Twitter icon

Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
Christian def'n
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret the Bible
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Confusing terms
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Death penalty

Same-sex marriage

Human rights
Gays in the military
Sex & gender
Stem cells
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news


Religious Tolerance logo

An essay donated by Rudolf Svidran

I think, therefore I am...incomplete.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.
horizontal rule
British comedian Frank Skinner recently surprised his audience by publicly declaring that he believes in God. He used a gentle joke to explain why:

"A non-believer tries to convince a believer that God does not exist. He puts a kettle on so as to brighten up their discussion with a cup of tea.

- I’m telling you, there’s no such a thing as a God. Neither the universe nor anything in it was created. There was just a bang! And that was it. All done!

- Hum..., replies the believer.

- ...but hang on a second, the kettle‘s boiling and the tea won’t get made by itself!..., shouts the non-believer, rushing to the kitchen."

Frank Skinner’s humorous illustration pointed at some serious questions to which man has strived to find answers throughout history. Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Spinoza, Kant, Descartes or Rousseau did their best to interpret the world by reasoning. So did scientists of all kinds. “I believe in what I see, I believe in what can be proved“, seemed to be their credo. Up to this day, rationalists all over the world consider Descartes‘ “cogito, ergo sum“ to be the definition of the highest human virtue. But not everyone in the scientific community thinks the same. Sir Isaac Newton, who gave the gravitation law a mathematical form, enriched humankind with invaluable knowledge not only in physics and mathematics, but also in other fields such as chemistry and astronomy, and his fascination with natural laws also transcended into philosophy and theology. Although he was one of the most influential scientists of all times, by the end of his life he humbly noticed: “I feel like a child playing on the beach with pebbles, while in front of him lies an ocean of undiscovered truth“. Newton was well aware of man‘s multidimensional nature; he knew that in our struggle to grasp the enigma of existence our brain alone does not reach far enough. He obviously recognized that the human brain cannot comprehend everything because EVERYTHING is eternal and infinite whereas our brain is temporary and limited, both physically and mathematically. As a result, the brain cannot take in the whole reality, just like a cup, a glass or a jug cannot contain an ocean. Newton’s theological theses clearly pointed to the fact that uncovering the reality of existence requires not only reason but equally another component of the human being – intuition, feelings.

So what is it exactly that lies beyond the boundaries of our rationality? Put simply – the mystery of LIFE. Although some contend that life on earth developed from a unicellular organism living in the ocean, others argue that even if it was so, how did our planet, the ocean and the unicellular organism come into being? The protagonists of the first thesis say it was a result of long-term chemical processes. But their opponents ask where did all the elements and the laws of the subsequent chemical reactions come from? They argue that nothing creates itself from nothing and therefore, where there is creation there is a creator, in this case with a big C.

“Where is the truth?” one might ask. Religious praxis shows that many believe not in God but rather in their belief in God. Others believe in a God who created the Earth and life (including human life) in six days. Still others laugh at them. But to some, for instance to the adepts of Hinduism it is (allegorically) possible because according to their scriptures called Bhagavad-Gita, allegedly inspired by the Divine some 3000 years B.C., one day in the eternal life of God lasts eight thousand human years. Bhagavad-Gita also says that all universes are the materialization of a tiny part of the energy of God, the latter filling the void around Him with universes every several billion (human) years and reclaiming them as re-converted, immaterial energy after another spell of billions of years. This would mean that the universe and everything in it including us humans is nothing else but a materialized part of God himself, whom the Bhagavad-Gita calls Krishna. He apparently dictated the scriptures to an ancient Hindu general and his earthly friend, Arjuna, during one of his journeys on earth where he is said to return in human form every two thousand years.

It is worth noticing that Krishna’s life story and personal characteristics, such as depicted in Bhagavad-Gita, are surprisingly similar to those attributed to the Christ and that Krishna, just like the Christian God, created the universe out of love. That is to say that his primeval, original means of communication was not a verbal language encrypted in the form of a linguistic nomenclature, but the rationally indecipherable language of love. That would mean that if we humans want to comprehend the Divine Being we need to communicate with Him, or Her, in the language of love. That being said, it is hardly irrelevant that the existence of creation as a result of divine love is the common premise not only of Hinduism and Christianity but of all religions in the world with the exception of Satanism and a couple of other doctrines.

In the final analysis, one cannot help asking questions such as: “Is the capacity to think really the highest human virtue? Is it not rather a complementary equivalent to our ability to process reality through our feelings and emotions? Isn’t rigid Cartesianism depriving us of our human integrity and ultimately of the supremely important consciousness that we are one with the Giver of life? Are we not impoverishing ourselves if we believe only in what we see?“  Indeed, the air is invisible and yet it not only exists but is indispensable to our very existence. Awakening to these possibilities does not require that one become a zealous not to say bigoted Christian, Jew or Muslim. Neither does it require a life-long study of sacred scriptures. It should be quite enough consciously to open oneself and embrace the realm of the yet unexplored, while admitting that besides our own individual, subjective, i.e. agnostic truth there may be something like an objective truth. Objective, transpersonal and ABSOLUTE. Therein might be hidden the very guiding principle of our lives. If so, exploring it should be a gratifying duty of each  human being. As the French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry put it in his delightful novelette The Little Prince, “the essential is invisible to the eyes; we have to look for it with our heart“.  

line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or to the "Visitor essay" menu, or choose:


Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.


Sponsored link: