A Unified Theory of Religion
An Essay
For many years prior to being introduced to The Urantia Book, I was a religious eccentric; studying one religion, then another, and then studying them all together. At one point, I could be found reading out of the Koran in Bible study, reciting a verse of scripture at my Krishna consciousness group, quoting the Buddha in my Torah meeting, and believe it or not, teaching the tenants of Taoism to Mormons.
Not surprisingly, I was eventually shunned from these groups; with each group unwilling to accept the conclusions I was drawing, conclusions of universality and indivisibility, which in turn implied theological change on their part. And so, I became a religious nomad for a while. I took advantage of this opportunity, however, to spend some much-needed time pursuing other facets of knowledge, like science and philosophy. Not long thereafter, well, I began to synthesize all three schools into one. No surprise there.
By the time I opened The Urantia Book, I discovered I wasn’t an eccentric oddball at all. In fact, once I began reading, it didn’t take me long to understand that which I intuitively suspected; that is, the saturating truths penned in the book confirmed to me and made clear that all religions are essentially ONE. Also, that theologies separated one religion from another and are no more correct than one person is to the next.
With that idea in mind, I am reminded of what Einstein once said, “There are just as many religions in the world as there are people.” Though he renounced traditional religion at an early age, his comment in no way dismissed religion itself as a thing of naught. Quite the contrary, he was a deeply religious man because he also confessed, among related things, “Religion without science is dead.” Einstein renounced religion for its prevalent dogma, which so vehemently opposed his analytical mindset. He keenly understood and accepted the intimate relationship that he believed existed between science and religion. He intuitively knew that the cosmos had not just physical depth but religious depth, too, and both were responses to the discoveries of such an alluring exploration.
As a scientist, Einstein was also an eccentric, gradually adopting the idea that, despite what he couldn’t see, all types of matter and energy are governed by the same laws—a universality that, to me, is unavoidable in the search for truth. Einstein even cemented his position when quantum theory began spontaneously, if you will, to appear in the research of more and more physicists of his time. Here was a man who refused to accept that some things are indeterministic, for that’s what quantum theory implies. In the words of Bill Bryson, author of A Short History of Nearly Everything, “Einstein couldn’t bear the notion that God could create a universe in which some things were forever unknowable.“
Thus, the story goes that Einstein spent the rest of his adult life questing for a deeper set of rules that will govern not just the realm of the cosmos, where his work was genius, but also the world inside the atom, the domain of quantum physics. This quest has become known as a unified theory of everything or as others might say it, a grand unified field theory. However you prefer, Einstein’s dream has yet to materialize, albeit the hope for unification remains the high mark for many scientists around the world.
As physics awaits the next general relativity, one that would bridge the macrocosms and microcosms of reality, those of us Urantia Book students also wait for a unification paradigm. That’s understandable given the state of religion today. Notwithstanding, I’m not talking about the unification of religion in toto. Who would want that? With regards to what it really is; religion, in its sectarian differentiation, isn’t meant to be unified. Religion’s diversification serves a higher purpose.
To elaborate, the quest to unify the laws of nature of both the outer universe and the inner atom, though based on conflicting premises, produces the same results. Similarly, religions differentiate worship interpretations of deities, sometimes conflicting, that for all intents and purposes, also produce the same results: post-mortal security.
All religions teach the worship of Deity and some doctrines of human salvation. 5.4 (67.3)
In essence, a grand unified field theory is a postulate to reconcile the paradox apparent in the pursuit of physics. Reconciling the differing ways religionists view and worship deity is not. A more discerning mind would recognize the latter to be an attempt at conformity. Religiously, men are always reluctant to conform, and such as it should be, for it must be understood that man’s rebellion is a response to the perceived threat to his free will and, in turn, his salvation as he has come to believe it.
Nevertheless, there is a paradox in religion which must sooner or later be reconciled. Exploring Einstein’s suggestion, there are around 8 billion religions currently on the planet. That’s ridiculous, right? But then, we are talking about free will. Whether Einstein was aware of it or not, he was subtly expressing the fact of a personal religious experience, which is what exercising one’s free will is all about.
In the realms of religion, personal religious experience and its collective practices thereto, just as in physics, repercuss natural antagonisms, which are indicative of the paradoxical relationships between the individual (microcosm) and the group (macrocosm). The antagonisms arise between the two spheres of experience through interaction and development with advancing civilization; the evolving factors therein constantly impinge upon what is accepted as value. Not everyone values the same things in religion, obviously, but more importantly, when majorities do fight consensus, not everyone agrees at the same level.
Take the belief in God, for example. All religions teach the worship of deities; but the teachings, though they may be similar, are not equally taught. I’ve somewhat touched on this point in a previous paper titled A Monotheistic Blastoff (Journal December 2014) when I made the comparison between the Christian and Islamic concepts of God. In Blastoff, I spoke of the personality differential between the two religions; Christians recognize God as a father, Muslims will not, but not that they cannot. Christians and Muslims may share an affinity to the concept of monotheism (the belief in one God) but they don’t agree as to the shape and character of this deity. On one side you have a group that has emphasized his nature more than his attributes; And on the other side, you have more emphasis on his attributes than his nature.
This religious relativity drives many of the antagonisms present in this paradox, generating various reprecussional tensions between the spiritual free will of the individual and the collective trend of the group. In religion, the goal is God however you define it. Moreover, this really should go without saying, but spiritually, everyone is equal. Therefore, a personal religious experience places everyone on even ground. Thus, we can somewhat understand the higher purposes of differentiating religions because this paradox allows for countless configurations of socio-religious development, whether within a family, group, nation, or between nations, the United Nations, or the world nation. It even provides a field of experience between planetary civilizations themselves. But that’s a coming paper.