UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Ask the Patriarch 212
What's your take on "The God Theory"?

from: Rev. Burnett blackmon

A discussion has been opened on this question and answer. To contribute your own thoughts to this exchange, please use the Contact form.

I have read a book "The God Theory,"[1] and was wondering what the take on this may be by some other members, if any. I still feel as though any idea of a supreme being, deity, or infinite consciousnes is merely human curiosity, as we poor humans never will be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt as to the existence of such. But the book itself is interesting in that the author, as an astrophysicist, basically gives both religious and scientific dogma hell, so to speak. I can still say truthfully that the tenets of the UCTAA are what I espouse, as I cannot truly care one way or another about a "deity," et al, if I cannot have proof, which as far I can tell, will never be forthcoming to humans.

I suppose that reading a book, and still recognizing that we poor humans are just that, is far removed from accepting its message or theory as truth or proof of a truth. I still don't care, because there's not a damned thing I can do one way or another about what's out "there." I'd rather admit to just being a human with a penchant for reading, and just wonder as a human does sometimes, while trying to be a decent human on occasion.

Yours, B. Blackmon

The Patriarch replies:


I have not read the book, and I invite comments from anyone else who has. But Bernard Haisch is not the only scientist who has looked for God in the Cosmos and found Him. For example there is also Paul Davies, a physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist who has written many books on the subject.

Bet let's consider Bernard Haisch's hypothesis. As i said, I have not read the book - so all I am basing my view on is the book's website.

What he is suggesting is...

I propose is an infinite conscious intelligence -- so let's call it God -- who has infinite potential, whose ideas become the laws of physics of our universe and others, and whose purpose in so doing is the transformation of potential into experience.[2]

So, too, I am proposing, in The God Theory, that ultimately it is consciousness that is the origin of matter, energy, and the laws of nature in this universe and all others that may exist. And the purpose is for God to experience his potential.[2]

Frankly, I reject these ideas. I consider them just about impossible. The reason is that I do not think intelligence (conscious or otherwise) can exist in the absence of information. It can't exist if it has never had experience. It cannot exist without external stimulus. Thus intelligence cannot be the origin of matter, energy, and the laws of nature in this universe and all others that may exist. In my view, matter, energy, and the laws of nature must necessarily exist before intelligence can appear.

I think Haisch is overinfluenced by his early training for the priesthood, even though he dropped out. He says:

If we are nothing but physical beings originating by chance in a random universe, then there really can be no ultimate purpose in our lives. This is not only bad news for us individually, it undermines the ethical and moral underpinnings of society and civilization.[2]

This is a believer's view of the world. And it is wrong.

We do not need an ultimate purpose imposed on us by some hypothetical deity. We are better served by identifying our own purposes in life. Lack of an ultimate purpose does not undermine society and civilization. Society and civilization in themselves provide sufficient benefit that we freely accept the ethical and moral underpinnings required to maintain them.


  1. The God Theory, Bernard Haisch, Red Wheel/Weisser 2006
  2. All quotations taken from the preface to the book as found here.