davies (٭1946) is a well-known physicist and philosopher at the University of Adelaide. He is also the author of many books, which deal with the problem of the existence of God and of how we occurred in the universe and how we were originally created. Also this article of Paul Davies precisely suggests the way of synthesis, to which the human knowledge should get. But his synthesis is not feasible using “the physical theory of everything” that would explain everything by the use of elemental units that micro-physics works with. He is interested not only in the explication of the physical universe that had been formed before the Big Bang. Therefore Davies himself pints out the mysteries, which include the formation of life from the lifeless world and the emergence of human consciousness. It seems that Paul Davies understands well that these problems cannot be solved only by physics. And therefore he believes in the future unification of physics and the effort which we encounter in biology.

The rational world order cannot be identified only with traditional reductionism that also includes a scientific explication. Davies includes also a certain selective principle, where he includes also the anthropic principle, in the principles that the science uses. And he says that this selective principle will be used to realize our observable universe, which must have an observer like us, the people. But Davies does not answer the question why should it be like this. He believes that in the future the comprehensive study of systems should be able to answer this question.

If the complexity was conceived only scientifically, which is customary in the scientific science, I am convinced that Davies´ great questions might be answered. It will miss at least the emergence of human spirituality and the explanation of why the existence of humans in the cosmos is so dependable on the anthropic principle (see also chapter 5.7, sub-chapter “Human heritage of a great thinker and wise man” (Lidské dědictví velkého mysliteli a moudrého člověka).

Murray Gell-Mann: Plectics

Murray Gell-Mann (٭1929) is a theoretical physicist, professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology. He was also awarded by the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1969 and is the co-founder of the Santa Fe Institute. He is also the director of the MacArthur Foundation and one of the five hundred awarded persons by the UN Programme for the environment. In 1994, he wrote his book “The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex” (Kvark a jaguár: Dobrodružství v jednoduchém a komplexním).

The article of M. Gell-Mann contains serious ideas that relate to evolutionary complexity from the simple beginnings, which are dealt with not only in theoretical physics but mainly in cybernetics. M. Gell-Mann was lucky to have worked in a large multidisciplinary team at the Santa Fe Institute. And he emphasizes that the main rule for action in such a big team is tolerance for different opinions and also to the principle that these views are always valid only in line with reality. But it is quite difficult to identify this harmony. It must be done using their objective verifiability, which again may not be easy, if we do not have access to the basic proven theory. M. Gell-Mann thinks that these are the basic laws of physics, but he also knows very well that the evolutionarily new knowledge cannot be derived from them. It still does not contain information that is not included in the basic laws of physics. And thus Gell-Mann gets to the important concept of the emergence as a discontinuity between the different evolutionary levels of real systems in the cosmos.

For the study of occurrence of civilization crises, that we follow in this book, it is certainly interesting to see the Gell-Mann´s example of the relation between the economy and society. He himself mentions them to indicate a great danger that may occur if we confuse the different scientific metaphors. In the civilized society we often encounter with the view, where the rules of the economic competition are so important, that exactly this is the most significant criteria for the functioning of society. But it seems that all other human values ​​would serve for this. In fact, society thus gets into the service of economy. If human society is globalized enough, it is understood that the whole world should primarily focused on the market rules. But the leaders of various countries do not even ask the most basic question of who the man is and what values ​​are really necessary for his longest survival on Earth.

I would like to note that people who have lost their faith in God, have become the supporters of atheism, and they often have chose money, instead of God, as the highest goal of their worshipping. They regard it as a kind of a universal idol, that would probably be protected from all the difficulties of life. But there are many situations where money as an idol fail (see the book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)). Here I not to want to deny the importance of money as an important tool for the cybernetic regulation of goals in society. But what is even further behind Gell-Mann’s “plektics”, what should the author ranked alongside physics and cybernetics?

Stuart Kauffman: The Order for Free

Stuart Kauffman (٭1939) is an expert of biology and biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and at the Santa Fe Institute. He writes books about the order in evolution. S. Kauffman thinks about the problem of complex systems that would gain the ability to further adaptation. He calls them the systems that learned how to balance both convergent and divergent tendencies in evolution and that became even more stable against deviations. This creates a disposition that allows the systems to get into similar states in the timely distant initial situations. And according to S. Kauffman then emergent laws arise that apply to the operation of these systems. But it would be difficult for him to explain where these emergent regularities have turned up from. He returns to the main concept of the evolutionary selection and shows that in the selection there is something already ordered in the system. But this is not a spontaneous “order for free” which is automatically created by the system in the natural selection. Kauffman believes that our order is already part of the basic physical relations of the cosmos.

It is interesting that S. Kauffman does not accept Darwin as clearly as the ordinary Darwinists of the Richard Dawkins´ type. Because he knows his idea of ​​ “the natural selection” is not enough for the evolutionary selection. He also adds that Darwin, without the contemporary new ideas, such as the existence of “the order for free”, would have had expressed himself differently at his times. The problem is that “the order for free” is sufficiently explained by the saying that this order includes the categorial organization of the elementary physical structures. Today, we know very well that no material world, which had its origin in the Big Bang, could arise, because nothing material had existed before the Big Bang. There was nothing material that could have been transformed to physical elements, such as “the order for free”, which then could have been passed into the adaptive systems which the evolutionary biology works with.

When there is already “the categorial order for free”, then we may think about this idea in the environmental, biological and social systems. Kauffman noticed that his ideas on economy could be applied also to the thinking of social actors who would be newly engaged in their areas, without meeting the requirements of strict rationality. But it is rather a question of whether the strictly rationally thinking social actors would then be able to think about the better economic activity and whether they related it to more important human values. But can we find people who would be willing to meet the moral demands without bribes and personal advantages?

Christopher G. Langton: Dynamic Figure

Christopher G. Langton (٭1949) is a computer scientist and hosts at the Santa Fe Institute, where he manages the program of artificial life. He is the author of the book “Artificial Life” (Umělý život) from 1995. Ch. Langton wants to disclose the Darwinian evolutionary algorithm. The fact that evolution really exists is not enough for him, he also wants to know everything about he evolution, which should be the product of natural processes. So he accepts Darwinism and believes that it is a right view. The selective pressure, which is the basis of “the natural selection”, should lead to the creation of a set of organisms. In the evolution of life, it should lead from the lower levels to the evolutionary higher ones. For the dynamics of the lower order, we should search for the path that would lead also to the formation of rules of the higher levels.

Ch. Langton points to the specificity of the natural systems that have had no central control yet and that would control everything with its rules. This is evidenced by the emergent nature for the formation of higher rules from the lower ones. But he cannot explain the emergence; he believes that the nature itself could reveal what is basically in the origin of life, intelligence and consciousness. And he refers to Boltzmann, who once tried to reduce the thermodynamic principles to the activity of the Newtonian atoms. Christopher Langton was terrified of the idea that his action could lead someone to a higher level and to force someone to think about it. And like Ch. Langton, to think about the biological existence. But finally he calmed down when he explained the difference between physics and biology for himself. Physics allegedly investigates the elementary necessary laws, while biology searches for the possible processes, that arise from this physical necessity but they are not necessary at all.

I do not know whether Christopher Langton realizes that being cannot be divided on a necessary part and a part where there is a possibility. The possible and valid orders evolutionary have permeated each other since the origin of the Big Bang and are linked to each other only after a period of time that must elapse. In this sense, the universe is always uniform, which has already been proved by the quantum theory and the theory of the physical vacuum (see chapter 3.1).

J. Doyne Farmer: The Second Law of Organization

J. Doyne Farmer (٭1952) is a physicist at the Santa Fe Institute and works for the investment firm Prediction Company. Farmer´s issue about the second law of organization is supposedly valid for both philosophy and physics, if we talk about the relation to the fundamental issues of physics as well as the living disciplines. But both of these disciplines use an incompatible language. In philosophy there are discussions full of vague words that we can verifiably define, whereas in physics they use only precise terms, which are not understood in the way that people are most interested in. They want to find the meaning of human life. J. D. Farmer, therefore, tries to find a way for the language, a way for finding something more precise about these issues. He noticed that there has been a growing tendency in the evolution since the Big Bang to increase the organization of the universe. It is about a certain driving force that causes the universe being spontaneously organized by itself. And Doyne Farmer is supposedly interested in the opposite tendency than entropy (see chapter 3.2) and he is interested in the spontaneous assessment in the cosmos. That is why, Farmer called his essay “the second law of organization”.

Farmer sees “the self-growth of the organization” as a natural force, but its origin is not explained in the article. And the very existence of “the second principle of organization” is so significant here that people would not consider it to be the last segment in evolution. If we manage to find it out in our genome in genetic engineering, such an evolutionary level should be formed that is higher than the level represented by the mankind today.

I think that the his presumption does not apply, because the development of humans since their creation has not been only dependent on the changes in our genome. It also depends on the changes in our social and cultural memory. Our conceptual level has been changing since our creation and, with the help of the technological changes, we have achieved such organization that John Farmer wanted to use to get to the knowledge about our new genetic memory. A much longer cosmic memory is hidden in the human genome that the one we would like to achieve with the use of the evolutionary biology of the Darwinian type.

Also Farmer´s social views are interesting. He shows that modern science is capable of handling the problems they are not understood in common traditional disciplines, such as economics and political science. They did not even know that the liberal market concepts could be overcome by new scientific concepts. I think that Farmer´s remark on the state of our scientists in a civilizes society is truthful, he says that they are waiting like beggars with a can in their hands that other, less literate social areas of management give them a reward for their work. The scientific discoveries themselves are, in fact, the most important source of development of any social welfare.

W. Daniel Hillis: Close to Singularity

W. Daniel Hillis (٭1956) is a computer scientist and one of the co-founders of Thinking Machines Corporation. It is the holder of US patents and is the editor of several scientific journals. He is also the author of several books about the prospects of science. Daniel Hillis wonders if scientists are able to create artificial intelligence that would exceed the human thinking. According to him, it is apparently possible, even though people were created not in a projected way. God apparently did not create any nature, so we, as enlightened people, are able to create a higher intelligence than we have.

When we consider Hillis´possibility of our human ability to create superhuman artificial intelligence, we maybe want to know how he got to this option. The answer may be that it is an ideology that results from his atheistic belief. In terms of real divine evolution, people would not probably try to design anything like this. Because such an option has come from an atheist scientist, so it can be understood like this. And with D. Hillis, we can assume that evolutionary higher levels are formed from the lower ones and these are formed from material interactions among lower material elements. This assumption inevitably leads to the emergence and does not lead to the formation of higher levels from below. But he probably does not realize that he thinks that it is possible to expect such an evolution, which originates from the matter.

Hills has a more interesting idea that our mind is largely a cultural artefact. The development of our cultural activities makes us smarter and smarter, because people have not been dependent on their innate genetic memory since their creation. The social and cultural development is a determining factor for our intelligent growth. But this necessarily presupposes the existence of conceptual psyche, that is inherent only for people living on Earth. When W. Daniel Hillis asks whether we are a product of evolution, he says truthfully that the human evolution continues in the evolution of spirituality, but it is not something from the material genome. In this sense, we should ask the question what will be there after us. And Hillis says that we are approaching the singularity that will fundamentally influence us in the next few decades.

I try to specify his idea to specify; we either understand how to get in line with the spiritual memory and we will continue in our earthly existence, or we do not understand it and we disappear from the surface of Earth. Even if we do not find our positive self-preservation activity, it is true that the evolution on Earth cannot be infinite. And finally, everything material will vanish in a very long time The only thing from the evolution, that is not at risk of extinction, is only the spirituality of God, from which we emerge as spiritual beings and where we can go back again. Knowledge about the indestructibility of spirituality does not come onyl from the physical sciences (see chapter 3 and chapter 4).

- - -

J. Brockman in his book “The Third Culture” (Třetí kultura) collected a large number of world-famous scientists and encouraged them to express their views on the future of human civilization. His selection was quite representative, because he tried to include almost all scientific disciplines that traditionally belong to the natural sciences and which now form the basis of the scientific knowledge. He thinks that science is still considered to be objective knowledge that can now be tested only by the Popperian method (see chapter 3.3) and can be corrected using the known paradigms of reality. But I am trying, using the latest findings, to complement the verifiable way of science by the theoretical psychological sciences, which includes also the depth psychology whose results are objectively provable too (see chapter 3.4). In this way, science with the recognition of the objective truth has been extended and in the search for the truth it uses only the mutual Popperian and Jungian methods.

We have noticed that in the natural science there is a habit of atheism as a natural approach to to the recognition of the entire reality. The Enlightenment played an important role in the development of science when it brought atheism into the academic institutions and into the entire developed society. As the result of formation of cybernetic disciplines, it has been shown that our knowledge is a memory process, which leads to even deeper conceptual sources than the different partial paradigms. Therefore, it is not enough to be warded by the Nobel Prize to prove the eternal validity of findings that have been disclosed in the course of time. So science showed that its historical validity is not a result of scientific knowledge as a sort of entropic waste that has to be finally rejected. Scientifically significant theories still apply for the objective reality.

Those scientists, whom Brockman collected in his book, have demonstrated that modern science plays a significant role in human culture and that it is part of the human cultural objective activity. The truthfulness of science is not tested only against the formed rationality, the people simply believe in, but it is tested against the entire objective reality, and science has demonstrated the extent of its content. Today it is true that sciences are able to realistically test the content of their knowledge, also in relation to the past cosmos, which had been formed billions of years ago. The findings, which are realistically accessible using both cognitive technologies of the natural sciences as well as using the deep unconscious memory, reach, in their scope, beyond the memory of the formation of the Big Bang.

For the followers who have not accepted the linear cybernetic causality, and the scientists from the Brockman´s book are among them, and who have not acquainted with depth psychology, the conscious memory of God is unacceptable. Therefore they cannot even explain who the man is because their knowledge of the neo-Darwinian biology or physics is not sufficient for this. Their suggestions, which are related to the civilization, do not overreach the bases with which we can meet at Samuel Huntington or Francis Fukuyama (see my book “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)). Despite this, their showed in their thoughts that the concept of natural sciences could be of great importance for the contemporary “crisis of civilization”. But the solutions of many problems of the earthly life cannot be achieved in isolation from the universe to which Earth belongs and which originated in the help of the cosmic evolution.

Brockman´s book shows that atheism is clearly harmful also for the human survival on Earth. It is similar to the deadly disease of the loss of God that is increasingly threatening the mankind. The man should know that atheism threatens him not only temporarily, before his death, not even the death frees the man of the question about the existence of God. The belief in the ideological expertise of the atheists confuses people even while exploring the truth that the faith in God is valid and that this faith has always provided them at least some, albeit somewhat uncertain protection.

5.7 Conversational search for the relation between science and faith

Depth psychologist Miluše Soudková (USA) sent me an interesting book of one American writer, Krista Tippett, called “Einstein´s God” (Einsteinův Bůh, 2010); in their books she writes about similar spiritual problems than me. Krista Tippett (*1960) originally studied history and theology, and then became a correspondent for the New York Times. When she was 47, she wrote her first monograph with the title “Speaking on Faith” (Když už mluvíme o víře) and three years later, she published the above-mentioned book “Einstein´s God” (Einsteinův Bůh). Its subtitle was “Conversations About Science and Human Spirit” (Konverzace o vědě a lidském duchu) that became a best-seller of the New York Times for 2010. Krista Tippett, in her research on the relation between science and faith, met significant scientists, which I think is appropriate for us to express our opinion on her search.

Introduction

In the introduction, Krista Tippet says that in her latest book she is interested in scientific and religious questions, and that´s why she had searched for the world´s most competent people who, in her opinion, understand both areas. One of them was the famous physicist, John Polkinghore, who is an expert in quantum mechanics and he is also a theologian. He has realized that the universe is a mixture of determinism and freedom, which allowed him to create a vision of God and of what happens when people die or when they pray to God. Albert Einstein became famous for his saying that “God does not play dice with the universe”, but he did not have similar views. Also another visited scientist, Janna Levin, has different views, who, similarly to A. Einstein, deals with the changes of the stellar galaxies, light, time and gravity. And in the next chapters of the Krista Tippett´s book, she introduces other distinguished experts who explore the relation between science and religion.

In the presentation of the particular chapters of her book, I will proceed in the same order as the author herself. I would like to paraphrase her views as well as the concepts of her guests as good as possible, and formulate my own opinions too. I also used her titles of the particular chapters here. In the own discussion of the scientists I will use only the initials of these people so that I do not have to repeat their surnames all the time.

The Human Legacy of a Great Mind and a Wise Man

To answer the question how Albert Einstein understood God and if he ever believed in God, the author herself chose two great theoretical physicist, Freeman Dyson and Paul Davies. The astrobiologist Paul Davies gave her an interesting comparison to the study of Einstein´s God. By the time of A. Einstein, there was a common conception of space and time as fixed and immutable background to life events. But Albert Einstein discovered that space and time are elastic and are part of life events. Space, time, matter, gravity and light are now blended together and are curved when changes occur in the reactions of their mutual changes. This view led to great discoveries, such as the Big Bang and the black holes, which are still in the centre of attention of contemporary cosmologists and physicists.

- - -

Krista Tippett (K.T.) suggested Freeman Dyson (*1923) to discuss how Einstein used the word “God” and if God had created such a universe as comprehended by Einstein. Freeman Dyson (F.D.) believes that Einstein´s God is not a personal God, as many people believe, and that God has no interest in human affairs. A. Einstein believed in nature like in the global divine spirit that governs the universe and is beyond our comprehension. Science was a religion for him. Those who cannot respect religion, cannot be real scientists. K.T. then points out that Einstein´s work opened the physics a way to the study of the smallest quantum particles, when such quantum physicists as Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg came to the unpredictability. Albert Einstein considered their idea to be unacceptable. He professed the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, for whom the law of God appeared only in the deterministic nature. Einstein wanted to find a universe that has a true objective reality.

F.D. agrees that Einstein´s universe is cold and impersonal and that space and time are defined by a set of differential equations. He himself considers them to be miraculous that the nature is converged on the bases of mathematics. A. Einstein used mathematics and he found out that nature is subordinated to its equations. It was a great success for Dyson that Arthur S. Eddington, in 1919, measured the effect of the solar gravitational field on light and thet he proved that it could have been deduced from the Einstein´s theory of gravitation. If A. Einstein was alive today, he himself would accepted the existence of “the black holes” as a true and real fact, these would a triumph for his views.

- - -

The second participant of K. Tippett´s discussion on Einstein´s God was the cosmologist Paul Davies (*1946). She asked him about Einstein´s “elastic time” which depends on changes in the space, weight and motion. P. Davies (P.D.) shows that people cannot link the contemporary misunderstanding of the Einstein´s concept of time with the experience of everyday life. But science has new means to measure the deformation of the time. K.T. is then interested in the concept of eternity.

P.D. refers to the concept of dreaming, which reflects the perception of time in many ancient cultures. It seems as if there were two times, while we live the one minute by minute and the other has to be eternity. This dualism of time apparently permeates the cultures as the duality of time and eternity and thanks to it also such things can exist that are outside of the normal time or are eternal. St. Augustine (15th century) thought that ordinary time had begun to exist when the cosmos had been formed. Today we think that the universe began with the Big Bang but people like asking the question what had been there before the Big Bang. Einstein´s theory of relativity has lead us to the expanding universe and we know that the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, which is the real beginning of time. P. Davies believes that no time had existed before it. And also St. Augustine thought that the world was created with time and not in time and therefore he placed God outside time as an eternal being. And we are again back at eternity. Paul Davies wrote that theology was the midwife of science. In 1995 he was awarded the Templeton Prize for progress in understanding the relation between science and religion. But like Einstein, he is not a traditionally thinking religious person. And K.T. asks him a question how he understands God and whether Einstein´s discoveries have influenced us in our new understanding of time.

P.D. emphasized that A. Einstein followed the past religious knowledge that there is order in nature and he stressed he would have never been able to believe in personal God. He believed only in the strictly intellectual order of the cosmos. According to Paul Davies, the universe is already prepared for life. Physicists traditionally ignored this. Davies thinks that the universe has enabled us to formation of life and of thinking beings that can understand the universe. Thanks to mathematics, we can understand God´s thinking. Life and mind are not the only something extra in the cosmos, but they are its basic components. P. Davies warns that normal conversation between science and religion is different in physics than in biology. It does not reflected only the biological debate between the Darwinian evolution and the intelligent design. Einstein´s order in the cosmos is manifested in laws of physics. Although Einstein rejected the concept of God who is concerned with our problems, despite this Einstein´s discoveries have led us to the knowledge of quantum mechanics and the theory of chaos.

And therefore K.T. asks him whether this allows the entry of God into the laws of physics, as some scientists believe. P.D. thinks that the transition of quantum physics to the non-deterministic universe leads to some uncertainty in the laws. So that quantum uncertainty advertises the hand of God. A question arises there, whether God affects the action of world affairs with this uncertainty. Some scientists believe that the involvement of God in the events is possible, but God does not change the laws in the way we know. And K.T. again goes to eternity that is part of the religious cultures. A. Einstein once noted that there is something eternal, we encounter in people who think about their destiny and their human illusions. It is s kind of oscillation between fear and hope in them.

K.D. explains that A. Einstein probably though about the past, present and future as an eternal existence. P. Davies thinks that physics has an impact on our universe in many aspects. We are an element of a biologically friendly universe which allowed the creation of life and which allows us to live on our planet. Thus we see that we are not the centre of the universe, and we are the peak of creation, but we are only a small part, perhaps a billionth among the living systems in the cosmos. But if we emerged then we can truly understand not only the local participation but also the participation of the whole cosmos. And K.T. reminds the militant atheist Steven Weinberg, who is known that he once said that the more we know, the more it all seems to be vain. And K.D. confirms that S. Weinberg cannot believe in something supreme, what is behind it all. But besides this, they both agree in everything that relates to science.

K.T. the ends their debate saying that A. Einstein could not recognize the personal God, which might have had an impact on our activities, or that God would judge our own creations. His own religiosity consisted of a humble admiration of the infinitely higher spirituality that is revealed to us in our understanding of reality. According to Einstein, morality is important not for God, but only for us.

The reader, who has read the entire debate, might appreciate the great qualified analysis of the Einstein´s concept of God of both participants. The experts as well as Krista Tippet did not leave out anything important from Einstein´s scientific activities. But in the debate, it was more interesting what they themselves achieved in their own scientific development and how they overcame the Einstein´s concept of God. Had God created only such a universe that Einstein came to? Is the universe that impersonal universe that F. Dyson discusses that God manifests himself only in the deterministic order? Freeman Dyson only confirmed there what Einstein himself says, and he does not use anything new from the Christian views. He recognizes only the mathematical language in the nature, similarly to Einstein´s differential gravitational equations, without Freeman Dyson leading us to the Big Bang and to the theory of “the black holes”.

But Paul Davies was much more critical to Einstein´s concepts. First, he appreciated Einstein´s contribution, but he also highlighted the fact why people still do not understand it. They are apparently still in the captivity of the specific lived time, while Einstein´s abstract time still eludes them. In his scientific work, Paul Davies studied the relation between science and religion and he sees himself as an unconventionally thinking religious man. He has always been interested in the question of why the universe is so well-prepared for the creation of thinking beings that are capable of thinking about the universe and understand it. P. Davies was also interested in the issue why Einstein´s theory has led to the quantum mechanical uncertainty about natural events and what the Einstein´s deterministic God means for the universe.

Davies is still struggling to understand whether physics alone can solve the fact that we live in a friendly universe, which allowed the creation of people. Philosophically, he reached further than the atheist Steven Weinberg (see more about him in “The Twilight of Atheism” (Soumrak ateizmu)). He also noted that God is behind the laws of physics that he had created. In the discussion about Einstein, K. Tippett came to the conclusion that he remained only in the impersonal universe all his life, which did not lead to the specific role of such creatures as humans. Although Paul Davies has reached the right overruns, compared to Albert Einstein, he still remained within the limits of physical paradigms and could find no evidence of the existence of God or the meaning of human life.

The Spirit as an Emergent Life Force

In this chapter, K. Tippet deals with spirituality and the exploration of human neural processes. She visited the well-known physician Sherwin Nuland (*1930), who previously wrote the best-seller “How We Die” (Jak umíráme) to ask him a series of questions. Sherwin Nuland (S.N.) is a professor at Yale University and teaches bioethics and history of medicine. In his book he deals with human death and revealing the findings about the brain that would make us more human. According to Nuland, new capacities have been developed for the human brain that relate to spirituality, integrity and moral order.

K.T. notes that Nuland has a reputable experience with depression, which he described in the book “Lost in America” (Ztracen v Americe), ​​and she wants to know if his depression influenced his interest in the physical body and the physical “me”. S.N. thinks that his religious beliefs were nothing more than his obsessive thinking. People change even those faiths they sincerely profess. The problem of his depression was not what people represent as their own faith. If faith leads to depression, it is necessary to get rid of our will. And K. T. wants to know what we should accept instead of faith when the man cannot stop his thoughts that the human spirituality connects us with the religious beliefs. S. N. agrees with her view. He has found out that there are many beliefs in the world and we may search for those that provide a better life sphere for all people. Such beliefs should be united to find the essence of what it means to “be human”. And this will also liberates us of thoughts about us ourselves.

K.T. cannot accept that the beliefs were only an abstraction, and that one could talk about the human spirituality like S. Nuland does. In this sense, she cites the paragraph from Nuland´s book where he recognizes the human soul as a result of adaptive biological mechanisms that protect our species and that is there to protect and save the existence of the mankind. It sounds like a miracle to her. S. N. considers the word “miracle”, she chose, to be a correct one. Miracle is that he connects with the deeply religious people. People admire in the universe what God creates, but in the universe he admires what the nature creates. We want to explain various things. Sherwin Nuland tries to understand the integrity of everything. He wants to understand the balance, but not beyond the physiological homoeostasis, but rather beyond the affinity in which we return to chaos. This gives him a deeper clarification, not just what is only our continued existence. For him, it is about our continued performance.

In his book “The Wisdom of the Body”, Nuland understands the human soul as a result of the living nature, which caused the power of human creativity. The human spirit is a quality that homo sapiens has been gradually finding it in himself by the use of trial and error during many millennia. We pass it on entire generations of organic structures, of which our species had evolved many years before. This spirituality lives when we live and dies when we die. It is not a soul or a shadow, but it is the essence of the human life. And he adds some more words, that the spirituality is the evolutionary success of the cerebral cortex. It is about maintaining balance which is incorporated into its physical and chemical operations. I remind here that also R. Dawkins and his followers think similarly (see chapter 5.6 and my book “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)).

K.T. argues that this concept is a biological justification of the human intelligence, but people have created something like consciousness. Is consciousness the same as spirituality? S.N. says that he does not recognize it like this. Consciousness is just a way of understanding our environment, it is the understanding of our feelings and responses to them. Human spirituality is much more. It is the way how we use our consciousness, it is not simply “consciousness”. Thus we gradually become emotionally richer than we had been before. But K.T. adds that this also means the overreaching of what we had been given. And S.N. agrees with this. The development then progresses to the growing wealth of human spirituality. It can be described by the term value that the neurologists use to activate the self-preserving circuits in the brain. There are many pathways in the brain that are variously useful for our survival. It is the natural selection in an emotional way. Our brain has ways for evaluation which are the best for our organism. Nuland asks, what could be better for our survival than beauty in the aesthetic sense? And then a short debate about the value of beauty follows.

K.T. asks if Nuland used the word “soul” as something interchangeable with the word “spirituality”. S. N. does not think he needs the word “soul” because it leads to complications. But K.T. but notes that in the Jewish tradition there is a similar to the word “nephesh”, which differs from the Christian idea of ​​”the soul”. There’s apparently a certain affinity to the Nuland´s concept. But S.N. says that we know more than we think. He refuses to recognize that in fact we know such facts for which we could use the word “soul”. He points out that the Greek term “pneuma” has a similar pattern as the life-giving force, but he prefers the biological concepts. In the book “How We Die” (Jak umíráme) S. Nuland as a doctor revealed his own experience with dying based on the life experience of his Jewish grandmother. The grandmother recounts her memories there of how she, with the advancing years, was gradually losing the life-giving power and how she ultimately became humble towards her death.

When Nuland talks about the universality of his ideas, he does not mean their validity for just one of the cultures that we profess. Because we cannot understand the people from other cultures very well. The cultural differences are only a patina on the deepest psycho-sexual feelings that human beings have under the influence of the physical properties of their bodies and brains. These give us our strength or our feelings that are clearly universal. K.T. asks what benefit we have from this knowledge. And S.N. says that it is necessary to rescue love. If we know that the pain and response to this pain is universal, it allows us to understand much about the others as well as about themselves. In this way we lean what tolerance is. If the people have the motivation to preserve the community, then we can talk about love. But we cannot talk about love in the way it is discussed in the religion where it is base on the God´s love. So we will talk about love rather in the terms of human biology, including emotional biology.

K.T. notes that love is becoming an uncertain word in our culture. S.N. agrees. And he also understands the qualities, such as tolerance, compassion and hospitality, which are meant in the major religious traditions. In his opinion, also their versatility is based on human biology, which we previously understood only in a religious form. And we understood them through emotional aphorisms, which, in fact, were based on our deepest physiological nature. K.T. notes that he understands that many people will read his description of reality, but they will still remain religious and retain the idea of ​​reality as God.

S.N. agrees with this and says that there are two different systems of faith. There is no reason that the members of religious communities interpret their faith on a scientific basis. The discussion between science and religion is not necessary. A conversation is enough, in which we would say what is the attitude of the people, and he would look for what should be the relationship between science and religion, in order to bring as much profit as possible to this world. Nuland cited as an example that Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher and theologian. Averoes was a physicist, philosopher and theologian. Both had known all the knowledge that was available at that time for all the involved and for that they wanted to bring the philosophy and science in line with faith. When we talk about G. Galilei it is said that he was a heretic. But he wanted to achieve to have his theory in conformity with the clerical doctrine. And K.T. notes that when he was reading Sherwin Nuland and his thoughts about the evolution of spirituality and humanity as a creation of humankind and about the creation of the brain, she remembered J. Polkinghorne, who is a British physicist and theologian. He believes in God who created a deeper world than the mechanistic world is. So God created the world and he succeeded with this creation.

S.N. agrees with this. But K.T. says that he does not say that this is the reason to force someone to have this view. S.N. asks if Kritsta Tipett knows what God has done. He also gave people free will in the formation of synapses of the nerve impulses to implement the decisions. And people can do this with greater joy. And the moral feeling then gives them more pleasure than anything else. K.T. asks whether there are ways that would have turned our culture to a more fundamental level. And S.N. answers that people will gradually understand the DNA and their possibilities for the terms of heredity and genetics. And he thinks that science, founded on the basis of the nervous system, will be understandable to more educated people. These people will strive for complete knowledge about the human body and its possibilities and then will try to live in the spirit of the highest possibilities.

The discussion of K. Tippett and S. Nuland is necessary there to understand the basic problems of sub-sciences, which are now biology and genetics. The reader, who has followed our previous interpretation, would, perhaps without further explanation, find Nuland´s shortcomings himself. His arguments are somewhat similar to the situation when I wrote about three of our scientists, who wanted to prove the existence of God and about the meaning not resulting from it in our lives and that it is not possible to prove God from partial sciences (see chapter 5.3). I say that if we want to prove the evidence of God we must use all the necessary partial paradigms to be better orientated in our current situation and to be able find the specific answer on how to behave in the changed world.

The answer to the problem of “who the man is” cannot be found in the accurate analysis of the human earthly life, because the problem emerges from the cosmic mind, which requires the unification in the integral paradigm of the entire science (see chapter 3). Many scientists still do not distinguish the proof of the universal paradigm and the proof of the partial paradigms, and even less the proof of the theories or hypotheses by which we could get the truth about more than the normal reality.

Nuland, in his scientific search for the existence of God and the immortality of the human spirituality, has got, in fact, to atheism, which Richard Dawkins still maintains in his books. I have already dealt with this in detail in my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje) and it is not unnecessary to repeat this here again. Today, it can be scientifically proved that Nuland´s “spirituality” does not apply, whose qualities should result from microbiology or genetics. But I still appreciate Nuland´s effort to prefer love to hate among people who might contribute to the self-preservation of human existence on our our terminate Earth.

Discovering the Globalization of Medicine

Krista Tippet has found herself in another interview of a well-known physician and surgeon Mehmet Oz (* 1960), who manages the Cardiovascular Institute and the alternative medical program at the Presbyterian Hospital in New York. He was born in Ohio and he has US and Turkish citizenship. He has written numerous books and publications, and is the holder of important awards. He was influenced by the Sufi mysticism and the Christian teachings of a Swedish philosopher and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg. And for Mehmet Oz (M.O.) God is love and everyone has their own life goal.

M.O. practices transcendental meditation and is a supporter of “global medicine” in the sense of connecting the alternative therapies and conventional medical care, including the partial implementation of homoeopathy. K.T. notes that the word healing originally meant to ensure success, but the influence of the Western medicine took its significance in the relation to human health. At the Presbyterian Hospital, M. Oz introduced a new therapy, oriented on the mind and energy, and, along with the combination of Western approaches, he calls it “global medicine”. He explained it in the book “Healing from the Heart” (Léčení díky srdci) and he has found out that cardiovascular surgery is well suited for this use.

M.O. says that the heart does not only serve for pumping blood to the body. Thanks to the operation of the organ, he has realized why the heart plays such an important role in poetry and religion, and why we associate this muscle with the soul and love. He dedicated his life to the attempts to find out what that role means and how we can help people who have this ability. He got his medical education at Harvard Medical School. In the traditional medical education it is believed that the mind and body are not interconnected. Also the organs such as the heart, kidney, liver, pancreas and brain are considered as separate elements and can be studied separately.

K.T. is interested in the depiction of the path of Mehmet Oz during his studies and also in his story from the book “Healing from the Heart” which refers to his female patient Jehovah Wittness. This little woman was brought into the room for serious cases with the loss of almost all blood and there was a danger that her organs would not have enough blood for their operation. Jehovah became unconscious and M. Oz then obtain the approval of her family to a procedure, but they could not agree due to family reasons and because of their faith. Even after her return home the refused the surgery. M.O. understood why he could have not understood some things in the healing process, because he agreed with science for the surgery, but he was also in disagreement with the spirituality.

K.T. asks why people with heart refuse the scientific treatment. M.O. thinks that those disagreements with the surgeries in patients leads them to their feelings of guilt, frustration and fear of their transplants as such. K.T. is surprised that this application of the most modern therapies has led M. Oz to search for other kinds of therapies.

M.O. therefore tells her the story of a very devout man whose co-religionists often talk about the power of interaction with their faith. To save his life, they had to implant a mechanical means, replacing a pump acting similarly as the heart. If the patient was not unconscious, he could not agree with that and would rather killed the doctor than to admit it. His wife told him that he could not have returned to life. Only with the help of his wife and his pastor it was possible for him to be return to a useful life after the transplant operation of the heart. K.T. asks whether this activity is part of the healing and M.O. she says that the process of healing is achieved by replacing the organs only if there the spirituality is influenced first, but this is less available for the healing.

K.T. asks M. Oz to explain them how he has come to these therapies and how he has tested them if they are effective. M.O. notes that these therapies were given to him by people outside the medicine. At the Presbyterian Hospital patients from around the world are treated who have their own medical traditions, which previously had shown to be helpful. The researchers tried to identify whether these traditions would be useful in their healing. Oz believes that they in the West have come to belief that the scientific medicine offers all solutions and they compare this belief with Turkey. It was necessary to eliminate the barriers which broke off the contact of the patients with their families as well as other obstacles obtained even from science, but Oz himself believes in science a lot. Therefore, Oz introduced, as another complementary forms of care for patients, also the hypnosis, yoga and the influences of physical energies according to the model of the Tibetan Buddhism.

K.T. would like to hear about his experience with hypnosis. M.O. states that they studied it in different relations and also its possible role in the treatment of hypertension after changes in pain during the medical procedures. Oz includes also homoeopathy among the treatment procedures, although its influence is very different. And there are also therapies that could play an important role for the intellect of the patients. The doctors are trying to achieve at least some elements of the intellect in their treatment. It is about the broad use of energy. If we characterize the energy of life on the level of cells, then the energy is different where the cells aggregate in the organ and these organs go farther into the body and then patients can feel better. We use therapies such as acupuncture or homoeopathy, which can influence the energy levels.

K.T. would like to know how the Chinese physicists approach to acupuncture, and how they differ from the Western physicists because they have different paradigms for understanding the functioning of the human body. Are their paradigms about energy not completely contradictory to ours? M.O. also mentions the paradigms in homoeopathy, where it is believed that the small doses of the product can strongly influence the processes of the body. There are many other areas where we can know this, also in chemotherapy in the treatment of local cancer. The routine treatment causes symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, hair loss etc., which can be improved through the use of alternative therapies. We can similarly utilize green teas as well as the spiritual and somatic elements, such as the utilization of music and other guided images to influence the tumour growth. This is the reason for the creation of global medicine, when doctors come from local cultures from around the world and integrate the healing traditions from other parts of the world into the therapy. And also a study on the role of the prayer in healing is being finalized, where groups of major religions are formed.

K.T. mentions the study of Randolph Byrd, which is contained in the book of M. Oz and is one of the most famous ones. But it is a very controversial study and she would like to know why it is includes as part of the treatment. M.O. admits that he allegedly had some doubts in this case, when there no direct contact existed between the patients and those ones who prayed for them. Therefore, they have made various changes in the evaluation of these treatments. Oz remembers the incident with two fathers who came to him before the heart surgery. The first father came with his wife and said that it did not matter whether he survived the heart surgery. Oz began to talk to him why he had came to a similar opinion. He found out that these parents had lost their sixteen-year-old child and they were very distressed. The heart disease could lead this father to the departure from this planet. M. Oz sent him home to discuss all the things there.

In the same week, another father came to talk to Oz about his operation. The first fact was that he had a clogged artery and he wanted to be operated in order to survive. He no doubt that the operation could not have succeed. He said to have a greatly retarded child at home and he had to do everything for them. If something had happened during the surgery, there would have been no one to care for them. He said he will live. When Oz compared the two approaches, he understood why we as humans live in the world. And K.T. then asked M. Oz why his medical experience had changed its definition of the quality of life.

M.O. confirms that his understanding of the quality of life had changed for him after watching his patients. At the beginning of their treatment they only wanted to stay alive. However, staying alive is not only a single goal. The quality of life changed after the discussions with his patients. Some older Americans came to his office after the surgery and told him that even though the result was perfect, they had nothing to live for.

K.T. goes back to the question of praying and she wants to know whether prayers can be legitimately included in medical care. M.O. replies that we do not ask those who pray and how would they would ask for the patient. They ask them what they themselves think is the best for the patient. So of there is a praying person we do not search for organized religions that are in the background. We are concerned about the energy of spirituality, which we can incorporate into the prayers. In western medicine we completely ignore this energy because we cannot measure it. If we want to understand this new shift of the paradigm, it is sometimes necessary to tolerate the elements of faith and intuition. Medicine and physicists have a different understanding of energy. We have a digital world and we have an insight into the technology, but we cannot apply the energy in the context with the human body. Perhaps sometime in the next generation it will be scientifically possible to achieve this.

K.T. speaks with appreciation about the efforts of Dr. M. Oz and asks whether more doctors of his age are open for the comprehensive approach to health. M.O. thinks that many of contemporary young physicists have more opportunities to reveal everything because they can rely on our ancestors. At least in medicine it is really visible. K.T. thinks that it is ironic but also interesting that the places that Oz sees are the old traditions and they are very simple, but the West has outgrown them. M.O. totally agrees with this. Such is the globalization of medicine. For him personally, life means to feel comfortable with those that are uncomfortable. Each of us has his own individual health events that we realize in the course of life. We are led by many unexpected situations that we cannot identify today. K.T. thinks that M. Oz, thanks to his work in the corner of medicine, is becoming a more spiritual person. M.O. thinks it is undeniable because he has entered into the high-tech field. In this way he has got rid of the illusion that he can find salvation only in science.

K.T. he asks him to reveal his spiritual sensibility, which he has won through his experimentation. M.O. says that he is happier when exploring new spirituality. He has begun to study it on himself and he wants to know why we are here and what we have to do here. Thanks to his interest in yoga he has got to the Zen experience. And without the insights, that Oz had achieved in medicine and with his teachers and patients, he should not have wandered into these places. K.T. says that those who were balancing between life and death, have experience in connection with the sense of reality. She asks Oz if he had ever experiences something like that. M.O. has not had near-death experiences. He allegedly tried to prevent death. But he is able to understand better when now he has experience with death from family members of his own one or the relatives of the patients.

K.T. notes that there are mentions about this in his books, and she particularly interested in the mention of William Blake. M.O. says that William Blake was a follower of the Swedish philosopher Sven Swedenborg and he had access to his writings. Swedenborg spoke about complementarity, which actually was prepared by the famous physicist Niels Bohr. Complementarity means that the world can stand on two mutually exclusive answers that are both true. In physics, it was the wave and particle theories. William Blake talked about the same thing. And K.T. heard about these analogies of complementarity, but it is not clear to her what benefits would M. Oz get from this in medicine and what should be different in modern medicine and in traditional medicine. Is this the recognition of the real transcendence in the sense of W. Blake? M.O. thinks that Blake showed it beautifully in his poetry. But it is also evident from the many stories of our lives and we have also noticed. It meant that we were open and gave the opportunity even to small things if there was a risk that they could be taken from us.

An entire chapter in the book of K. Tippett is devoted to the way of human knowledge in the field of medicine. It is a polemic with the current scientific approach of the doctors, who, in addition to their academic education, have forgotten that even healing has its own evolutionary history. Mehmet Oz points out his professional medical practice when he, as an American surgeon, was forced to return to the global understanding of medicine. An his story reminds me the search for God and spirituality at the known physician Deepak Chopra (see chapter 6.4). Mehmet Oz also engagingly explained that in medicine it is about the understanding of contribution with each individual so that the particular religious belief is showed in their saints. So he wanted to get a valid contribution for the knowledge about all human cultures.

It is also interesting that M. Oz showed the evaluation of the modern physical science up to the technological penetration into our inaccessible world of cells and to the knowledge of what health hazards can threaten the people from bacteria. Mehmet Oz does not ceased to recognize the benefits of the physical knowledge, but he also to criticizes the current medical reflections. But on the other hand, it is strange that Oz, which deals with spirituality, has not mentioned the depth psychology, which has fundamental importance in the field of spirituality. He always emphasizes the science in terms of the external access to reality. This leads him then to an energetically understood spiritual mysticism, improved by the Swedish philosopher S. Swedenborg, with whom he had already met when he had been young.

But I want to briefly mention the experience of M. Oz with the importance of prayers in healing in the area of ​​spirituality. The body here is only a material and energetic way for our temporary stay on Earth together with our spirituality. In his reflections on spirituality, Mehmed Oz disregarded cybernetics that we would bring us, in natural science, with the traditional variable of the material energy, also to the variable of the information by which we can measure the orderliness of the “memory”. The “information” allows us to scientifically show which of the two mentioned variables allows us to get rid of the popular mystical energetism, that erroneously ascribes energy to the memory of the consciousness of God.

Creation as an Unfolding Reality

Krista Tippet visited the biographer James Moore, who is specially interested in Charles Darwin. Together with him, she wanted to explore the period when Darwin formulated his ideas of evolution. At that times, people thought that all the conditions for plants, animals and humans are static and eternal, and that all had been created at once at the beginning of time. And this was supposed to happen about six thousand years ago. Darwin assumed that there would be some religious objections against his evolutionary concept. James Moore confirmed that Darwin’s concept got out of the theological tolerance and that there was a cultural battle in the cultural field.

According to Krista Tippett an opinion has emerged, related to Darwin’s life and his amazing opportunities for understanding the relationship between science and theology. She agrees with his first conception of life, which we learn only in the environmental sciences and genetics. When describing the Creation, Darwin had not objected to God as the source of all existence, but he declined God only in the sense of incorporation into errors, injustices and disasters. Moore encourages his students to read the Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” (Původ druhů), where there are a lot of ideas which refines their religious views on the life and God. James Moore (J.M.) is a researcher who studied and wrote about Darwin for three decades. He grew up in Chicago, where they taught about Darwin as about the enemy of God. Darwin himself was worried that ha had been compared to a murderer because of his work on concessions.

K.T. asks what Darwin might thought with this. J.M. replies that his saying helps us to look in the morals of the time in which Darwin lived. God was then referred to as “being in heaven” and everything on earth was in perfect order. It was believed that everything was stable and secured to the will of God. The species of all living creatures could not spontaneously and naturally change, because nothing happened spontaneously and naturally in this world. God was then responsible for everything. Charles Darwin confessed to a murder when God set the laws, due to which everything evolves and changes itself and it changes into new forms which we call species. Darwin, however, did not deny the existence of God and therefore he was not the murderer of God.

K.T. believes that the entire biology had been in the captivity of the creationist theology. And she asks whether that was true only at that times. J.M. says that all the Christians, Jews and Muslims were creationists historically. A creationalist is someone who has a certain theological opinion on the origin of the universe. The meaning of creationalism, as of the time of Darwin, was narrowed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. There was a great development of knowledge about nature, where every species was created already in the paradise in the first pair. According to J. Moore poetry had a big influence on Christianity, especially Milton’s “Paradise Lost” (Ztracený ráj). But in fact, this was a modern belief.

K.T. thinks that theologians originally did not try to transform Genesis into a scientific text. J.M. notes that ordinary people always read the Bible through their ordinary glasses. In the Protestant Reformation, the Church did not instruct on how to read the Bible. It became a more open book than it had been at the time when its translation was not in the people´s language. As for the history of creation, we cannot already know what God had created without looking around in the real world. Only the discovery travels opened our eyes and showed us the extraordinary diversity of life on Earth. In the Darwinian period, the reading of Genesis was based on the dogmatic belief that the Earth was not older than six thousand years.

K.T. believes that the people who lived in the old culture were not ruled by the real historical memory. It looked as if the religion was inseparable from the science, and only later they started to be separated. J.M. says that Darwin’s understanding of the nature was not based on some dead theological point of view. He himself wrote, when he formed “The Origin of Species”, that his faith was as strict as the faith of the bishop. When Moore teaches those students who are creationists, he encourages them to read this book because Ch. Darwin here persuades us that God had created the laws both on Earth and in Heaven, and his laws create the life forms which we observe. For Darwin, also the principal cause of the diversity of life was something that what we call a natural selection.

K.T. notes that Darwin was heavily influenced by Francis Bacon and agrees that the work of God is everything we see around us in the natural world. J.M. adds that for Bacon it is typical that in the God´s creations we learn how we should interpret the God´s world. K.T. understands that we associate Ch. Darwin with the conflict between science and faith. But I. Newton and G. Galilei were in a similar state as Ch. Darwin and in their work they wanted to represent the Christian dogma according to the Bible. J.M. absolutely agrees with her. From naturalists, who almost equally understand nature, we can expect that they show almost the identical records of God’s goodness, power and wisdom that is contained in the natural works. And also the Darwin’s approach was a miraculous adaptation of the organisms to their environment. He explained it as the soul in natural theology. So it manifests itself to us as a natural wonder that he is able to explain, to explain how is everything actually formed. K.T. wonders whether she may ask James Moore to tell a story that was a crucial point for Darwin and his changes at the times when he sailed on the ship Beagle.

J.M. states that Darwin sailed on the ship Beagle in 1831 and, at that times, he was a product of the University of Cambridge. In Brazil he saw, with his own eyes, the sale of slaves who were bound in chains. His own family hated slavery and he was deeply touched by this view. Later, when he reached Tierra del Fuego at the southern part of South America, he noticed the animal speech of the indigenous women, and there he wondered, while sipping sherry with some renowned professors, how the same God could have created these people so primitively. How to explain the differences among the human races? And at other, during an earthquake in Chile, he saw how one of God’s cathedral was razed the ground by the same forces that alter the geological environment. And at the end of his life, he was then asked about the most significant event in his life and Darwin remembered the event, when like a God, he was looking down on the formation of the Andes. And then he fell asleep. The next day he returned to the same issue and said that the most important event of his life occurred in a rainforest. He was sitting there and felt that there must be something more for the humans than just physical breathing.

James Moore himself travelled to the American Midwestern culture. There he was influenced by the judgement of the Court of Dayton in 1925, that prohibited any theory that would deny the God’s creation of the man, according to the Bible, and instead of this would teach that the man had originated from the lower level of animals. The theories, that were discussed there, came from the Darwin’s book “The Decsent of Man” (Úpadek člověka). But Ch. Darwin did not see nothing natural on the gracious God as a creator in the Victorian era, that would determine the conditions of life once and for all at the beginning of time. James Moore shows that London had been in great confusion at the time when Darwin returned here in 1837. The population was growing and it was difficult to secure a decent existence. The answer to existence of overpopulation was a recommendation to place the people into poorhouses where they would not have reproduce so much. In 1837-1842 Darwin lived in a very radical period, radical even for his thinking about the meaning of humans in the nature. He wondered how to explain everything based on the laws of God. Such a basic law, which was then used to search for the solution of existence, was also addressed by the reverend Thomas Malthus.

K.T. notes that Malthus was a priest who announced that he was against the population accompanying famine and wars. But he also said that it was a manifestation of the God´ wrath. J.M. shows that Thomas Malthus understood the conflict between the population growth and the food supply, which is organized by God, but he also thought that it was good for people to try to limit their sexuality. Ch. Darwin thought about it, how much worse is this explanation for animals and plants, because they cannot feel the moral limitation and they still reproduced. He wanted to know what good would have come from this God´s programme. The development that produces adaptation to the environment would be good.

K.T. asks James Moore if Darwin thought that it was God who brought us, the people, to the responsibility for such inequality and suffering. J.M. does not believe that Charles Darwin considered God to be directly responsible for all wounds and disasters. They are the result of patterns, laws and events that God established at the beginning of its Creation. On the one hand, in the real world he could admire various fantastic adaptation and he ascribed all the progress to the laws which God had established. But on the other hand, it is possible to doubt of goodness that is associated with the pain that we feel. Ch. did not offer any compensation. He only claimed that our successors will see more than we do, similarly to the fact that we see more that the monkeys do. And it was the Victorian optimism. K.T. notes that today we still do not see the confirmation of his assumption. Already in 1860, Darwin doubted that the phenomena such as electricity, the growth of trees or human aspirations are noble phenomena that could only have come from the blind, brutal force. She thought that Darwin’s idea of ​​natural selection is similar to the tree of life and she is fascinated by the idea that this tree of life could be found in Genesis in the middle of “paradise”.

J.M. doubts that Darwin had something like this in mind. The tree of life is the genealogical tree for him. It means the common origin for all of us. He did not understand it reductionistically towards the humans, but it is only an idea of ​​the richness of the organic nature and the unity of life. K.T. adds to Moore´s interpretation that even the human participation belongs to his wider image. J.M. has a deep respect for Darwin´s vision of the unity of life on Earth and to his vision of how great things had been triggered by small things. The mountains grew in small increments, the Earth’s soil was recycled by earthworms, the coral reefs grew in tiny increments over tens of thousands of years. Nobody can see how these changes took place. We can only imagine them and Darwin had this great imagination.

K.T. says J. Moore showed her how the various facts about the intelligent design are discusses in front of the forum. Darwin is given the idea that humans have come from apes, and this reduces the importance of humanity. It seems to her that the Moore’s description of Darwin’s approach is, in fact, the exact opposite of this. J.M. declares that Darwin agrees with those people who refuse cruelty committed on animals. He respected also plants when he was speaking to them as if they were realizing it. But he was not a vegetarian and was not against killing animals. K.T. admires how accurately J. Moore talks about Darwin and about his religious reactions in his time and she wants to know how his assessment resembles or differs from the current debates. And she asks whether the theological positions have always been the same.

J.M. says that history does not repeat itself. Alfred Wallace thought that he had come to the same theory of the natural selection 20 years earlier than Darwin. But he was younger than Darwin. And in 1886 he asked the USA to organize the lecture tour there. On his journey he gave lectures on Darwinism and had no problems with it. Only after forty years there was a big change in the attitudes of the ordinary Americans to the changing view of the evolution. K.T. wonders how James Moore explains what happened in the famous Scopes trial in 1925. J.M. thinks that the event depended on the response after World War I, when a popular American politician William J. Bryan turned to the forum in Dayton that the German generals had quoted Darwin and Nietzsche to justify the war and mass the extermination in the primitive countries. K.T. only notes that we live in a time of enormous changes, such as immigration, and that the world has changed. And we allegedly could not understand and even could not control the fear of these changes.

J.M. point to the philosophy of history and sees fundamentalism as a fear from the interpretation for a certain conspiracy. It is associated with Darwin, Marx and Freud. Today it is associated with the Islamic fundamentalism and we defend against the bad invisible world. It seems to him that the so-called intelligent design is a scientific mystery form of intelligence that is behind everything that appears in the nature, and that it is plausible that there are some signs of evil there. People believe in this. He reminds that the intellectual influences, also in Moore’s life, had a conspiratorial character, as if Earth was a sinking boat and that we cannot do anything else than place the people into lifeboats. But Moore does not think it would be an impulse for the Western Christianity. It is rather a idea of ​​a conquering spirit. James Moore finally summed up the debate with Krista Tippett, that Darwin brought only a brief report on how the world actually exists. It was not the world we had wanted to discover, that once had seemed to be a sin in the Garden of Eden.

The entire conversation is about the rehabilitation of Charles Darwin with the views of Richard Dawkins, Darwin, who erroneously seen him as an atheist (see my book “The Twilight of Atheism” (Soumrak ateizmu)). We should realize that Darwin did not have scientific knowledge. Therefore, he tried to form the empirical theory of evolution, which did not reached the invisible region of the world that is reached only today for our knowledge. Without the cognitive technologies of current sciences, such as modern physics, cybernetics and depth psychology, the current microbiology and genetics may not be able to prove what Darwin tried to achieve intuitively.

It is remarkable that Darwin had to cope with such outdated theological views. He leaned on the habitual patterns of thinking of that times and on the powerful authority of the religious institutions. Even today, for a lot of people Darwin is still a synonym of hostility to God and to the interpretation of the world as it is written in the Holy Scripture. It is simply claimed that he was the one who tried to prove the creation of the man from apes and in this way he dishonoured the man. A lot of less educated people still believe in the creation of all creatures, including humans, in the original paradise, as it is depicted the biblical Genesis. They did not understand that Earth and everything that lives on it. We have a much larger memory story of the cosmos which begins with The Big Bang.

Also Darwin´s optimism was interesting, saying that in the future we will apparently find the explanation of his empirical discoveries, since the level of science is always improving. Also the Moore´s finding is still valid that Darwin never gave up his faith in God as the creator of the world. Some of his attempts to reconcile science and faith one-sided in a lot of aspects. They were based only on partial scientific paradigms through which Moore was not able to achieve it. It was a purpose-built mixing of science and faith, so that the mixture met some outdated dogmatic religions or also mystical ideas.

About the Limits of Religion and Science

In this chapter Tippett went to see the scientist Varadaraj V. Ramani (* 1932). He is a professor emeritus of physics and humanities at Rochester Institute of Technology in New York. They mention him as a transcultural traveller from physics to philosophy, and he also knows a lot about music and metaphysics. He was born in Calcutta and he has lived in the USA for more than 40 years. He is interested in physics and the clarification of Hinduism. He is considered to be the heir of this belief, which is, when compared to religion, a science, perhaps the greatest intellectual and spiritual happening in the entire history of mankind. V. Raman helped in the release of the large encyclopaedia of Hinduism. He states that modern science has emerged in Western Europe, with its new discoveries that were in conflict with the local specific teaching of the Church. This kind of contradiction has apparently never occurred in the Hindu world.

V. V. Raman (V.R.) assign this to the fact that Hinduism is a clear understanding that on the one hand there is religious knowledge, and on the other hand there rational and secular knowledge. K.T. asks why the Hindu separation of religion and reason have never come into conflict. V.R. says that they speak about cognitive dissonance, but he calls it the experimental coincidence. In Hinduism we can differentiate what we interpret in the analytical system science from a different experience of the world, which comes to us from the deep involvement. So there are two experiences. Only the human spirit is so complex that it encompasses all of the options. And perhaps rationality is one of the unfortunate consequences of the success of science. He understands that every sub-element of the human experience should be subjected to strict rationality. He himself has the greatest respect for reason and rationality, although he understands, as well as the spiritual workers who could say that there is certain period and time for everything. Such experience was formulated during the ages in all cultures and the heart has then its reasons that the reason should not be able to understand. Those enlightened thinkers and visionaries understand that the world is too complex for us, to understand all the knowing only in the straitjacket of the reason.

K.T. noticed that in many debates about science and religion they state that both approaches provide competent answers to the same questions, but in fact they ask different questions. Raman remarked that it is the difference of the question “why” as we ask it in science and the question “why” as it is understood in the religious teleology. V.R. sees this difference as a very important one because the human spirit cannot avoid it. We recognize it from our youth. We are not able to find answers to the issues what is the meaning of the universe in which we are and how the whole world was created, but also why there are laws that are there, and we cannot find answers which would be universally acceptable. Hinduism is the third largest religion after Christianity and Islam, but it is also the oldest religion in general and it does not know its founder and has no historically given beginning. Varadaraj Raman called Hinduism as a cultural religious philosophy of life that led the sacred literature, art, music, architecture and philosophy. The most important truths are recorded in ancient writings known as the Vedas and these were then further transferred in epic poetry and in the saga Bhagavad Gita. An in his opinion, the basis for the compatibility of science and religion are the scientific beliefs and the Hindu spirituality.

K.T. notes Hinduism si not very well known in the USA like Buddhism in which he grew up. If people have an idea of ​​its peak, it is rather about polytheism, which is not about universality. V.R. agrees. The Hindu gods are like different musical pieces. And K.T. adds that people tend to identify themselves with partial gods. V.R. specifies his opinion when says that each god is some representation. The gods are not different in everything. It is analogous, as when the various saints in the Catholic tradition live in different periods. In human life there is a certain mystery which it expresses. If we want to clarify it, then the mystery becomes a doctrine for a particular religion, which is a profound answer to the mystery. Significant answers are rather given in the historical and geographical connection than in definitively applicable formulations. Talking about the universal answer is not so erroneous than when we impose on others to have some answers for the mystery.

And then K.T. supports this opinion by the quotes from the Raman´s book about Bhagavad Gita from1997. Tippet also wants to ask V. Raman what certain key ideas of Hinduism mean to him and how he experiences them as a scientist. One of them is karma. V.R. agrees and points to equally important concept as karma that exists in the world of Hindu and this is dharma. Simply said, dharma is what we had to do and karma is what we do. Dharma is variously translated as duty, religion or ethical system that is seen as an essential one. It is the aspiration for truth. Karma is a metaphysical concept, and its interpretation is understood as a problem of evil. K.T. adds that karma is the answer to the problem of evil. V.R. agrees with it. Then the Hindu answer is that the evil, in terms of suffering, is, after all, a consequence of the own acts of individuals. Karma is an important activity that has a positive or negative impact on everybody and on others.

K.T. says that this concept hides also the belief in reincarnation or in the life of many lives. So life is not a linear issue of one time. V.R. absolutely agrees with it. But we are not able to explain it. They talk about people that reincarnate, for example at murders. The Hindu idea is that one life is not there forever. The idea of ​​reincarnation or transmigration is essentially linked with karma. Today Raman interprets karma that it leads the individuals to get accepted their responsibility for one’s suffering, and not to point the finger at someone else. K.T. asks whether the idea that we live from our past activities determines our lives for a better future. And when V. Raman totally agrees with it, she asks how he, as a scientist, tells about his faith to someone in physics or cosmology, and whether the scientist feels to be legitimate for this.

V.R. thinks that, from a scientific standpoint, nothing can be argued for reincarnation. But he thinks that as a physicist he can honestly live with this. He does not have substantial objections to the post-modern mystery of existence. He sees it as a sort of mystery for which nobody knows the answer. Raman writes short essays about arts, religion and science to his friends. In Hinduism there is the goddess Saraswati, who gave us the words and language, music and numbers.

K.T. asks him to tell her how he can harmonize mythology with what he knows about the physical universe, and specifically about numbers. V.R. states that mythology has become a fairytale world. For him, the poetic aspect of the world has become very important, because poetry makes sense for the existence. For humans, poetry is something like the telescope and microscope for a scientist. It is aesthetic experience during meditation about anything symbolic. Raman knows very well that, by means of all symbols, we cannot accurately reflect what is beyond them. But we, the humans have lived with symbols from the time when be became cultural beings. He remembers that many schools in India use Hindu prayers similarly to some people in the Christian tradition were taught the “Lord’s Prayer” in their youth. Symbols are inspiring. They are part of the great traditions and the reverence and respect to these traditions may be poured into children’s hearts.

K.T. is interested in the Raman´s note on the fascination of numbers that apply both in science and in religion and she would like to know something about it. V.R. thinks the numbers are confusing in some sense, and therefore we make them more specific. We count objects and things, days and hours etc. and talk about them always in relation to them. Nobody can imagine them without this. They are too abstract and also the philosophers of mathematics try to puzzle what is the reality of the irrational numbers, if it is transcendental or infinite. Raman thinks the numbers have become mysterious. In the scientific world they have quite a different role. There, they are more associated with natural phenomena. K.T. was surprised in more conversations with scientists that they are amazed by the beauty in mathematics. V.R. agrees with this, even though mathematics is much more than just numbers. maybe, this is not true about all the scientists but only about physicists. And then there is the quote from the Raman´s essay “Numbers in Religion”, in which he assesses the significance of the numbers in major religions. K.T. returns to the problem of evil and she wants to know how V. Raman understands the problem of evil in human life. Have his knowledge of physics helped him to understand it?

V.R. says that his involvement in physics and science have given him historical and cultural understanding of the many important things for life. Science helps us to get people to know the human events using concepts. And religion then helps us in transrational concepts. Both of them are meaningful and informatory. When we read a sonnet or poem, the contribution of science represents the discovery of the rules of prosody, how these phenomena are created. It tells us nothing about inspiration, which these creations may give us. In consideration f the universe, it is analogous. Here, the science allows to understand the principles by which the universe is constructed. But there is still the question about the sense. If we want to derive the meaning using the physical world, then we do not get the sense about the search for the religious methods. For Raman, even the religious messages are not rational, such as caring and compassion for others and the help of love and respect for others. They are not irrational, but they are just transrational. They reflect on something deep in the human cultural soul.

K.T. notes that it is not possible to always see the best from the religions. In the name of God a lot of violence is committed, and she wants to know what Raman thinks. V.R. says that this is an eternal problem. It is sad that we live in a time when the religions are associated with politics, violence, wars and blaming each other. M.T. asks about the dark side of Hinduism, which prevents its universality, and this is the caste system. V.R. says that he is not a supporter of the caste system and he writes about its shortcomings. Although he was born in a Brahmin family he refused to accept the caste title connected with his name. In his opinion, the caste system cannot be defended in the modern world. K.T. thinks that the embodiment of Hinduism is Gandhi who influenced other religious traditions and also Einstein respected him. V.R. adds to this that he belongs to the generation that respected Gandhi. At university he attended meetings where M. Gandhi spoke. He realized there that the human being is noble. But now he admits that declare non-violence against Hitler could have been idealistic. V. V. Raman is glad that they were also men like Luther King and Nelson Mandela who followed Gandhi.

Raman thinks that Gandhi has become extremely important. We must not abandon the ideals if civilization is in dire straits. And then Tippet finishes her meeting with V. Ramana with an appropriate quote from his works on the Indian poet and the Nobel Prize winner for literature, Rabindranath Tagore that influenced Mahatma Gandhi.

I think the opinions of Varadarajan Raman on the interconnection between religion and science are similar to those of some celebrities such as P. Brunton and D. Chopra (see my book “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)) who were also strongly influenced by modern physics. Everybody, like him, left some space for the scientifically unverifiable religious mysticism alongside with the natural sciences in the concept of the world. It is interesting that they have not verified the benefits of C. G. Jung and of the depth psychology as a testable science of the human psyche. So V. Raman´s deep involvement of the human psyche into the objective being remained limited only to the subjective experience of individuals.

Raman´s rationality, that he as a scientist supports, remains narrowed down to a sub-sensory experience and does not relate to our entire inner experience. His limitation of scientific rationality helps him to understand Hinduism as an experiential religion with transrational experience. Also this approach has its analogy in the Christian philosophy in the irrationality of P. George Coyne (see my book “Science and Faith” (Věda a víra)). To some extent, they are close to it and also to the views of those who believe in God, but for various reasons they are unable to recognize it as fully provable. Similarly to the previously mentioned scientists (see chapter 5.3), also Varadaraj Raman remains a strict sceptic when talking about the possibility of the scientific proof of the existence of God.

If a scientist starts from only one sub-paradigm, there will always be only incomplete scientific rationality for him to be able to scientifically understand God and the human self-reflexive psyche. I think that he can carry out his scientific work in his field, and may also believe in God as V. Raman himself believes in him. If a scientist does not use an integral paradigm to prove the truth, he can only hardly understood the entire scientific proof of the existence of God.

Science has not emerged from Hinduism, it has emerged in the Christian culture. Therefore, Hinduism has avoided the conflicts of various religious debates, which took place mainly in enlightened Europe. Therefore, he did not participate in the return of enlightenment to the medieval dogmatism at the time when the Catholic Church could use also other compulsive means towards the natural sciences. At that times, Hinduism stood aside the science and it could be relatively tolerant in the relation to the science. It has created its own system of concepts, and also evaluated the existence of evil in human society. Krista Tippet enjoyed the meeting with Varadaj Raman to bring him closer to the readers of her book. V. Raman knowledgeably explained such concepts as karma, dharma and reincarnation. In my books I dealt with reincarnation and his interpretation was very interesting for me, although Raman himself claims that he, as a scientist and a Hindu, is not able to explain reincarnation and perceives it as a secret and he cannot know the deeper answer without the depth psychology.

The world feels more spaciousness

K. Tippett asked also Janna Levin, who writes interesting novels and confesses atheism. She is interested in the beginning of the universe and its shape. J. Levin is the author of the novel “A Madman Dreams of Turing machines” (Bláznivé sny o Turingových strojích) where she explores the issues that were dealt with two well-known twentieth-century mathematicians, Alan Turing and Kurt Gödel. Alan Turing is known as the father of modern programming and her insight into this area was also helped partially by Gödel's discoveries. The novel influences Levin and her ideals and life ideals from the time when she started her university studies.

Janna Levin (J.L.) has been interested in cosmology, astronomy and especially in the evolutionary science about the origin of the living nature since her youth, although she probably has not understood them well. K.T. wants to know what happened that J. Levin passed from her original study of philosophy to the science. J.L. did not admit that she loved science. She used to talk with her friends about the free will and indeterminism in the universe, but was apparently physically determined. She noticed that the philosophers had not been able to answer such questions. K.T. suggests that they may start the conversation about Kurt Gödel and his truth. She reminds her that Levin also wrote how the truth ultimately evades. She had discovered that certain mathematical truths cannot be verified in mathematics. But this does not inevitably mean that we should see it as untrue. It only means that the mathematics itself cannot prove the truthfulness.

J.L. agrees with this, because there were times when most mathematicians believed, on the contrary, that mathematics can verify each of its statements. But then Kurt Gödel came and he found various mathematical statements for which this does not apply. So there were the limits of our knowledge. Also Albert Einstein in his special theory of relativity discovered some limits, that limit the possibility of our movement. In quantum mechanics there are also limitations in the real findings of the limitation to explore certainty. This recalls her a scene from her aforementioned novel when Kurt Gödel in 1930 went to Vienna to the meeting of “the Vienna Group” which included such excellent individuals as Otto Neurath and his wife Olga Hahn and Moritz Schlick. At that times, they professed the Wittgenstein´s principle, according to which the world is only what can be expressed in the form of statements about the data that we have to prove as really existing. Kurt Gödel had asked a question of what we can be recognized as knowable about the facts of the world. And Moritz Schlick acknowledged that it is really a problem. Everything we could recognize as knowable, were only our sensory data. And K.T. adds that among the participants of the Group a question was heard whether they themselves are real, and she wants to know whether this finding meant something for Janna Levin.

J.K. hopes that readers of her novel may get to a similar experience and that this is not only a product of her imagination. And it concerns everything she wrote about the thoughts K. Gödel or the people from the Vienna Group, that uncertainty really exists in our conclusions. K.T. notes that K. Gödel and A. Turing were interested in mathematics, and it seems to her that Levin continues in the same way. And she asks her if the numbers are more real, or at least as real as the Sun or Earth, and if so, how it can be explained.

J.L. agrees that she is really obsessed with mathematics. She says that we can use mathematics in very practical situations. Turing was one of those who invented the computer. He could imagine a machine that is able to add and subtract, and therefore this is a machine that performs such mathematical operations as the mind. She wants to say that she is also hit, similarly to Turing, by mathematics and also she has also become a theoretical physicist. Anyone can perform the same calculations, whether we are from India, Pakistan or from Oklahoma. It is therefore the physical reality that we can all relate to the applied mathematics. And K.T. asks her a direct question whether the fact that one and one is two has something to do with God.

J.L. says says that we can ask why the abstract mathematics governs the universe. The universe is remarkable because we can understand it. It is amazing that the little creatures on our small planet, which seems to be entirely insignificant, can look back over the approximately 14-billion-year history of the universe and understand so many things in a short period of time. She cannot invoke God, that he did so, and she cannot even say that mathematics would exclude the existence of God. It is one of those things where some people made some similar step and said that this is God who initiated everything and pulled back and he left there the beautiful mathematical unfolding. But others say that no matter how far we go, there are only those mathematical sciences for which they do not need to conjure another entity. Janna Levin belongs to this second group, and she does not feel any despair because of this. J. Levin in her novel “A Madman Dreams of Turing machines” (Bláznivé sny o Turingových strojích) recounts that physicists consider the time to be relative and curved in itself, and that the universe has a variable past, present and future.

K.T. feels that the knowledge of mathematics brought Levin further to a new understanding of free will, and she asks her to tell about it something more. J.L. thinks it is a difficult question of what it means to have free will when we are fully determined by physics and also we are not determined by it. We already know from quantum mechanics that there is a region of quantum uncertainty, according to which we are not fully determined by the physical discoveries. But she does not know how it would be possible to guarantee free will. The space-time has surprised us because we cannot decide in time what is and is not true. That is the reason why we have a compelling feeling that we have free will, it is because we experience it. But Janna Levin cannot understand how it really is. Everything can be just an illusion. K.T. asks if Levin as a scientific researcher cannot understand the feeling of persuasiveness to be such serious as the calculations are.

J.L. answers that we have only a compelling feeling of the absoluteness of time. We believe that there is no limit of how fast we can work. We are all based on our experience. We have evolved on Earth that, in terms of waves, depends on a particular star. Accordingly, our eyes and our physical environment are interconnected and at the same time also limited. That is the reason why our intuitions are good only for ordinary things and everyday life. Our perceptions and our brains were formed in this way. Therefore we respond to the physical world from which we started, and it is not a miracle. And K.T asks again whether Levin would have lived differently if she had not become a scientist.

J.L. believes that her rejection of free will does not mean that she would then ran in amok in the streets. There is apparently also a practical term of responsibility for civil free will, and we will then judicially enforce someone and prosecute him for justice. She thinks that it is precisely the sort of the practical approach that we should put into practice. This does not mean that we can choose to be responsible or irresponsible, when we messed up the question of free will and that we then were even more messed up than she is. And then there is a quote from her novel “A Madman Dreams of Turing machines” (Bláznivé sny o Turingových strojích) where she distinguishes the real benefit of Gödel and Turing to mankind and how they ended up as individuals.

K.T. wonders if Levin has learned something about their life hassles, about their logical brilliance that would lead her to a change in her conception of the meaning of all individual lives and of the cosmos. According to J.L., AlanTuring as well as Kurt Gödel are examples of people living outside their personal sense. Although they came to tragic ends, they were committed to a meaningful search. For example Alan Turing was honest at the end of his life. He could not pretend heterosexuality, even though it led him to imprisonment and a deadly poison. He is a person whom people consider to be responsible and to be a believer in truth. And so Kurt Gödel, who, thanks to his paranoia, fo off the way, was very devoted to his truth, he insisted on logic also where he had been led by his paranoia. K.T. would say that these are their extreme happenings and that J. Levin described their tragedy in a very human light. But there is a more earthly question, when life brings life bring some messy experiences and these may affect even the deepest reality that we can know through logic and science.

J.L. says that we should not turn away from anything that the nature shows to us. In many cases, she made a more natural decision than her heroes whom she writes about. She has children but these two did not have them. Also K.T. feels that Levin pursues the meaning of life, which could replace to her what is captured in numbers. J.L. agrees and states that the possible answers are in mathematics, but they are meaningless to us if we do not integrate them into the human perspective. In it, we could understand why we ask certain questions and how important the appropriate answers are for us, or how the world changes as the result of these discoveries. K.T. says the novel about the two scientists has led her to read the biographies of other scientists too. She read J. Gleick about Isaac Newton, who was another complicated character. Isaac Newton discovered something that completely changed the human thinking about the world. Levin´s works are probably not acceptable for most of us.

JL. confirms this and she finds it amusing when people ask her why she does what she does and why she is so worried about some things. There is still a war in Iraq and there are also more pressing issues than the multidimensional spatial changes of the world. We cannot understand the consequences of living in a world about which we do not known something. We cannot imagine someone´s opinion from the times before Copernicus who would have believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe and that the Sun and the celestial bodies orbited around it. Today the Sun is just one of the billions or hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, and there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies. This shift is a colossal one towards our global culture in the world-view of the universe. We see ourselves differently, and therefore we see differently our whole life. And we start to think about the meaning and similar issues completely differently than before. K.T. asks whether Levin, because of her huge scientific knowledge, has changed the simple events of her life.

J.L. must often become aware of what other people think and that is different from what she feels. Sometimes it is hard to adopt to the certain values ​​of other people. She estimates that there is a move for her in what is and what is not important. It takes her a long time to take seriously those things that are fully created by human beings. But she takes much more seriously those things that seem to be natural phenomena. Of course, she wants to take seriously also our electoral system and she is trying to be politically aware. We perform certain events only as a result of our instincts. This does not mean that she wanted to somehow diminish their importance also from her perspective. They are animal instincts that other people regard as very inebriating and intellectual. K.T. thinks that the human beings have a sense of something broader than they themselves are.

J.L. agrees ans states that we have originated from a material which was synthesized in the previous generations of stars. Without them, we would not be here. And K.T. says that people would consider this opinion to be the predestination of everything. We are like animals, even if we want to understand ourselves as civilized. Our life has been robbed of joy, hope and transcendence But J.L. does not feel it like this. Her daughter is fifteenth months old and her son is four years old and she has a great emotional relationship with them, even when she believes that it was caused by a mere instinct. For her, it is important that the cold, empty universe had collapsed into the stars which burn and emit carbon, which is produced in their nuclei. Carbon gathers and another planet is formed with another star where amino acids are formed and also human beings appear. This is a wonderful story for her. And there is an appropriate quote from her novel “A Madman Dreams of Turing machines” (Bláznivé sny o Turingových strojích).

K.T. thinks that there are many charming mysteries in science. She knows that Levin is working on an idea whether the universe is infinite or finite, and she prefers its finality. She would like to hear more about it. J.L. says that Earth is finite, even though we cannot find any frontier on earth, from where it would be possible to fall somewhere. In the finite space-time we could travel by rocket and return to the starting point. Mathematics knows the limits, but we cannot understand them where physics ceases to be applied. The limits of mathematics brought the people to the computer and then the finite speed of light c led Albert Einstein to the creation of the curved space-time, which applies to the entire reality. When we accept the limits, it opens a way of thinking about the entire world for us. Another example is the quantum mechanics and the limit of its uncertainty principle that we have used to get to great discoveries. It is hard to understand that there should be something that had been here before the discovery of the Big Bang. This is part of the current world-view that the marginal starting point had not existed and that the universe had not always been there.

K.T. thinks that Janna Levin wants to solve similar mysteries when she gets beyond the limits of logic and mathematics. But J.L. definitely thinks that her book has been structured only as a novel. She is not able to reach the truth. Is it possible that this tells something about her own approach to science. There are no things that would be clearly true. We know now that we are approaching the truth, even if it cannot verify it. Their conversation then ends with a quote from her book “A Madman Dreams of Turing machines” (Bláznivé sny o Turingových strojích) in which the author looks out on a subway station in New York and is aware of these facts. The desire to reach the truth ends somewhere on the periphery, and it said that the truth should be there and from there the truth shines from of all its limitations and angles.

In my opinion, the visit of K. Tippett at J. Levine is an attempt to understand the entire cosmos using only partial scientific paradigms (see my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)). K. Tippett would like to hear something interesting about the Turing´s machine of the cosmos. I remember very vividly my atheistic period when I also used the Turing´s machines, in contradiction to the existence of objective spirituality. His machines seemed to be already close to overcome the human spirituality itself. The atheists loved to hear that, but the believers were horrified by how far the science might lead us.

J. Levin is educated in modern physics, and therefore it is not strange that she had been chosen by K. Tippett for the discussion about the Einstein´s idea of God. Janna Levin has noticed the inability of humanities scholars and philosophers, so then she directed herself in the issues reached by the modern science. Even L. Wittgenstein or M. Schlick did not understand the difficulties with their theories on the meaning of empirical data that the Vienna Group had come to. K. Tippet has noticed Janna Levin´s obsession by mathematics from which she then got to the theoretical physics, which can be easily mathematized. To some extent Levin occasionally mentions the theory of evolution in her novel, but there is no sign that she would deal with cybernetics and the relation between the information and energy. But she was not interested in depth psychology without which we cannot really scientifically study the issue of human intuitions and experiences.

The freedom of human will, without the paradigm of depth psychology, cannot be achieved, as we have seen with Janny Levine. Even her opinion is not enough that we should not distract from what the nature shows us, but we have to find a way to the scientific understanding of human spirituality. Only then will we understand what our inner intuition and instinct really show us (see chapter 3.4, or also my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)). The objective being must include mainly the most important area that concerns us and what essentially belongs to our existence and this is the cosmic spirituality of God, but Janny Levine has not grasped this.

Different limits or boundaries that J. Levin had discovered in mathematics, the theory of relativity and quantum physics, are not the main cause of the massive scientific knowledge. The discoveries of various global constants are a natural part of the scientific hypotheses, theories and paradigms. We have noticed that science is not primarily about finding the limit of the world, but that science has always had as its principal objective to discover the existence of the spirituality of God (see also my book “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)). The discovery of one of the major theories of the cosmos is certainly the Einstein´s theory along with the Big Bang. But for us, the more important theory is the one that leads to the finding of truth about the existential spirituality and to the determination of the meaning of earthly life (see more details in chapter 3 and chapter 4).

Science That Liberates Us From Reductive Analyses

For her next interview Krista Tippet visited the famous psychologist and journalist, Michael McCullough, who works at the University of Miami, where he manages social and clinical psychology and teaches religious studies. For the book “Beyond Revenge” (Mimo odpovědnost) he analysed the fairly extensive facts from the social studies about people and animals from biology and brain chemistry. And K.T. wants to know what he has found out about forgiveness. She stressed that we have to use the new concept of forgiveness to change the ideas about human revenge. Western religions and therapeutic approaches interpret revenge as a disease that cannot be cured in civilizations just using a biological impulse to which we all have a tendency today in social conditions. According to K. Tippett, forgiveness is a rare transcendental quality that does not help everybody and always to reach a real victory.

McCullough (M.McC.) showed that this method is a difficulty in understanding in the animal kingdom. He saw the study about chimpanzees and Japanese macaques, which have even a more obvious status of conscious individuals. It is used for an individual to know that there is someone else who is more powerful than he is. M.T. noted this fact a few years when a program for the death penalty was created. She thinks that the criminal system and particularly the implementation of the death penalty was often passed across in the past. Some time ago, the human society was governed by the same kind of revenge that is described by McCullough.

M.McC. has found out that in human history we have not always lived in complex societies with a government, where the right for imprisonment with certain agreements was required. The mechanism of individuals had its own defence as well as the defence of their own beloved ones to be used with full revenge People wanted to take revenge back into their own hands in order to protect themselves. K.T. notes that anger is only a moral response. M.McC. agrees that it is and analogous response to injustice like, as if the feeling of satisfaction belonged to the victory or the loss of a beloved one like in the lottery. Anger can be detected according to the state of our brains. It is primarily about the satisfaction of the demand. In this way we can observe the activity in the brain system of revenge. But the need for such revenge may not come from some ill and dark parts of the brain. It is just a desire to solve the problem by achieving goals.

K. T. thinks that it is significant when McCullough, from his scientific point of view, indicated that we have an instinct to forgive, and this instinct is reinforced by the natural selection. But M.McC. expected more articles about the spontaneousness of forgiving, but he was wrong. Many biologists want to understand what is allowed to all people to become cooperating beings, when they built magnificent estates with many radio stations and other things. One of the elements that should allow individuals to cooperate with others, was our tolerance for mistakes. The cooperation with other and the creation of a variety of options does not only depend on us. It is really good to support the ability to forgive each another and also the emergence of various defects and failures. K.T. confirmed it by using a extract from his book in which he talks about forgiveness as a heroic act, and she recalls that M. McCullough talks about him as about a balm on the wounds.

M.McC. says that the evolution would not be favourable to organisms, if somebody chose revenge as part of their own genetics. It is therefore not advisable to teach it to our children. One of the great figures of public forgiveness was Bud Welch in the modern USA. His daughter Julie died in the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995. Welch´s original opinion to the terrorist T. McVeigh, who was responsible for the bombing, was that he does not even deserve a trial. He perceived him a drunkard. But he finally came to the knowledge that the origin of the death of Julie and of 167 other people was revenge and passion. When we take out one offender from prison and kill him, then we let the whole cycle of violence at work. If we look at the story of Bud Welch carefully, we can learn a lot about how the human mentality evolves toward forgiveness and what conditions activate this instinct into the human mind. B. Welch virtually no longer speaks about forgiveness as about something that would require a great effort.

K. T. believes that his forgiveness can be studied only as a partial act, but in reality it was a process. M.McC. agrees. But the events that B. Welch personally experienced helped him to find forgiveness. He searched for the father of McVeight and visited him at home. When he saw his son´s picture on the mantel of the fireplace he told him how well the baby looked like. He burst into tears because of the pity for McVeigh’s father. In his heart he found a different father than he himself was who had to face the loss of his child then. This direct experience of compassion helped him to find forgiveness. K. T. thinks that this instinct of forgiveness will create conditions that will strengthen it in the course of development.

M.McC. thinks that one of the conditions is safety. Human beings have a natural tendency to forgive those whom they see as harmless individuals. They meet them and make themselves certain about their harmlessness, and then they do not come into conflict with them. Sometimes safety is reached through legislation. K.T. notes that McCullough talks about revenge in everyday life, while she thinks that it is necessary to talk about war groups across our Earth. And she asks whether there is still another condition by which we would be able to create forgiveness in a better way. M.McC. thinks that they are the values ​​that aim to forgive those individuals that we would be able to benefit from in the future. When the new relationships are difficult, then they may be the high costs of removing the damaged values. And this relation to the great values ​​can be beneficial for forgiveness. He noticed that the Americans tend to consider revenge as a sign of more primitive cultures than they are. And he sees the diversity also in his own attitudes.

K.T. asks whether the Americans see this diversity also in other nations. M.McC. says the Americans tend to paint them with the same colour. In this way, they actually hinder the understanding that there are also groups with different views. Then they can not assess them as humanely as it is required for their American groups. K.T. wants to deal with all the geopolitical level, where there are entire generations of injustice and revenge. He wants McCullough to talk for example about the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. If the balance of the political dynamics is shifted, will it be possible to achieve the critical limits forgiveness in the whole network? M.McC. thinks that something like this will happen, if people become tired of fighting. Sometimes the costs to maintain the injustice will be so high that people will come to this marginal condition. The y will no longer insist on the ambitious defence and they will also be willing to end it. And they will understand that it is possible to find new ways of coexistence. This happened after many years of the war in Uganda, where the children kidnapped from different villages and tribes were forcibly brainwashed and were forced to commit violence and evil. K.T. wants to know if McCullough could contribute with something in the biological research in finding forgiveness and in the prevention of sectarian violence in Iraq.

M.McC. says that the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein meant the removal of one of the most terrible dictators of the late twentieth century. He agrees that after the breakup of his army, it is necessary to discuss with the structure, where some old rivalries begin to emerge to the surface. People are hungry and have their own needs. K. T. would like to know whether he would behave differently in this situation because he knows about it. M.McC. found out that when someone hurts someone else very much, then the hurt one has no other choice than to seek for forgiveness. The chance does not help the defeated ones, if they should be dead or if they should have a wish. There are no other helpful bridges. So in many cases it is about forgiveness, not about constant conversations that led only to an apology.

K. T. knows that McCullough considers apology to be an important concept, and that it is biologically relevant for him. M.McC. confirms this, because the one who apologizes to us also makes it clear that he had not been respected previously as a human being who is endowed with feelings. Therefore we can change and find the way to forgiveness. People often need this kind of active conversations about their own past. Also when talking about our future, McCullough is optimistic. If we look at the past instances of killing people in the long-term perspective, we gained greater control over the range of human aggression in this way. If we allow everyone to deal with their injustice in a different way, they will calm down. Iraq may seem hopeless for us now, but there is hope that it will change into a peaceful society, because the general tendency to which the societies are directed is like that.

K.T. has concluded that religion could have such a constructive role in the teaching of how to care for other people. M.McC. totally agrees with that. According to him, this is the best that could be achieved in the religious belief. K.T. has noticed that the word forgiveness was of great importance in Christianity for many years. But she recalls also the interviews with people who survived the Holocaust and who said that for them it is no longer possible to achieve forgiveness. They have a different cultural connotation that forgiveness and being able to forget. M.McC. also wishes that we would be able to find a completely different word which would be a sign of humanity. Or to be able find a new way to forgiveness, freed of the burden of the past. There is a certain burden, which is still attributed to forgiveness, and this is his effeminacy. And from everything he associated with this word and the way he understand it in his work, forgiveness is the great feeling necessary for life. It is important and the doors are now open for the possibility that a similar language is used particularly in the public field.

Thus M. McCullough got to depth psychology, where the man prepares for human spirituality for a long time. The concepts of revenge and forgiveness has a new, verifiable meaning now, which I also dealt with in my book “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)). The perception of K. Tippet is also interesting, the forgiveness is a rare transcendental quality that the human beings have to be able to achieve victory. The more accurate answer needs to be complemented by a new reflection - what kind of victory it should be.

During the interview, McCullough also revealed his observation on the biological analogy for forgiveness, which he found among animals that are evolutionarily on a lower lever than the man, but their communication has not reached the human conceptual level. The rest of his interview with Krista Tippett dealt with the search for the answer of how to emphasize the importance of forgiveness for the self-preservation of human life. McCullough experiences are interesting; the people eventually grew up to forgiveness, and this very demanding in terms of energy and this is intolerably expensive waste of human activity.

The readers should remember the importance of the cybernetic principle of the price of information (see chapter 3.2). It is a general principle which goes beyond the area of ​​the Big Bang, which governs the entire matter-energy universe. And according to this principle we can then prove, that, in the complicated social situation, we must stop paying the high, still rising costs because people do not have extra money they can spend on energy.

Also the social experience with the Holocaust is interesting that K. Tippet has mentioned, when some people are led to the questioning of the belief in the existence of God. They think that the good God could no longer accept such great suffering of the the Jewish people without intervening against it. I showed that this problem can be explained through the free will, which results from the integrated paradigm of the entire being (see chap. 3). And that leads to the existence of the rightful God (see chap. 4).

According to M. McCullough, forgiveness sounds too softly and ineffectively for some radically minded people. He himself would like to try on some new word that would replace the word forgiveness. I am convinced that his effort would become redundant if the educated people got accustomed to the true knowledge of sciences. Even today, we can verifiably talk about the concepts that belong only to the subjective and unverifiable feelings (see chapter 5.3). But there depth psychology is not enough, it is necessary to utilize also the integrated paradigm of the entire science (see also chapter 7).

Knowing How to Heal Ourselves

K. Tippett had invited also Esther Sternberg (*1951) for an interview, who lived in Canada in a family of a doctor. Today she manages a neural immune research. In 2001 she wrote the book “The Balance Within” (Udržet se v rovnováze) in which she explores how it is possible to come to human emotions and to the feelings of stress in the modern medical science. In this book she talks about the changes that have occurred since the days when people believed in gods, such as Asclepius.

Esther Sternberg (E.S.) states that the temples of Asclepius were located on long, low hillsides, so they could have been reached even by those people who could not walk. The most important of all, what they had got there, were the rich social interactions. She wrote about this at the time when her mother suffered from breast cancer. Her mother was a feisty lady and she wanted to know why her daughter focuses on stress and not on faith or healing. K.T. wants to know what the word faith meant for her mother. E.S. also thinks it is interesting. After the death of her grandmother, who was a follower of the Orthodox Judaism, also her mother had accepted it as her religion, and in addition to that the Hasidic Jewish custody too. Esther Sternberg was engaged by her approach and she published her first articles about stress and diseases.

K.T. asks if E. Sternberg does not forget that the feelings and beliefs cannot be reconciled into the understanding so that they are clear and measurable. Therefore, she would like to talk about the guaranteed connection of faith and science. E.S. says that science requires measurable evidence. Already R. Descartes started this scientific approach. Before that, science had not been able not find the means to measure something so ephemeral and abstract like our feelings. But the anatomy was established and the disease could have been measured as a certain anatomical abnormality. The stethoscope was used to hear the disorders in the lung lobe. But until recently, we could not see the human brain in its activity. And only recently we were able to look into the genes that produce the neural activity. It has been found that the brain is not a single organ but rather a set of interconnected organs. Maybe our instinct was awake and alert in an unfamiliar environment. It is controlled by two different elements of the brain - the hippocampus and amygdala, which are associated with stress centres of the brain. The complex feelings, which are known as “stress”, were marked so only in the middle of the 20th century. At that times, such technologies were invented that were able to measure the electrical inputs and outputs and the physiological responses to the cardiac blood exchange and hormones. And it was Hans Selye, who enjoyed stress in the biological sense.

To the question of K.T. about her relationship with Selye, E.S. says that her father and Hans Selye were professors at the University of Montreal. The Selye´s concept of stress was revolutionary at the time, and, according to her, stress is a non-specifiable physical response to any requests. But today people often ask what new things we have known about stress since the Selye´s times. It was originally understood as a system that can be found in all animals. Stress is a reflexive response in which we do not need the input of thinking. But also our response is here, that is known as stress that is a perception of stressful events. And Hans Selye and other physiologists in the middle of the 20th century focused on the deep parts of the brain such as the hypothalamus and adrenaline that control the nerves. but today we understand better what the signals from the outer world are like, how they are distinguished by the brain and how they overlap with the memory. They can be shown and then we perceive some types of stress as something threading or something happy.

K.T. notes that this marking then enters into our lives and into our habits. E.S. considers this part of the reflections about stress as something changeable. H. Selye strictly insisted on his own definition of stress and spread his concept also among the general public. And therefore, as a consequence, even his colleagues derogated him. The term stress was also used to name some other events that, in the 19th century, G. M. Beard included under the term nervousness. It is the nervousness of the modern civilization, which has five causes, such as the periodical press, the telegraph, the steam railway, the science and the mental activity of women. And this has been called stress since the industrial revolution and has been used up to the present day. And K.T. asks Sternberg to try to explain this.

E.S. says that we live in the information age and we ask why these changes are so stressful. Change or novelty are one of the most powerful triggers of human stress. We need a quick stress response for our survival. And there is a problem when the response takes too long. If the stress situation is already active and it should not operate any longer, it causes that we strongly produce hormones and neural chemicals. E. Sternberg in some of her works deals with determinants which shifts the stress from the good determinants to the harmful ones. She believes in a certain new culture of self-help that the Americans will welcome. We doctors take everything more seriously, in order to understand the interconnection of the spirit and the body. We can consider stress to be a response that alters the activity of our entire immune system. Then the stress response activates us and gives us energy. Cortisol, which is then created, can also be used for treating various diseases, which overreach our immune response. It is necessary to understand the new medical procedures and to use them for our own benefit. We should know that it is about our own biology. But it also true that it is necessary to seek professionals when we are stressed, who know all the aspects of stress disorders.

K.T. wants to know why we still need to have different languages ​​to describe stress. E.S. accepts the language of science as the need to have scientific evidence. Science needs to know the hard facts that must always be measured, whether they are real facts or not. Here we return to the experience of anatomy. And there is a quote from her book “The Balance Within” (Udržet se v rovnováze) from which it is apparent that we have emotions and that we still move them further and this changes the way how we see the world and ourselves. The physicists and scientists recently have rejected these ideas as inappropriate, because we have not found links to their biological mechanism. Therefore, scientists and laymen speak different languages.

E. Sternberg returns to her own experience of illness. She believed that if a man understands the anatomy and physiology he can become an observer of his own health situation. But she found out that in this case it is only about our inner aspect about which we cannot feel everything that we need to treat our illnesses. For Esther Sternberg it was necessary to “burn her fingers” in order to gain her own experience. Amid her illness she received an unexpected invitation from their new neighbours to stay with them and spend a holiday on Crete. During this stay, she found herself in the Asclepius´ temple. Asclepius and his two daughters have symbolized the old idea that our health is based on maintaining the balance of body and soul. This old mystical experience brought her back again to the change of her medical and personal opinions.

And the more was E. Sternberg thinking about everything, the more she found arguments for constructing a logical proof that beliefs can be different and that a belief may be that spiritual feeling, which we actually have in our mind. The feeling of wonder and awe, that we have only in a holy place, inspires in us a kind of awe about nature, life and beauty. Her parents survived the war and a Russian concentration camp and Sternberg remembers a peaceful snack when her father directly radiated a feeling as if he had heard a sound of peace. And she had a similar feeling on Crete, where she had a certain tension that she never got rid of. There she felt that she had to write a book. She then returned again and again to the Asclepius´ temple and experienced the surrounding action. When she returned to Washington, she no longer had the need to go to hospital for a treatment. For some time she wanted to renounce her experience, but she continued to investigate why she had got rid of her illness at a time when she experienced stress on Crete. And she thinks that this was the meditation, which suitably strengthened her body to work against the illness.

K.T. wants to know what we should think about such things that can be used medically to know our emotions that we experience. E.S. point out the variable role of the memory. She says that the memory effects can be positive or negative and can also lead to a positive flow of endorphins. Psychotherapy deals with this and she says that the way that leads to greater activation of our stress response, reminds her to be rather a speculation than science. It is a new phenomenon that turns the activity in the brain.

K.T. asks whether those activities we can be measures and seen. E.S. confirms that this phenomenon can be measured. R. Davidson confirmed this in the experiments which he had conducted with the meditating monks. During them, some portions of their brains were activated and the other ones were suppressed. Meditation is a natural state like it is to be vigilant and to be asleep, but it these states different from each other. But we cannot fully understand what exactly happens when someone is meditating. In these states different neural chemicals are released. And meditation can alter the effect of the immune system. In psychotherapy we newly learn about meditation and how to understand stress events. So in psychotherapy we can proceed to a better outcome, but the psychotherapist is unable to disclose where we can arrive during the treatment. And K.T. points out that we live in a new culture. In American culture such stress have been discovered that we overuse. It is said that everybody is overwhelmed by stress. She asks what Sternberg would recommend to these people.

E.S. agrees with her finding. We live in an era of rapid technological changes, which are similar to the industrial revolution which she had already mentioned. At the same time we live in a period full of anxiety, which is relatively something new for the Americans. And then there is September 11, 2001. It is believed that everybody needs to find his or her resting place and every day to return there. She thinks that such a place is different for each of us. Some people seek meditation and others pray or go to yoga classes, or they need to devote to music, reading, arts and any other things. So we can help ourselves at every moment, where we can devote to our escape place, outside this stress network.

Tippett´s conversation with Sternberg refers to the current issues of the modern civilization. What is presented here is that we know how to heal ourselves and that we can cope with the stress of civilization. According to E. Sternberg, who is scientifically minded woman, who coincidentally collided with a new problem, which cannot be solved by classical science. It is a problem that the enlightened science has not solved anywhere in the world, although it is already much closer to science through scientific paradigms. But she is only interested in biological and neurological paradigms (see e.g. chapter 6.6 and also other chapters).

In the interview, E. Sternberg focuses primarily on her studies of stress, that she had experienced at an early age with her father and Hans Selye. It is interesting that she apparently passed from the stress of her objectivist external approach to her internal emotional stress through her own experiences. And in this way she has come to cognition that meditation and psychotherapy are treatment methods. But during her studies, she has not come to the recognition of depth psychology. She, like other cognitive scientists in developed countries, sees the strict distinction of scientific approaches and the religious and mystical approaches.

In the view of the natural sciences, she still recognizes that our inner experiences are not scientifically verifiable. This prevented Sternberg to come from the partial scientific paradigm to the integral paradigm of science. She still sees the inner human world basically like a religious mysticism. When talking about her assessment of mystique, I think that this approach could not have been so effective that the author could have got to real results, that she met in her practice. Inner faith and meditation may, in certain situations, strengthen the activities of the human body. But the commonly practised psychiatry is not much effective, even when i is trying to apply its “scientific processes” to the pathological conditions of stressed patients (see chapter 3 and chapter 4 and also in the books “The Twilight of Atheism” (Soumrak ateizmu) and “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)).

The entire discussion with E. Sternberg is also relevant in terms of the state of today´s civilization where we are still looking for the cause of the crisis of civilization. This scientific researcher sees well the whole range of technological factors, which, through fast successions, cause stress to people. And she has also noted that if stress lasts for a longer period of time, it requires greater consumption of medical activity for treatment. Unfortunately, her guide to healing is only subjective. In fact, she advises everyone to try to do what he or she enjoys in the time that remains. But in this way she will hardly come to the necessary moral change of the entire civilization, that I am writing about in this book and in the book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje), and leave it to the reader to think the whole thing over.

The Nature Of Human Vitality

When studying the spiritual depression, K. Tippett visited three important personalities such as A. Solomon, P. Palmer and A. Barrows. Tippett herself also experienced a series of depressions and she considers them to be confusing words.

- - -

At her first meeting by Andrew Solomon (1963) wrote the book “Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression” (Poslední démon: atlas depresí). Depression is not spirituality for him. He is not even a religious person. He experienced his first depression after his mother´s death when he was not able to feel any sorrow. Andrew Solomon (A.S.) thought that his way from sorrow to nothingness had been dissatisfying and strange. Although he could talk about nothingness, he lacked any emotional affection. He thought that he should have had some affection and this would have been something like his return of the term soul. K.T. thinks that his book is encouraging for the determination of what is real and what is not a depression. But depression is not the same as sadness. She thinks that he determined human vitality instead of depression. A.S. thinks it is difficult to study even the most common emotional activities in life. He said he had no primary experiences that would have related to vitality. K.T. wants to know if he had shown the classic study of passion, which would have led him to manage large emotions, which are discussed here. A.S. thinks passion is a way to talk about emotions. Passions are essential stimuli for the whole human activity. And he shows us some idea of ​​what determines our inner monologue. But we are usually mystified when talking about the origin of our inner monologue.

K.T. would like to hear about the medicines that are used to treat different depressions. And A.S. names five chemicals that he uses. KT. wonders why would people ask him about the similar way of treatment. If he himself suffers from depression, he cannot know if the person that he represents in his consciousness at that moment is really him. A.S. thinks that the belief in the existence of the real “me” and it transformations through drugs is artificially created. It reminds him a belief that we have teeth, that fall out when we are thirty, and then we can compare our healing to the modern dental care. He thinks that our healing progresses because of our mistakes, illnesses and problems. Taking drugs, that are given to us, is an experience of therapies. He himself is a supporter of therapies. K.T. then mentions his statement from the book “The Winter´s tale” (Zimní pohádka) that it is true that when our humanity is natural, then our creativity can be natural too. And the book ends with the words that art itself is natural. K. Tippett then states that A. Solomon quotes the poet J. Kenyon here, according to whom we do not want to change into something new, but we only want to immerse ourselves in the natural life.

A.S. feels the same very clearly. We have personality, which is the same as when we were ten, twenty or twenty-five years old, and so we begin to change somehow. And he feels the sense of healing in the return to ourselves. Also in the above-mentioned book “Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression” (Polední démon: atlas depresí), his memories are only small bits of aspects of his depression. He also studies the historic depressions of the ideas that have shaped the modern West. Many classical thinkers could not separate the psyche from the body. Even the priest Sv. Augustine characterizes depression as a disease of the spirit and is in God´s disfavour. And apparently this stigma of depression has remained in modern America, although in its background we cannot see his theology.

K.T. asks if A. Solomon if he thought it was good religious reading while studying his own depression. A.S. found his relief in the strict rhetoric of Judaism, although he also praised even a greater tendency to forgiveness as it is described in the New Testament. In depression we need gentleness from other people. When he as a child attended the Sunday school, he searched for relief from unloving God in the people closest to him. If he could not believe that God loved him, he believed that this was the structure of the world itself. And he as a Jew thought that what was happening in him was quite logical. K.T. wants to know if he, in his text about depression, could add something for the more educated inhabitants of towns, even with the lack of love. A.S. has found out that human beings themselves have a great capacity for love. And the sense of love cannot be another feeling than we had experienced from others, and that is primarily fear of losing something. If we talk about the loss of something that we love, would we be unhappy because of something that is more than love for us? He believes that the various types of depression form the hyperactivity of our emotional and mood spectrum. And the love is its ultimate end, without which we cannot imagine a different experience of our inner intimacy.

K.T. reminds Solomon his personal experience with depression and she would like to know whether his experience is somehow the result of his thoughts. And A.S: thinks that his own vulnerability made him vulnerable to other people. It made him more receptive to the value of love. He believes, without supporting any doctrine, that abstract love has some meaning in the world, which we should call God´s love and that this love is essential and important. This love grows in him, both in terms of understanding this love as well as in his feeling that he is loved and supported. He uses the word spirit wisely. He does not mean anything that could give as wings and return to the Kingdom of Heaven. He would like to understand what Tippett says about the spirit or her discussions about depression and what she thinks about his inability to understand the fundamental “me”. K.T. thinks his opinions are too clinical.

A.S. thinks that it is also mysterious what the other people are. That thing that had triggered his depression, causes that he himself has become a mystery to himself. And because we cannot fully understand everything, there must be a mystical element in it. And he tries to talk about this when he uses the word spirit. In his opinion, knowing this basic reality of the world is more accurate in religious documents than anywhere elsewhere. He cannot write religious books about this, because he is not, in the strict sense of the word, a religious person who could accept the religious world. He feels that religion had been an important description of the world and he tries to insert into it everything he was talking about.

When I read the sentences of K. Tippett with A. Solomon, I remembered the novel of A. Camus “The Stranger” (Cizinec). It begins with a meeting of the son with his dead mother, when the son of vainly searches for his own emotional affection over her death. A. Solomon, unlike Camus´s stranger, searched in his depressions and he has got quite far in this effort. He had an advantage, probably the fact that some residues of the religious faith from his childhood had remained in him. But Andrew Solomon does not understand his faith in the relation to depth psychology to be able to understand the existence of the real self-reflexive “me” in each of us.

A. Salomon, who says he understood the variable human experience, can no longer naively see a winged spirit, which flies up after his death to heaven, and this reminded me the cybernetic concepts of memory. But he lacks deeper knowledge of cybernetics, so he could scientifically use the more accurate memory (see chapter 3.3). Similar memory manifested clearly with him when, in their discussions, there had been a mention of the oblivion of the religious faith, which we can see in modern secular America.

I think that Salomon´s religion from his childhood, that is left him in his inner spiritual memory, has led him to the most valuable thing, what he was trying to prove in the understanding of love in human society. His witness is much more valuable because he has not longer considered himself to be a religious person to confess the same faith he had experienced in his childhood. His positive appreciation of the religious faith still applies as a necessary factor in the current atheistic secular society. He imagines that there is abstract love in the world, that we can call God, and he feels that this is his God who continually strengthens also in compliance with his new experiences.

- - -

Approximately in 1995, K. Tippet studied her clinical depressions. Her symptoms included insomnia, weight loss, fear, anxiety, and great inability to concentrate. When she slowly recovered from them, she read and article of Parker Palmer (* 1939), a spiritual leader and famous Quaker thinker. His books and articles helped many people to integrate their spiritual values. There was also a public revelation that he had experienced two episodes of a paralysing depression. He felt ashamed, because at that time he was the spiritual guru of the Quaker community. The depressions helped them to be stronger and to think over the basis of his spiritual life as such.

Parker Palmer (P.P.) visualized his depressions as a spiritual life and climb a high mountain, where we can touch of the hand of God and where we can experience the vision of wholeness and beauty. But then he could not see the spirit, God or faith. In his depressions, all the abilities, that he had gained previously, seemed to him as something completely unnecessary. And he got into the darkness that led somewhere into the primitive animal life. Now he felt spirituality as something unknown that directed him back to a place where there was no intellect, no emotions or will.

K.T. asks him where was God in all this. P.P. does not talk about God as about the bases of his existence. He does not think about God as about someone “up there” but as about someone “down here”. In his Christian tradition, God is consistent with the incarnation theology, who had come to Earth to sympathize with us and to suffer and to show us the way. K.T. confirms this using a sentence from the Palmer´s book “Let Your Life Speak” (Nechte mluvit váš život), where the personal experience with God is emphasized more than the abstraction of God. She wants to know how body concepts could have emerged if we traditionally believe that bodies had been formed only from “words”.

P.P. thinks that this is an incomprehensible question. But he took seriously the message about 109 events of incarnation, which he received during his depression. Then he took more seriously the instruction of human incarnation. K.T. asks for an explanation that in ordinary Christianity people do not get help and that they suffer from depression, and the finding there is also only suffering. He apparently completely reversed this image. P.P. thinks that it is necessary to distinguish true suffering from false suffering. But he cannot believe that God who gave us life, does not want us to experience death in our life. God wants us to life our lives fully and well. There is also another suffering, which is represented by death. This is the blindness for the activity, thanks to which we might find life on the other side. He remembered the psychologist who had warned him not to look at his depression as a handshake from his enemy. Instead of this, he should understand it as a handshake from a friend who pushes him to understand the base on which he can safely stand. A fellow sister from his religious community responded to his problems that the more he went into the light, the more he also went into the darkness.

K.T. asks how he understands this sentence. P.P. thinks that when we move closer to God we move closer to everything that we have experienced so far. It involves suffering and joy too. K.T. adds that the way back all those things he had felt in his depression, was actually his true soul. We should not think about God in general, we should think about God in a certain way. P.P. agrees with her. During his depression, his ideas on the theological faith were transformed or they disappeared. But something is left from his original primitive intangibility. And if this is God, he would like to secure all these. My friends who came to him, wanted to help him, but many of them were not like this, unfortunately. They are people who wanted to say: “Oh, my God, Parker, why are you sitting here so depressed? Today is a wonderful day. Go out and be in the sun and smell the flowers.” But something like this depresses a depressed person even more. The man knows that it is nice outside, but he cannot feel this inside his body, which is sensorially dead. Other people came and said: “Oh, my God, Parker, why are you depressed? You have been a nice person and you have helped so many people.” And K.T. adds that he was also so successful.

P.P. adds more to her words and tells her quote that he was so successful and he was good at writing. This made him more depressed, because he was now somehow cheated by another person, who tells him what he was a gull, that they wanted to draw him into the darkness, where he had already been. But among his friends, there was an elderly Quaker and he agreed to come and see him, and he massaged his feet and used short sentences to tell him what he thought about Palmer´s condition. This man did such a thing for him that he was with him in his suffering. And Palmer remembers a metaphor that they should share with people who suffer. It is not offensive, like the religious mysteries, but it is not uncertain like the suffering is. He wants to keep people in a spiritual relational space in which they are only people who are on the dark side of the Moon to be able to gain confidence that they will come into the light, once again, from its opposite side.

He thinks that during his specific depression, which corresponded to the abstract concept of God, located far away in Heaven, his new concept of God, who had come back down to Earth, was gradually formed. But this is probably further ideologically influenced by the commonly recognized Christian incarnation of the Word that was made flesh to dwell among us, that he knew well as a Christian priest, which was reminded to him by Krista Tippett herself. He does not understand the controversial way of God´s incarnation so naively like the Christian dogmatists because he had come to a different meaning of human suffering. P. Palmer wants use his own experience to prove that human suffering has never been the meaning of human existence.

It was interested in the Palmer´s description of the relationship between him and his friends, who gradually came to help him in his depression. I was also visited by various friends and acquaintances and they variously rated my experience, when I suddenly ceased to be an atheist or a dogmatically religious person like they were (see chapter 1). But there was a significant difference. I, opposed to Palmer, did not experienced my spiritual transformation as a dark depression. I experienced the search for truth, since my youth, as the supreme value of life (see chapter 4). I gradually, just like him, made certain of the moral qualities between old and new acquaintances. But over the time, I sometimes had doubts if I had enough time to tell people the truth I had got to in such a wonderful way (see also “My Way To The Truth” (Moje cesta k pravě) or “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)).

P. Palmer was lucky that a totally disinterested scholarly friend had appeared who began to care to for him in his depression. Thus contributing to his understanding, how he could care for other people so that they could gradually come out of the darkness into the light of knowledge. But we do not have to impose the faith to those who would have a different cognitive reasons to accept it. It is better for them “to have their feet get massaged” that they use to maintain their spiritual stability, so that each of us can achieve what is implied in the Parker´s metaphor about “the light and darkness”, which was mentioned during the interviews with Krista Tippett .

- - -

Krista Tippett remembers that the depression occurs in literature and poetry in all cultures. In the ancient texts they usually referred to it as to a kind of melancholy. Anita Barrows (A.B.) devoted almost her entire adult life to Buddhism. As a psychologist she says that the Buddhist concepts of people may scare the inner darkness, and this can be dangerous for them in their clinical depression. She, similarly to Solomon, assesses this darkness as an ordinary aspect of life. She had lived with depression with her mother long ago and she talked about things like that she live had lived with God that had responded to her. Therefore, in her childhood A. Barrows imagined God as an old man in a bathrobe who always has a direct phone to her mother Sylvia, but he does not want to help too much because she has not succeeded very well. She was in bed, because she had feet warts and they had such a strange name, verruca. She sat at her mother´s door and had to experience her lamentations. She remembers her own spiritual experience when she went through this door. She could come in and feel a certain penetrable darkness that was the depression of her mother. K.T. confirms that her experience is a big picture and that her feeling of the penetrable darkness is a good description of the complexity of depressions.

A.B. confirms the permeability of what her mother had experienced all her life. It was a condition that she herself understood well, even though she experienced if differently from her mother. Barrows experienced a huge depression at the age of seventeen, when she went to high school, and then mainly when she was thirty-one when she experienced a huge collapse during the birth of her first child. Her depression was caused by an autoimmune thyroid dysfunction. She, like many other people that experienced depression, has been permanently affected by it. She perceived it actively. She took advantage of her own spiritual darkness and of half of the world for writing poems and translations of literary works. This helped her to overcome everything. Today she sees depression as a permanent accompaniment of our lives.

K.T. asks if depression accompanies the life of all people. A.B. specifies that depression accompanies the lives of many people, who have a tendency to it. Rilke wrote that he had loved the dark hours of his life. Even in her life there were periods when she experienced the depressed mood of the destructive world. Nowadays, the dark mood is a medical term for her and she would like to wash down its medical perception. In the depression there is a condition that is so devastating, that the man who had already touched the bottom of this, can only say that he is glad now that he knows what this status means. She thinks that this state of life with darkness is a certain kind of spirituality. It is about spiritual maturity that leads us to the state of silence, listening and calming. K.T. adds that depression leads us to disillusionment about what this activity can provide to us. A.B. agrees that all we can do at this stage is to sit back, listen and simply exist. Rilke once said that “we can live modestly and see the world, that the one who had created it could then find it if he searches for it”.

K.T. then presents a poem with this topic from Rilke´s “Book of Hours” (Kniha o věčnosti). A.B. adds that when we are depressed we are pulled out from something that had been life for us, from something that was right, habitual, balanced, ordinary and proper. We are thrown into the places where we are devastated, where the wind tears the shoots of the trees that we are ourselves. In this connection, K.T. mentions the meaning of the word “stranger” that does not only refer to someone who is completely alienated from the others but also from us. A.B. confirms that the alienation from us is the worst one. K.T. has registered the paradox that have appeared in her interviews about depression, and she repeats again that depression, which can draw back the maturity and spiritual insight of some people, can be called the supreme spirit. But at the time when our deep experience passes by, this type of reflection is completely absent. A.B. agrees with this. What is good for our spirit and what we have to do to be a better person appears, at the time when we are in the despair of depression, to be absolute nonsense. The changes come later, when we find ourselves in the fire, which reminds the Dante´s experience on his way to Beatrice, which can be regarded as the soul or anime. Tippett´s interview with A. Barrows artistically and metaphorically expresses the finding of her spiritual way out of the depression.

The reader who had read my books, probably realized that Barrows actually professes some version of the Buddhist interpretation of inner darkness which is described also by other current writers (see the book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)). These are people who have been influenced also by the partial paradigms of science. I met them only in mystical literature. Their prejudices always include the fact that the way to knowing God must also include a mystical element that the sub-science itself cannot overcome (see chapter 5.3). .

The psychological analysis of dark moods of experiences was interesting when the author herself, in her depression, got to depth psychology and the positive and negative impacts of different human visions. The depression of humans resembles the encounter with God. I refer again to my experience with spontaneous experiences which can be used to get to the scientifically verifiable existence of God (see chapter 4).

On the complementary nature of science and religion

Krista Tippett first heard John Polkinghorne (*1930) in 1980 in London when he was talking about the connection between quantum physics and theology. Therefore also in 2005 she was thrilled to meet him and to talk about the ideas that had inspired her earlier. She is also interested in the issue of evolutionism with creationism, which R. Dawkins came again with the concept of the incompatibility of science and religion. John Polkinghorne took the biblical messages about the creation of the world seriously, but pointed out these are lyrical and theological messages that are not written as a scientific text. He believes that God had created the universe but this was not a one-time act. He created an independent world, which he is able to shape himself. Polkinghorne believes that the natural laws are open for both human activity and the activity of God, and here he finds the confirmation of his thoughts about the theory of chaos. J. Polkinhorne belongs to modern science that is compatible with the conflicting interpretations of reality. And he believes in the the idea of the ​​quarks and to the faith, which he inserts into the observed real world.

John Polkinghorne (J.P.) in 2005 was a professor of the theory of elementary particle physics at Cambridge. He returned there to teach about the interface between science and religion. There won the Templeton Prize for progress. And he says that he teaches us about the physical world as the world of surprises. In quantum physics, the world is completely different from the everyday world. We cannot know exactly where the micro particles are located. If you do not precisely know how they behave and if we find out where they probably are, then we cannot know how they behave. It is an exciting world, and if we understand it, we reach deep intellectual satisfaction. And K.T. would like to hear about the words that are used in theology and religion. One of them is beauty. J.P. considers beauty to be very interesting, and for him, mathematical beauty is particularly interesting for him. It is especially important for people who are able to recognize it and then agree on it. In modern physics, it is found that the basic laws of nature are mathematically beautiful. Beauty is the key to uncovering the secrets of the physical world.

K.T. asks whether we can describe the property, why a mathematical equation is beautiful. J.P. says that mathematical beauty are associated with elegance and with the economy. It is very economical because it cover only a few symbols. But it is also very deep, because a variety of unexpected things can be derived from it. In everyday speech, it is hard to describe this completely. He believes that scientists readily agree on the mathematical beauty than painters agree on the beauty of arts. K.T. says that J. Polkinghorne mentioned that we should take the words of poetry and mysticism as seriously as we take the words of science.

J.P. totally agrees. He thinks that reality is rich and multi-layered. Science studies only one layer of the world. He deals with the world as an object that we can test and find of what it is formed from. But we know that there is another sphere of human experience in which it should be possible to test thins. They are our relationships such as friendship. Therefore, when exploring the world, we need complementary ways. K.T. goes back to the explanation of quarks, where religious faith had been proved too. J.P. ranks quarks into the invisible reality. Nobody managed to isolate quarks in laboratory. We believe in them because they have a sense of large areas of our physical experience.

K.T. asks Polkinghorne for an explanation of quarks. J.P. remembers how physicists once believed that the nuclear is formed only from protons and neutrons, but this concept has become increasingly difficult to explain what we try to experimentally explain. A lot of intelligent people have come to the conclusion that protons and neutrons are made of something even more basic, that must have more surprising properties. Quarks have tiny electrical charge that nobody has found out directly in them. And these undetectable quarks have become essential to understand the structure of matter. He and all nuclear physicists believe in the reality of quarks which bring real intelligibility into the world. K.T. apparently agrees with the fictitiousness of the words quark and asks why they were named like this.

J.P. explains how the theoretical physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who also had polihistoric inclinations, was interested in the language. He read the book of James Joyce called “Finnegans Wake” (Finneganovo procitnutí) which talks about “a trio of quarks” for the formation of tracks, and because the physical quarks acted “in threes”, their name was created like this. K.T. notes that this is a literary word. She appreciates Polkinghorne that he can be a scientist and a religious man at the same time who can take seriously both views without finding them to be contradictory. She notes that he also talked about the compatibility of the wave and corpuscular theory and about Dirac´s opinions on this issue.

J.P. therefore explains how the science created corpuscular and wave images of the world. But a crisis occurred because of “the wave” is spatially spread, while the “the particle” is a small projectile, but this ended well only when Paul Dirac discovered the quantum field. A field, which has obviously some wave properties, and it produces, according to quantum mechanics, some “packages” which behave like small particles. If, in this theory, we put the emphasis on the wave-formulated question, then we get a wave response, and if we ask about the corpuscularity then we get a corpuscular response. If we do not want to come to a contradiction, we cannot ask these two questions simultaneously.

K.T. asks whether physicists take into account both those responses. But J.P. shows an a analogy how physicists have found ways to interpret the understanding of the modified theories. And if someone is a Christian theologian, he will know, by analogy, that Jesus Christ is a human being, but we have to describe him also in the language of God, which is a certain dilemma. But we are not mature theologically enough to find an accurate answer for this. And even here we will not get to progress if we deny new experience. K.T. agrees and says that scientists understand the paradigm of their world better than the theologians try to do the same in their religious world. J.P. does not exclude this. K.T. notes the long-term idea, through which, for many centuries, the religious people understood what we call “God of the gaps” today and she would ask John Polkinghorne to describe his process how to work with it.

J.P. says that, at the time of Newtonian science, some people said that science was able to explain everything. And the religious people, on the contrary, answered that science was not already able to explain everything. According to them, there are still gaps in our knowledge that can be filled only by God. For them, the human eye is very complicated, so people could not understand it but the science is able to explain it. In the 19th century, Ch. Darwin showed how the human eye could evolve step by step and he did not assess their argument. K. T. shows a passage from Bonhoeffer´s “Letters and Papers from Prison” (Dopisy a dokumenty z vězení), in which he writes that if we archived God as someone irrecognizable, then we ourselves still learn how we are excluding God from the human experience. J.P. agrees and adds that if God is truth, then the more truth we have, the more we learn about God. In his book “Quarks, Chaos and Christianity” (Kvarky, chaos a křesťanství) he writes that the prayer is not magic. It is something much more personal because it is about the interaction between people and God. He thinks that it is an important question that a scientist can ask God to get something done for him.

K.T. asks whether, in his knowledge of the natural laws, God leads us to respect their action. J.P. suggests that God would behave differently if had created the world as a clockwork. The things would not behave badly according to this concept. In the twentieth century this explanation was abandoned and on the subatomic level no quantum events occur in the deterministic processes. From the theory of chaos we have learned about the “butterfly effect”, where even subtle causes may have large consequences. Our natural world, as described by the Newtonian physics, is not a clockwork. We are not machines and we have the opportunity to choose to act on the world, but our ability is limited. If we can act in the world, then there is a reason that God can act in it too. He himself believes in God, that the answer of God is that scientists can ask God for help and can cooperate with him. And there are also processes whose results are accurate and certain. They are a mixture of certainty and uncertainty. There is space for manoeuvres and prayers. As an example we can use the course of the weather, even Origenes knew about it.

K.T. asks J. Polkinghorne to tell her some other plea for rain, which would also be a human pleading activity. J.P. states that, in our life, there are many unclear prayers and everything is different. Surely, there are diseases that are deadly and we know also that the diseases can often be induced. And then we can ask for someone to be strengthened and encouraged or blessed by hope, which subsequently may lead to his or her recovery, which would not occur otherwise. But if we hold to rigidity too much, nothing really big really appears in the world. And K.T. says that, according to Polkinghorne, science and religion would cause to many things that can change the world, and he admires how he has understood the intelligent design movement

J.P. shows that this movement is about the issue how the difficult things pass by in the entire evolution, which are composed of various sub-components. If something has not been created yet, we do not know now how the next evolution will be formed. Similar issues are solvable scientifically, in principle, but he cannot even imagine what the answer to them might be. He thinks that we live in the world of affairs, where the future is not fixed in advance. God allows his creations to become themselves. K.T. wants to know whether God may know the future in advance. J.P. claims that in the world of real events, where we participate in the future at least a little bit, God cannot know the exact future. He understands it as perfection when the future does not exist today, what would already be precisely recognized. The theologians have recognized activity long since, in which the creatures would create themselves apart for the love of God or for the self-restraint of God, and called it “kenosis”. God has accepted some risk that his material creations become improvisations than his finished work is only being demonstrated, as it had been written in advance by God in eternity.

K.T. sees the Polkinghorne´s explanation as a theological interpretation of the description of evolution. J.P. then shows how great was the God´s creation of the world for the benefit of Darwin, so that he could explain the reality in which creations exist that can co-create themselves for the then science and religion. This concept also had its erroneous side. K.T. agrees with that and she would like to ask him a question about the apology of God. If terrible things happen in the world, what does it say about the nature of God? And J.P. says that the world is both beautiful and successful but also ugly and horrible. The problem of evil and suffering is a big problem. Science has found that, during the entire development when the creations utilized their developmental possibilities, things have become increasingly complex. There were genetic mutations when, about two billion years ago, there were only bacteria. Even certain genes mutated destructively during their development, for example to cancer. We do not know nothing in the world that compassionate God may want to exclude. And this is the wrong side of the world that creates itself. K.T. asks what he may say about the new earthquakes or tsunamis.

When J.P. talks about the created order he thinks of its various aspects too. The tectonic plates are necessary for the emergence of life on the planet, but if the plates move, they create earthquakes and in the oceans there are tsunamis then. But K.T. does not think this is a sympathetic answer. J.P. thinks that there is some sympathy in it, but it is not sentimental. During earthquakes Earth moves in harmony with its nature. K.T. already understood this from Polkinghorne´s s works when he saw free will as a gift. We are not robots, and the tectonic plates also have their own existential nature. Such freedoms that are given to every aspect of the creation can collide with each other and be the reason of effects and they may devastate one or the another side. J.P. thinks this is the correct understanding of it. He thinks that God respects the integrity of the creation that he does not use to influence the history of the world, that would abolish it. God does not want murders or earthquakes, but he allows both sides in the world, and the creations are independent of their creator to some extent.

K.T. asks what this says about God that the possibility of suffering is included in his creations. How could good God create a world where there is so much innocent suffering? J.P. mentions an intellectual argument. “Good and Evil” also include deep existential questions, such as why something would happen to me or someone else. The Christian God is not only compassionate, that looks at the suffering of the world up in heaven as an invulnerable observer, but he participates in the agony of the world. The cross of Christ, as it is understood in terms of Christian theology, is in fact God living a human life. He is nailed to the cross in the darkness and the paradox of his deformity at Calvary. So God knew our suffering from inside. Polkinghorne thinks that life is not the only life we ​​live, because he believes in our posthumous salvation. Despite this, he is not able to explain the suffering of the world. K.T. says that this is only part of the faith. J.P., as a Christian, knows that this is only part of the faith, but it supported and guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But this not something that we have a direct experience for. It is only our deep intuitive hope. And he takes it very seriously and calls it, according to Peter Berger, to be the signal of transcendence.

K.T. remembers that, in the contradiction of Genesis and science, even the days of God’s creation were considered to be longer than the present days. In Genesis, the time was sensed differently. But J.P. says that this statement is not quite true. In Genesis, light energy was created at the beginning of the world but the world began in the water and from there it got to the earth. But it is not true that the Sun, the Moon and the stars, without which no light and life could have been created, were created on the fourth day. So the writer did not worship them as divine. K.T. asks if Genesis is a poem then. J.P. thinks it is much more that a poem or prose. For those who would want to believe in it, Genesis is a source of sadness, if they would not understand it correctly.

K.T. agrees that the days of God were legitimately not the same. But she would like to know what significance, for our understanding of God, has the scientific fact that about fourteen billion years have elapses since the creation of the world? J.P. says that, according to the explanation of science, God is not in a hurry, God is patient. When we talk about him as about God of love, then it is also important how love has to act. The religious and scientific are identical, but we should not emphasize power when it is rather about convincingness. Both views are not derivable one from the other, but they are compatible. But for K.T. it is a problem that the earthquakes and tsunamis are also only a cosmic morality. J.P. does not apply the moral principles to the tectonic plates, but only to people who are moral actors. And according to him, we can ask such questions only when they are about the morality of God. K.T. then agrees and asks if God is moral when he created the tectonic plates.

J.P. again goes back to the previous explanation. If God created the world, where his creations are able to do only the same things, then he did what is greater good than if he had created a magical world. In it, his actions would have no consequences, such as the fire would not burn those who put their hands into it. Then it is important to understand what the omnipotence of God means. It does not mean that God wants to do absolutely everything, but he does only what is consistent with his character. God cannot do evil. Rational God cannot order that two plus two are five. K.T. asks if there is anything in his science that could actually change his faith. In his studies, J.P. has never reached a crisis situation where he would have been faced with the choice of whether to go with science or with religion. He has always encountered only partial contemporary uncertainties. In recent years, people have been interested in the questions that the theologians call eschatology. K.T. adds that this is about the interpretation of death.

J.P. specifies that this is about finding the meaning of eternal destiny. We ask what the human spirit is. He thinks that this is about our real “me” which is not only our physical body that is changing all the time. The “spirit” is a pattern according to which the atoms are formed. Also the theologian Thomas Aquinas understood this. K.T. says says that this could be a pattern of our personality and our activities. J. Poltinghorne considers “the spiritual model” to be a very rich pattern that does not stop just beneath our skin. This pattern evokes also our memories, our character and our personality. He thinks that God will not let this “pattern” to be lost and that he would re-create it in the new resurrection. It has happened that the current dialogue of science and theology is mainly theological. For a long period of time, science has only asked questions to give, and the cosmology of the Big Bang has been create; there is also biological evolution and the science we ask what we should do with it. Theology finds the answers. but J.P. thinks that the theological answers are not accurate at all. Today, theology asks some new questions, what is “human personality” or “what is the continuity between life in this world and the afterlife world”. According to it, this development is healthy. And he notes that K. Tippett has started a dialogue that is heading in the right direction.

I spoke in detail about the debate K. Tippett and J. Polkinghorne, who had a very good concept of the current views on the relationship between science and faith. I wrote about J. Polkinghorne´s and the atheist D. Dawkins´ opinions (see my book “The Twilight of Atheism” (Soumrak ateizmu)). And later, I wrote about this debate of J. Polkinghorne with K. Tippett in my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje). His views on science and theology overreach the natural scientists with whom I met in various sciences and beliefs. J. Polkinghorne aptly points out to the almost identical consensus, that the contemporary educated man my reach when we talk about scientific and theological knowledge. He understood that the civilized developed countries no faith would not extend to violence. People should not be burn, crucified or otherwise violently harmed for their views on the truth.

In the problems that are being solved in this discussion, it would be useful to deal with Polkinghorne´s opinion on the Divinity of Jesus Christ For the first time with him, as an important scientist and erudite theologian, we can see the reasons why, from the very beginning, Jesus Christ has been recognized as a man and why he has been seen as God in his community. The cultural level of Jesus Christ overreached the period in which he lived. People attributed him both signs that were attributed to the man and God at that times. Krista Tippet says that the more accurate classification of Jesus in the context of the paradigm of the world should give us the right relationship with God. According to Polkinghorne, we are still not so theologically developed to understand the personality of Jesus Christ, and the situation perhaps will not change until we rely only on the knowledge of the theological field.

The advantage of the theologian John Polkinghorne is that he is not a practising priest who would be somehow bound by the orders from the higher levels of hierarchy. In the last type of the ecclesiastical order, the novelty of his thoughts might have been dangerous (see my book “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)). But with the arrival of the new Pope Francis, the situation in the Church has changed in terms of validity. But it would hardly be valid, even with a significant change, that the higher position sin the Church would be led to the greater knowledge about God and to the greater knowledge of the truth about the being. In the knowledge about the theological problems we still need verifiability, which has proved in the scientific field (see chapter 3).

In the interview, John Polkinghorne got to the issues whose solution have been moved into the future. For example, it is about the issue of freedom of the human will, which Krista Tippett has pointed to so persistently. Throughout my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje) we tried to understand that we can talk about the free will on the level of cosmic evolution, when such spirituality had been created that brought depth psychology. Free will is inseparable from human spirituality. We cannot assume responsible knowledge for inorganic structures and low biological structures, for which there is no conceptual level of memory.

We cannot expect that Polkinghorne tells if the evolution of the cosmos is directed to the goal of the rational spirituality, which is in fact the spirituality of God, or whether the human goals are created by themselves in the mutual interaction of the real existence. The objective real world has certain evolutionary freedom, but this is not free so that even God does not know where our overall development is heading. We have shown that even in a world that is not strictly determined, the general laws apply that may not help us to reach the goal of knowing God (see chapter 3.1). The general rules prevent that the beings with free will cannot get to the destruction of the excessive knowledge of objective reality. Certain immoral people are thus incapable of the great truth, and our technology cannot lead us to the full destruction of our objective reality (see chapter 6.7).

5.8 Scientific search for spiritual God

Today, people may fundamentally become acquainted with the various sciences about God because science is inter-subjectively capable of sharing and has meta-cultural validity. People may encounter God through science already at elementary schools. It is true that the attained scientific theories are not identically valid all the time. But the theories of the necessary sciences follow the historical socio-cultural memory.

There are also people who talk about science with disrespect. They have gathered some observations from a variety of everyday intercourses and from popular books, so they think they are sufficiently experienced, though they often have no idea where the truth of the current science reaches today. The sovereign supremacy of science point out their superficiality, when they themselves try to disprove the truth of sciences, which include the paradigmatic truths of physics, cybernetics and depth psychology. But what should we, besides this, understand with the other wisdom of the civilized world?

Contemporary science does not deny the validity of its previous partial paradigms, but it still adds more precise explanations of the more integrated knowledge. Modern science does not deny, but on the contrary, it recommends the objectivity of the moral dimension of the cosmos. The new verifiable certainty includes, among others, the fact that modern science cannot exist without the conscious recognition of the existence of the Creator of the cosmos, that can be seen as the conscious spiritual memory of being. For the provably valid origin of the universe, such as the Big Bang, there must be a conscious final plan of its material and energetic development.

But the materialist conception of the world cannot explain the development and the emergence of conscious beings without the existence of the emergent changes from the conscious memory of God. Without this spiritual memory, we could not come to the creation of the universe, where material and energetic shapes are created, that would learn by utilizing only the blind trial-and-error method to search for the path to the future. And similarly, the anthropic focus of the whole cosmos would not be created automatically with the the creation of the cosmic beings, which is an evidence for the emergence of the spiritual consciousness memory.

Search for the Creator of cosmos

A few years ago, I read the books of the lawyer and investigative journalist Lee Strobel (*1952), one of which is called “The Case for a Creator” (Kauza Stvořitel) (in Czech 2006). The author describes here how he visited a number of world-known experts from various disciplines to ask them the question about the existence of the intelligent plan or the intelligent design in the cosmos. Different eminent scientists expressed their opinion to the question whether there is something that objectively exists, such as the intelligent design.

I mentioned several scientists from Strobel´s book who wanted to comment on the validity of the theory of the intelligent design. We can observe how the different scientist talk about Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is supported mainly by Richard Dawkins, tries to improve Darwinism in an atheistic way. It is an atheistic belief, which, only because of scientism, rejects the intelligent creator. All the similar events in the universe, which have tried to form atheistic methods using natural sciences, were included in physicalism, but this was not able to scientifically explain the origin and evolution of the psyche. This essential concepts were eliminated already in the era of Enlightenment, when the “the Cartesian cut” was created.

Lee Strobel paid great attention to these issues in the debate with John P. Moreland, who studied nuclear chemistry and theology. Both of them noticed that physicalism can be refuted through the intelligent design. The reflections John P. Moreland are accurate and inspiring, although I got the impression that they lack a scientific theory that can be gained through the knowledge of the psyche. It is about the exact distinction between “knowing” and “exploring” the psyche. Knowing, whether it is of the material environment or of the mental condition, is the matter of experiencing the mental states. As already discovered by the modern analytic philosophy, knowing is always a dyadic relation between the creature and the certain entity of the being, to which the creature relates and is apparently available also to other evolutionary lower creatures than the man. On the other hand, knowing reaches up to the existence of the rational psyche. There is always a triple relationship, in addition the rational hypotheses and theories must be present there.

Knowing the objects, which is studied by the natural sciences, does not mean that we internally got to the known objects. Even Karl Popper did not understand this fact very well in his scientific knowing. He did not understand that this is also true for science, that would like to study the psyche, and this is the depth psychology. We can therefore say that the inner human psyche is knowable through verifiable theories and so it belongs to science as well (see also chapter 3.3 and chapter 3.4). For this, we do not have to remain at the mere knowledge when talking about the psyche, like this is inaccurately believed by John Moreland.

Things could be completely different if science was only natural science, as it is implicitly assumed by John Moreland, when he rightly thinks that we cannot know consciousness only by the mere exploration of the brain. But it is also possible to know the consciousness itself, without taking into account its relation to the brain. It seems that John Moreland, as well as other natural scientists, doe s not understand Jung´s contributions to the scientific knowledge of the human psyche.

In the assessment of the scientific possibilities that relate to the explanation of our human psyche, John Moreland reached basically only to agnosticism. He thinks that science does not solve that “why”, which is hidden behind the formation of the conceptual level of consciousness. The theory of the intelligent designer is therefore only the first step toward the understanding with the conscious creation of the universe, which should follow the anthropic principle. Thanks to natural science, we have not recognized that it is impossible to understand the anthropic principle with the precise tuning of the constants of the Big Bang. The natural science itself is not able to explain why there has been the meaning of the creation of the cosmos and of the conscious people. Although Moreland´s finding itself belongs to the existence of the scientific knowledge, but his knowledge is not the evidence of God that the religious beliefs are interested in.

Search for the value of faith

We can try now to clarify the moral value of faith for the meaning of life. Here, we may use, as a kind of analysis, another book of Lee Strobel with the title “The Case for Faith” (Kauza víra, in Czech 2004). The author, once again conducted, a survey what the well-known representatives of the intellectual culture think of the value of faith. And when we want to find out this problem, it may be useful to use what they Strobel had found out about the opinion on the moral value of atheism, which is now a widespread belief in the developed secular society.

The cultural leaders usually assume that the existence of God cannot be strictly scientifically proved (see chapter 5.3). But if God exists, then the moral guilt of atheism will be much more distinct. The responsibility of atheism for the decline of human spiritual beliefs is enormous because it threatens the human salvation. In the view of the contemporary science, this is not a small value. I myself do not know a greater value. For most people, science pretty great prestige and exactly the atheists pretend as if they were good experts of the science. But in this case, they misuse science to prepare something like a morally poisonous cocktail from their unfamiliar science, mixed with their atheistic false beliefs about the world. I think that some people know about their moral guilt and perhaps they even have qualms of conscience but they prefer not to speak about this publicly.

The reasons for the loss of faith may be different. So once the faithful preacher Ch. Templeton turned into an atheist when he suddenly noticed a big shock when confronted with human suffering. he was influenced by his original incorrect assumption about the cause of human suffering that has been going on throughout history. Charles Templeton have repeatedly reasoned that God could not be the source of horrors, as he also preached. Originally the loving God would protect us with our free will. But Templeton, and also others, think that God has to always direct us if we, the humans do not cause suffering. But the existing loving God and the human free will may negate each other. We, the humans have been destroying the decent human environment throughout the history sot now it is difficult for us to live in it. Are we then responsible for this immoral activity, if we have not been directed by God? And since this has not happened, Templeton says that God does not exist.

I wonder how many theologically educated people, such as Charles Templeton, would be sufficient that would abandon their atheism, when atheism demonstrably opposes the biblical faith as well as contemporary science. Then perhaps have each person should have his or her own spiritual experience of the type that I had experienced myself to get rid of atheism? (see chapter 4). Or they persistently hold their atheism when they had publicly and too clearly engaged in it, and they think that they would be derogated in front of their friends if they now publicly acknowledged their mistake? So they still fight and fight and invent some new arguments for their community and for themselves too. Or do they think they will find a new intuitive inspiration for the proven God? The true intuition comes directly from God, but they had rejected him. So could they go against his own existence? But how can we explain them something so clear that this when they do not believe in God and they do not know science deeply so that they would be then able to understand their mistake (see chapter 3)?

Templeton and other atheistic sceptics may have noticed the immense evil which, according to them, is connected with God or with the fallible human religious institutions they had rejected. But this has not been brought by the atheistic regimes, such as Hitler´s fascism and Stalin´s communism which are even greater evil? For example, the Christian religious person Luis Palau mentions this in his own book “God is Relevant” (New York 1997).

Atheism should not always be morally discredited so clearly as it had been done in various totalitarian regimes, which professed it and still profess it as their ideology. Today, mainly the democratic form of atheism is present, which appears to be more humane, because it professes secular morality, in which the emphasis is on the universal human rights. The more humanistic atheists recommend that we should be concerned about the state of civilization in the advanced society and only about the real problems, which apparently does not include the consequences resulting from the loss of the existence of God. Many of them now think that if we pay attention to such a luxury issue, like the belief in the existence of God, this may be misleading, because people are led away from the urgent problems that the mankind has to face today. They often argue that religion has played out its role. It had millions of years to push through a righteous life on Earth, but the exact opposite has been achieved. Therefore, this is apparently a good time for their new secular morality.

The technically advanced civilization has brought many conveniences to the mankind, but people feel that some things are not right there. Not even the developed political democracy with its positive opinion on human rights has still not had clear regard to the entire human existence, which does include our entire affluent human life. Although today we can objectively prove that God exists with all the consequences that arise for the human life, but we should try to convince about this those people who are immersed in the everyday natural world. They often tell you, as I have mentioned before, that they do not have time for such luxurious reflections such as the existence of God. After all, they already deal with more important issues such as the need to feed their families, to bring up their children and even to have the possibility to work hard. And those who are dishonest and have have distorted their conscience to follow their own egoism, use all their wits to keep the dishonestly obtained earthly prosperity for our generation of offspring.

We may take very seriously also what I mention in my book about the meaning of human life (see chapter 4) the responsibility is at least as true as the facts of our everyday lives that we have to respect to sustain the earthy world. Faced with this fact, we might even conjecture what the responsibility of the academic atheists is like for the infection of the society if they cannot use their statement about the non-existence of God any more. In this relation, atheism is not only untrue, but it is a morally wrong faith. It is dangerous for the mankind because it is related to our eternity.

Search for the truth about Jesus Christ

We can look at Jesus Christ as a human being and see whether the call on his divinity is valid in such a way that is supported by the Christian faith. Lee Strobel dealt systematically and critically with this issue in his book “The case for Christ” (Kauza Kristus, in Czech 2003). And he visited erudite scholars of biblical studies, medicine and philosophy in order to identify the fullest possible historical truth about Jesus Christ that once lived as it was explained in different competent disciplines.

Lee Strobel concluded that the loss of atheism in the existence of Jesus Christ they essentially got only on the basis of historical scientific researches on his personality. He himself did not have any knowledge that would have provided integrated scientific knowledge about the nature of the entire being that would resulted in everything that had been previously mentioned in his new book. If we combine the resources of the knowledge of the personality of Jesus Christ and the meaning of his mission, then they should not contradict each other. The historical view has made more transparent what D. N. Carson calls the mystery which have employed theologians for centuries, that the God-man, Jesus Christ is the incarnate message from the memory of God. Jesus´ mission, in a particular historical situation, was directed to the people who inhabited the earthly world to seek the way to the better understanding of God.

We can ask the question now, whether it is possible to accept the conclusions of moral instructions, that Lee Strobel came to at the very end of his book. Strobel´s instructions refer to the historical period when the God-man, Jesus really acted on Earth. Since then, approximately 2000 years have passed and most of the people today are not able to put themselves into this situation. The Judaic concept of strict God, that prevailed among the Jewish people, is no longer understandable enough for the people living today, and they even do not know most of the historical figures which stand out in the Bible. Those people who are not educated enough in depth psychology can hardly imagine how to understand the vision of St. Paul from Tarsus or the later visions of other saints, such as St. Augustine or St. Ignatius of Loyola. People talk about the cosmos and the meaning of our life in a language that the people are used to in the education at the contemporary secular institutions. They have heard something about the Big Bang or the Darwinian evolutionary concepts of life, and as far as I know, they usually do not even want to hear about the interpretation of the world that we can read about in the Bible.

Therefore I know that the contemporary Christian theologians, in addition to their usual theological education, are not educated in a way to be able to translate the original prophetic messages of Jesus Christ into the socio-cultural context of our time. In particular, they are not able to understand that the concept of Divinity or the concept of God has gone through a long conceptual development since the creation of the first humans on Earth. In the context of science, it is no longer possible to hold an anthropomorphic conception of God as a being of flesh and blood and we cannot prove the entry of such beings somewhere up to heaven. Strobel´s book is a meeting with the evidence Bible experts and historians that relate their understanding of the divinity of Jesus Christ from the time when Jesus lived. And these concepts cannot be considered to be a convincing argument for the contemporary scientifically educated people that would deal with the paradigms of physics, cybernetics and depth psychology. Strobel´s perception of Jesus Christ cannot be translate into the paradigm of science by the use of depth psychology. It was the historical Jesus Christ, who, two thousand years ago, proved, what is the meaning of human life and what is our appropriate way of life.

Lee Strobel, in his instructions from his book, shows how he himself understood the revealed morality of Jesus Christ, and what lessons he learned and took to the today´s times. Nowadays, people live in secular civilizations with political democracy, which is different from the political systems of the ancient and medieval world. People had got rid of a variety of religious ideological bound, that tied them to different religious beliefs and social institutions that used their authority to guaranteed their validity.

But there is also a sceptical objection that none of the scientists knows about the intentions of God. Followers of different religions say that we cannot get to the secret of the divine creation using only our brains. The Christian faith confesses the mystery of the Holy Trinity. I will try to explain what we can use from the Popperian-Jungian truth in this scepticism. Thus we approach the question of why God, as a conscious being, needs the universe where there are also other conscious beings except of God himself.

we can only metaphorically link the spiritual cosmic memory to the material cosmos, as the spiritual God Father of the entire cosmos in the relation to the creation of the physical cosmos as to his physical Son. It is about a spiritual metaphor, which indicates how the conscious memory of God created the material universe to which the spiritual information was gradually transformed. This divine information is a creative act, which is directed to the creation of conscious beings like we are, the humans. The incarnation of God into the earthly information, such as the visible incarnation, is the God-man Jesus Christ. He was born of earthly mother, Mary, and brought the immortality of all divine beings to people. He gave us , the people a socially and culturally intelligible message on our way to the possible posthumous salvation as the return to our true spiritual Father.

The sign of the spiritual memory of God the Father and physical visible matter-energy people in the form of the God-man Jesus Christ exists as permanent information exchange that the Christian faith understands metaphorically as the Holy Spirit. This Christian faith is a spiritual communication and cannot be expressed in the form of physical or cybernetic concepts which we usually use to express the order of various devices that we ourselves create as technology. It is a special kind of spiritual memory that is familiar to people who have experienced a vision from the memory of the collective unconsciousness and, in principle, every person may experience it in certain situations. Psychoanalysis deals with this analysis of metaphorical transformation. And its messages from the unconscious memory are said to be completely incomprehensible for the materialistic natural scientists who have not take anything objective from the psychology of the human unconsciousness.

Religious beliefs in developed democracies have passed into the private areas of each person. Although religion is legally guaranteed, it happened that in the promotion of civilization conveniences, such as our freedoms and various other inalienable rights, they have forgotten the crucial fact that the existence of God is a scientifically provable fact, and as such it should not be subject of human speculation or trading that is regulated primarily by the pursuit of money.

6. Science explores life after death

6.1 In the introduction about some of my friends

Our scientific institutions, represented mainly by the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (Akademie věd ČR), have remained mostly silent when we talk about knowledge; I published this in my last manuscript of the book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje) . Although I sent them many e-mail messages about this book they almost did not react to them. I offered them also some critical talks about the manuscript, but my acquaintances were always busy to accept my sincere offers. It seemed as if they could not even, within their research capabilities, allow to do what would go beyond their orientation. Some of them had previously told me that they did not understand everything, even though it may be provable and it is perhaps true. Over time, they stopped to respond. It seem as if they intuitively hoped that I was going to die soon or that I am was going to stop having these strange ideas at my age.

But after all, I got help that was incredible. After I had written the manuscript “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje) a scientifically educated man, Karel Podéšť called me, whom I had never met before, and he offered to published any of my new books. I still could not have published my book even though I did not want any monetary reward for the manuscript. So I was glad to to offer it to Karol Podéšť and he had to establish a publishing house to be able to publish my manuscript. It seems to be unbelievable that he was influenced by my internet interview with Igor Chaun that he had seen and been interested in it. And he himself arranged the publication of this book and he included only the real costs of its printing and postal distribution in the sales price.

But unbelievable events actually started to happen also in Kroměříž, where my lecture was attended by a large number of listeners; I prepared it for the city museum, where I had been invited by its manager Jiří Stránský. After the lecture, when my book had already been published, one of the listeners came to me and introduced himself as Mg. František Mikeš. He said he has lived in the USA for 20 years where his wife lives too and that he deals with scientifically very similar issues than me. He asked me if I know that no one has published a scientific evidence of God in the USA so far and I was just simply giving a lecture on this topic. He said my book should be translated into English so taht it could be read by people all over the world. He himself spoke English well and was willing to arrange everything. Later I found out that he was a priest too.

And then I had a lecture in DK Ružinov in Bratislava where I remembered the late painter and psychologist, Z. Hajný. The event was organized by Peter Tóth and about 40 researches presented their new knowledge there. My lecture dealt with the content of my newly published book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje) and it was a great success there. After the lecture there was a discussion and one of the participants, Stanislav Hoťka publicly declared there that the lecture helped him do solve the basic issues in his life. He told he is a professional translator into the English language, that he had studied it for 8 years in London and that he wants to translate my book into English for free. He added that he wanted to actually start the translation of my latest published book which my lecture was about.

Since Igor Chaun published the four-hour interview with me on the internet, a lot of things have changed. Although I am an old man, a number of young scientist still come to me to become familiar with my results about the meaning of human life and also they want to help me so I can continue in my work. A the beginning of 2013, the Catholic priest František Hranáč wrote to me that he had read some of my latest books and learned many things he lacked for the clarification of the relationship between science and theology. He met the professor Karel Skalický at the Lateran University after the Velvet Revolution where he was teaching fundamental theology and religious studies. But F. Hranáč taught at the Theological Faculty in České Budějovice only for a short period of time because he fell ill and went to disability pension.

According to František Hranáč, the hierarchic lobby governed the priests there, that is considered to be the main authentic institution that can be interpreted as the truth of God. In Italy, he himself experienced the arrogance of the spiritual power of some bishops soon. Most of them behave like feudal lords, who are far away from our world and cannot read and evangelize God in a new way. He had known it long ago, but he understood it at the Italian hierarchy that they do not understand the world. The world has changed and they are inscatolati. The messages of the gospel did not function. This had been the situation before the new Pope Francis. There had been no new paradigm of how to speak to people, not even in terms of scientific education. That is why he trusts me that I want to deal with this issue from the view of science. He said I had got grace from God and this was a great challenge. And I had already suffered enough in life and I will probably suffer more.

The response of František Hranáč described the past situation in the Church that I had read from an educated Catholic priest in the past. I asked him if I could use his name and to quote him in my books. And František Hranáč told me to quote him because only then can we help the Christ´s Church. He thinks that a new situation has occurred when not only the Church transforms the world but when the faith as well as the Church are being changed in term of scientific knowledge.

After the inauguration of the new Pope Francis (*1936), finally, there was a change in the traditional Catholic Church, about which F. Hranáč had written to me. It seems that the Pope is focused on the underprivileged people and he wants to know the consequences of the consumer culture. He claims the permanent existence of a permanent economic crisis in the European Union and elsewhere. He thinks that the idols in Europe have lost their life. There is no pressure for the celebration of God, but rather because we have forgotten God. He asks the EU to return to its roots and again to dignity, and not to the exploitation of people. The signs of the Pope Francis are modesty and social emphasis.

One of the controversial questions for the Pope is the maintaining of celibacy, but it is rather a question of discipline, and not a matter of faith, and it may change over time. In my opinion, the Pope Francis wants the return to the traditional Christian roots in grace. And I personally do not forget that the Christians have not only their historical origin, but I would like to recommend them the objective truth, which increases with science towards the future and it is not enough to keep only the past. I think this truth also applies to the Pope Francis and I know that he cannot just intuitively explain the unknown from the objective truth, if he is not a scientist at the same time.

6.2 The famous sceptic Bertrand Russell

After many years, I would like to go back in this chapter to the small book Bertrand Russell, book “Why I am Not a Christian” (Proč nejsem křesťanem) whose translation was published in 2005 in Bratislava. This collection of his lectures had fundamentally influenced my spiritual life, because I became a sceptic and atheist mainly thanks to it. At that times I thought that natural science was the undoubtedly true evaluation of the entire science. I became an atheist and sceptic critic and if nothing had been changed (see chapter 4) I would have probably become also the member of the civic association Sisyphus (Sisyfos).

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was raised as an agnostic and later he became a famous mathematician and logician. He also knew well the critical philosophy and natural science. Together with the logician Alfred Whitehead, they developed mathematical logic, in the book “The Principles of Mathematics” (1903). He also wrote a number of analytical books on philosophy and in 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature for his important works, in which he fought for humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought. In 1955, together with Einstein, he published the manifesto against nuclear weapon reductions, and he was also one of the main organizers the Pugwash Peace Conference. Until his death (97 years), he was one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century and he was a free-thinker and critic of religion, and especially of the Christian religion.

When criticizing Christianity, Russell created his own arguments against the existence of God, immortal soul and the divinity of Jesus Christ. In his logical analysis, he claimed that the traditional proofs of God are invalid, bud he succeeded in this. We can notice that his first analysis against the evidence of the existence of God resulted from the “root causes” If we take into account the general theory of relativity, then we should respect the verifiable fact that we can ask about the creation or disappearance in time only when we talk about the matter-energy world, where space-time was created when the world was formed. According to Russel, the existence of the world did not arise from the point of view of the natural science, loosing the meaning of the Big Bang. But, of course, people have a speculative imagination, so they can ask the same questions today like in the days when people still rightly assumed the infinity of the material world. But such questions about the origin of the world are no longer scientific.

B. Russell refers to J. S. Mill, who, already at a young age, understood that the question about the Creator does not make sense, as explained by J. S. Mill. We cannot ask about the existence of God if there is no space-time, if God created the space or it was created. God could have not existed, because no origination or creation, which we know from the world of space-time, cannot be applied to God. God is not the space-time and therefore no time changes occured in him. But I myself emphasize that God is eternal and timeless and I proved (see chapter 3 and chapter 4) that God had created the material world based on information from his spiritual memory. In this, the entire process is fundamentally finite and changeable, and all the things of this world are created and they also disappear. So Russell would like, by the help of natural science, to come to the invalidity of the evidence of God because of the so-called root cause. But all this does not mean that God does not exist.

We can notice too how B. Russell understands another traditional proof of God, which is derived from natural laws. According to him, it is the problem of human convention, as it had occurred in post-modernism. His followers usually did not understand how the Popperian method of the truth is determined. It was the incomplete scientific truth, to which we have come, he only understands it as a mere future mistake for which we cannot find an agreement or to reveal it. Russell does not like that the religious people do not respect the static character of the laws of nature, which had already been discovered in the micro-world by quantum physics, and that they cannot get by without the necessary regularity of the lawmaker. In the comments we use the natural laws, that we do not create ourselves, with other laws, upon which we argue and which are prescribed to us by the human lawmakers. And from this all it is evident for Russell that the random nature does not need lawmakers.

But this conclusion is not evident, as it appears to the natural-scientific atheists. This demonstrability has complicated their natural-scientific explanation of the Big Bang. We know that if, after the Big Bang, everything had survived without God only from random trials and errors, this natural evolution would have required an incredibly long time, much more than those approximately 13.7 billion years, so that life with thinking beings could have been created in he universe without God. This could have not happened in an infinite period of time. This fact is one of the main reasons why atheism is slowly leaving and natural scientists tend to explain the origin and evolution of the cosmos using the acting of the intelligent designer (see chapter 5.7 and chapter 5.8).

Also Russell´s another critical thought about the laws of nature is quite interesting, when God as a lawmaker would not create “the better world”. It seems that, having so much evil today, God could have not created “the better world” during the act of creation. And according to B. Russell these people should first find the best the world themselves, and only then God could created it better.

Russell then studies the idea of the creation of a better world in detail also in his next interpretation of the evidence for the existence of God. It is a hypothesis that God would have to know people better in advance, if he wanted to create the best world in which we live now. But in what terms could this real better world be possible? Would our free will exist in the best world? B. Russell thinks that God had to first create a world for the existence of people with their free will. But God had little interest in the issue if people themselves would want to live in his best world and perhaps such life would remain there for us, in which we we have got today.

Another Russell´s reflection on the existence of God is about the moral evidence of God. If Russell comes of the assumption that God wanted to create the best of all possible worlds for the man, he asks what causes that the world, in which we live, does not conforms this. Who is to blame, if it was not God as the most benevolent creature? And the devil is then born in the sense of the personified evil in the world. Of course, there is again another pseudo problem who created the devil God could not do it. A religious person becomes involved in speculative, scientifically unsolvable issues, which is then a beneficial debate for a sound atheist. Russell wants to prove that he does not need such reflections, because his conception of the world is based only on rational science.

If Bertrand Russell had known depth psychology, without which we cannot understand the categorial human consciousness and unconsciousness, he would have focused on the purpose of the formation of human free will and conscience. And he could then have focused on who and why spoils the originally good world that evolutionarily aims to create beings with free will, such as the human being. And then the human decision results in the fact that there has been a negative phenomena in our world, which Russell mentions, but he cannot attribute this to God, even with his greatest effort.

Justice is supposed to be a problem that is historically based on cultural evolution so it was not created naturally. We cannot talk about micro processes if they are fair or unfair. During the sociocultural evolution the images of good, evil and justice have changed differently. Usually, they were not solved through democratic votes of people who had somehow come to the agreement what to consider to be good or evil. Historically, these ideas were solved usually through violence. Basically, the same is true today, but the form of violence may not be as obvious as before. And they have been covered by financial machinations. Good and evil do not have their objective validity, which could be proved from the concept of nature, and in this sense moral categories are simply a matter of political ideology and power machinations.

The problem of the relation of good, evil and justice will not be solved by natural science and even Bertrand Russell who would like to achieve this. It remains a mystery to me why such an extremely educated man like Bertrand Russell, who lived, most of his life, in parallel with Carl Gustav Jung, did not mention him, because the Jungian depth psychology is the science, which paves the way to Russell´s moral problems. Is it possible that he had not read about this scientific discipline? If he knew depth psychology as a testable finding about collective unconsciousness and about the internally innate archetypes of human psyche, he would not have to deal only with human faith in God in terms of external empirical experience. Such an eminent natural scientist and logician as Russell would probably believe that God exists and that he had to exist before the creation of the universe.

In his time, Bertrand Russell claimed that the existence of God is not the result of traditional philosophical and theological arguments, as well as that it is not derived only from the arguments of natural science. He says that Christians must believe in God just dogmatically, without any valid evidence. In this book, I am trying to show that this conclusion does not apply when the objective existence of conscious God can be already proved in contemporary science (see mainly chapter 3 and chapter 4).

In his other reasoning why he is not a Christian, B. Russell turns to the second pillar of Christianity, which is the faith in Jesus Christ We can notice the way he tries to question him again. In terms of philosophy or biblical studies it is certainly possible to argue about the wisdom of some sayings of Jesus Christ, as they are captured by various evangelists in the context with historical situations in which they had been recorded. We do not have any book that Jesus Christ would have written himself. Therefore we have to rely on later theological interpretations that could have been influenced by many other interests (see chapter 5.8). But despite this, for me, the various modified moral guidelines of Jesus Christ seem to be perhaps the wisest thing that I have ever read, in contrast to the opinion of B. Russell. The morality of Jesus comes from God as a conscious being. But then God is not the scientific impersonal order of the cosmos; he is a sensitive being who is able to forgive in love that Jesus had put so much emphasis on. I am still convinced that the moral ideas of Jesus are true for the current complex human situation on Earth in which we have got through the application of our free will.

I was present at many discussions of experts from both natural and social sciences, where they speculated about the possibility of human survival on our planet. The proposals of the unilaterally educated professionals routinely foundered due to the egoism of the ruling political and economic elites, which the application of social conditions depends on. The politicians are primarily the holder of their own ideologies and they always prefer their own selfish interests over the interests of the survival of the entire mankind. I do not know what other objective catastrophic event should have come that these people were disturbed from their habitual consumption of the earthly delights and understand that our boat “starts sinking”.

Jesus Christ brought precise moral instructions on how to survive. But they have one realization difficulty. They are formulated in an incomprehensible language for those people who understand mainly the speech of money. In all social classes there are many of them. Moreover, most people are influenced by scientific scepticism and atheism. And they till do not understand that the existence of God and of the posthumous life have to be taken seriously. The metaphoric biblical stories, that were used by prophets and evangelists to, have always been marked by the socio-cultural historical period in which they lived. Therefore, it is an exaggeration when we so strictly apply the contemporary scientific criteria to some of their sayings, as the contemporary atheists and Russell do. They have not taken into account that their claims would not stand the confrontation with the integrated scientific knowledge. And we can notice how Bertrand Russell ignores and how rigorously he assesses, in his next text, the morality of Jesus Christ that has been taken over by Christianity too.

The readers might also be surprised why I devote so much attention exactly to Russell. This is not just because I was extremely influenced by him when I was young, but it is because he was universally educated when I compared him to the contemporary sceptics and atheists. B. Russell was also a man who devoted himself, with a deep commitment, to the self-destruction, and was also imprisoned many times for his protests against nuclear weapons. Despite this, I think that Russell remained in his naive idea how true evil gets into our world. They were not only metaphors when prophets performed in one or another period. It was mainly the result of activities of those people who thrive on the evil. These people promote evil in our world quite consciously and with the help their free will too.

I do not in any way interfere in the religious beliefs of demands, the various church institutions apply. I just want to note that people are variously fallible and they are indebted to the period in which they live, beyond a certain level of knowledge of the truth and the forms in which faith is expressed. In the New Testament we can also find statements that these restrictions on explicitly concerns the man, Jesus Christ, who speaks about his human form at that time. Why should we, with some socio-cultural superiority, blame Jesus Christ today with lack wisdom or of certain personality atrocities, like Bertrand Russell does?

It is worth noting how is C. G. Jung much more informed that B. Russell in his assessment of the dogmatic and largely intuitive religious experience of the past, when the explanation of the understanding of messages is better than from the human unconscious (see my book “The Twilight of Atheism”(Soumrak ateizmu)). If we compare the quite naive Russell´s reflections on the share of Jesus Christ and Christianity in the evil and total moral destruction of today´s society with this concept, perhaps we understand also the importance of this topic from the deep psychological knowledge. Where B. Russell does not understand the Jungian findings he simply does not take them into account in his statements.

We forgive Bertrand Russell from 1927 his enthusiasm for science, which he used at the end of his short book “Why I am Not a Christian” (Proč nejsem křesťanem). Many years have passed by since then when it become clear how his rationality paradoxically has not been applied in the life of society, that he clearly connected only with the natural science of his time. In my books I try to defend the idea that no partial science should be regarded as the representation of the entire science. The importance of the scientific truth, in the sense of human wisdom, can take effect only in the integrated view of the entire science. But it has still not been reached because the integrated science paradigm has not been applied in the partial scientific disciplines and in society.

Today we are only the participants of the worldwide absurd story in which the partial sciences only hope for our good world, that Bertrand Russell talks about. His belief that the main culprit of this state of the religion, and especially Christianity, has proved to be totally misguided. It is rather about the atheistic faith which has led our world to to the morass of consumerism before which is outclassed by all orgies, which we know from the time of the most powerful theocracy. In the time of the scientifically proven existence of God, the paradox is the view of the dogmatic and one-sided educated atheists. Which of them will be able, without God, to explain the practical moral consequences so that it resulted in some sense of human life and death?

The later views of the sceptic Bertrand Russell on the issue of religion and morality, one of which was named the rationalist religion in 1947, was published also in the new edition of the brochure “Why I am Not a Christian” (Proč nejsem křesťanem). Here we can see that his criticism was not as sharp as before. Until his death in 1970, he remained sceptical, but his relationship to religion relieved somewhat. Perhaps he realized how perversely the various atheist political regimes had behaved. But also some rationalist scientists, with whom he had been in close contact all his life, continued to support the immoral social goals. Religion or Christianity itself cannot be seen as the major cause of evil in the world today. Russell´s misunderstanding of the Popperian way to the truth probably caused that he remained a greater sceptic than it is apparent from the natural scientific knowledge. In his scepticism, he got to agnosticism, when he said that no one has enough knowledge to be able to decide whether the universe has a purpose.

It is worth noting that B. Russell also mentioned a certain scientific uncertainty when he said that there was an evidence in very small indications that are brought by the relevant possibility of the posthumous life in psychological researches. But he immediately questioned this idea. It shows all his distrust in the Jungian way to the truth, which I had mentioned earlier. We should not be surprised by it because C. G. Jung was often not accepted even by the contemporary professional psychologists and psychiatrists.

6.3 The versatile scientist Samuel Huntington

Samuel P. Huntington is a well-known sociologist and political scientist who has always been interested mainly in the assessment of social realities. Besides this, he tried to understand the problem of how the various human communities return to the concept of God. Using different religions, he tried to explain why the entire human civilization returns today to God.

In 1997 Samuel P. Huntington (1927-2008) published his famous book “The Clash of Civilizations” (Střet civilizcí, in Czech 2001), with the subtitle “the battle of cultures and changes of the world order” which affected both the political and sociological thinking of entire world public. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was was the consultant of the President J. Carter, is certainly a very competent political science expert to be able to declare that Huntington´s book is very important for the contemporary civilization.

Samuel Huntington did not rely on the idea that the main determinants of the today´s world are the political or economic differences among the nations, as it was thought quite commonly in the discussions with various experts who are looking for the reason of the contemporary global crisis. They think that the crisis appears only as an economic matter. If we can recover the flows of the money which had existed between the different social institutions in times of economic prosperity, then everything will be all right again. The increasing consumerism and prosperity will be restored and people will be satisfied. But we should take into account that the contemporary crisis has been repeated periodically for a longer period of time, and its intensity in our growing development increases rather than decreases. S. Huntington focuses our attention on human culture. The main question, that people have to face, is the question of who we, the humans are. Therefore, he wants to know what our civilization is.

There are different civilizations and we, the members of the Western society are interested in the significant features of the society in which we live. S. Huntington states that we link to the ancient heritage, to Catholicism and Protestantism, and the whole development of various European languages. In Western society, the spiritual and secular cultures have been separated too. The rule of law has come into force and also the social pluralism has grown in social groups. In developed democracies representative bodies have been created and the human rights and freedoms have been flourishing. So we can see the secularization of the entire life in the western intellectual society.

People, who do not belong to the intellectual elites of developed countries , do not live only with reason. They need, as demonstrated by C. G. Jung, to know also the questions of human origins, which have been answered by different religions so far. Most of the mankind indicates their religions, to which they should join during their lifetime and it is said that because their interpretation is sufficient for ordinary people. Huntington correctly recognized that the change in the world religion is a reaction to the secularization of life, which has brought a new civilization and its development is based on the atheistic scientific knowledge.

The result of the implementation of the atheistic civilization is the new development of consumerism, which was the main objective of welfare. The consumerist tendencies of the developed countries, after the major wars, disappointed also the ordinary people. Religious people are looking for the turn to the real God, as people have known him in their real religions, and there is a certain renewal of the religious faith as such. But the question remains whether the traditional religions will be able to coordinate the concept of God with the new and verifiable findings reached by the scientific knowledge. We can see that Huntington in his book got to beyond ordinary future fate and to the end of the developed civilization.

When S. Huntington talks about the end of history, which occurred in all civilizations in the past, he understands this end as it is understood in political science or sociology, it means to a certain period of human civilization, which were implemented in the social and cultural life of people on Earth. The scientific studies go beyond the social and cultural limits and have to face new challenges. The creation and extinction of human civilizations inevitably ends, as well as our Earth that had been formed in time and also ceases to exist in a very long period of time. And even today, with the contemporary scientific view, there has been a new meaning of human life which we usually forget or do not take into account in the short-term view of sociology, political science or economics. Samuel Huntington respects them when he emphasizes exactly the importance of religion and morality.

Caroll Quigley and most of the contemporary economists, who consider themselves to be experts in solving the current global crisis, write that the economic importance for civilizations only applies to the measurement of investments and their evaluation. Samuel Huntington therefore wants to find out whether there is a large social defect, when the proprietary and control groups might misuse their position for the transformation of the economic surplus in their parasitic consumption to make it lead to the development of effective methods of production. If our modern society or civilization came to the conviction that history had thus reached the highest form of organization, it would be the sign that we are on the edge of bankruptcy.

It is interesting that S. Huntington sees that there are also other important issues than just the problems of economics and demography. It is the moral decline, such as the increase of crime, bankruptcies of families, the decline of the social capital and the lower intellectual activities. And in Europe, one of the symptoms of the civilizing decay is also the weakening of the influence of Christianity and the increase of the religious indifference. And then he evaluates the Western civilization for its survival and for its next experiencing of the decay. Throughout his book, he defends the idea that the Western civilization is as threatened today as other culturally incurred civilization were threatened in the past. It is mainly about the deterioration of human values, such as the prohibition of murder, deceit, torture, oppression and tyranny. He wants to protect the minimal moral rules and achieve the transformation of all other world cultures through the compliance with the requirement of “the global multiculturalism”. It will be about the search for common minimum moral, which would become common to all the existing world civilizations, and the non-binding universalism to all cultures would be rejected.

According to Samuel Huntington, for the future civilizations it will be necessary to me mixed onto a higher level, such as morality, religion, knowledge, arts, literature, philosophy, science and technology. It is a clash between civilization and barbarism. And it will the clash between what we might call a higher socio-cultural development of the mankind and the outdated levels. In the correct the socio-cultural evolution it is not possible to go back into history, because our entire future experience is in the memory of the mankind, which emergent and unrepeatable.

S. Huntington turned the attention of politicians to a new problem posed by the social crisis of civilization after the period of cold wars. Not long ago, it seemed that this period ended, and that there is a new period after the two world wars, when, after a totalitarian Hitlerism and Stalinism, an entirely new ideological tool emerges to overcome the postwar difficulties. Then after the period of the cold wars, it seemed that there is a new space open for the societies for their relatively calm development. But it has turned out that this is not valid and the crises are still there. And it was also S. Huntington, who revealed that the social crises also have other deeper sources than are studied in the social sciences such as political science, economics or sociology.

We have already indicated that Huntington was somewhat closer to the concepts of depth psychology, which had proved the existence of our innate archetypes of the unconsciousness, which is primarily important in the search for the meaning in our lives. But the search for the existence of God and the existence of people as cosmic beings must not be understood by the atheistically oriented academic science. S. Huntigton himself did not take into account the situation that the scientific knowledge could lead to the cognition that the existence of God is provable and that it is not just a reflection of a particular religious faith.

6.4 Deepak Chopra about knowing God

Deepak Chopra (*1946) is a renowned researcher of spirituality, who has written dozens of books which deal with the ways of recognizing the existence of God. I have already mentioned him in the books The Twilight of Atheism”(Soumrak ateizmu) “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost) because he newly tries to find the way to God. On his way he uses not only mysticism, that as a native Indian he knows well, but he also uses quantum physics and neuroscience and deals with the relationship between brain and mind. His book “How To Know God” (Jak poznat Boha) (in Czech 2002), with the subtitle “The Soul´s Journey into the Mystery of Mysteries” (Cesta poznání největšího ze všech mysterií duše) belongs to the best books I have read on this topic. Chopra is the founder of the centre “The Chopra Center for Well Beeing” in California and is engaged in medicine at a high level.

Chopra notes that we are still trying to understand God using our faith, but now we should try to understand directly the knowledge of God. He shows what we know about God and how important the verification of God would be for us. And based on his research, which follow science, D. Chopra says that we can really get to know God, without believing in him as it was necessary in the past. To know him, it is important that God manifests himself to the material world. If it was not like this, he would be unavailable for our outer knowledge. but Deepak Chopra does not mention that C. G. Jung had gone even further, to find a way to the understanding of the religious and mystical beliefs. Jung did not seek God only in terms of external messages but he wanted to know God also using our various inner visions, revelations and enlightenment.

Deepak Chopra says that we usually humanizes God in our faiths and that we want to get a more accurate picture of how God “looks like”. We wonder whether God has some resemblance to the man and if God has a genuine interest in us. But he came to the conclusion that the personalization of God is not correct. God is not a “person”, which is often a viewpoint of various mysticisms, which have come only to the energy concept of God. D. Chopra has not asked the question whether the universe could have been created if God had not been a conscious spiritual self-reflexive memory. If it had been otherwise, then no people, who resemble God due to their self-reflection, would have not been created in the cosmos approximately 14 billion years after the Big Bang. According to Chopra, the similarity of our inner spiritual information is that thing that makes God and the man a conscious being. The concept of God that would resemble us, needs his self-reflection and the energy concept of God is not sufficient for this.

If we say almost the same as Chopra that science and religion do not contradict each other,it will be necessary to search what the universe means in terms of contemporary science and to compare everything with the images of the cosmos, that we encounter in the religious and mystical beliefs. And there may be big differences when we will interpret a lot of phenomena by using metaphors that have been created in the contemporary exploration of reality, which was reached by science. Neither the holy prophets from different faiths do not guarantee the objective truth of the statements that they made in good faith at their time. People have not reached the socio-cultural sophistication so that they are well up in the world without the knowledge of science, in the world they live in, and so that they can move forward in the knowledge of the cosmos (see chapter 5.7).

According to D. Chopra, the level of spirituality of our way to God should not only depend on the health of our bodies and brains or on the discussions with the saints of different faiths. He also uses quantum theory and neuroscience there. God sends messages into the physical world and attracts our attention through another consciousness, which enables us to recognize and use the intuitive parts of our brain. And his argument is apparently correct and conforms scientific knowledge. Despite this, D. Chopra has come only to an agnostic attitude in the scientific knowledge of God, where his rational mind should come to the knowledge of God as to his objective mind. We can try to explain why Deepak Chopra has come to this erroneous statement and how this opinion is related to his scientific education.

Chopra´s idea that everyone is entitled to his or her own version of God is perfectly acceptable, especially when we take into account the socio-cultural limitations of the understanding of objective reality. Although human beliefs are consistent with the increasing notion of God, but they are not fully verifiable about God. God is not fully intuitively accessible. New problems will occur and we will realize that some intuition can contradict each other. According to Chopra, even those that conform each other, for example that God is infinite, lead the intuitions to impassable difficulties. Where should we look for God, if he should be everywhere, but nowhere at the same time? How should we understand the famous statement from Genesis, according to which God had created the man to his image, if God does not have any body, unlike the man? Rather, it is possible to believe that the man has a tendency to give God his human form.

I have already showed that we also have our self-reflexive awareness of God and that we have our conscious “me”, even though the God´s “me” is incomparably better than our human consciousness. In the evolution of the knowledge of God, people can get more and more near God, without fully reaching God. Chopra wittily says that the atheists deduced God as a simple conclusion from the difficult knowledge. They declared all conceptions of God as false and recognized only their own views about the universe to be correct. If , according to atheism, there is no God, then we accept the rational structure instead of God, so actually we worship ourselves.

Chopra himself distinguishes, in the knowledge of God, the different stages “chakras”; there are seven of them and only when we reach to the fifth stage, we can understand that God does not have any requests, opinions and preferences. But if God does not prefer anything, everything is permitted to us, the humans. And in the highest, seventh stage we will find our about the knowledge that God is empty and does not have any “me”. Chopra says that even God is “completely empty” he still has some positive quality, which he calls pure potentiality. If “emptiness” still exists, then this means that it is enough to create the universe from it. But Chopra should explain how the universe could be created if there is nothing but emptiness in God. How could emptiness contain pure potentiality of the entire life if D. Chopra does not explain any such potential of him?

We will see that D. Chopra should use the quantum theory and modern physics, that really shuffled our everyday needs, so a lot of people think that literally everything is possible. Chopra, who is influenced by physical findings, interprets consciousness as a field that controls the energy, and it this field may be understood also as memory which precedes the matter and controls it. But this is not his valuable observation because the conscious memory God creates everything that is material and it forms the matter-energy evolution for the entire objective order. And because Chopra wants to understand also the experience of the expanded consciousness, that we sometimes experience in our deep visions, he thinks that he can reach up to God. And we may think that this is because D. Chopra wants to the way to reincarnation and to our posthumous existence of life.

Quantum physics may allow Deepak Chopra to interpret all potentialities, which give us a deeper insight into the evolutionary potential than only our internally lived personal experience. And according to him, this new view of him should help us to understand the meaning of life that we are living right now. With the help of quantum hysics, Chopra would like to get to depth psychology, if we, with our physical bodies, are limited today for the existence of our consciousness. And the human unconsciousness would allow us to reach the cosmic memory of God.

Deepak Chopra, like other followers of mysticism, did not get to the cybernetic and deep psychological consciousness of the space and therefore he has considerable difficulties to understand the problem of where and how God exists. But despite this, he notes that nowadays we do not have to seek the way to God through internal meditation and prayer. God as a timeless place does not have any address. God, as the memory of space, is everywhere, and the entire existence emerges from the conscious mind of God . The conscious memory doe snot contain the entire history of the cosmos, but it also extends to the future which has not taken lace yet. God thus includes the solid effect on the state of the space systems. And because D. Chopra had been influenced by certain scientific disciplines as well as by the Eastern mysticism, it will be useful to go back in detail to his understanding of the meaning of the man in space.

Thanks to the interpretation of quantum theory, Chopra came to a philosophical conclusion that our individual souls can exist in a relatively independent memory, which all our past decisions would be kept, whether they were morally good or bad. But where would that memory exist, that has ever taken place in the cosmos, when God had been completely emptied and there would be nothing in him than the pure existence, which is empty without any activities? His saying that the events unfold themselves from “the cobweb of time” without the conscious “me” that would dominate them, can only hardly satisfy us. It seems as if our consciousness registered in the “cobwebs”, where the objective course of time blends with our subjectively perceived stories into one indistinguishable whole.

But nothing like this results from quantum theory. Although there is nothing like the absolutely accurate separability of the knowing subject from the known object, it is necessary to respect the duality between the objective being and the knowing “me”. The similar blending of our activities with the reality would have great consequences for our understanding of the responsibility for these activities. Who would then be responsible when Deepak Chopra freed even God of his creative activity?

According to D. Chopra, our soul is somehow fitted with the ability to look into that “cobweb of time” and thus it is a link between time and timelessness. The sold, understood in this way, is a gate to God for us. But is our soul indeed the link between us and God, when it is necessary to explain how our souls look into God´s timelessness? Chopra´s answer is only mystical. he does not want to study everything, he starts to claim that the “unknown” apparently has a genuine concern for the fate of our soul. For Chopra, the “unknown” becomes God and, according to him, the “unknown” is alive somehow.

Today we know very well how the valid knowledge about the Chopra´s “unknown” is gained. Quantum theory and neuroscience, that D. Chopra uses, are not sufficient to give a good answer to many of his problems. And it is also valid that no mystics, even he would have been enlightened by the grace of God at some time, would have come to the full knowledge of the evidence of the existence of God. The mystic will be limited by the knowledge of all historical periods, even if we excluded them for even a long period of time. Because the complex science is missing there.

From time to time I remember how I once studied the book of Deepak Chopra. It was when I injured my toe a few months ago, which then always hurt me and the whole area around the ankle was badly swollen. I read about a similar event in his book “How To Know God” (Jak poznat Boha) when one of Chopra´s friends had come to help him. He invited a Yogi to heal him. And when I saw clearly what the Yogi did with his chakras and how his pain had disappeared, I told myself that I needed a similar prayer to tell to God. When I did it myself, I was waiting with great excitement for something to happen. And then I left the book and I stepped on my foot and the pain disappeared immediately, and after a few days my swollen ankles disappeared too. So I have had this sweet memory of Deepak Chopra.

6.5 Matthew Fox about cosmic Christ

The author of the book “The Coming of the Cosmic Christ” (Příchod kosmického Krista) (in Czech 2004) is a well-known American theologian, Matthew Fox (*1940), who, as a university lecturer and a priest, devotes himself to the spirituality of the creation. His search for spirituality was quite varied. He began with the study theology as a Dominican. In 1967 he became a priest, but after his conflict with the Roman Congregation for his faith in cosmic Christ he was forced to leave the Dominican Order and give up the activity in the Catholic Church. He found a new activity as a spiritual man in the American Protestant Church and he still provides spiritual service for the organized Christianity. In Oakland, he establish the experimental University Of Creation Spirituality whose aim is to spread spirituality in education and work. Now he gives lectures all over the world and is the author of more than twenty books.

He established a connection with the biologist Rupert Sheldrake, with whom he has published two books. Thus he came into contact with the exploration of natural science and familiarized himself with biology, palaeontology, modern physics and depth psychology. He himself had a few entries into unconsciousness. He mentions them in his book “The Coming of the Cosmic Christ” (Příchod kosmického Krista) that I would like to deal with too. For me, Fox´s entries into unconsciousness are understandable because I myself had entries into spiritual areas. Though his research is the subject of the scientific depth psychology and Fox is quite familiar with this science, I do not see, like him, the need to awaken the profound mystical reflections that should become the goal for our planet. When it comes to his Cosmic Christ, I do not consider it to be a mystical concept. It is a concept that could be studied with the help of depth psychology, cosmology and cybernetics. Therefore his tendencies should not lead to mysticism but rather to the partial scientific memory paradigm.

M. Fox would like to get rid of the Enlightenment and the static view of the universe. If scientists did not get rid of the medieval method of understanding the process, the contemporary modern science would hardly be formed. Their representatives , like Einstein or Heisenberg, were the ordinary scientists, and they would be totally acceptable for Fox.

So the shift to a new paradigm took place in the science itself, including the essential contribution of the Jungian depth psychology. I am convinced that the theologians would not be still seeking the Cosmic Christ without modern science, because they would not have the necessary knowledge of the objective space-time dimensions of the universe that go beyond the biblical and mystical ideas. The would not have come even to the Big Bang that the modern science came with. If it is about the scientific proof of the existence of God, which is, in terms of science, possible, then the spiritual conscious memory brings the majority of those things that M. Fox wants to defend from the religious mysticism.

Matthew Fox in his book about the concept of Cosmic Christ developed perhaps the best of his reflections where he combines mysticism and science. M.Fox knows the areas of culture very well. Until the modern science was formed, the religious ideas about the cosmos and human life had been tremendously important. The gave the man a kind of guidance about the outside and inner world, where we seek the explanation of the meaning of life. For the relatively small universe that the people imagined in their religions for a very long time, the human citizenship on Earth was sufficient enough. This seemed endless for them for a long time. Modern science has moved this small human citizenship to the extremely large cosmos, that Matthew Fox devotedly mentions. The experience cosmology puts entirely new demands on the mystical beliefs and mainly to Christianity that Fox is interested as a theologian. And, of course, this affects some of their traditional dogmas.

M. Fox thinks it is necessary to modify mainly the earthly dimension of the story of Jesus Christ, as he is recounted in the Bible and include him in the concepts of the cosmos to which science has led us. He notes that for strangers it is almost unbelievable to see themselves as the children of God in this enormous cosmos. The theologian Fox noticed that cosmic Christ could actually be an innate archetype and C. G. Jung devotedly writes about him in his books. He sees the original Christian interpretations of Jesus Christ and concludes that it is possible to observe clear signs of his cosmic dimension. Therefore Fox says that it is his Christian duty to continue this tradition and include it in the people´s thinking and theology today. It will be interesting to take a closer notice of Fox´s views on the relationship between science and religious mysticism, as he understands it in his book.

M. Fox deeply thinks over the philosophical problem of wisdom as about the depreciation of knowledge and he wonders why it has disappeared from the educational institutions. According to him, the Cartesian-Newtonian science played a negative role there, which did not advance in the development of the religious mysticism, but only pushed it out from the scientific reflections. I cannot accept his tough opinion on the formed natural sciences. It is true that the post-Newtonian paradigm also played a negative atheistic role in relation to mystic spirituality. But, at the same time, it enabled the emergence of such an inter-subjectively testable science that has led us to the rejection of the atheistic paradigm during its development. Without the initial focus of the natural science only to certain parts of the universe, no deeper wisdom would have been formed in mysticism itself. And the profound wisdom came with the help of the Newtonian science and not only from the vision of the prophets. Currently, the original historical mystique does not rise again, but it is the deeper scientific wisdom that leads to the certainty about the existence of God.

It is interesting that Fox did not understand the benefits of philosophising scientists, such as Descartes or Newton, who believed in God all their life, and I would like to emphasize the contribution of Einstein, who, similarly to them, had his own particular concept of God. The notion of God, of all the important concepts, partly has changed its content historically. The conceptual changes of the spirituality of God would have not occurred without the explanation of the Big Bang. Matthew Fox was not able to incorporate the new memory information into his reflection, that was brought by the cybernetics. And without information we cannot explain that this is the information of God that had created the material and energy activities that had led to the Big Bang.

But without the information we could not understand the term “technology” in our real terms, as the technique is nothing more than what people transferred as information to the matter-energy artefacts. Without technologies and techniques people would remain in the overall general philosophical and theological reflections on our activities that we had had available in the pre-scientific development. The emergence of the contemporary science is understood as objective inter-human knowledge. Mature people projected their historically different contributions of information into their outer world, and therefore we still live in the world, that we, the humans deserve in a particular period, and what knowledge we prepared for our lives and our free will. M. Fox´s attitude is not historical, because the paradigm of the evidence of God has not been created through mystique and this would not be suitable for depth psychology (see chapter 3).

Also the effort to explore new goals in real existence that overreaches us in all directions, will be always there before us. And on the other hand, it is also true that in today’s civilized advanced society we cannot believe everything what we had ever believed about the timely distant social and cultural past. This is much longer than people usually imagine it when they are reliant only on the existing culture. Scientific knowledge, which has the relative beginning in the Big Bang, allows us to have a great insight into the spatial and time depths of the existence. But it is not possible to find the deepest possibility of the present intense experiences of contemporary cultures, even if all the religions and mystiques would guarantee it.

6.6 The post-mortal experience of Eben Alexander

M. Soudková from the USA sent me the latest book of Eben Alexander, “Proof of Heaven” from 2013. This book was also published in Czech with the title “Jaký je život po živote” (in Czech 2013) according to Alexander´s book from 2012. The newer English version is a little bit more comprehensive.

The American neurosurgeon Eben Alexander (*1953) fell ill in the late 2003, he suffered from bacterial meningitis and stayed in coma for a week. His brain and body completely shut down, unconsciously and materially. Only today Alexander understands that, in terms of neurology, his consciousness was not completely bound to hid brain and that his consciousness existed even after his physical death. But the author had not believed in such things because he had been an atheist. Even today, the general scientific medicine is not able to understand that our bodies may be in complete coma, but our intellectual knowledge is still fully alive. Only under the influence of the bacteria E. coli, E. Alexander was feed of his brain and travelled in such cosmic dimensions he had never dreamed before. He found out that physical death is not the end of our consciousness. After a week, when he returned to Earth, he discovered that what he had experienced. A lot of researchers are still against the existence of the near-death experiences (NDE), including those physicians who study the brain.

During the NDE, Alexander “found himself in heaven”. Transparent beings were floating high above the clouds. Their mighty and powerful singing spread from above, this was the expression of their joy. There was no separation among them. He saw a young woman there and he remembers her in detail, he saw millions of butterflies round her. She was looking at him as to his actual life. This was their friendship. They spoke without words and he understood everything. It was a relief for him. It seemed to him like the existence of the past world and God himself. The universe is indivisible and interrelated. It it something like love. Death and the reflections about death belogn to the oldest ones in religion. What is the end or the beginning of death? Does the earthly death remain when our vital functions have failed?

When Eben Alexander physically returned to Earth, he underwent the examinations of reputable neurologists from major hospitals to see the condition of his brain. Many people often terminate their life that to find the unknown death. Others do not want to kill themselves because they want only to show that they are here too and they do not necessarily look for a demonstrative suicide. During clinical death, people usually see themselves from above or sometimes they also see a tunnel and at the end of it they see some light. After experiencing clinical death, people decide whether they want to live or not to live. Death is said to be full of questions that hurt us. The time is decomposed into a slow process there when we experience the entire eternity. Do we go into a new life after death, through reincarnation? According to Eben Alexander, a lot of scientists still criticize reincarnation. They think they had been “shot through” to be able to find their families from their past lives and is some of the families they found a residue of the past on their temples in the form of a black birthmark. Is all this just a coincidence? There is a huge number of these lessons of ancient legends. So scientists and sceptics have something to believe or disbelieve in.

Eben Alexander studied famous people who also discussed the issues if where the man comes from, who is the man and why we are here. He said he had found himself in the immense and infinite universe. He was in the womb with his silent partner, placenta that nourishes everything. It is the Mother God and Creator. E. Alexander could not understand everything. Later when he was at home, he found the book of H. Vaugham from the 17th century, and then he understood the existence of human free will and also the possible need of evil. Tjis was the reason he had returned to the physicians on Earth so that he could understand his present life. Why is he here again? He wants to know from the world above what exists here, because we cannot understand this without them.

He found out that the basis of his life is not the abstract love. His girl-friend, that had devoted her time to him, helped him to understand what is down here. She was his sister. But they could not have met each other in the earthly life. Then he returned to such scholars as John Smith, George Johnson and Sarah Brown, who dealt with the stories of the NDE. Eben Alexander found another NDE. He found out a scientific surprises that God is not impersonal, but that he is personal. The feelings there do not have a linear language and their flattening are not only the external perceptions. He knew that people were praying for his return. It gave him energy, that everything will be fine. He did not feel lonely there any more. He was searching for his past and therefore he needed to understand his unknown sister and return to his family.

Alexander plunged into an entire ocean of literature about near-death experiences (NDE). He previously had not believed that anything could have lived through the death of the body. He was only a neurologist and had not dealt with the NDE. He went through the reports from the period when he had been in coma. The experience of the NDE is as old as the mankind itself. Therefore, he ideologically followed Raymond Moody and George Ritchie who also had travelled in a tunnel for nine minutes and he focuss on the brain. Eben Alexander distinguishes three trends among neurologists in relation to the belief in the NDE. The first of them do not believe in the NDE. Then there are negative neurologists in relation to the NDE, he himself had been one of them. And there are some neurologists who have heard about the NDE but they have no explanation for it. E. Alexander himself already knows that our eternal spiritual “me” is more real than anything we know about our earthly world and about those things that are associated with the infinite love of the Creator.

Alexander went with his wife Hally to a temple and deeply lived through the service there. Under the influence of the church music and when he was in the beautiful painting of the temple and in the living Advent of Jesus he felt very intensively the NDE. Then Alexander again thought over the mystery of human consciousness. But he has never completely coped with the quantum mechanics of Werner Heisenberg and with the subatomic phenomena, where we cannot separate the observer from the experiments, and where there are only energy vibration and relationships. But it is not possible to try for the consciousness only from the outer objects.

But there is still nothing like “the theory of everything” that would include the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and consciousness. Eben Alexander considers his new discovery of the consciousness as scientifically valid. Even David Chalmers apparently recognizes the existence of consciousness. Some scientists, who think about modern science and technology, have said that the answer on the evidence of spirituality is beyond science (see also chapter 5.5). We do not know reincarnation so far and he himself did not want to become familiar with it. And the physical space is limited. The larger universe is not far away, but it is right here. The universe has no beginning and no end, and God is present in every particle. And it is not necessary to die to die in order to glimpse behind the curtain. It is necessary to learn about it also from some scientific books. R. A. Monroe himself is not burdened by dogmatic philosophy. He has been teaching for 40 years about the reality during sleep. God is to be felt with the entire universe, although it is not possible to see the face of God.

Sister Kate attached an interesting poem into Alexander´s book. And in his book Eben then shows that the angel with whom he had met in heaven, is his sister, whom he could have never seen on Earth. He saw her face only during the NDE. So he could find out about his family where they are and that he is loved. For a moment, two worlds met there and he, with his knowledge, became part of the universe that is permeated by God and the loving darkness. The NDE healed Alexander´s riven soul. Now he knows the truth and passes his experience to everyone. He appreciates his basic experiences as the truth and the opportunity to help others to be healed. And actually his story represents this. He is the living proof.

I have carefully read this book of Eben Alexander, in which he recounted his near-death experience (NDE). I compared it with my own demonstrable existence of God and also with the marvellous search for God of many people about human life. In my books, since 2002 I have published the description of my spontaneous encounter with God when I was in my seventies (see chapter 4). Alexander´s book “Proof of Heaven” (Jaký je život po životě) (in Czech 2013) belong to my best books. But I have found in all books I read also similarities and differences, taht every reader would easily find too. I cannot expect a new scientific discovery of the paradigm from Alexander because he had never searched for it. He was a neurologist and a physician and also belonged to the many atheists dealing with consciousness, and there are still many of them. I wish the doctors themselves thought about this true experience about the traditional physical relationship between the materialistic perception of the brain and the evidence of the existence of the indestructible human consciousness.

I have noticed that even E. Alexander, like many other researchers, is waiting for an overall scientific evidence of God and human spirituality. I suppose that my evidence of the existence of God and of our spirituality will be translated into English, as well as my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje) and this new book too so that people could learn about a more comprehensive version than the current Czech one (see also chapter 6.1).

6.7 Potential threats to humanity in the secular civilization

The social attitudes in secular civilizations in today’s democracies vary a lot. We will be interested mainly in the basic changes that we see in the technologically advanced countries, where scientific knowledge has become a natural part of their social life. These are the countries that are ruled by the conciliatory approach to various beliefs, including the atheistic belief, where science has questioned all the factors which cannot be objectively verified. In secular countries, democracy is considered to be associated with the market competition and private ownership and there we can see the necessary condition for the growth of the social wealth.

At one time I was thinking about the strong revaluation of the economic views of Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, I was personally very fond of asking provocative “Orwellian questions” whether people today think that the very private entrepreneurs themselves discover the entire science so that they can serve people more because these people would suffer in unimaginable poverty without them or they even would become extinct. I sometimes wonder whether the contemporary politicians and journalists in the mass media ask these questions too. I follow their discussions and it seems to me that they do not think about such meaningless things. I have tried to suggest to some public actors if they deal only with the repeating monetary crises in their reflections. Sometimes they also could take into account the slightly higher viewpoint, such as the meaning of human life on our Earth, but no one really responded. But if these exposed people do not want or are not able to search for deeper, scientifically proved issues than just the negative social processes and they rely only on their superficial economic description, then they may hardly contribute to the elimination and solution of the contemporary civilization clashes taking place on our planet.

In their expert opinions on the functioning of the human society we can seethe mistrust to everything in the relation to the scientifically provable meaning of human life. Some of my atheistic acquaintances tell me not to start with the comment of experts and that I should stay on Earth in their real world. It happens sometimes that some of them manage to gradually get to the understanding of the scientific evidence of the existence of God, but they finally often declare that “it is not possible after all” and they begin to suspect me that I had to trick them somehow and that, in their the concept of science, it is not possible to prove something like that. But can we avoid this issue of the scientific search for the meaning of human life and rely that it will be solved by itself and without us?

There are also people who believe that the search for the meaning of human life is sufficient if we use the democratic vote of the truth to answer this question. But can the developed civilized democracy solve those things that had been solved by the religious cultures in their entire history? The Jungian depth psychology has given the correct answer to this problem, that has found out that something like voting for the meaning of life does not apply. The voting for truth in political democracies, can be differently used This method can be used for the search for the preferences of individuals that is worth for living. It has surely some meaning for the free elections when we can choose a particular political party, which are offered to us and which promise they will promote the preferential values. But democratic voting cannot replace the objective truth about the meaning of human life, which is stored in our unconscious spiritual memory. We are still only approaching to the knowledge of the truth in the entire social and cultural evolution.

Jung´s credit was surely the fact that he had showed the way to the scientific understanding of the meaning of human life, which reaches further beyond than the secular or academic atheists can imagine. It goes back t the conscious spiritual memory, the memory of God. All the theists still cannot understand God, whom they had deliberately excluded from the sphere of scientific knowledge in the Enlightenment (see chapter 3.2 - chapter 3.4). Even the human search for good and evil belong to a very demanding scientific knowledge.

even the religious cultures try to reach the spiritual memory of God, that still rely on the internally revealed experience of its prophets. At the time when there had been no democracy, these cultures adopted a feudal, therefore undemocratic methods saying how to apply its concepts. We can see them in the various violent terrorist activities of fanatics. The contemporary secular states, where people have formally freed themselves from the forced beliefs, watch their activities with moral disgust. But what can the people offer instead of the lost metaphysical belief which can be seen as something provably believed?

Democracy itself, without the systematic integration of the scientific knowledge, cannot lead us to the credible knowledge of the meaning of our life, which we have inherited in our unconscious memory. I have read from many atheists why the people, to whom they had proved that nothing supernatural might exist so many times, should return again to another atheism which the academically educated scientists profess. And similarly, also people came to the understanding of the meaning of human life from the representatives of the traditional religious and mystical beliefs. But their pointing to the proven dogmas, which, at the time of their creation meant a lot, have only limited importance today and they are increasingly disappearing from their meaning (see chapter 5.3).

We have shown so far that the atheistic overestimating of the economic benefits of capitalism for the growth of any social welfare is the matter of political conflicts, almost in all current democratic societies. But if we want to understand the true sources of social welfare, we should think again about the findings of chapter 3.3 in this book. We should understand the importance of information and its price, both for the development of the objective world and human society. Information is the measure of orderliness of each target system, which applies regardless of whether we, the humans would evaluate democratically this target. Suppose that we regard the ability of the man to survive on Earth to be the good goal of the social development. It is certainly nothing to be implemented, even if we think about the confirmation of the concerns of various wise men about dubious prospects for the future. Do we choose the good way in society for the survival of the mankind if we take the liberal type of democracy? Would the economic liberalism lead rather to egoism that is deeply embedded in our spiritual memory?

If we wanted to question liberalism and the monetary criterion of the benefit (see my books “Civilization and morality” (Civilizace a mravnost) or “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje)) what will we use to replace them? It was true that the authoritarian political systems, which are based on other than secular economic ideologies, historically has showed even greater shortcomings. But it is still not enough for the politicians to choose some social system on a piece of paper, first they have to think about the possible ways how to achieve changes in the stabilized social conditions. And will these real changes be optimal at all?

The liberal conception of freedom is a relative term, and no freedom should be beneficial for the inhabitants of different regions once and for all. But will there be a contemporary interpretation of the historically achieved justice so that the political freedom is binding also for all the periods? Then surely it can happen that the historically positive justice would disappear. Despite this, some social classes can still promote themselves in a democratic way because it is still beneficial in relation to their individual power interests. So what is verifiably true or verifiable moral for all the periods? Also when talking about human morality, there should be the problem if the objectively valid truth has been identified.

The perspectives of the development of human morality cannot be correctly predicted without the links to the scientifically known paradigms of existence and the meaning of human life (see chapter 3.4 and chapter 3.5). Why would the people be moral if our genetically innate tendencies do not direct us towards morality? Since the creation of the man, the memory morality has had quite complex and quite long, socio-cultural history make so that the sociological and political changes are achieved in a short period of time in order so that the achieved evolution of morality is suppressed.

In the contemporary economically-oriented secular society, there is surely the question whether there is something worthwhile for people, that they would accept as moral and which would go beyond their daily life on Earth. We should realize that there is a scientifically provable integral paradigm of existence. And then, in my opinion, our lives are not only about the partial views of our paradigms, which we may temporarily see as sufficient enough.

I have also encountered with such views whether the statements about the scientific evidence of God are only my kind of my truth, that I had invented myself. But I am forced to strictly reject such an opinion. The objective evidence of the existence of God and the meaning of human life, that are connected with God, is the evidence form the derivable integral paradigm (see chapter 3 and chapter 4). Science is a global cognitive system and the civilized developed human culture participates in it. In its field it is not possible to make up anything individually. Likewise, it is not my fault that some people are not able to immediately understand the scientific truth, and some of the them, because of various reasons, are angry or insulted when I try to make them familiar with this truth. It is empirically true that, in a secular society, the importance of spiritual cultures will decrease, of those that had their ideological basis on religious beliefs. The religious beliefs seem to be more plausible, with the obsolete anthropomorphic spirituality.

Even though we scientifically prove the objective validity of the conscious spirituality of God, we will encounter some resistance against its acceptance in secular societies. There are people who are opposed to spirituality and dedicate themselves to the spread of the influence of atheism and the selfish morality of the consumer life. Also the moral values ​​of democratic societies greatly influence some celebrities who stands in their head. They are usually people who prefer economic education and who end in the superficial understanding of the importance of monetary flows. And this corresponds to their ideological respect of “monetary idols”.

Theologians have often failed to connect their too earthly ideas about spirituality with the Jungian depth psychology in order to further progress towards the truth about the cosmic concept of God. The naive concept of the cosmos has discredited God in the eyes of the still larger educated public. The cosmically interpreted God has a relationship to the mission of the man on Earth, and with much more surprising stories than the earthly events that come from a variety of mystical and religious “holy books”. But is this also true for the scientifically more challenging theologians who want to help people on their spiritual way to God?

7. Conclusion: What is the truth about all people

In a secular society there is still some human morality, such as the mental depression, that is reflected in the partial violation of the objective morality (see chapter 5.6 and chapter 5.7). There are also tendencies to commit suicide and murders with the Hamletian question: “to be or not to be” and there is also existentialism. But there are also true individual beliefs, which I have objectively achieved on my way to God. I am concerned about the scientific certainty for the posthumous existence of life, which is not only a “shadow” after the earthly life. But people just do not understand that they could achieve the verifiable whole earthly existence. People still known mainly the religious and mystical beliefs and different partial paradigms.

I have also met enthusiastic people who had started to look for everything that can be known from scientific paradigms. Some of them offered themselves to me, without wanting any money. They started to work with something that can be scientifically proved, even if it may seem almost impossible. I mean the educated young people such as Karel Podéšť, Stanislav Hoťka, Petr Šlouf, František Mikeš, Michal Novotný, Pavol Tursky and others (see chapter 6.1) and many of those that I wrote about in my book “God Provably Exists” (Bůh dokazatelně existuje), particularly Marie Hládková. When people scientifically found the posthumous existence, they were not interested in money any more. They realized that there is something more valuable than they had previously thought in science and their aim is to achieve the eternal life. In addition to this, all these people also have found out that they have free will, so they can devote themselves to the scientifically provable memory of God.

What is at the end of the book

At the end I ask my friends to understand who is the man and what we want in the search for the meaning of the existence of our life. I have always sought to answer that we were not born just to finally die. And then I asked that my search for the meaning of life was objectively verifiable and I did not want to show what would normally only be religious. That led me to the need to engage the scientific knowledge into my reflections. And then I finally revealed the objectively provable existence of the spiritual memory of God, it means of God, that is the only source for the creation of the whole existence. The partial findings of theories that we encounter in political science, economics, sociology, legal literature and natural sciences, always seemed to me and to my search as something incomplete.

The scientific evidence of the existence of God cannot be generally carried out, even when using the evidence of the partial objects of the living organisms and astronomical objects, including the entire galaxies. In all these partial objects, we respect their internal structure of the existence and we prove it using cognitive activities that we know from the individual scientific disciplines. So if we ask about the evidence for the existence of God as a conscious and eternal spiritual memory of the whole existence, then the scientific evidence for the existence of God should be done as it had been briefly outlined in chapter 3 and chapter 4.

Requirements on proving of the existence of God

Scientists should clearly understand what are the general provable scientific theories of God and what are the partial paradigms of sciences about which we provably know that they are valid for all the material and energy events. And here I repeat again that all the universally valid paradigms of sciences are necessary to prove the evidence of God. But if we use each of them separately, the evidence of God will fail.

Using these basic partial paradigms we can determine that the material world has a spacial and time beginning, which is usually called the Big Bang, and there will be also other things, not only the material circumstances (see chapter 3.1, chapter 3.2 and chapter 5.4). If we only talk about the matter-energy universe, it cannot be infinite in any way.

But on the other hand, it is true that the integral scientific paradigm of the existence is necessary for the real scientific evidence of God, in which we have to include the knowledge from all the partial scientific paradigms.

The role of particular sciences in proving the existence of God

Physics, such as the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, the theory of the physical vacuum etc. has found the basic dynamics of the mutual energetic influences of the whole world of material and energy fields and has proved the existence of the Big Bang (see chapter 3.1 and chapter 5.4).

Cybernetics as the theory of systems, information theory, theory of management, the theory of feedback etc. has introduced the concept of memory. Its fundamental principles apply to the evolution events of the entire universe. The variable of the information applies to the memory, by the help of which we can understand and measure the connection of the information and energetic events (see chapter 3.2).

Depth psychology is the science of inner spiritual aspects of the human memory and our memory can be scientifically applied also to the conscious memory of being that people have always been looking for in cultures as God (see chapter 3.4 - chapter 4).

Popperian-Jungian search for truth

Every scientific truth must be formulated in the form of hypotheses or theories and partial scientific paradigms, which are the most common theoretical models. The experienced sensory experiences, such as images, dreams or visions, are not regarded to be part of the scientific knowledge today. The unconfirmed mystical and religious visions, which belong to the metaphorical knowledge, do not belong into sciences. Even the metaphorical knowledge can be verbally described, so then there are also metaphors that are wrongly understood as a type of true theories.

The big question is why, in theory and methodology of science, we sould considered only the verifiable truth to be a science. It was particularly Karl Popper, who introduced this method of evaluation. In his analyses of the scientific thinking he distinguished three worlds. For Popper, the first world are our outer objects, the second world are our subjective experiences and finally the third world are only the scientific hypotheses and theories by which we recognize only the first world of objects. The theories in science are tested, when we want to falsify them only for the derived predictions for his first world. A hypotheses and theories, the derived predictions about the objective world, are confronted with the real attempts whether there will be objective truth in these predictions. If we succeed, then we have proved the invalidity of our tested hypotheses and theories, and we have to falsify them and we have to find something more accurate instead of them. If we do reach falsification, then the original theory can be considered as our confirmed truth. Karl Popper does not say that every theory must be falsified. He therefore does not say that the falsification must always be comprehensibly formulated so that we know how the principal falsification should be carried out.

Popper´s theory of truth is insufficient because he had created it only for the objects of first objective world. He could not imagine how one might carry out the objective verification of our subjective reality, that we experience only internally and individually. Perhaps it should be noted that even the contemporary members of various scientific institutions, who think that their atheism is the only acceptable scientific knowledge, cannot understand this, i.e. those who defend the Czech movement “Sisyphus” (Sisyfos) and the global movement of modern sceptics. Among them are a lot of fanatics whose positions I have already examined in detail in my book “The Twilight of Atheism” (Soumrak ateizmu) and elsewhere. In terms of my past, I am quite close to this movement because I had similar views. Although I had never been the member of this movement. I always had a good relationship with its members, and our understanding then definitely ended (see chapter 4).

Popper´s rejection of the objective validation of our inner experiences was then theoretically solved by Carl Gustav Jung and his followers in depth psychology. There we have a developed methodology how to search for the truth and the inner spiritual experiences. Most of our scientific institutions still pretend as if they did not know that such inner truth exists. They learned about it about at their atheistic institutions that had never lived through any deep experiences (see for example chapter 6.6 that is not about the encounter with God himself).

The unified method the Popperian-Jungian search for truth is valid for all scientific theories. If we wanted to prove God only by means of partial means of the Popperian-Jungian method or the Jungian method, then we cannot prove God. The depth psychology itself is able to prove only that we, the humans have God inherited in our unconsciousness. It is a great incentive for further study what can be implied from this for the cosmic existence. And for example there is the question of why God had to exist before the people, when we have inherited the search for God in our unconsciousness. The man, with his unconsciousness could have not existed near the Big Bang when Earth had not been created as our natural habitat. But God as a conscious spiritual memory, from whose information the entire universe is created, must have exited.

Common mistakes in proving the existence of God (repetition)

God is proved or disproved only from one partial paradigm or just from some valid scientific theory. Inside physics we sometimes can reproduce many separate verifiable theories, such as the theory of relativity, quantum theory and other theories of the physical vacuum, to be able to find “the physical theory of everything” that they uselessly try to prove the existence of God to some people. Similar efforts have sometimes been sought also in cybernetic sciences (see “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)). It is interesting that analogous tendencies have been found also in depth psychology.

God is often speculatively proved in various religious and mystical disciplines. And they already become familiar with some partial scientific theories and complement each other with the mystique of what they still lack in the partial findings of science. in the eyes of the lay readers they achieve the impression that it is possible to find some scientific authority (see again “Civilization and Morality” (Civilizace a mravnost)).

The various metaphoric stories of the laity are a popular method of proving God. They, in certain extreme situations experienced a vision that is something incomprehensible for them, but which convinced them for the entire life that it must have its origin in supernatural God. Their messages are more effective when some celebrities had experienced them, that are known from any artistic or other creative work.

The evidence of God usually, in the normal sense, affects also the sensory imagination of the scientifically unsophisticated people. Usually the same words are used there, which we can see in science too, but we forget that the same words do not refer to the same conceptual content, which is available to people in the contemporary science. Sometimes they purposefully conceal the changes in scientific theories, from which some of the concepts seemingly arise. It evokes the impression that these concepts still have the same content than the notions once in history when it had appeared for example in sacred scriptures. So they perform a sort of historically outdated theatrical play to people. This is happening in the period when the scientific knowledge has reached a new storyline that seems to relate to all people, but their meaning is hidden for their own understanding of the superficial senses. But today, the man needs to understand the truth about the existence of the entire invisible as well as invisible world so that he is then able to understand his next self-preservation.

For our contemporary atheists

And finally, I would like to note something for the contemporary atheistically oriented researchers, that I once had belonged to. Even for them, it could be important to convince themselves about the scientific wisdom, which is still hidden for them in deep psychic visions. The experiences of this kind have accompanied mankind throughout its entire existence. Despite the atheistic attempts for their final rebuttal, such as the efforts of Paul Kurtz and Richard Dawkins, these visions have been again and again renewed, sometimes even in the visions of scientifically oriented atheists (see also chapter 4 and chapter 6.6). The deep human experiences cannot be omitted, because without them the material existence would lack the inner aspect, which is very important to understand the meaning of human existence, and it fundamentally cannot be replaced by the external knowledge that are preferred mainly by academic atheists.

The human spiritual unconscious memory has a direct relationship to the memory of God. The conscious memory of God is only one, heading to the individual unconscious spiritualities of all cosmic beings, and it is true that when the unconscious memory becomes more conscious, there is more knowledge in it about the intentions of God. The individual spiritualities of all conscious beings in the cosmos actually get to know the original spiritual activity of God himself. Using the memory information, God is being transferred to the material universe so that we should not think of various naive images of God that the people, in the course of the evolutionary history, gradually created on the basis o their pas knowledge.

I have changed from an erudite atheist into a man who surely knows that God exists. I have also found our secret of death and now I scientifically know that after the earthly life is never repeated in the form of a return into earthly life.

Brief biography

Doc. Ing. Miloslav Král, CSc. (1930)

He graduated at the College of Civil Engineering of the Czech Technical University in Prague and also studied at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics at Charles University in various fields of modern physics. He gave lectures about the theory of science in the context of philosophy at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics at Charles University and the Faculty of Technical and Nuclear Physics Czech Technical University. Within the theory of management he had lead the course of cybernetics and its social applications at the Party University at ÚV KSČ and various other universities. He significantly contributed to the democratization process in the years 1968-1969, resulting in almost twenty-year persecution. In 1970-1989 he worked as an excavator driver and later as a technician at the State Fishery in Prague. He cooperated with the dissent (signatory of the Manifesto 2000 words, Charter 77 etc.). In December 1989 he returned to his profession at the University of Economics and since 1990 he worked at the Institute for the Study of Science, Technology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. He led postgraduate courses on topics of the theories of science and technology and where the civilization lead at the Masaryk Institute of Advanced Studies of the Czech Technical University and for the Newton College in Brno. He gave lectures for ten year in the gallery of Z. Hajný “Ways to Light” (Cesty ke světlu) and as a guest at various universities and social institutions. Currently he is engaged in research activities in the paradigm of modern science, cybernetics and Jungian psychology.

Selection of publications:

Books:

Pojem hmoty v dialektickém materialismu (1960)

Moderní fyzika a filosofie (1961)

Věda a civilizace (1968)

Změna paradigmatu vědy (1994)

Kam směřuje civilizace? (1998)

Kosmická paměť (Hledání smyslu kosmu a člověka) (2002)

Existuje Bůh? (Lze vědecky dokázat existenci Boha?) (2004)

Moje cesta k pravdě (Život v netušených souvislostech) (2005)

Věda a víra (S vědou za hranice každodennosti) (2007)

Soumrak ateizmu (Má lidský život kosmický smysl?) (2009)

Civilizace a mravnost (Perspektivy moderní civilizace) (2010)

Bůh dokazatelně existuje (Proč nejsem ateistou) (2013)

Collections:

Filosofie a věda (in Sedmkrát o smyslu filosofie, ed. J. Cvekl), 1964

Věda a řízení společnosti, ed. M. Král, 1967

Věda a „krize objektivity“ (in Realismus ve vědě a filosofii, ed. J. Nosek a J. Stachová), 1995.

Procesně genetický model skutečnosti (in Chaos, věda a filosofie, ed. J. Nosek), 1999

Magazines:

Pozitivismus a předpoklad existence objektivní reality (in Filosofický časopis 1958, č.3)

Krize mechanicko-materialistického pojetí světa (in Filosofický časopis 1959, č.4)

Vědeckotechnická revoluce a řízení (in Sociologický časopis 1966, č.2)

Dva ontické řády jsoucna – Popper a Jung (in Psyche et natura, 2000)

Paměťová koncepce jsoucna a jungovské kolektivní nevědomí (in Psyche et natura, 2001)

Hladina stoupá…Věda, civilizace a ztráta smyslu života (in Revue Prostor č. 52, 2001)

Nevědomí a mystické prožitky (in Psyche et natura, 2002)

Život v nečekaných souvislostech (in Revue Prostor č. 54, 2002)

Čakry a individuace aneb jak spojit vědění Východu a Západu (in Revue Prostor č. 59, 2003)

Kritika spirituality nového věku aneb Hovory s Walschovým Bohem (in Revue Prostor č. 60, 2003).

Literature

ALEXANDER, E., Jaký je život po životě. Fortuna Libri, Praha 2013..

ARISTOTELES,. Philosophische Werke, Bd III. Leipzig 1925.

ASHBY, R. W., Design for a Brain. London 1952.

ASHBY, R. W., Kybernetika. Praha l961.

ATWATER, P. M. H., Nejen indigové děti. Praha 2007.

BAADE, F., Der Weltlauf zum Jahre 2000. Oldenburg-Hamburg 1960.

BALKE, S., Vernunft in dieser Zeit. Düsseldorf-Wien 1962.

BARABÁSI, A.-L., V pavoučí síti. Praha 2005.

BARROW, J. D., Povod vesmíru. Bratislava 1996.

BARROW, J. D., Teorie ničeho. Praha 2004.

BARROW, J. D., Teorie všeho. Praha 1996.

BARRY, W. S., The Fundamentals of Management. London 1963.

BATESON, G., Ökologie des Geistes, Frankfurt a.M. 1981.

BECK, P., Der Substanzbegriff in der Naturwissenschaft, Meissen 1896.

BECK, W. S., Modern Science and the Nature of Life. London 1961.

BEER, S., Decision and Kontrol. N. York, London, Sydney 1966.

BEER, S., Kybernetika a řízení. Praha 1966.

BELL, D., Die nachindustrielle Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M., N. York 1979.

BĚLOHRADSKÝ, V., Impuls 99: dopis iniciátorům. Právo 1999.

BĚLOHRADSKÝ, V., Přirozený svět jako politický problém. Praha 1991.

BENDA, I. A., Rozhovory s poučením od mých přátel z vesmíru I-II. Praha 1998-1999.

BENDA, J., Mystika a schizofrenie. Praha 2001.

BENEŠ, P., Informace o informaci. Praha 2010.

BENJAMIN, A. C., An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York 1937.

BERGIER, J., PAUWELS, L., Jitro kouzelníků. Praha 1990.

BERGMANN, H., Der Kampf um das Kausalgesetz in der jüngsten Physik. Braunschweig 1929.

BERGSON, H., Vývoj tvořivý. Praha 1919.

BERKELEY, G., Pojednání o základech lidského poznání. Praha 1938.

BERNAL, J. D., Social Function of Science. London 1939.

BERNAL, J. D., Věda v dějinách. Praha 1960.

BERTALANFFY, L. von, General System Teory. New York 1968.

BHAKTIVÉDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPÁDA, Mezi životem a smrtí. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Internat. 1995.

BITTORF, W., Automation. Die zweite industrielle Revolution. Darmstadt 1956.

BLOCHINCEV, D. I., Základy kvantové mechaniky. Praha 1956.

BOB, P., Brain and Dissociated Mind. New York 2008.

BOB, P., Psychické děje dynamické a subliminální. In: Psyche et Natura 2001, č.1.

BOB, P., Psychologie nevědomí a fyzikální realita, In: Psyche et Natura 2001, č.1.

BODANIS, D., E = m c2 /Životopis nejslavnější rovnice na světě/. Praha 2002.

BODMER, W., Mc KIE, R., Kniha člověka. Praha 1997.

BOHM, D., Rozvíjení významu. Praha 1992.

BOCHEŃSKI, J., Mezi logikou a vírou. Brno 2001.

BORN, M., Der Aufbau der Materie. Berlin 1922.

BORN, M., Die Relativitätstheorie Einsteins. Berlin 1920.

BOULDING, K. E., The Organizational Revolution. New York 1953.

BRANDT, L., Die Zweite industrielle Revolution. München 1957.

BRIGHT, J. R., Automation and Management. Boston 1958.

BROAD, C. D., Mind and Its Place in Nature. London 1925.

BROCKMAN, J., Třetí kultura. Praha 2008.

BROGLIE, L. de, Physics and Microphysics. New York 1955.

BRONOWSKI, J., Science and Human Values. London 1964.

BRONOWSKI, J., Vzestup člověka. Praha 1985.

BROOKS, H., Technology, Evolution and Purpose. Cambrigde Mass. 1980.

BRUNTON, P., Duchovní krize člověka. Frýdek-Místek 2003.

BRZEZINSKY, Z., Bez kontroly. Praha 1993.

BUCKINGHAM, W., Automation und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M. 1963.

CANTALAMESSA, R., Víra, která přemáhá svět. Kostelní Vydří 2012.

CAPRA, F., Das neue Denken. Bern, München, Wien 1987.

CAPRA, F., Tao fyziky. Bratislava 1992.

CAPRA, F., Tkáň života. Praha 2004.

CAPRA, F., Wendezeit. Bern, München, Wien 1993.

CARNAP, R., Physikalische Begriffsbildung. Karlsruhe 1926.

CARNAP, R., Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie. Berlin 1928.

CASSIRER, E., Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff. Berlin 1910.

CATERINA, S., Přes velkou bariéru. Venezia 2008.

COLE, P., Filozofie náboženství. Praha 2003.

COPLESTON, F., Contemporary Philosophy. London 1957.

COUFFIGNAL, L., Denkmaschienen. Stuttgart 1955.

CRICK, F., Věda hledá duši. Praha 1997.

DAHRENDORF, R., Die angewandte Aufklärung. München 1963.

DAVIES, P., Jsme sami? Bratislava 1996.

DAVIES, P., Prinzip Chaos. München 1988.

DAWKINS, R., Je věda náboženstvím? In: stať z internetu.

DAWKINS, R., Prázdnota teologie, stať z r. 1998. In: Antológia moderného ateizmu, Bratislava 2005.

DAWKINS, R., R. Dawkins v TV programu „Víra a rozum“, stať z r. 1998. In: Antológia moderného ateizmu, Bratislava 2005.

DAWKINS, R., Řeka z ráje. Bratislava 1996.

DAWKINS, R., Sobecký gen. Praha 1998.

DAWKINS, R., The God Delusion. New York 2006.

DENNETT, D. C., Druhy myslí (K pochopení vědomí). Bratislava 1997.

DERRIDA, J., Texty k dekonstrukci. Bratislava 1993.

DESCARTES, R., Rozprava o metodě. Praha 1947.

DETHLEFSEN, T., Reinkarnace, Praha 2001.

DEUTSCH, K. W., The Nerves of Government. N. York – London 1966.

DIBITONTO, G., Andělé v hvězdných lodích. Praha 1992.

DIEBOLD, J., Automation. The Advent of the Automatic Faktory. Princeton 1952.

DIEBOLD, J., Automation – Its Impact on Human Relations. New York 1955.

DIJKSTERHUIS, E. J., Die Mechanisierung des Weltbildes. Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg 1956.

DIRAC, P. A. M., Die Prinzipien der Quantenmechanik. Leipzig 1930.

DRAKE, D., Invitation to Philosophy. Cambridge 1933.

D´SOUZA, D., Křesťanství a ateismus úplně jinak. Praha 2009.

DUBISLAV, W., Naturphilosophie. Berlin 1933.

EDWARDS, E., Information Transmission. London 1964.

EGGENSTEIN, K., Prorok Jakub Lorber oznamuje příchod katastrof a pravé křesťanství. Praha 2006.

EINSTEIN, A., Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Leipzig 1916.

EINSTEIN, A., Jak vidím svět. Praha 1961.

EINSTEIN, A., Teorie relativity speciální i obecná. Praha 1923.

EINSTEIN, A., Vier Vorlesungen über Relativitätstheorie. Braunschweig 1922.

EINSTEIN, A., INFELD, L., Fyzika jako dobrodružství poznání. Praha 1958.

ELLUL, J., The Technological Society. London 1965.

ENOMIYA-LASSALLE, H., M., Kam se ubírá člověk. Brno 1998.

FAJKUS, B., Filosofie a metodologie vědy. Praha 2005.

FARINGTON, B., Věda ve starém Řecku I – II. Brno 1950.

FEUERBACH, L., Podstata křesťanství. Praha 1954.

FEUERBACH, L., Přednášky o podstatě náboženství. Praha 1953.

FEYERABEND, P., Der wissenschaftliche Realismus und die Autorität der Wissenschaften. Braunschweig, Wiesbaden 1978.

FEYERABEND, P., Für und gegen Wissenschaft, für und gegen Punk-Rock. In: Psychologie heute 1983, Nr. 9.

FILKORN, V., Predheglovská logika. Bratislava 1953.

FILKORN, V., Úvod do metodologie vied. Bratislava 1960.

FISCHER, J., Průhledy do mikrokosmu. Praha 1986.

FOK, V. A., Těorija prostranstva, vremeni i tjagotěnija. Moskva 1955.

FOX, M., Příchod kosmického Krista. Brno 2004.

FRANCUCH, P. D., Nové Zjevení Pána Ježíše Krista. Moravská Nová Ves 2007.

FRANK, Ph., Foundations of Physics. Chicago 1946.

FRANK, Ph., Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1957.

FRANKL, V., Vůle ke smyslu. Brno 1997.

FRIEDMAN, R. E., Mizení Boha. Praha 1999.

FRIEDMANN, G., Industrial Society. Glencoe 1955.

FRIEDMANN, G., Le travail en miettes. Paris 1964.

FUKUYAMA, F., Velký rozvrat. Praha 2006.

FROMM, E., Člověk a psychoanalýza. Praha 1967.

FUNDA, O., De profundis. Praha 1997.

FUNDA, O. A., Ježíš a mýtus o Kristovi. Praha 2007.

FUNDA, O., Úvod do filosofického tázání. Západočeská univerzita 1995.

FUNDA, O. A., Víra bez náboženství. Praha 1994.

GADAMER, H.-G., Problém dějinného vědomí. Praha 1994.

GATES, B., Informační dálnice. Praha 1996.

GEHLEN, A., Der Mensch. Bonn 1958.

GEHLEN, A., Die Seele im technischen Zeitalter. Hamburg 1964.

GEORGE, F. H., Automation, Cybernetics and Society. London 1959.

GORE, A.., Země na misce vah. Praha 1994.

GOULD, S. J., Jak neměřit člověka. Praha 1997.

GOULD, S. J., Pandin palec. Praha 1988.

GREENE, B., Elegantní vesmír. Praha 2001.

GREERE, S. M., Utajovaná pravda. Praha 2008.

GROF, S., BENNETT, H. Z., Holotropní vědomí. Praha 1993.

GROF, S., Kosmická hra. Praha 1999.

GROF, S., Lidské vědomí a tajemství smrti. Praha 2009.

GROF, S., Psychologie budoucnosti. Praha 2004.

GROF, S., Teoretické a empirické základy transpersonální psychologie. In: Čs. Psychiatrie 1994, č. 2.

GROF, S., Za hranice mozku. Praha 1992.

GROFOVÁ, Ch., GROF, S., Nesnadné hledání vlastního já. Praha 1999.

GROSS, D., Unified Theories of Everything. Napoli 1989.

GRYGAR, J., O vědě a víře. Kostelní Vydří 2001.

GRYGAR, J., Vesmír, jaký je. Praha 1997.

GRYGAR, J., Všechno je jinak. In: Lidové noviny z 2. 3. 2007.

HALÍK, T., Co je bez chvění, není pevné. Praha 2002.

HANSEN, H., Mandala. Olomouc 2008.

HARMAN, W. H., Gangbare Wege in die Zukunft? Darmstadt 1978.

HAUSDORF, H., Návrat z onoho světa (Záhady reinkarnace). Praha 1999.

HAVLÍK, V., Synergetika. Praha 1965.

HAVEL, V. - PREČAN V., Korespondence 1983 - 1989. Praha 2011.

HAWKING, S., Černé díry a budoucnost vesmíru. Praha 1995.

HAWKING, S., Stručná historie času. Praha 1991.

HAYEK, F. A.., Cesta do otroctví. Praha 1989.

HAYEK, F. A., Kontrarevoluce vědy. Praha 1995.

HAYEK, F. H., Osudná domýšlivost. Praha 1995.

HAYMAN, R., Život C. G. Junga I – II. Praha 2001.

HEGEL, G. W. F., Logika. Bratislava 1961.

HEIDEGGER, M., Bytí a čas. Praha 1996.

HEIDEGGER, M., Co je metafyzika. Praha 1993.

HEIDEGGER, M., Konec filosofie a úkol myšlení. Praha 1993.

HEINDEL, M., Rosenkruciánská kosmokoncepce aneb mystické křesťanství. Praha 2001.

HEISENBERG, W., Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik, Hamburg 1957.

HEISENBERG, W., Die physikalischen Prinzipien der Quantentheorie. Leipzig 1941.

HEISENBERG, W., Fyzika a filosofie. Praha 2000.

HEISENBERG, W., Wandlungen in den Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaft. Leipzig 1944.

HERMACH, J., Filosofie a řízení. Praha 1965.

HERZÁN, M., Totalitní světovláda (2.vyd.). Bratislava 2002.

HEŘT, J., Zpráva o mezinárodní konferenci Darwin and Design. In: časopis Sisyfos, říjen 2005).

HEY T., WALTERS P., Nový kvantový vesmír. Praha 2005.

HILLMAN, J., Klíč k duši. Praha 2000.

HOLTON, G., Věda a antivěda. Čsl.časopis pro fyziku 1996, č. 5-6.

HÖSCHL, C., JANÍČEK, J., Cyril Höschl: Kde bydlí lidské duše. Praha 2004.

HUNTINGTON, S., Střet civilizací. Praha 2001.

HUXLEY, A., Věčná filozofie. Praha 2002.

HYMAN, S., Society and Management. London 1964.

CHARGAFF, E., Kritik der Zukunft. Stuttgart 1988.

CHERRY, E. C., On Human Communication. N. York – London 1957.

CHLUMSKÝ, J., Ekonomický růst v buržoazně reformním pojetí. VP č. 327, Ekonomický ústav ČSAV Praha 1989.

CHOMSKY, N., Jazyk a zodpovědnost. Bratislava 1995.

CHOPRA, D., Jak poznat Boha. Praha 2002.

CHOPRA, D., Léčení těla a mysli. Praha 1993.

IGNATENKO, A., Schola Vitae /Škola života/. Praha 1998.

JAKOBY, B., Zprávy od zemřelých. Liberec 2008.

JANTSCH, E., Die Selbstorganization des Universums. Hansen Verlag 1979.

JASPERS, K., Die Atombombe und die Zukunft des Menschen. München 1963.

JASPERS, K., Lebensfragen der deutschen Politik. München 1963.

JEANS, J., Nové základy přírodovědy. Praha 1937.

JORDAN, P., Die Physik des 20. Jahrhunderts. Braunschweig 1936.

JORDAN, P., Verdrängung und Komplementarität. Hamburg – Bergedorf 1947.

JUHOS, B., Die Erkenntnis und ihre Leistung. Wien 1950.

JUHOS, B., Elemente der neuen Logik. Frankfurt a. M.-Wien 1954.

JUNG, C. G., Aion. Příspěvky k symbolice bytostného Já. Brno 2003.

JUNG, C. G., Analytická psychologie – její teorie a praxe. Praha 1992.

JUNG, C. G., Člověk a duše. Praha 1995.

JUNG, C. G., Duše moderního člověka. Praha 1994.

JUNG, C. G., O znovuzrození. In: Vybrané spisy II., Košice 1998.

JUNG, C. G., Psychologie a náboženství. In: Výbor z díla sv. IV., Brno 2001.

JUNG, C. G., Sto dopisů (výbor z korespondence). Praha 1996.

JUNG, C. G., Tajemno na obzoru. Praha 1999.

JUNG, C. G., The Undiscovered Self. London and New York 1958.

JUNG, C. G., Výbor z díla I.-VII. Brno.

JUNGK, R., Die Möglichkeiten neuer Wissenschaft. In: Wissenschaft auf Abwegen (ed. Grupp, Michael). Fellbach 1980.

JUNGK, R., Die Zukunft hat schon begonnen. Stuttgart 1954.

JUNGK, R., Jasnější než tisíc sluncí. Praha 1965.

JUERGENSMEYER, M., Teror v mysli Boží. Brno 2007.

KAILA, E., Über den physikalischen Realitätsbegriff. Helsinky 1942.

KANT, I., Kritika čistého rozmyslu. Praha 1930.

KANT, I., Prolegomena. Praha 1916.

KEPNER, CH. H., TREGOE, B. B., The Rational Manager. New York, San Francisco, Toronto, London, Sydney 1965.

KERR, C., DUNLOP, J. T., HARRISON, F. H., MYERS, CH. A., Der Mensch in der idustriellen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M. 1966.

KING, A., SCHNEIDER, B., První globální revoluce. Bratislava 1991.

KLAUS, G., Kybernetik und Gesellschaft. Berlin 1964.

KLÍMA, L., Svět jako vědomí a nic. Praha 1928.

KLÍR, J. – VALACH, M., Kybernetické modelování. Praha 1965.

KOLMOGOROV, A. N., Automaty a lidé. Praha 1962.

KOLTERMANN, R., Svět – člověk – Bůh. Praha 2000.

KOSÍK, K., Dialektika konkrétního. Praha 1963.

KOSÍK, K., Předpotopní úvahy. Praha 1997.

KRÁL, M., Civilizace a mravnost. Praha 2010.

KRÁL, M., Dva ontické řády jsoucna (Popper a Jung). In: Psyche et Natura 2000, č. 1.

KRÁL, M., Existuje Bůh? Olomouc 2004.

KRÁL, M., Kam směřuje civilizace? Praha 1998.

KRÁL, M., Kosmická paměť. Olomouc 2002.

KRÁL, M., Moderní fyzika a filosofie. Praha 1961.

KRÁL, M., Moje cesta k pravdě. Olomouc 2005.

KRÁL, M., Paměťová koncepce jsoucna a jungovské kolektivní nevědomí. In: Psyche et Natura 2001, č. 1.

KRÁL, M., Pojem hmoty v dialektickém materialismu. Praha 1960.

KRÁL, M., Pozitivismus a předpoklad existence objektivní reality.

In: Filosofický časopis 1958, č. 3.

KRÁL, M., Procesně genetický model vesmíru. In: Chaos, věda a filosofie (ed. Nosek, J.). Praha 1999.

KRÁL, M., Soumrak ateizmu. Praha 2009.

KRÁL, M., Věda a civilizace. Praha 1968.

KRÁL, M., Věda a krize objektivity. In: Realismus ve vědě a filosofii (ed. Nosek, J., Stachová, J.). Praha 1995.

KRÁL, M., Věda a víra. Praha 2007.

KRÁL, M., Změna paradigmatu vědy. Praha 1994.

KRÁL, M., Život v nečekaných souvislostech. In: Revue Prostor č. 54, 2002.

KRÁL, V., Hledání počátku a cíle. Praha 2001.

KREIBICH, R., Die Wissenschaftsgesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M. 1968.

KREJČÍ, J., Lidský úděl a jeho proměnlivá tvář. Praha 1996.

KRUPIČKA, J., Flagelantská civilizace. Praha 1999.

KRUPIČKA, J., Renesance rozumu. Praha 1994.

KRUPIČKA, J., Zkouška dospělosti. Praha – Litomyšl 2000.

KUHN, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press 1962 (čs. Bratislava 1982.

KURTZ, P., Nové očarenie: novým osvietenstvom. In: Antológia moderného ateizmu, Bratislava 2005.

KURTZ, P., Nový skepticismus – světové hnutí. In: čas. Sisyfos č. 3, 1998.

KURTZ, P., Zakázané ovocie – Etika humanizmu. Bratislava 1998.

KÝN, O., PELIKÁN, P., Kybernetika v ekonomii. Praha 1965.

LAFONTAINE, O., Der andere Fortschritt. Hamburg 1985.

LANGE, O., Celek a vývoj ve světle kybernetiky. Praha 1966.

LANGE, O., Úvod do ekonomické kybernetiky. Praha 1968.

LAPLACE, P. S., Philosophischer Versuch über die Wahrscheinlichkeiten. Leipzig 1886.

LASZLO, E., The Systems View of the World. N. York 1972.

LASZLO, E., Věda a ákášické pole: integrální teorie všeho. Praha 2005.

LAUE, M. von, Dějiny fyziky. Praha 1959.

LAUSCHMANN, H., Metainformatika. Praha, Litomyšl 1996.

LA VIOLETTE, P. A., Velký třesk překonán. Praha 1998.

LEAKEY, R., Původ lidstva. Bratislava 1996.

LEARY, T., Chaos a kyberkultura. Praha 1997.

LEITHÄUSER, J. G., Werner Heisenberg. Berlin 1957.

LENK, H., Postmodernismus, Postindustrialismus, Postszientismus. In: Technologisches Zeitalter oder Postmoderne, München 1988.

LENIN, V. I., Filosofické sešity. Praha 1953.

LENIN, V. I., Materialismus a empiriokriticismus. Praha 1952.

LEVI, Vodnářské evangelium o Ježíši Kristu. Praha 1995.

LEVINOVÁ, J., Jak vesmír přišel ke svým skvrnám. Praha 2003.

LESCH, H., MÜLLER, J., Velký třesk druhé dějství. Euromedia Group 2005.

LEY, H., Dämon Technik? Berlin 1961.

LILLEY, S., Automatizace a společnost. Praha 1958.

LILLEY, S., Věda a pokrok. Praha 1949.

LINDSAY, R. B., The Role of Science in Civilization. N. York, Evanston, London 1963.

LORENZ, K., Odumírání lidskosti. Praha 1997.

LORENZ, K., Takzvané zlo. Praha 1992.

LORENZ, K., Základy etologie. Praha 1993.

LORENZ, K., 8 smrtelných hříchů. Praha 1990.

LUDÍKOVÁ, V., Pošli to dál I-III, Praha 2003 – 2005.

LYOTARD, J. F., O postmodernismu. Praha 1993.

MACH, E., Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung (7.vyd.). Leipzig 1912.

MACK, J. E., UFO : Únosy lidí. Praha 1997.

MAREK, V., Trhlina v realitě. Praha 2009.

MARGENAU, H., WATSON, W. W., MONTGOMERY C. G., Physics. Principles and Applications. N. York, Toronto, London 1949.

MARKOŠ, A., Povstávání živého tvaru. Praha 1997.

MARX K., ENGELS B., Spisy. Praha.

MASARYK, T. G., Otázka sociální I-II. Praha 1948.

MASARYK, T. G., Základové konkrétné logiky. Praha 1885.

McDANIEL, S. A., People Pressure. In: Planet under Stress,. Toronto, Oxford, N. York 1991.

MEIER, C. A., Wolfgang Pauli und C.G. Jung (Ein Briefwechsel 1932-1958). Berlin, Heidelberg 1992.

MILLMAN, D., CHILDERS, D., Osudové zásahy. Praha 2000.

MILTNER, V., Malá encyklopedie buddhismu. Praha 1997.

MINSKY, M., Konštrukcia mysle. Bratislava 1996.

MOODY, R. A., jr., Život po životě, Úvahy o životě po životě, Světlo po životě. Praha 1991.

MURPHY, J., Moc podvědomí. Praha 1993.

NAGEL, E., Principles of the Theory of Probability (3.vyd.). University of Chicago Press. 1946.

NAGEL, E., The Structure of Science. New York – Burlingame 1961.

NEUBAUER, Z., Nový Areopág. Praha 1992.

NEUBAUER, Z., O počátku, cestě a znamení časů. Praha 2007.

NEUBAUER, Z., Přímluvce postmoderny. Praha 1994.

NIETZSCHE, F., Tak pravil Zarathustra. Praha 1967.

NOVIKOV, I., Černé díry a vesmír. Praha 1989.

NOVOTNÝ, I., Nové vědění. Teorie všeho. Brno 2000.

NOVOTNÝ, I., Nové vědění. Základy nové teofilozofie. Brno 2000.

ONDOK, J. P., Důkaz nebo hypotéza Boha? Svitavy 1998.

OPPENHEIMER, J. R., Atomkraft und menschliche Freiheit. Hamburg 1957.

OPPENHEIMER, J. R., The Flying Trapeze: Three Crises for Physicists. London 1964.

ORWELL, G., 1984. Praha 2003.

PÁLEŠ, E., Angelológia dejín, Bratislava 2001.

PAP, A., Analytische Erkenntnistheorie. Wien 1955.

PAP, A., Elements of Analytic Philosophy. New York 1949.

PARKINSON, C. N., Zákony profesora Parkinsona. Praha 1966.

PAULI, W., Relativitätstheorie. Encyklopedie der mathematischen Wissenschaften Vol.2 1920.

PATOČKA, J., Přirozený svět jako filosofický problém. Praha 1970.

PAVLATOVÁ, E., Bojíte se smrti? Praha 2001.

PECK, M. S., Svět, který čeká na zrození. Praha 2003.

PELIKÁN, P., Člověk a informace. Praha 1967.

PENROSE, R., Makrosvět, mikrosvět a lidská mysl. Praha 1999.

PENROSE, R., Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press 1994.

PIETSCH, M., Die industrielle Revolution. Freiburg, Basel, Wien 1961.

PLOCEK, K., Cesty hlubinné psychologie. In: Psyche et Natura 2000, č.1.

POGAČNIK, M., Systémy Země a síla Kristova. Praha 2001.

POLLOCK, F., Automation. Frankfurt 1964.

POPPER, K. R., Bída historicismu, Praha 1994.

POPPER, K. R., Logika vědeckého bádání. Praha 1997.

POPPER, K. R., Objektive Erkenntnis. Hamburg 1973.

POPPER, K. R., Otevřená společnost a její nepřátelé I - II. Praha 1994.

POPPER, K. R., Věčné hledání. Praha 1995.

POPPER, K. R., Život jako řešení problémů. Praha 1998.

POPPER, K. R., ECCLES, J. C., The Self and Its Brain. London 1977.

POPPER, K. R., LORENZ K., Budoucnost je otevřená. Praha 1997.

POSTLEY, J. A., Computers and People. New York 1960.

PRICE, H. H., Perception. London 1932.

PRIGOGINE, I., Čas k stávání. Praha 1997.

PRIGOGINE, I., Vom Sein zum Werden. München, Zürich 1979.

PRIGOGINE, I., STENGERS, I., La nouvelle allience. Paris 1979.

PRIGOGINE, I., STENGERS, I., Order out of Chaos. London 1984.

RAMSPERGER, A. G., Philosophies of Science. New York 1942.

REICHENBACH, H., Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre. Berlin-Leipzig 1928.

REICHENBACH, H., Philosophische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Basel 1949.

REICHENBACH, H., Ziele und Wege der heutigen Naturphilosophie, Leipzig 1931.

RIESMAN, D., The Lonely Crowd. New Haven – London 1963.

RICHTA a kol., Civilizace na rozcestí. Praha 1967.

RICHTMYER, F. K., KENNARD, E. H., Introduction to Modern Physics (4. vyd). New York and London 1947.

ROPOHL, G., Technologische Aufklärung. Frankfurt a. M. 1991.

RORTY, R., Objectivity, Relativism and Truth. Cambridge Univesity Press 1991.

ROSTOW, W. W., The Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge 1960.

ROSZAK, T., The Cult of Information. N. Zork 1986.

RUBINŠTEJN, S. L., Bytie i soznanie. Moskva 1957.

RUSSELL, B., An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London 1948.

RUSSELL, B., Einführung in die mathemasche Philosophie. München 1923.

RUSSELL, B., History of Western Philosophy. London 1947.

RUSSELL, B., Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. London 1948.

RUSSELL, B., Philosophie der Materie. Leipzig-Berlin 1929.

RUSSELL, B., Proč nejsem křesťanem. In: Antológia moderného ateizmu, Bratislava 2005.

RUSSELL, B., The Impact of Science on Society. New York 1946.

RUSSELL, B., Unser Wissen von der Aussenwelt. Leipzig 1926.

RUSSELL, P., Od vědy k Bohu. Praha 2008.

ŘÍČAN, P., Psychologie náboženství a spirituality. Praha 2007.

SAK, P. a kol., Člověk a vzdělání v informační společnosti. Praha 2007.

SALOMON, J. J., Technologický úděl. Praha 1997.

SAVAGE, CH. I., SMALL, J. R., Introduction to Managerial Economics (2. vyd). London 1968.

SEARLE, J., Minds, Brains and Science. Pengwin Books 1984.

SEIFERT, T., Synchronizität – leben in Sinnzusammenhängen. In: Zeit haben, Konzentration in der Beschleunigung. Zürich und Düsseldorf 1998.

SELUCKÝ, R., Reformmodel ČSSR. Rowohlt 1969.

SHELDRAKE, R., Seven Experiments That Could Change the World. Rochester Vermont 2002.

SHELDRAKE, R., Tao přírody. Bratislava 1994.

SHELDRAKE, R., Teorie morfické rezonance (Nová věda o životě). Praha 2002.

SCHELSKY, H., Der Mensch in der wissenschaftlichen Zivilisation. Köln – Opladen 1961.

SCHELSKY, H., Die sozialen Folgen der Automatisierung. Düsseldorf, Köln 1957.

SCHENK, G., Die Grundlagen des 21. Jahrhunderts. Berlin 1963.

SCHIFF, L. I., Quanten Mechanics (2. vyd.). International Series of Pure and Applied Physics 1955.

SCHLICK, M., Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre. Berlin 1918.

SCHLICK, M., Gesammelte Aufsätze. Wien 1938.

SCHLICK, M., Raum und Zeit in der gegenwärtigen Physik. Berlin 1922.

SCHRÖDINGER, E., Nature and the Greeks. Cambridge Universiry Press 1954.

SCHRÖDINGER, E., What is Life? Cambridge University Press 1944.

SIMON, H. A., Models of Discovery. Boston 1977.

SIMON, H. A., The Science of the Artificial. Cambridge Mass. 1969.

SKALICKÝ, K., Po stopách neznámého Boha. Praha 2003.

SKOLIMOWSKI, H., Účastná mysl. Praha 2001.

SLUCKIN, W., Minds and Machines. London 1960.

SMÉKAL, V., O lidské povaze. Brno 2005.

SOLLA PRICE, J. D. de, Science since Babylon. London 1962.

SOUDKOVÁ, M., Psychologie pomáhá každodennímu životu. Brno 2004.

SOUDKOVÁ, M., Světlo a naděje. Praha 1999.

SOULE, G., The Scope of Tomorrow. New York 1958.

SOUZENELLE, A., MOUTAPPA, J., Slovo v našem nitru. Praha 2000.

STEBBING, L. S., A Modern Introduction to Logic (3.vyd.). London 1942.

STEGMÜLLER, W., Metaphysik, Wissenschaft, Skepsis. Frankfurt a.M. – Wien 1954.

STEINBUCH, K., Automat und Mensch. Berlin, Göttingen, Heidelberg 1963.

STEINBUCH, K., Die informierte Gesellschaft. Rowohlt 1968.

STEINBUCH, K., Falsch programmiert. Stuttgart 1968.

STEINBUCH, K., Mensch, Technik, Zukunft. Reinbek bei Hamburg 1973.

STEINER, R., Theosofie. Praha 1992.

STEVENSON, I., The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 164, Nr. 5 (USA).

STONIER, T., Informace a vnitřní struktura vesmíru. Praha 2002.

STRASSMAN, R., DMT: molekula duše. Praha 2005.

STROBEL, L., Kauza Kristus. Praha 2003.

STROBEL, L., Kauza Stvořitel. Praha 2006.

STROBEL, L., Kauza víra. Praha 2004.

STRUIK, D. J., Dějiny matematiky. Praha 1963.

STRUNECKÁ, A. a kol., Nepovinné rozjímání. Ústí n. L. 2001.

SVITÁK, I., Dialektika pravdy. Index 1984.

SZONDI, L., Člověk a osud. Ústí nad Orlicí 2009.

ŠIK, O., Ekonomika, zájmy, politika. Praha 1962.

ŠMAJS, J., Drama evoluce. Praha 2000.

ŠMAJS, J., Ohrožená kultura. Praha 1997.

ŠMAJS, J., Krob, J., Úvod do ontologie. Brno 1994, 2.vyd.

ŠRÍ MÁTADŽÍ NIRMALA DÉVI, Metamoderní éra. Praha 2001.

ŠTAMPACH, I. O., Přehled religionistiky. Praha 2008.

THEILHARD de CHARDIN, P., Místo člověka v přírodě. Praha 1967.

THOMAS, L., Myšlenky pozdě v noci. Praha 1989.

THORNE, K. S., Černé díry a zborcený čas. Praha 2004.

TICHOPLAVOVÁ, T., TICHOPLAVOV, V., Fyzika víry. Bratislava 2004.

TICHOPLAVOVÁ, T., TICHOPLAVOV, V., Brány pro duše. Bratislava 2004.

TINKER, J., The Challenge of Sustainable Development to Democracy. Copenhagen 1992.

TIPPETT, K., Einsteins´God. Penguin Books 2010.

TLUSTÝ, V., Prostor a čas. Praha 1960.

TOFFLER, A., Die Zukunftschance. Bertelsmann Verlag 1980.

TOFFLER, A., Šok z budoucnosti. Praha 1992.

TOFFLER, A., TOFFLEROVÁ H., Nová civilizace /Třetí vlna a její důsledky/. Praha 2001.

TONDL, L., Mezi epistemologií a sémiotikou. Praha 1996.

TONDL, L., Věda, technika a společnost. Praha 1994.

TRESMONTANT, C., Dějiny vesmíru a smysl stvoření. Praha 2002.

ÚLEHLA, I., Od fyziky k filosofii. Praha 1963.

ULLRICH, O., Technik und Herrschaft. Frankfurt a. M. 1979.

VESTER, F., Neuland des Denkens. München 1988.

VOBOŘIL, S., Nové Tao. Praha 1998.

VOLLMER, G., Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie. Stuttgart 1985.

VOLLMER, G., Was können wir wissen? Stuttgart 1985.

WALSCH, N. D., Hovory s Bohem I-III. Praha.

WALSCH, N. D., Přátelství s Bohem. Praha.

WARWICK, K., Úsvit robotů. Soumrak lidstva. Praha 1999.

WATSON, L., Temné síly přírody. Praha 1996.

WEHR, G., C. G. Jung a Rudolf Steiner. Hranice 2003

WEINBERG, S., První tři minuty. Praha 1983.

WEINBERG, S., Snění o finální teorii. Praha 1996.

WEINBERG, S., Rohovor v TV programu „Víra a rozum“. In: Antológia moderného ateizmu, Bratislava 2005.

WEINBERG, S., Vesmír podle designéra? In: Antológia moderného ateizmu, Bratislava 2005.

WEINSCHENK, C., Das Wirklichkeitsproblem der Erkenntnistheorie und das Vehältnis des Psychischen zum Physischen. Leipzig 1936.

WEIZSÄCKER, C. F. von, Zum Weltbild der Physik. Leipzig 1943.

WEIZSÄCKER, E. U., LOVINS, A. B., LOVINSOVÁ, L. H., Faktor čtyři: dvojnásobný blahobyt – poloviční spotřeba. Praha 1996.

WELSCH, W., Die Postmoderne in Kunst und Philosophie und ihr Verhältnis zum technologischen Zeitalter. In: Technologisches Zeitalter oder Postmoderne (ed. Zimmerli, W.Ch.) München 1988.

WELSCH, W., Naše postmoderní moderna. Praha 1994.

WETTER, G., Der dialektische Materialismus (4.vyd.). Wien 1958.

WEYL, H., Philosophie der Matematik und Naturwissenschaft. München und Berlin 1927.

WIENER, N., I am a Mathematician. London 1956.

WIENER, N., Kybernetika a společnost. Praha 1963.

WIENER, N., Kybernetika neboli řízení a sdělování v živých organismech a strojích. Praha 1960.

WILSON, E. O., Konsilience. Praha 1999.

WILSON, E. O., O lidské přirozenosti. Praha 1993.

WILSON, E. O., Rozmanitost života. Praha 1995.

WITTGENSTEIN, L., Filosofická zkoumání. Praha 1993.

WRIGHT, R., Morální zvíře. Praha 1995.

WUNDT, W., Einleitung in die Philosophie. Leipzig 1901.

ZIMMER, E., Umsturz im Weltbild der Physik. München 1934.

ŽÁDNÍK, M., Zamyšlení nad lidským bytím. Hradec Králové 1999.

Antológia moderného ateizmu (ed. Roman A. a Škoda R.). Bratislava 2005.

Automation and Technological Change. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1962.

Bible svatá /podle vydání kralického z r. 1613/.

C. G. Jung a křesťanská spiritualita (ed. Moore R. L.). Praha 1998.

Computers and Thought (ed. Feigenbaum – Feldman). New York, San Francisco, Toronto, London 1963.

Der Mensch im Betrieb. Köln und Opladen 1962.

Die Evolution des Denkens (ed. Lorenz K., Wuketits F. M.). München, Zürich 1983.

Die Wissenschaft und die Zukunft des Menschen. München 1965.

Evolution and Consciousness (ed. Jantsch E., Waddington C. H.). London, Amsterdam, Don Mills, Ontario, Tokyo 1976.

Chaos, věda a filosofie / ed. J. Nosek/. Praha 1999.

Im Schatten der Technik. München – Esslingen 1960.

Industrialization and Society (ed. Hoselitz – Moore). Unesco 1963.

International System Science Handbook (ed. Rodriguez Delgardo R., Banathy B. H.). Madrid 1993.

Korán. Praha 1972.

Kybernetik als soziale Tatsache. Hamburg – Berlin 1963.

Kybernetik. Brücke zwischen Wissenschaften (ed. Frank H.). Frankfurt a. M. 1964.

Kybernetika ve společenských vědách (ed. Arab-Ogly E., Kolman A., Zeman J.). Praha 1965.

Lehrbuch der Philosophie. Die Geschichte der Philosophie. Berlin 1925.

Lexikon der Kybernetik. Quickborn bei Hamburg 1964.

Man in Contemporary Society. New York – London 1962.

Mathematical Thinking in the Social Science (ed. Lazarsfeld P. F.). Glencoe 1955.

Naše společná budoucnost. Praha 1991.

Planet under Stress (ed. C. Mungall a D. J. McLaren). Oxford University Press 1991.

Readings in the Philosophy of Science (ed. Feigl – Brodbeck). New York 1953.

Readings in Philosophical Analysis (ed. Feigl – Sellars). New York 1949.

Reinkarnace (uspořádal A. Opatrný). Praha 1994.

Sedmkrát o smyslu filosofie. Praha 1964.

Technik im technischen Zeitalter. Düsseldorf 1965.

Technologisches Zeitalter oder Postmoderne (ed. Zimmerli W. Ch.). München 1988.

The Science of Science (ed. Goldsmith –Mackay). London – Toronto 1964.

Tibetská kniha mrtvých. Praha 1991.

Toward a Unified Theory of Management (ed. Koontz H.). New York, San Francisco, Toronto, London 1964.

Trends in Social Science (ed. Ray D. P.). New York 1961.

Věda a řízení společnosti (Král M. a kol.). Praha 1967.

Věda kontra iracionalita 3. Sborník čs. klubu Skeptiků, Praha 2005.

Věk kybernetiky. Praha 1966.

Vzpomínky, sny, myšlenky C. G. Junga /zaznamenala A. Jafféová/. Brno 1998.

Wissenschaft und Ethik (ed. Lenk H.). Stuttgart 1991.

Za zrkadlom moderny. Bratislava 1991.

Zóhar (Svatá kniha Kabaly). Praha 2003.

Životní prostředí České republiky (Moldan B. a kol.). Praha 1990.

Index

A

Abraham 6

Adam 32, 33

Adler Alfred 7, 28

agnosticism 121, 133, 137

aggression 101

Akashic field 51, 53

Alexander Eben 142-145

amygdala 103

anatomy 03, 104

English 144

anthropic principle 64, 65, 66, 67, 121

anthropocentrism 39, 50

anthropomorphic 50, 53

archetypal patterns 29, 52, 61, 130, 140

Aristotle 26

Asclepius 102, 104

astronomy 93, 149

St. Augustine 74-75, 107, 123

atheism 6, 30, 37, 40, 44-45, 53, 54, 60, 64, 66, 68, 71, 72, 79, 93, 97, 120, 123, 128, 134-135, 141, 142, 144, 145-148, 151, 152-153

Averoes 79

B

Bacon Francis 85

Barrow John 48

Barrows Anita 111-112

Baudelaire Charles 12

Beard G. M. 103

Berger Peter 116

safety 100

unconsciousness 10

Bhagavadgita 90

Bible 30-31, 32, 34, 50, 85, 123-124, 131, 140

Bible of Kralice 34

white hole 49, 65

biology 7, 68, 69, 75, 78, 104

biological species 85

biological impulse 98

Bizik Oskar 15

Blake William 83

Godman 37

service 143

Bohm David 48

Bohr Niels 20, 74, 83

Boltzmann Ludwig 22, 69

Bonhoeffer´s letters 115

Brahman 52, 53, 62

Branderberger Robert 49

Brockman John 53-54, 71-72

Brown Sarah 143

Brzezinski Zbigniew 133

Brundon Peter 92

Bryan William 88

Buddha 6

Buddhism 50, 62-63, 90, 110

Tibetan Buddhism 81

God 5-10, 17, 22, 29-43, 55, 71-72, 74, 84, 85, 94, 98, 102, 109-110, 113-119, 121-125, 129-133, 134, 136, 148, 149, 153

- Holy Trinity 124

- prove of God 61, 121, 145, 150

- God of gaps 114

- personal God 74-75, 136, 143

- resemblance od God and man 44, 136

Byrd Randolph 82

C

Cacák Jiří 15

Calabi Eugenio 49

Camus´ Stranger

Capra Fritjof 63

Carnap Rudolf 11

Carson Donald 123

Carter James 133

celibacy 127

central control 69

way to coexistence 100

goal 55

civilization 133-139

civilization crisis 106crisis 106

Coyne George 92

Č

Čapek Karel 12

Magazine “reporter” 14

black hole 49, 65

time, absolute 18

time 19, 31, 49, 95, 128

time-space 34, 128

numbers 91

D

Darwin Charles 61, 68, 69, 84, 85-86, 114, 116, 118, 120, 123

Darwin´s hypotheses 55

Davidson Richard 105

Davies Paul 66, 73, 74-76

Dawkins Richard 40, 44, 55, 56, 57, 68, 77, 80, 88, 113, 120, 152

Dayton court 86

democracy 27-28, 122, 125, 130, 145-146

democratic voting on the truth 145-146

Dennett Daniel 60

depression 77, 106, 110, 111-112

Descartes René 17, 102, 141

determinants 103

determinism 21, 41, 73, 74, 94

dharma 90

Dirac Paul 114

good and evil 52

doctrine 90

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor Mikhailovich 11

Holy Spirit 125

spiritual “me” 143

soul (spirit) 17, 52, 61, 78, 106, 108, 110

dynamics 150

Dyson Freeman 73-76

Ď

evil 130

E

egocentrism 17

egoism 131

Eddington Artur 74

Einstein Albert 12, 18-20, 22, 42, 48, 61, 73, 92, 94, 97, 98, 128, 140, 141

ecology 84

economic crisis 133-135

economic surplus product 134

economics 67-69, 70, 131, 145-147, 149

Eldredge Niles 58

emergency 8, 24, 38, 41, 52, 58, 67, 68, 69, 71, 119, 135

endorphins 105

energy 19, 20, 23, 45, 52, 64, 81, 84, 98, 102, 104, 136, 143, 150

entropy 22, 70, 72

evolution theory 84, 113

F

false prophets 38

falsification 25-26, 151

Faraday Michael 18

Farmer Doyne 70

Fendrych Lubomír 37

philosophy 54, 61

philosophy, Marxist 54, 12

philosophy of science 19-20, 31

Fox Matthew 139-142

Freud Sigmund 7, 28, 33, 59, 88

Freedman Alexandr 20

Friedman Milton 145

Fukuyama Francis 72

physical “me” 77

physics 94, 113, 150

physics, classical 18

physicalism 120

physical machines 56, 94

physical sciences 17-20, 50, 56, 69, 104

G

Gaia 59

galaxy 96, 149

Galileo Galilei 17, 79, 86

Gamow George 20

Gandhí Mahatma 92

Gasperini Maurizio 49

Gell-Mann 67-68, 114

Genesis 30, 85, 87, 88, 117, 137

genetics 84

genome 70

genes 103

geocentrism 39

geopolitical level 100

Gleick J. 96

global medicine 80

global multiculture 135

gravitational field 19

Gödel Kurt 63, 93-94

Gould Stephen C. 55

Goodwin Brian 57

Greene Brian 48, 49

Grof Stanislav 29

Grygar Jiří 44, 46

Guth Alan 65

Guth´s inflation expansion 49

H

Hahnová Olga 94

Hanuš Milan 91

Hašek Jaroslav 12

Havel Václav 15

Havlíček Borovský Karel 12

Hayek Friedrich von 145

Hawking Stephan 63

Heisenberg Werner 20, 48, 61, 74, 140, 144

heliocentrism 17

Hillis Daniel 70

Hinduism 52, 89

hippocampus 103

historicism 17

Hitler Adolph 92, 122, 135

Hládková Marie 149

depth psychology 30, 33, 40, 47, 50-51, 54, 57, 58, 64, 66, 73, 83, 92, 98, 101, 105, 108, 119, 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 150, 153

mass 17-18, 45, 61, 65

matter-energy world 41, 62, 68, 71, 128, 150

anger 99

value 78, 96, 100

value of faith 121

Holocaust 101-102

homoeopathy 80

Hon Jan 15

hormones 103

Hoťka Stanislav 127, 149

Hoyle Fred 19

Hrabal Bohumil 12

Hranáč František 127

limits of decline 135

heroic act 99

Hübl Milan 14

humanities 53-54

Humphrey Nicholas 61

Huntigton Samuel 72, 133-139

Hussein Saddam 100

stars 96-97

Ch

Chalmers David 144

Charter 77, 15

Chaun Igor 126, 127

Chew Geoffrey 48

Chomsky Noeme 60

Chopra Deepak 83, 92, 135-139

I

St. Igntius from Loyal 123

illusion 95

indeterminism 93, 95

individualisation 53

inflation theory 45, 65

information 23-24, 41, 50, 51, 54, 60, 64, 67, 84, 98, 101, 103, 124-125, 136, 141, 146, 150, 152, 153

incarnation 110, 124

instinct 96

integral theory of everything 51-53

integrity 77

interference 23-24

intelligent design 87, 88, 115, 120, 129

intuition 31

Iraq 100

J

Jakoby Bernard 29

Jantsch Erich 24

language 63, 70

Jesus Christ 5, 6, 36, 114, 116, 118, 123, 128, 131, 140, 143

subtle-substance world 50

Jičínský Zdeněk 15

Jiráček Vojtěch 15

Johnson Georgy 143

Jones Steve 57

Joyce James 114

Judaism 31, 102, 107, 123

Jung Carl Gustav 7, 26-27, 28-29, 33, 50, 52, 53, 92, 120, 130, 132, 133, 134, 136, 140, 146, 148, 151

K

Kafka Franz 11, 13

Kant Immanuel 24

capitalism 146

karma 90

caste systems 92

catharsis 31

Catholic Church 5, 11

Kauffman Stuart 68

causal action 65

Kenyon D. 107

Kepler Johannes 17

King Luther 92

collective human unconsciousness 41, 50, 61, 130

coma 142

complementarity 83, 113

complex systems 68

definitiveness 97

consumerism 132, 134

Copernicus Nicolas 17

corpuscular-wave dualism 18, 20-21, 83, 114

Kosík Karel 13

cosmic Christ 44, 139

cosmology 93, 140

Krauss Lawrence 44-45

beauty 113

creationism 61, 85, 113

crisis 145

Christianity 17, 50, 123, 130, 132, 135, 139

criticism of Christianity 128

Křížkovský Ladislav 5

culture 78, 84, 127, 130, 133, 142, 147

cultural artefact 71

Kurtz Paul 40, 152

quantum mechanics 20-22, 94, 112-115, 129, 137-139, 144

quark 113

cybernetics 22-25, 51, 83, 97, 101, 141, 150

L

Langton Christopher 69

Laszlo Ervin 51-53, 62

love 78, 80, 107-109, 142

love, abstract 143

substance 54

healing 80, 81, 83

Leibniz Gottfried 49

Levin Janna 73, 93-98

liberalism 147

human revenge 98

human salvation 106

human values 28

human “me” 52

limits 94, 97

Linde Andrej 49, 64

linguistics 60

ship Beagle 86

logic 96, 97 128

London Jack 11

M

Malthus Thomas 86

Mandela Nelson 92

Maňas Miroslav 16

Margulis Lynn 59

Marx Karl 27, 88

mathematics 39, 49, 75, 91, 93-98, 113, 128

material cosmos 39, 51, 54

Maturano Humbert 62

Matyáš Zdeněk 12-13

Maxwell James 18, 22

McCullough Michael 98-102

meditation, monk 105

metaphors 124, 132, 150

meta-universe 52

boundaries 43, 94

gaps 114

limit state 100
Mikeš František 126, 149

Mill John Stuart 128

Milton 85

Minsky Marvin 59

Mlynář Zdeněk 17

prayers 82-83, 115

idols 41, 43, 68, 148

Moses´ Bible 5, 31

Monroe R. A. 144

Moody Raymond jr. 29, 143

Moore James 84-89

morality 69, 76, 85, 106, 119, 122, 129, 131

Moreland John 120

morpho-space 57

“butterfly effect” 115

wisdom 61, 132, 141

brain 60, 61, 77, 95, 99, 103, 120, 136, 142-144

Muhammad 6

multi-universe 49

thinking machines 59

mystery 90

mystic reflections 140, 141

mysticism 141, 142, 152

mystics 139

N

religion 91, 101, 122, 134, 135, 142, 149, 152

naturalism 86

heaven 142

“best world” 129-130

neo-Darwinism 52, 56, 61, 63, 66, 120

nervousness 103

immortality 52, 62, 124

Neurath Otto 94

uncertainty of decision making 43, 94

neurology 137, 142

unconsciousness 6-7, 30, 34, 41, 50, 61, 132, 140, 146, 151, 153

Novotný Michal 149

Newton Isaac 17-18, 86, 96, 141

Newtonian mechanics 64, 115

Nezval Vítězslav 12

Nietzsche Friedrich 88

Nuland Sherwin 76-80

O

revenge 99

forgiveness 98, 100-101, 126

responsibility 31, 43, 53, 123

Origenos 115

Orwell John 145

Enlightenment 17, 93, 105, 120, 140

Oz Mehmet 80-84

P

Palau Luis 122

Palmer Parker 109-111

memory 7, 23, 54, 84

- genetic 70, 71

- material 54, 56

- causal 56

- cybernetic 54, 108

- unconscious 41, 58

- socio- cultural 70

- spiritual 54

- conscious 42

memory process 72

Pap Arthur 13, 24

Pope Francis 118, 127-128

paradigm 8, 25-27, 144

paradigms, partial 48, 52, 64, 66, 79, 81, 89, 93, 97, 106, 119, 124, 140, 147, 149, 150, 152

paradigm, integrated 47, 48, 66, 79, 93, 102, 106, 132, 147

paradigms of sciences 17-28, 40, 57, 105, 114

Pauli Wolfgang 29

St. Paul from Tars 123

money 68, 102, 125, 130, 131, 133, 148, 149

Penrose Roger 63

Penzias Arno 20

persecution 14-15

Pikhart Petr 14

Pinker Steven 63

Planck Max 20

Planck´s length 49

computers 23, 94

Podéšť Karel 126, 149

subconsciousness 50

Poe Edgar 17

conceptual level 44, 70, 71, 121

politicians 131, 133, 145

political science 70, 130, 133, 149

Poltinghorne John 73, 79, 112-119

vengeance 99

Popper Karl 25, 33, 120, 129, 133, 150-151

Popperian-Jungina truth 71-72, 124, 150, 151

final judgement 31, 42

post-modernism 54, 57, 91, 129, 149

posthumous life 131, 133, 139, 149, 150

positivism 47

knowing 120

truth 25-27, 47, 61, 93, 97

- objective 38, 64, 129

- spiritual 98

rules, moral 30

legal doctrine 149

predestination 6

preferential values 146

prehistory of universe 49

Prigogine Ilyia 24

principle of complementarity 20

- of uncertainty 20

- of relativity 16-20

- of selectivity 67

space-time 19

near-death experience (NDE) 10, 142-144

experience, inner 40

primary causes against God 128-129

Pugwash peace conference 128

acceptance of mission 35

nature 96

natural science 55, 64, 65-66, 106, 120, 125, 130, 132, 149

natural selection 55, 57, 61, 63, 87, 107

psychiatry 33, 35

psyche, spiritual 9, 120

psychology, social and clinic 98

psychotherapy 105-106

Q

Quigley Caroll 134

R

rationalism 89, 92, 132-133

cancer 81-82, 102

Raman V. Varadajem 89-93

editors 145

reduction 55

reductionism 55, 56, 58, 67

Rees Martin 64

reincarnation 50-51, 52-53, 62, 90-91, 93, 138, 143, 144

Velvet Revolution

Rictus Jehan 12

Richta Radovan 25

Rilke Rainer 111-112

Rimbaud Artur 15

Ritchie George 143

Russell Bertrand 128-133

Ř

order 75

order, free 68

S

Sarasvati 91

Sartre Jean-Paul 11

Seifert Jaroslav 12

secularization 134, 145

Selye Hans 103, 105

semantics 34, 60

inert system 18

Shannon Claude 23

Sheldrake Rupert 139

Schank Roger 60

Schlick Moritz 13, 94, 98

Schrödinger Erwin 21

singularity 65, 70-71

Sisyphean lost rocks 37, 151

Skalický Karel 127

blind self-activity 55, 119

selfish gene 57

sociology 133, 149

Smith John 143

Smolin Lee 54, 66

death 8, 50, 72, 78, 142

death, clinical 10

death, physical 142

death, posthumous 50, 52, 117, 118, 153

meaning of life 11, 31, 39, 43, 64, 70, 76, 91-92, 98, 117, 123, 127, 132, 139, 145, 149, 153

sensory data 94

sensory illusions 24

dreaming 74

social issues 70

Solomon Andrew 106-109

Soudková Miluše 29, 73, 142

Spinoza Baruch de 74

spirituality 33, 43, 51, 67, 71

spiritual terms 38, 41

justice 130, 147

heart 80

Srovnal Jindřich 5

atadia of “chakras” 137

Stach Daniel 44-45

Stalin Josif 122, 135

Státní rybářství Praha 15

Sternbergá Esther 102-106

Party KSČ 13

Stránský Jiří 126

stress 102-106

Strobel Lee 119-126

string theory 48

Creator of cosmos 119, 143

super-string M-theory 51scientific theories 51

substance 17

Sufi Mysticisn 80

conscience 10, 43, 101, 121, 130

world, objective 43

light, visible 6

free will 10, 31, 38, 42, 43, 52, 73, 93-95, 98, 118-119, 121, 129-131, 141, 149

symbols 91

synchronicity 83-85, 93, 111

syntax 35, 60, 79

Swedenborg Emanuel 80, 83

Swinburne Algernon Charles 14

Š

Šik Ota 14

Šilhán Věněk 14-15

Šlouf Petr 149

Šindelář Jan 5

Šipov Gennadij Ivanovič 50

Šlouf Petr 41

T

technology 103, 125, 141, 145

technique 141

technology, cognitive 6, 7, 39, 61

Teihard de Chardin 53

Templeton Charles 121

theology 112, 118, 140, 148

theological dogmatists 37

theory of something 55

theory of strings 55theory of something 55

theory of physical everything 48, 67

theory of interrupted balances 58

theory of Braille genes 56

theory, super-gravitation, M-theory 48

theory of twistors 63, 64

theory of everything 33, 35, 40, 144, 152

therapy 81, 107

thermodynamics 22-23

terrorism 38

Thákur Rabindranath 92

Tichoplavov Tatjana and Vitalij 50, 62

Tippettová Krista 73-119

Tolstoy, Nikolayevich lev 11

St. Thomas Aquinas 79, 117

Tondl Ladislav 13, 30

Toth Peter 126

torsion field 21, 50-51

transcendence 117

death penalty 99

market rules 68, 70

third culture 53

“third worlds” 25-26, 151

tunnel 142

Turing Alan 93, 97

U

artificial intelligence 60, 69, 71

decline of moral values 135

serialization 54, 70, 146

suffering 121

V

Vafa Cumrun 49

Vácha Marek Orko 46

Varela Francisco 62

passions 106

Vaugham H. 143

Vavroušek Josef 15

Big Bang 7-8, 19-20, 21, 34, 41, 45, 49, 54, 55, 56, 58, 62, 63, 65, 68, 70, 72, 74, 88, 97, 98, 118, 119, 128, 129, 140, 141, 150

Veneziano Gabriela 49

eternity 74-75, 123

eternal life 149

science 38, 47, 51, 53-55, 91, 93, 104, 149

science and faith 102

- integrated 59, 64

science and religion 75, 84, 127

science and faith 73

scientific memory 43, 62

scientific revolution 54

scientific theories 150

scientific discoveries 70

consciousness 52, 64, 77-78, 121, 142, 144

Vienna Group 94, 98

faith, religious17, 85, 102, 107, 126, 130, 140, 146

faith, religious and mystic 37-38, 40, 77

Villon Franҫoise 12

vitality 106

vision 32, 40, 152

inner “me” 60

inner feelings 62, 153

inner meditation and prayers 138

free will 79

omniscience 43

Vysoká ekonomická škola 16, 30

Vysoká politická škola ÚV KSČ 14

Vysoká stranická škola při ÚV KSČ 13

Výzkumný ústav teorie a historie vědy ČSAV 30

creation from nothing 44

W

Wallace Alfred 87

Weinberg Steven 48, 64, 75, 76

Welch Bud 99

Whitehead Alfred 128

Wiener Norbert 20

Williams George 54

Wilson Robert 20

Witten Edward 48

Wittgenstein Ludwig 98

Wittnesová Jehovah 80

Y

Yau Shing-Tung 49

Z

Zahradník Rudolf 46

lawmaker 129

radiation, cosmic 20

radiation, relict 20

miracles 35, 36, 77

Zeman Miloš 16

earthquake 116

evil, cosmic 39

knowing 120

message 60
Zukal Rudolf 15

Ž

living nature 93, 96

post-mortal life 57, 131