Searching for the Ultimate Answer, People Have Found Water, a Brief History of Time, a Secret, and What the Bleep?

Throughout time, man and woman have been searching for the ultimate answer: life, the universe, and everything. This question is asked of Deep Thought, the computer in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. It comes up with the answer 42. Unfortunately, the ultimate question itself is unknown, therefore, telling us that it's more important to ask the right question than seek specific answers. But even if we come up with the right question, who's going to answer?

Of course, there are many religiously inclined people who will tell you outright what the answer is even if they can't give you sufficient evidence as to how their religion came about. For isn't the purpose of creation-individual or collective-at the core essential information that determines the importance or merit of existence?

Once I was approached by a member of the Los Angeles Church of Christ  (Name changes according to city, so when I lived in Boston it was the Boston Church of Christ), after a few minutes, out of curiosity, I asked him, "Who specifically gave you the authority to start your church?" After a bit of back and forth, I finally stopped him and asked if God had given someone specific authority to establish his church. He answered,

"In the Bible, wherever two meet in His name, then there He is."

That's all fine and dandy, but what about getting the absolute answer to the "why" and "where's"? Where did we come from? Why are we here? And where are we going? Shouldn't those answers come from the source, the Great Creator, one who will tell each man and woman directly, absolutely, without variance? For there certainly are a lot of possible answers out there, aren't there?

If you're looking for this definitive answer, consider the following. I'll begin with one of the biggest major religions: Christianity.

Christianity began with Christ. He died and left the Apostles. After the Apostles died, things got crazy. At the top of the family tree you've got the Roman Catholic Church. After a fashion, it separates into Greek, Eastern, Latin, and Western. They all follow the Bishop of Rome but have slight theological and doctrinal differences. A major problem if you're looking for ultimate truth, yes?

To give you a feel for the size and complexity of the issue, I'm going to break it down into detail for you. Keep in mind that allegedly, somewhere in all the below is the truth. Please follow along.

There are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, Italo-Albanian Catholic Church, Syro-Malbar Church, and so on.

There are 37 Anglican Communion Churches (Anglicanists call themselves the medium between Catholicism and Protestantism), such as Anglican Church of Kenya, Church of Uganda, Church of Providence of Myanmar, Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean, Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui, Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, and so on.

The Anglican Communion also includes the Church of Bangladesh, Church of North India, Church of south India, and the Church of Pakistan.

There are 30 Eastern Orthodox Churches (broken into additional sub categories: autonomy and autocephaly) such as Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe, Moldovan Orthodox Church, Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and so on. 

There are 11 Oriental Orthodox Churches such as Ethiopian Orthodox Twwahdeo Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Eritrean Orthodox Tweahedo Church, and so on.

Then there is the Assyrian Church of the East and some 45 other churches that call themselves Catholic.

Then you've got Protestantism, its hundreds of sects, and many others:

Pre-Lutheran, Lutheranism, Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregational, Anabaptists, Methodist, Pietists and Holiness Churches, Baptists, Brethren, Apostolic Churches-Irvingites, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Neo-Charismatic, African Initiated Churches, United and Uniting Churches, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Restorationism: Stone-Campbell Movement, Southcottites, Adventist, Sabbath-Keeping Churches, Non-Adventist, Sunday Adventists, Sacred Name Groups, Bible Student Groups, Universal Life, Anglo-Israelism, Oneness Pentecostalism, Unitarianism and Universalism, Swedenborgianism, Messianic Judaism, New Thought, Christian Science, Latter Day Saints, Rastafari, New Age, Religions associated with the Yoruba, Esoteric Christianity.

Now to add to the picture, let's take a look at some more options and some numbers.

• Christianity: 2.1 billion
• Islam: 1.5 billion
• Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
• Hinduism: 900 million
• Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
• Buddhism: 376 million
• Primal-indigenous: 300 million
• African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
• Sikhism: 23 million
• Juche: 19 million
• Spiritism: 15 million
• Judaism: 14 million
• Baha'i: 7 million
• Jainism: 4.2 million
• Shinto: 4 million
• Cao Dai: 4 million
• Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
• Tenrikyo: 2 million
• Neo-Paganism: 1 million
• Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
• Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
• Scientology: 500 thousand

(Adherents.com)

Phew! That's a LOT of choices. But wait, there's more.

Amongst all this confusion, one can see why people may just desire to break from the overly done, tried and maybe not so true, and begin anew or seek answers in non-religious doctrine, if we can label them such (and I'm not necessarily talking agnostic or atheist).

This is why A Brief History of Time was such a monster success, to Stephen Hawking's great surprise. But when you look at the mass confusion out there, which religion do you select? Can you blame people for looking elsewhere?

Certainly many have given up and gone for their answers elsewhere. It's kind of like electing former actors and wrestlers to political positions because people are just damn sick and tired of politicians. Seems there's always a breaking point in life, where one needs to just begin anew.

Along the lines of the new, there's also Dr. Emoto and his Hidden Messages in Water, and The Secret Life of Water, as well as The Secret, and a cult favorite What the Bleep Do We Know? These are based in pseudo-science and even pseudo-religion or spiritual philosophies, but of course there are problems with these approaches as well. Let's get into them.

Dr. Emoto's work is problematic because his analysis is based in "subjective science" (Emoto's words) and entails photographing the alleged reaction of water crystals to the spoken and written word. Emoto has people pray while placing their hands on water in containers. He's also written kind and belligerent words and phrases on pieces of paper and taped them to bottles of water left overnight. What's problematic is that the reaction of the water crystals may not be to the words but to people's body heat or even the vibrations of the spoken words. The experiments are not scientifically sound.

There's also a problem with The Secret and its law of attraction. Those in The Secret talk about thinking, speaking, and focusing on the positive, visualizing and believing that what one desires will come about without having to be specific as to how it will happen. If you believe enough, it will happen. But this is where problems arise. When one "desiring" runs into not just weeks or months of difficulties and waiting before the desired comes to fruition but possibly years, why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? 

Jack Canfield (he of Chicken Soup for the Soul ad infinitum) who appears in The Secret, has spoken about the difficulty people have with the law of attraction's three step process: ask, believe, receive. The believe part is a biggie and is religious in nature or based in faith, belief in things not seen, and is quite difficult for a generation of Americans who have been steeped in the empirical or "seeing is believing" nature of  the scientific method. And even though there are billions of those who claim a religion, how many have "the faith of a mustard seed" to move mountains?  

To continue, let's get back to Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time, there's even a problem here. With his look at worm holes, black holes, particle spin, quantum and relativity theory he and other physicists are attempting to come up with a unified theory. They are attempting to tie together quantum and relativity with the string theory or some other unifying theory. However, there are several problems.

First, many scientists believe that the string theory is "not even wrong," meaning that there appears to be limitless outcomes or answers.

Second, even if a theory is found (Hawking believes there's a 50/50 chance we'll have an answer in 10 years), it can't be "absolute." Hawking's definition of "theory" includes the statement that none are absolute in nature, meaning, that scientists love play. They love open-ended possibility, that which is often not even founded in reality, abstract physics is based more in fantasy than reality.

Look at the string theory. In order for it to work, mathematicians must add four dimensions. If a third theory is eventually found, then it will have to be taken out of the abstract and put into the real to give us a definition. So why can't any scientific theory of complexity be absolute? Consider the following.

In order to be absolute (perfect in quality, complete, not to be doubted or questioned) then one would have to have all existing and future knowledge to the end of time, applied objectively, knowing all possible outcomes, again, to the end of time. Not gonna happen. But a lot of scientists are pumped about having such open-endedness. Hell, if they know it all then playtime is over.

So what the bleep? Or rather, What the Bleep Do We Know? Yes, another idea, here stated in a story / documentary style film ala The Secret (a couple scientists appear in both films) that speaks physics, that speaks to Brian Swimme's (mathematical cosmologist) concept of "allurement." As Swimme states:

"Love begins as allurement-as attraction. Think of the entire cosmos, all one hundred billion galaxies rushing through space: At this cosmic scale, the basic dynamism of the universe is the attraction each galaxy has for every other galaxy. Nothing in all science has been established and studied with greater attention of each part of the universe for every other part" (The Universe is a Green Dragon)

My gosh! I think we've got something here . . .

Let the man continue . . .

"Such experiences of interest are the roots of love. You are simply attracted to something or someone, to some activity. You don't find reasons for this attraction until after the fact; then you come up with reasons. The Earth does not think: ‘Well, it'll be a good thing to be attracted to the Sun. That way, humans can warm their tea in black bags and save electricity.' The Earth is simply attracted."

"Each person discovers a field of allurements, the totality of which bears the unique stamp of that person's personality. Destiny unfolds in the pursuit of individual fascinations and interests."

 Wow!

Consider the following. There is nothing more important to people than their individual freedoms. It's innate! Try to get a three-year-old to do something he doesn't want to . . . Good luck!

It's why more people come to America than any other country. It's innate. It's inalienable. It's just . . . right. It's the major reason you've got so many religious choices. Lots of individuals flexing their freedom-to-choose muscle and then saying "Hey, I'VE got the answer." Hmmmmmm.

OK. But the problem arises again. Where's ultimate truth. THE answer? Consider the following . . .

If we desire to make our own choices at the very core of our beings, have so since we were kids, then why do we go anywhere else to pursue our "individual fascinations and interests."

We all have a path we must follow. The answers lie within. It's only logical.

Seek and they will be found. But beware, if you look deep enough, honestly enough, bravely enough, in a very singular fashion, you just may be a bit surprised as to what fascination lies in waiting.