The following is the full text of the book's introduction:-
Introduction. ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth,’ claims the Bible in Genesis 1:1; a doctrine regarded as fact for thousands of years and still believed by many people today. Allied with the notion that creation had a divine origin was the geocentric view, postulated in 150 AD by Claudius Ptolemy in the Almagest, that the Earth was the centre of the universe around which the sun, planets and all heavenly bodies revolved. This idea, which arose due to the wrong, albeit understandable interpretation of astronomical phenomena, persisted for almost fourteen hundred years; aided and abetted by a Catholic Church that fought a desperate rearguard action to ensure its continued acceptance – including house-arrest, torture and burning at the stake for anyone who dared suggest a contrary opinion.
The geocentric view of the universe, with Earth at the centre.
Then, in 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus published a book entitled, ‘On the revolutions of the Celestial Sphere,’ which proposed a heliocentric system, thereby banishing the Earth from its formerly privileged if fanciful position at the centre of creation to that of a lowly planet revolving around the sun. This new proposal accurately interpreted the truth and turned established wisdom on its head, it being so radical a development that the Vatican confirmed its status as the last bastion of superstition by refusing to accept it until 1825 - almost three hundred years later!
The heliocentric view of the solar system, with Earth revolving around the central sun.
Our place in the universe underwent yet another radical adjustment when, in 1923, Edwin Hubble discovered that various cloud-like areas of light in outer space, known as nebulae, were really colossal swarms of stars or galaxies located millions of light years away. Meanwhile, the sun was revealed as an insignificant star languishing amongst untold millions of others in an outer spiral arm of our own Milky Way galaxy. Moreover, analyses of the spectra from these newly discovered galaxies showed their light to be red-shifted; a phenomenon indicative that they are moving away from us. In other words, the universe appeared to be expanding and in order to explain this perceived expansion, a theory known as the ‘big bang’ was formulated; a term coined by Professor Sir Fred Hoyle in an attempt to disparage the idea, only to see it backfire when the name became popular.
The Milky Way galaxy. Our solar system languishes in one of its outer arms.
According to big bang theory, the cosmos began with the explosion of a primeval atom billions of years ago and has been growing larger ever since. But is that really the case? After all, cosmologies that were once unquestionably accepted, in some cases for more than a thousand years, have subsequently been shown to be either false or only partially true. In view of this, it takes a brave person to say that in a few years from now the big bang theory will not have joined their ranks. Facts have been misinterpreted before and perhaps they still are and it is therefore unwise to accept as reality what is essentially mere speculation and hearsay of a type that would be inadmissible in a court of law. It is also irresponsible to behave in a manner reminiscent of a medieval witch-hunt by insultingly referring to doubters of the theory as ‘big bang bashers.’
Impression of the Big Bang, showing galaxies hurtling into space.
In any event, as this book will seek to show, it would be more apt if the theory were to be renamed the ‘damp squid,’ for it simply does not hold water when subjected to closer analysis. It is a hypothesis that not only relies on but also graphically illustrates the limitations of rational thought with which the human mind is burdened; a mechanism that is incapable of operating outside a framework of cause and effect, beginning and end, before and after. Hence, it requires an origin on which to pin the blame for the mystery of existence and the best it can come up with is a primeval atom; a simplistic and soulless concept that raises more questions than it provides answers. Such as: how and when did the primordial atom originate, or the space it was destined to expand into? And was the big bang the first to have taken place or merely the latest in a long line of them? None of these questions is satisfactorily dealt with by big bang theory, which is therefore seen to be absurdly incomplete.
The established position with regard to these queries is that they are irrelevant, that it is like asking what is north of north. But what is really implied by the adoption of such a dismissive stance towards legitimate enquiry is that the logical mind is incapable of proceeding any further, handicapped as it is by rationality. Thus, the causal chain ends with a primeval atom, beyond which intellect is unqualified to venture. Its attempts to gauge infinity and date the eternal come to a shuddering halt at the notion of a primordial particle, for how can it measure the immeasurable by employing the limited yardstick of logic? Using the intellect in these circumstances is like trying to capture the cosmos with a butterfly net; a futile endeavour that forces us to endow existence with limited concepts that have no reality beyond the muddy shallows of our own minds.
Rational thought is a vicious circle akin to a dog chasing its own tail. Its quest to understand reality is doomed from the start, for the truth, like the tail, will always retreat in direct proportion to the mind’s attempts to catch it. A universal law is in operation here that few understand. Namely, that with each step one mentally advances towards the truth, it always moves a step backwards. Accordingly, it remains as elusive as ever when approached by explorers using the compass of mind, who instead find themselves going round in intellectual circles, with every answer leading to yet another question and so on ad infinitum. For the mystery of existence can neither be solved nor understood by employing logic as a tool.
Rational thought is a limited tool that can never grasp the truth.
This fact can be demonstrated in the way most of us, at one time or another, have indulged in a fruitless exercise to comprehend the nature of the cosmos; usually by wondering where it ends and if it does, what lies beyond it. Unfortunately, rather than becoming enlightened, we merely find ourselves ensnared in an endless and tortuous sequence of rationality that never brings us any closer to a conclusion. A similar line of reasoning is frequently undertaken concerning God by asking: if He exists, who made Him? A question that once more results in a process of futile analysis extending over causes and effects without end, while all the while we remain at exactly the same position in our quest. Such is the burden of intellect, which is worse than useless when faced with the enigma of creation to the extent that it becomes entrapped within a closed loop of repetitive and frustrated reasoning.
The truth is that as we approach the source of things, thought becomes superfluous as a means of knowing. Actually, it is not even qualified to probe into, let alone solve, the enigma of the universe, for it is a little understood fact that whatever can be conceived of mentally is ultimately in error and thus devoid of any foundation in reality. That is why whenever we are uncertain of anything, we say, ‘I think so,’ thereby subconsciously affirming the unreliable nature of thought.
Perhaps, therefore, science is right to maintain that it is irrelevant to speculate what came before the theoretical big bang. On the other hand, it may be criminal not to, as surely there is something more to creation than atoms, explosions and expansions. We intuitively feel that life is greater than a chance event definable by a mathematical equation, that not only are we descended from sublimer origins than a primeval atom but that our very existence has a purpose, too.
Admittedly, these intuitions are not based on rational thought but emerge from another, transcendental - or should that be transcend-mental? - part of our nature. Yet which is the more useful device when it comes to unravelling the mystery of creation? Rationality has us chasing our tails for the rest of eternity and as such is worse than useless. By seeking to be rational, all we achieve is a state of irrationality! Intuition, on the other hand, is often proved right and is at least something we can feel. In order to reach the truth, therefore, it is necessary to abandon thought for intuition; because that is the only way it can be experienced - as an intuitive knowing beyond the confines of mind.
Even if true, the big bang theory provides only a partial solution to the riddle of creation, dealing as it does with the external world of matter, while ignoring the inner dimension of spirit or consciousness. Tales of a spiritual realm inhabited by incorporeal entities are as old as humanity itself, as is the notion that we each possess an immortal soul. Such a belief is the basis of all religions, which further maintain that existence dances to the tune of a higher power, that it is more than an accidental ferment of chaos.
Yet despite innumerable evidences through the ages of supra-material encounters - which continue to this day in the form of near-death experiences where, despite the clinical death of the body, the ego continues to exist - the spiritual side of nature is not taken seriously. Even the evidence of extra-physical existence provided by an entirely different and very much alive group of people – those who have the ability to consciously leave their bodies at will, a phenomenon known as an out of body experience - is also largely ignored. By doing so, established wisdom presents us with only a partial account of reality, preferring instead to rest on its laurels, while ignoring phenomena anomalistic to its theories. In this respect, it is as guilty as Catholicism’s Spanish Inquisition, for rather than advancing knowledge into new areas, its refusal to consider evidence contradictory to the sacred cows of conventional dogma acts as a brake to progress.
People who have a near death experience often travel along a tunnel of light.
What is required is a synthesis that takes all things into account and interprets the facts correctly, since it is fair to say that the big bang explanation does neither; at best accounting for a purposeless creation that, when compared to the concept of infinity, has no more significance than a grain of sand! For the universe is illimitable and suffused by something beyond the instruments of scientific endeavour that manifests in each of us as a sense of self, or being; an immaterial reality imbued with purpose that is native to another dimension of existence altogether.
Subjective reality - self-consciousness - is greater than objective reality and yet its importance is largely overlooked, having been left to so-called fringe disciplines such as meditation and mysticism to deal with. Yet everything we experience depends entirely on our sense of self-awareness for its existence. So reliant is external reality on consciousness that the former ceases entirely with the disappearance of the latter. Surely, therefore, it is time to take a peek under the hood, so to speak; to discard rationality and instead focus attention on the realms of being and intuition, as that is where the answers to the secrets of existence are to be found – not without but within.
Before undertaking the inner voyage that leads to truth, however, we need to examine the two most important sacred cows of established dogma – big bang and evolutionary theory – with a view to revealing their many flaws and inadequacies, for they are miserable pretenders to the throne of wisdom that seek to prevent the rightful monarch from reigning supreme. In this respect, logical thought is in its element and proves to be a very useful tool indeed!
Copyright Michael Wood 2009.