PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maybe you won't need to. Let's go on. What can be done to make up for all the inequality of the past? Should women, coloured people, and children be given extra rights now to make up the losses?
TINNY: Making the previously less equal now the more equal is not the way to achieve equality. The best way is the true acceptance of the full equality according to natural law in all things for both sexes, all races, and all ages.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is that enough? It seems like very little to give for all the wrongs that have been done through inequality.
TINNY: There is no way to right the wrongs of the past, they must forever remain in the past. They must be acknowledged then transcended. It is equality from the present and for all the future that is the quest. The full acceptance of the equality of all is no small prize. It will be enough to insure a future of true equality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Being a girl, have you ever felt anything less than equal to all men?
TINNY: Never once. It's hard for me to conceive of how someone could really think women were in any way less than equals of men. I think it's at least equally unbelievable that anyone could think skin colour could make a person less than equal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think about differences in skin colour?
TINNY: All physical characteristics vary over some range; it would be strange if skin colour didn't also vary. I like individual differences. I think it's nice there are different skin colours.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you happy with the colour of your skin?
TINNY: As with all skin colours it has some good things about it and some things that are not so good. Overall, though, I like it. I think it's a pretty colour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think so too.
TINNY: Do you like your skin colour?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: My skin is all colours.
TINNY: Oh.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you glad you're a girl?
TINNY: I'd be happy to be either a boy or a girl, but since I am a girl I'm glad I am.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have a boyfriend?
TINNY: No, I've never even met a boy.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You haven't?
TINNY: You're the first person I've ever met, except for my parents.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: Well, it's very secluded up here, we don't have any visitors. I could go with my parents when they go to the city but I've never wanted to.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you want to see the rest of the world and meet other people?
TINNY: Some day I would probably like to do that. Right now I want to continue my development without those influences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can't argue with that. You're obviously a very wise and mature little girl. Actually I don't think there would be many adults as wise and mature as you.
TINNY: So perhaps children are capable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Good point.
TINNY: Even though I have not seen the world and have never met a lot of people I think I know quite well how the world is and how people are.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You certainly seem to.
TINNY: Do you want to know how I know so much about life?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You don't need to tell me. I know how you do it.
TINNY: Why did you ask me if I had a boyfriend?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I was going to ask you some questions about personal relationships. You don't mind do you?
TINNY: Not at all. You can ask me anything. Even though I've never met any boys I've thought a lot about them. Even if I knew any boys I wouldn't have a boyfriend.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
TINNY: I'd like to be a bit older before I had a boyfriend. It would be okay to have a boy who was a friend but not as a boyfriend. I think the sexual nature of male-female relationships is of extreme importance in the future progression of the human species so even though I've never had a boyfriend I've given it a great deal of consideration.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does it bother you to discuss sexual matters?
TINNY: Not at all. It's just a natural part of life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is sex an important part of the progression of humanity? Is it just because of the necessity to reproduce future generations?
TINNY: Sex certainly has that great and important role; but it is also one of the greatest hurdles that the human race must face as we strive to achieve our destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is sex an obstacle which must be overcome?
TINNY; Because of the biological strength of the sex drive and the role sexual behaviour has been given in society we are very strongly bound to sexual gratification. As we progress we must forsake those aspects of human existence that bind us to the material plane. Just as we must realise the false benefits of wealth and power and give up those long standing human desires to fulfill our destiny, we must also come to realise the false benefits of sexual pleasure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think you might be asking a lot.
TINNY: I ask for nothing. I am only describing the necessities of continued natural progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should be done about human sexual behaviour? Obviously it can't come to a sudden halt or the human race will soon cease to exist.
TINNY: Sexual pleasure is an evil in that it binds us to the material plane. As I described the true nature of good and evil I had to acknowledge that even eating and drinking were also evil. We have not yet reached a level of existence where we no longer must eat and drink to survive, so we should continue to eat and drink. We have not yet reached a level of existence where we no longer must reproduce to continue the species, so we should continue as sexual beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As I understand your earlier explanation of good and evil when you say such things as eating, drinking, and sex are evil you are referring to evil from the absolute perspective.
TINNY: That's right. When viewed from beyond the material plane all things that bind us to the physical existence are evil. But from the relative point of view since we could not survive as a species without food, drink or sex then those things can be good in that they aid our progression. From this relative perspective all things to us have a good and evil aspect. We should always attempt to maximise the good aspect and minimise the evil aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it minimise the evil aspects of eating, drinking, and sex if while engaged in them one experienced no pleasure?
TINNY: No, that would be a strange way to try and minimise the evil aspect. It is not the experience of pleasure which is presently the difficulty. It is the purpose of the pleasure. If we eat to enjoy the taste then it is evil, even from the relative point of view. We should eat to nourish our bodies. If food that well nourishes our bodies is also enjoyable to eat that is good. If we have sexual experiences to enjoy the pleasurable sensation then that is evil, even from the relative point of view. Our sexual experience should be of a nature that furthers our individual and social progression. If sexual experiences which further our individual and social progression also are pleasurable that is good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's all pretty general. Would you be more specific?
TINNY: Ask me specific questions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying sex should only be for reproduction?
TINNY: I didn't mean that. At this point in human development very little sexual behaviour should be for reproduction.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are the ways in which sexual behaviour furthers our individual and social progression?
TINNY: Of course reproduction is the most important role of sexual experience. The other important role of sexual behaviour is in creating the strong emotional bond between males and females. This bond is necessary to create a warm, loving, and permanent family unit so that new beings brought into the world can be nurtured in the best environment possible so they can mature having been given fullest opportunity to reach the limits of their potential.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's only two reasons for the sexual experience. Aren't there more?
TINNY: Not that I know of.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are very unselfish reasons. They are both really for the children, for the future generations.
TINNY: Sex for the self alone has no purpose. It may give great physical pleasure, but that pleasure without good purpose is harmful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A lot of people won't agree with you.
TINNY: That doesn't change reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So sex for pleasure alone is no good?
TINNY: It is very harmful to the progression of the individual and the species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But sex for the purposes of reproduction or to create and maintain that special bond between a man and a woman within the family unit can be pleasurable.
TINNY: It can, and should, be exquisitely pleasurable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What about sex outside the family, perhaps between lovers or even friends?
TINNY: Sex should only be between men and women who have come to know and care for each other well enough to commit to a permanent future together.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No exceptions?
TINNY: None.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I notice you said sex should only be between men and women. What about homosexuals and lesbians?
TINNY: Sex between two men or between two women is quite wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: It is against the natural order. Sex between people of the same sex cannot fulfill the two necessary conditions which further the progression of the individual and the species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it wrong for two men or two women to love each other?
TINNY: All love between people is good. Love can never be evil; but sex is not love, and sex if not for either of its two true purposes can be evil. There should be no limit to the affection between men or between women. That love is a beautiful thing, but that beauty is destroyed by attempting to include the sexual experience in this affection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure there are homosexuals and lesbians who believe their sexual relationships to be very beautiful.
TINNY: I'm sure there are. You know my answer to that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're quite sure of your views aren't you?
TINNY: Quite sure, but I want you to understand I am saying these things are right only because of an objective reality I have come to understand. Those who do not yet know these truths may believe differently.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel about people who engage in what you know is wrong sexual behaviour? For example how do you feel towards homosexuals and lesbians?
TINNY: No differently than I feel toward anyone else. I accept all people. No one is perfect and it certainly isn't my place to condemn others for their imperfections.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell a homosexual or lesbian that their sexual relationships were wrong?
TINNY: Only if we knew each other well enough, and they knew I was speaking with love and concern for them. It would be a very difficult thing to do. All sexual relationships whether right or wrong are a very important part of each person's life. New perceptions of truth and changes in this delicate area should always be approached very gently.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do any types of sexual behaviour offend you?
TINNY: As I just said, my understanding of right and wrong is objectively determined by what I know of the true nature of our reality. Only if one or both of the partners was being exploited or harmed, or if the sexual behaviour was against the natural order would I be offended. It isn't really so much what people do with each other that bothers me, only whether or not what people do is harmful to their continued progression or to the progression of humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean that if instead of being harmful to humanity's progression homosexual behaviour had proved beneficial to humanity you would find it acceptable?
TINNY: Sure. I would accept anything that was in accord with the natural order and of benefit to the continued progression of humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That seems fair enough. Since you understand human sexuality from the perspective of the new world view you might have made decisions for your own life.
TINNY: I wouldn't neglect anything so important.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me what your plans for that part of your life are?
TINNY: Well, I already told you I wouldn't want a boyfriend until I was older.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you're still a child.
TINNY: Pairing up as boyfriend and girlfriend happens at very early ages sometimes. It seems that it is happening younger all the time.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you think this is a good idea?
TINNY: I don't. I think it is important to get to know many different people of the same sex and the opposite sex without the kinds of restrictions which come from pairing off too young.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said earlier that sex should be between permanently paired men and women; does this mean you would, when you get older, have no sexual relationship with your boyfriend?
TINNY: I definitely wouldn't have any sexual relationships at all until I had met someone, knew him well, and cared for him enough to enter into a permanent relationship.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would your physical relationship with a boyfriend be like? I hope you don't mind me asking so personal a question?
TINNY: Of course not. I know exactly what would be right for me. Until I met someone and developed a permanent relationship I would feel all right to hold hands, hug, and at times of meeting or parting kiss on the cheek.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's not very much.
TINNY: I think it's a lot. It's not how much you do but the meaning it has. Those things would have great meaning for me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would that be enough to satisfy your boyfriend?
TINNY: I wouldn't have a boyfriend who did not share my understanding of the true nature of our existence. If he understood this new world view he would be fully satisfied because he would share the great beauty of such a relationship.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if even knowing these new truths he still tried to get you to go further than you thought right. People do have strong physical desires you know.
TINNY: I know they do and I am no different. It's just that I see the value, even the necessity, of not being bound by those physical desires. I would not go further in the physical relationship no matter how my boyfriend tried. There is too much at stake to throw it all away to satisfy a young boy's lust.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if he told you that you could no longer be his girlfriend unless you gave in to his wishes?
TINNY: If he really meant that I would say goodbye. No boyfriend is much better than a wrong boyfriend.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You were very specific about what was acceptable to you in a physical relationship. Why was it that a kiss on the cheek is all right? I suppose that means no kissing on the lips.
TINNY: I was able to be very specific because I have considered all this in great detail. I had to find some specific dividing line between what was right for me and what went beyond the bounds of right. I decided to set that limit at cheek kissing. I don't think it would have been wrong to set the limit at a kiss on the lips; but affectionate kissing on the lips could easily become passionate, intimate kissing, while this is much less likely with cheek kissing.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is a lot of logic in your planning.
TINNY: That is the way of the new world view.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just because you don't want to get caught up in the material pleasures that you set such definite limits in your physical relationships?
TINNY: There is always that of course. I try to be moderate in all things since I constantly strive to free myself from the constraints of material existence. There are other real good reasons why I am saving certain aspects of my life to share with the one man whom I eventually form a permanent new family with.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of your values sound very old fashioned.
TINNY: I don't mind. Not all that is old fashioned is bad; some old values will remain forever good. I think there is a difference though. I make my own choices based on my knowledge of truth; I am not forced into any certain morality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The notion of a girl saving herself for her mate is considered outmoded by many.
TINNY: There are many reasons for that, and most of them are not very nice reasons. Besides, it's just as important for boys as for girls to save certain aspects of their lives to share with their permanent mates.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't believe in a double standard?
TINNY: That it was ever thought there could be a different standard for men and women was very foolish.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are your other good reasons why you are saving certain aspects of your life to share with your permanent mate?
TINNY: The intimate sexual part of life is so precious and powerful that I wouldn't want to waste it in the search for physical pleasure. And also, I can think of nothing more romantic and erotic than sharing these things only with my permanent mate, both of us never having known, and never to know, these special experiences with any other outside our family unit.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are a beautiful person.
TINNY: There are other reasons also. They have to do with relationships with other people. I would like to know that boys I know before I pair off permanently care about me and not just the physical pleasure I can give them. If we share affection but not passion I can know this. And besides, I expect I might know quite a few nice boys before I find the right one for a permanent relationship. I would like to keep some of these friendships for a lifetime. If the physical relationship hadn't passed beyond a kiss on the cheek then there would not be the sexual jealousy and tension that could easily stand in the way of these continued friendships. I would feel much better about the continued friendships of my permanent mate with his past girlfriends also, if they had been of affection not passion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I couldn't argue with any of these things. You are right.
TINNY: I think life like that would be very beautiful, would allow a lot more love, and cause a lot less sorrow.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many will think you naive.
TINNY: I'm not you know.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know well that you are not naive, you are innocent. To be naive is to be blind to the truth, to be innocent is to be open to the truth.
TINNY: I hope to always remain innocent.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You will. I have some other questions. I notice when you talk about forming a permanent relationship you never use the term marriage. And you talk about permanent mates, not husbands and wives.
TINNY: Marriage has unfortunately come to have little meaning. All that exists in a permanent pairing to form a new family does not need the word marriage to describe it. I'm not talking about social and legal contracts, but about the essential relationship of men and women forming permanent new families to bring new beings into the world and nurture them well. This relationship is so basic it almost doesn't need a name. It certainly doesn't require anyone's permission to be allowed, or a piece of paper to say that it exists.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should there be any ceremony to mark the beginning of the new family?
TINNY: It isn't that a ceremony is actually necessary, but the forming of this lifetime pairing is such an important event that it would be very nice if it was marked by a ceremony. I also think it is right if the forming of these permanent bonds is proclaimed to the community.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If there is a ceremony should it be a religious one?
TINNY: Any ceremony of such a sacred event in people's lives is by its nature very religious.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are these permanent ties between a man and a woman only to bring new beings into the world?
TINNY: The essential purpose of these family bonds is to enable the partners to most fully realise the potential of their developmental progression. Often as part of this progression the couple will bear children; but for various reasons some of these new families will not participate in that particular part of human progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If bearing children is not to be part of the bond between a man and a woman is this pairing still a worthwhile part of life?
TINNY: Families are always worthwhile. Children are nice but not necessary for the happiness and success of the family.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think of birth control methods? Do you think it is all right for families to choose whether or not to bear children?
TINNY: I think it is fine for paired men and women to choose when they want to bring new beings into the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think all methods of birth control are acceptable?
TINNY: I think all methods of birth control that are natural and cause no harm to either partner are acceptable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you feel about abortion?
TINNY: It is wrong. Abortion takes life from a newly created being.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many are fighting for the right to abortion.
TINNY: People fight for all sorts of wrong reasons.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't it a woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth?
TINNY: It is a woman's right to choose whether or not she becomes pregnant. Once a woman is pregnant she does not have the right to choose whether or not to give birth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many women don't have a chance to exercise what you say is their right to choose whether or not to become pregnant.
TINNY: I know they don't. Women should be fighting for that right, not for abortion. It is a major wrong of the world that many women get pregnant for reasons other than by choice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think that every woman who becomes pregnant must give birth?
TINNY: That is a difficult question. I know there are sometimes circumstances that make the prospect of giving birth unbearable or dangerous to the pregnant woman. In those situations abortion remains wrong, but I couldn't say it should never be allowed. I would say quite definitely that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. The life of a newly created being is sacred. There are certain things human society cannot accept and continue to survive. The casual acceptance of abortion is one of these things.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is abortion wrong no matter how early in the pregnancy it occurs?
TINNY: Yes. Virtually the instant the egg is fertilised by the sperm the potential for a unique new being is created. For many natural reasons this new being may fail to survive, just as at any age circumstances may arise that take life. This earliest period of development is when the life of the new being is most fragile. It is wrong thinking to believe that life is any less real or important at some early period before birth. The less ability a new being has to survive without assistance the greater the responsibility of others to help that individual to survive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: During that earliest period after conception the developing new being has none of the characteristics we usually associate with human life. At this point the new being is a grouping of cells with no organs, brain or human form. There would be no emotions, thoughts or even feeling. Why is it that at this point abortion is so wrong? Can you really call this the taking of a human life?
TINNY: It is in the potential of the combined genetic material that a unique new being is created. It is at the moment of conception when the exchange of chromosomes takes place that some shared grouping of characteristics of the mother and father creates a new living organism. That living organism is a complete human being just as at any other point in the development of the individual. An infant one day after birth is not as fully developed and capable as an adult, but is not considered any less of a true human being. At the moment after conception the newly formed being is not as fully developed and capable as an infant one day after birth, but should not be considered any less of a true human being.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I fully accept what you say.
TINNY: This is a further issue of human rights. Children have had fewer rights than adults because they have little power. Newly conceived beings have been given virtually no rights because they are so totally powerless. It is critical to the future of humanity that we correct this wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You believe very much in moral right, don't you?
TINNY: I do have very strong moral views. The development of moral values has been an important part of human envolution. Right now the human race is going through a very difficult period in respect to moral values.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: For thousands of years morality was handed down by authority. Political and religious leaders determined the moral values to be accepted by those under their power. It is only very recently in human history that responsibility for moral values has fallen upon the individual. Human society at present is like a child out from under the control of an authoritarian parent. Having not internalised the parent's value system, only having acquiesced to it, the child runs wild, exploring beyond the limits, unable to know when to stop. Children in this situation often do great harm to themselves and to others. Human society having internalised few permanent values now runs wild, doing great harm to individuals and to the social whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it that society has not been able to internalise these values after thousands of years?
TINNY: It is because of the way we learn. Since the moral values of the world were imposed by authority and maintained by threat many were not positively attracted to them. At times when these moral values were well understood as reasonable and punishment for transgression was scarce there has been a much wider acceptance of a common morality. In times of strict control there were always some seeking to escape this control and often did so by attacking the basis by which the morality was deemed reasonable. We have recently come out of a period of very authoritarian control and seemingly have, through the greatly expanded knowledge of modern philosophy, technology, and science, many available means to attack the basis of the long standing moral values. If for these thousands of years we had not had this morality imposed on us, but instead had been positively influenced by this value system we would not resent and fight against these values but would have internalised them, believe in them, and live by them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you explain how modern philosophy and science have provided a means to attack and weaken the basis behind the longstanding value systems of human society.
TINNY: The basis behind much of the morality that has for so long been imposed on humanity has been the belief in God. God's Will has been the basis for determining what is right and wrong, the essence of all value systems. This morality needed not to be proven by any earthly means since God's word could not be questioned. If God did exist then this morality was reasonable and right; but if God did not exist then this morality had no foundation. Until a few hundred years ago it was not unusual for things to be accepted as true without proof; but after the beginning of the so-called scientific revolution, proof increasingly became necessary to justify belief. Early in human history the existence of God was not widely questioned; but in the past few hundred years people have increasingly demanded that to justify a belief in God, God's existence must be proven. As it turned out the proof of God's existence, at least proof through scientific methods, was not immediately forthcoming. Instead science proved a number of accepted religious truths to be quite wrong. The long accepted beliefs of the nature of the universe and the creation of humankind were dismissed as primitive mythology. Philosophy made strong attacks on the long held belief in absolute truths and therefore absolute values. The belief that everything was relative superseded the belief that absolutes existed. In due course the belief in the existence of God waned. It reached the point where modern philosophers proclaimed "God is dead", a statement indicative of the coming widespread atheism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you think of the atheist's position?
TINNY: In modern times the philosophical and scientific justification for atheism has been extremely powerful. If I had not come to understand reality through this new world view we have been discussing I'm sure I would have been an atheist. Atheism's strong appeal was to the logical mind, whereas God's appeal was to the emotions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The basis of atheism has recently lost its influence hasn't it?
TINNY: It has, although many don't realise it yet. As it turns out modern science and philosophy tell us that God exists, absolutes exist, and many traditional values and morality turn out to be right. It is paradoxical that the very tools, science and philosophy, that first gave atheism its credence have now become the tools that will strip atheism of its acceptance as a reasonable belief system.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would you have done if as you came to know the true nature of existence you had found that the existence of God, absolute truths, and a definite morality had all proven false?
TINNY: I would have had no choice but to accept that reality. I would probably have become a hedonist seeking out the pleasures of this material world. Without God, absolute truths, and a definite morality the world would lack purpose. It would be a sad world. I'm very glad truth is as it is. We don't yet have a happy world, but at least the potential exists.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you sure you would have become a hedonist?
TINNY: Maybe not. Seeking physical pleasures would probably not be satisfying to me. If it had turned out that God did not exist I might have resorted to faith and maintained a belief in God regardless of the evidence or I could have claimed I was an agnostic, one who did not know whether or not God existed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would that help?
TINNY: I've always been surprised by those who claim to be agnostics. Most agnostics say that because they cannot prove that God exists they will not accept the existence of God. That's not logical. Even if I couldn't prove whether or not God existed I would accept the existence of God until it was proven otherwise.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would you do that?
TINNY: Because it would be the logical thing to do. If God exists, then there are absolute truths and right values. If one did not live in accord with these truths one might never receive the rewards of right living; but if God didn't exist it wouldn't really matter how one lived. When deciding logically how to live one would come out for the better only by acting as if God does exist. This is because if God really does exist, by acting in accord with God's will one would receive the benefits offered by God, but would come out much the worse if acting in opposition to God's will. Even if God didn't exist, since it then wouldn't really matter how one lived, there would be no loss in acting as if God did exist, and perhaps some gains.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you explain that a bit more simply?
TINNY: If you live as if God exists you can't lose whether God exists or not. If you live as if God does not exist there would be no problem only if God really didn't exist, but you would be in serious trouble if God does exist. Therefore, as an agnostic, it would be most logical to accept that God does exist unless proven otherwise. If that is done then you can't go wrong. If you were to do as most agnostics do and refuse to accept the existence of God until proven, then you could go wrong.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: A very interesting insight.
TINNY: Anyway a world with God is so much nicer than a world without God. I'm glad reality does include God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So am I.
TINNY: It makes me very happy to share my life with God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What role do you think religion has in human life?
TINNY: I think religion has a different role in each individual's life. Since each of us has a unique spirit we each have a different relationship with perfected being.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you define religion?
TINNY: Religion refers to our relationship to absolute existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean God?
TINNY: I see no difference between the word 'God' and the terms 'perfected being' or 'absolute existence'.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does it surprise you that there are so many different religions in the world?
TINNY: It surprises me that there are neither many less nor many more.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?
TINNY: Because of the unique personal nature of each individual's relationship with God I would expect either one religion which allowed sufficient freedom to accommodate all these different relationships or I would expect as many religions as there are people in the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which would be best?
TINNY: There would be no real difference between the two.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How many different religions would you say there are in the world at present?
TINNY: Do you mean major religions different in basic theological beliefs, or do you mean religious sects varying only in interpretation of a shared basic theology? Actually I don't think I could give you an accurate number for either.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Give me a very rough estimate of each.
TINNY: There are perhaps a dozen or so different major religions and many thousand different religious sects.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have you ever belonged to any particular religion?
TINNY: I consider myself a member of most of them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think your membership would be welcomed by members of these various religions?
TINNY: Perhaps not, at least not yet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean you expect to be welcomed in the future?
TINNY: There is a unity of all things. As the unity of all religions is realised I would expect to become more accepted by all religions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As it is now, I think most religions would consider you to be a heretic.
TINNY: Since a heretic is a professed believer who holds religious opinions contrary to those accepted by their church I would have to accept that word as describing me. No matter what the present religion, my world view would in some area conflict with the accepted beliefs of that religion.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think it all right to be a heretic?
TINNY: Heretics provide a very vital service. They keep dogma from obscuring truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But heretics aren't always right.
TINNY: No, they're not, but they help keep minds open to truth when it is presented. Not only religions, but organisations of all types need heretics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can heretics cause harm?
TINNY: Certainly, they can lead others from the path of truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Heretics have had a great influence on the development of religions, haven't they?
TINNY: Most religious sects and some of the world's major religions began through the influence of heretics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: These people who changed the religious history of the world weren't called heretics were they?
TINNY: They were more often called prophets by those who believed in them.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you briefly explain the course of human religious progression?
TINNY: You don't ask for much. It will have to very brief.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are certain essential truths which stand out most clearly in a brief overview.
TINNY: The earliest religious beliefs would have been 50,000 or more years ago. Perhaps even much more. Early humans as they became aware of certain characteristics of nature would have sought to understand them. Such aspects of nature as birth, growth, life, death, success, failure, the seasons, the sun, and the moon would have aroused curiosity, probably created awe. These natural occurrences were great mysteries and no obvious explanation was then available. Explanations of these aspects of nature, so much a part of the lives of early humans, were reasonably attributed to unseen causes. All things which were known could be seen to be caused, therefore something or someone unseen was causing these unexplainable natural events. From this logic early humans came to know spirits and gods. As these spirits and gods were believed to exercise great power over natural events, including life and death, it was only reasonable that those early humans did fear these powers. Ceremonies developed to acknowledge humankind's relationship with the gods, to express fear, show respect, beseech, and appease.
Those who best seemed to understand the nature of existence took roles as priests attending to the necessary duties in relation to the gods. These priests found themselves in positions of great power because of their association with the might of the gods. Priestly hierarchies developed to pass on their arcane knowledge, keeping nature's truths from the minds of the common people and ensuring the continuation of their position and power. As civilisation developed the priesthood maintained a close link with the ruling class. The priesthood developed into a large, rich, and powerful elite in these new societies. During the earliest stages of religion humans were still very primitive, barbaric beings. Power and violence was the normal way of life. Those in power were often ruthless and vengeful. For this reason gods, as the most powerful beings, were also believed to be most ruthless and vengeful. Gods were to be feared. Gods would kill. Gods would take revenge. Gods would also destroy the enemy and place their riches into the hands of favoured believers. Gods demanded sacrifices of wealth, obedience, and lives, both animal and human.
During these many thousand early years of religion there were a number of great thinkers. In their attempt to better understand God's nature and humankind's place in the great plan of life they came to know ethics and morality beyond that of their more animalistic ancestors. This early morality was still very harsh. The concept of an eye for an eye was a major advance in morality. Earlier whoever held sufficient power could freely extract disproportionate revenge. The slightest insult could justify death as retaliation. The doctrine of an eye for an eye is an acknowledgment that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. As religious thinkers came to better understand the purpose of life and humanity's relationship with God a very strict moral code developed which imposed upon people certain rules and laws covering virtually every aspect of their lives. All was to be done according to God's Will. To transgress God's Will was a very serious offence. God was still to be greatly feared, punishment was severe. To break God's laws could mean rites of atonement, physical punishment, banishment or even death. People were forced to do as God willed.
Law was another major step in the moral progression of humanity. Early laws were fairly basic. Honour God, don't lie, don't steal, don't murder. Religion was to make people be good by punishment or threat of punishment. This punitive system of religion sufficed for several thousand years until a new giant step in the progression of morality occurred. This new understanding of right included tolerance, gentleness, peace, and above all love. God's Will was no longer to be followed because one was forced to or be punished if there was a failure to obey. God's Will was to be followed because of love for God. God's Will was to be followed because of the inner desire to fulfill human destiny. Material wealth and power were seen to have no true and lasting value. A path of moderation in all things was seen as the right way. The focus moved from external activity to inner spiritual awareness. The oneness of all things was realised. Humanity's destiny, return to God's presence, became known. All of this took place several thousand years ago. In different religions in different parts of the world, many of these same religious truths came to be known.
They became part of very different theologies because of the varied histories and cultures, but the same essential truths were expressed. As these religions became the foundation of modern religious beliefs many followers found the task of living in accord with God's Will was no easy one. A good basis had been formed, but no lasting edifice could be built upon that solid foundation. Power, greed, and a renewed emphasis upon the pleasures of the flesh thwarted human moral development. The basic tenets of the religious teachings lost their influence. These great truths proved easier to profess than to practice. The success of these religious ideals waxed and waned. Prophets, true and false, came and went. Some leaving their sacred mark upon the future of humanity, most remaining unknown and unheard. New religions and societies rose and fell. The flaws in religious thought were found and found again. Correction was often attempted but seldom achieved. One major religion with many offshoots prevailed over much of the world. Success of the one at great cost to the many. The strength of truth became the power of dogma. Religion became secular, religion became business.
Religious knowledge, previously esoteric, became commonly known but couldn't compete with the fast growing influence of science and worldly philosophy. Religious belief faltered, morality fell. There looked a moment when hope was lost; but as had happened before, a ray of light appeared offering salvation. Religion, with its renewed emphasis on our true relationship with God, is on the verge of a new era in communion with the golden age of humanity. Still the perennial religious question remains unanswered. Will humanity's great glory be realised. Will good prevail over evil?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That seems a fairly objective overview of religious development.
TINNY: I tried.
