Dr. Unwin began his study with
a premise similar to that used in determining the outcome of a coin
toss, giving the Almighty a 50/50 chance of existing. Next, he used
a formula to further determine a possible outcome by weighing the following
positive and negative factors considered to be “for” or
“against” his premise:
1. The recognition of goodness
2. The existence of moral evil
3. The existence of natural evil
4. Miracles “within” nature
5. Miracles “outside of” nature
6. Religious experiences
Each of these factors was assigned
a numerical value and applied to the original fifty percent. Calculations
weighing the evidence from both sides produced the probability of whether
or not God exists.
While such evidence is reassuring
because it provides the mind with a sense of certainty, Dr. Unwin also
wanted to take uncertainty into account. The effect of uncertainty in
our lives is known to become greater when we feel we cannot obtain sufficient
evidence, or when we cannot assign meaning to a situation through the
use of reason alone. Times of uncertainty motivate us to find a different
way to believe. Thus Dr. Unwin says that uncertainty can “open
the gap for what we call faith.”
This “gap” into
which faith fits is part of a more complete equation for calculating
the probability of God’s existence:
Belief in God = The Probability
of God’s existence + Faith in God
However, the study suggests
that belief in God is not merely the sum of reason plus faith. If this
were true, then the more we knew, the less faith we would have. This
would put reason at odds with faith, and vice versa. The formula used
by Dr. Unwin extends beyond mere algebraic calculations in saying that
belief in God results from a combination of logic and a more abstract
form of trust. So, while the evidence from his research allowed him
to arrive at a 67% probability of God’s existence, the researcher
says that his own belief is “far closer to a hundred percent.”
He explains that the difference between the numbers is based on his
personal faith in God.
This study has some very enlightened
aspects. First, by using a scientific formula and framing the research
question as “whether God” rather than “whose God”
exists, a discussion about God’s being can take place without
concern about differing religious beliefs. This broad position echoes
some of Master’s remarks that one does not have to give up one’s
religion to practice the Quan Yin Method.
Another unifying element of
Dr. Unwin’s investigation is its use of secular language to discuss
spiritual topics. This was actually one of the study’s objectives
— to help bridge what was viewed as a division between science
and religion, reflected in the concept of “separation of church
and state,” which allows no overlap between spiritual activities
such as prayer and public activities such as education. Research like
Dr. Unwin’s, which discusses God in “state” rather
than “church” terminology, could open doors for new areas
of dialog in academia, organized religion and the public sector.
Last and perhaps most importantly,
the open-ended quality of this examination, which is practical but at
the same time does not force a conclusion, could be a liberating way
for people to contemplate their personal relationship with God. For
those who do not know a living Master and may feel skeptical or even
fearful when facing the question of God’s existence, this research
encourages a wider outlook and expresses a fitting message for the beginning
of the Golden Age.
For a copy of the above-mentioned article from The Guardian,
please refer to:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1164892,00.html
*Dr. Stephen Unwin, who received his doctorate
in theoretical physics from the University of Manchester in Great Britain,
made significant contributions to the field of quantum gravity research
before being appointed technical attaché to the United States
Department of Energy. Now a risk analyst consultant, he evaluates and
helps advise organizations on how to avoid disasters such as chemical
spills and nuclear power plant failures.