PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can't let you get away with saying that unless you have a very good reason. To say that avoiding pain and seeking pleasure are both evil is perhaps the most unbelievable thing you have said so far. It is not clear why avoiding pain may be considered evil, nor is it clear how could seeking pleasure could possibly be associated with evil?
TINNY: Pain and pleasure usually serve the same purpose, which is to cause certain behaviour to take place. Pain controls our behaviour by causing us to avoid it, and pleasure controls our behaviour by causing us to seek it. Both are the way by which our actions are determined by external factors rather than allowing the exercise of free-will, uninfluenced by external factors. Since the purpose of existence on the material plane is to progress from a beginning in determinism to a destiny in free-will, both the avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure hold us from that goal.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do I understand correctly, you are saying that it is wrong to seek pleasure because it reduces free-will?
TINNY: I am saying that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see. Well, as you have defined evil, l must agree that to seek pleasure is evil. It seems a shame, though, that we must give up pleasure as we continue our envolutionary progression.
TINNY: There is no reason to give up pleasure as we progress. There is more pleasure available in our future than has ever been experienced.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But you just said it was wrong to seek pleasure.
TINNY: I said it was wrong to seek pleasure, I didn't say it was wrong to experience pleasure. If we act to seek pleasure that is wrong; but if we act to further the purpose of physical existence and pleasure comes unsought, then that is not evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is alright to accept pleasure, but not to seek it.
TINNY: That's right. It is true because when pleasure comes unsought we are not acting due to external control. To exercise free-will we must stand beyond the need to avoid pain or to seek pleasure. While we have a great deal of control over whether or not we avoid pain or seek pleasure, we have little control over whether or not we experience pain or pleasure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those are subtle differences. Should we just be passive receivers of pain and pleasure? By this I mean should we quit acting in a manner which ends pain or which brings pleasure?
TINNY: Actually the difference is even more subtle than indicated by our discussion so far. It is the reason behind our actions which is critical to our progression. It is possible to act in a manner which avoids pain or which brings pleasure as long as the purpose of that action is neither to avoid pain nor to seek pleasure.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would be the reasons for those actions if they were not to avoid pain or seek pleasure?
TINNY: To further the purpose of physical existence; to progress toward perfection in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does that mean it is right to do anything as long as the purpose of that action is to further the progression toward perfection?
TINNY: Anything that truly aids the process of envolution is right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't one then do anything and say it was to aid developmental progression, thereby making any behaviour a right behaviour?
TINNY: The purpose of any action is not determined by what is said or even believed about it. It is natural law and nothing else which determines right action.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can we best know what actions are of benefit in achieving the purpose of physical existence?
TINNY: The best way to know right action is to understand most fully the true nature of existence. The knowledge of truth is the greatest aid, at the human level of existence, in allowing the exercise of free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it human beings must know truth to continue the line of progressive development? None of the previous levels of material existence knew the true nature of reality; and they all, from the simplest subatomic particle to the most highly developed animal, were able to keep the continuous line of progression going for billions of years.
TINNY: The less developed the form of physical existence the less that form can perceive of the true nature of existence. The less known of truth the more the actions of that level of physical form must be caused by external forces. It is for that reason the point on the continuum where free-will becomes greater than determinism is the point where good must also become greater than evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain that further?
TINNY: Evil can be thought of as control by external forces, and good can be thought of as inner control by the exercise of free-will. A subatomic particle has virtually no knowledge of the nature of existence so therefore must be virtually totally controlled by external forces to act in a manner which will further its progression toward perfection. A chimpanzee has a sufficiently high understanding of the nature of existence so that many of its actions no longer need to be externally controlled. To that degree the chimpanzee exercises free-will. Although free-will at that high level of animal existence is quite extensive, the degree of understanding of the true nature of existence at that level is not sufficient to allow free-will more influence than the external, deterministic factors. At the human level we have the potential to perceive the true nature of existence well enough to allow inner control through the exercise of free-will to take over from the previously necessary external control of determinism. The human level, due to the new characteristic of self-reflective consciousness, is at the turning point where the external control of determinism gives way to the exercise of free-will. The control of determinism is through the imposition of will by force, which is evil. External control gives way to the inner-directed exercise of free-will which influences rather than controls. The influence of free-will manifests as the actions of peace and love as opposed to the earlier deterministic control through force and aggression. It is to allow that level of free-will to be manifested which requires truth to be known.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As determinism gives way to free-will, evil gives way to good; and force and aggression give way to peace and love.
TINNY: That is physical existence in accord with natural law. Free-will shall supersede determinism. Good shall supersede evil. Peace and love shall supersede force and aggression. It can be no other way.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say it can be no other way, but as l look at human society it appears that force and aggression have not given way to peace and love.
TINNY: That constitutes a great danger, since it is against natural law. When any level of physical existence goes against natural law this can bring about the end to its line of progression. When I said there is no other way but for peace and love to supersede force and aggression, I meant there is no other way to continue to exist at the human level than for peace and love to supersede force and aggression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Please be more direct on this most important matter. What will happen to the human race if we continue our present use of force and aggression?
TINNY: The human race will become extinct. If we are to have a future it must be a future of peace and love. To continue the path of force and aggression will mean the end of the human race. There is no alternative, that is the natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Wouldn't it have been much nicer if there was no evil, if the physical existence could have been created perfectly good?
TINNY: The idea sounds idyllic, but has no basis in reality. Perfect good can only exist beyond the material plane; and action externally caused is necessary so that simple matter may become complex matter. Free-will cannot be granted, it must be earned. The way free-will is earned is through the progressive development of material form in the physical universe. Such is the purpose of envolution, to create existence perfected in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This perfect good you speak about, is it the same notion of good as we know on the material plane?
TINNY: In the physical existence good is that which is in apparent conflict with evil. Good is the progressive movement in accord with the purpose of physical existence, moving toward the perfect manifestation of all positive characteristics. At the level of absolute existence, good is the perfected manifestation of all those characteristics. Perfect good may also be understood as perfect love, since true love is the manifestation of all right action.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That explanation now seems to make good, love, right, and free-will all one.
TINNY: Existence perfectly and absolutely manifested is the ultimate expression of oneness. It is helpful for us to know the true oneness of the concepts of good, love, right, and free-will while we exist on the material plane where such concepts remain separate.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that helpful?
TINNY: It allows us to strive to achieve the one perfect goal. If we were to see each aspect of perfection as separate we would dissipate our energies as we worked toward what we perceived as different goals. The unity of focus is of great importance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the human level how can we best do what is good?
TINNY: In every thought, word, and deed we should attempt to progress toward our perfect destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the human level how can we best show love?
TINNY: In every thought, word, and deed we should do what is right.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At the human level how can we best know what is right?
TINNY: Every thought, word, and deed should be in accord with natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And at the human level how can we best exercise free-will.
TINNY: Every thought, word, and deed should be inner-directed, free from external influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: No person can do all those things.
TINNY: That's true; but each at their own level can do all those things better in the future. It is our nature to do so. Anyone who does not progress is fighting against the natural order, and that is a battle which cannot be won.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you have explained, any action at the human level falls on the continuum of good and evil, therefore having a component of both. How can we then ever do good without doing evil?
TINNY: We cannot, that is our nature. Every action expresses both good and evil. What we should then do in every action is seek to maximise good and minimise evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it easy to know good and evil in relation to any specific action?
TINNY: It is extremely difficult to know good and evil in relation to specific actions, made much more so by the complexity of the interrelated nature of all things. It is that difficulty which is one of the many causes of our blindness to the true nature of good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't circumstances sometimes change wrong to right?
TINNY: How do you mean?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me give an extreme example. A parent holding a gun is standing on one side of an uncrossable river, on the other side stands their beloved child. The parent sees another person start to attack their child with a knife. The parent shoots and kills the attacker, thus saving their child's life. Under normal circumstances it is thought wrong to kill; but in this case, since there was no other way to save their child's life, the parent would be seen as right in killing the attacker.
TINNY: That's quite a horrible example.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In a world as we have at present, atrocities such as that are an unfortunate reality. What is your answer? Do the extreme circumstances, as in that example, change the accepted wrongness of killing to a right act, in that it saves the child's life?
TINNY: No circumstance can change wrong to right. It was wrong for the parent to kill the attacker of the child.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't think many would agree with you.
TINNY: As we see over and over, agreement and truth are not necessarily connected.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can you say the parent should not take the life of an attacker who would otherwise kill their child?
TINNY: I never said they shouldn't. What I said was that it was wrong to do so. It is always wrong to take a life. At the same time it is always right for a parent to save the life of their child. We have here an example, which while extreme, points out a subtle but common flaw in logic. The example you gave is a variation of the type of example modern philosophers often use to prove the relative nature of good and evil. Because most people who heard such an example would agree that in this case the otherwise wrong act of killing becomes right, this is taken to be proof of the argument of relativism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Isn't it?
TINNY: Not only isn't it proof that circumstances may change wrong to right, it is a harmful belief in that it holds back our further progression. To exercise our free-will we must accept responsibility for our actions. It was wrong to kill the attacker, it was right to save the life of the child. It is important to realise that in the example given the parent made a choice to perform a horribly wrong act to have something they dearly wanted, the life of their child. It was a conscious choice where the goodness of saving their child's life was considered to be more important than the evil of killing the attacker. It is important to our moral progression to accept responsibility for both our decisions and our actions. As long as we hide behind the supposed necessity of circumstances we give up our free-will. I believe it is the need to protect ourselves from that responsibility which causes the widespread belief that circumstances can change wrong acts to right acts. At times great effort is taken to ensure that belief is accepted. In wars, those who kill many people considered to be 'the enemy' are awarded medals in elaborate ceremonies and called heroes. That makes it almost impossible for the soldier who has killed to believe he has done anything but that which is good.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be better if he were to think it was a wrong thing he did in killing the enemy?
TINNY: It would. Even if the killing still took place it is greatly important to realise killing remains wrong. In the example of the parent who killed to save their child's life, this realisation of wrong is important. It would be fine for the parent to feel good that their child's life had been saved, but at the same time it would be correct to feel sadness about the necessity of taking the attacker's life.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you also say the soldier should feel sorrow for enemy soldiers killed?
TINNY: It is most important that soldiers should feel that sorrow. As long as it is thought good to harm the enemy we will continue to have wars. The greater the sorrow for the plight of the enemy the greater the chance for peace.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I want to know more about the example of the parent saving their child. If the parent realises they committed a wrong act by taking a life wouldn't they feel guilty? Might not the parent believe having killed their child's attacker makes them a bad person?
TINNY: They might think their actions made them a bad person, but if they did they would be wrong. They would better think of themselves as someone who made a necessary and reasonable decision in very difficult circumstances.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is then acceptable to commit an evil act?
TINNY: We all commit many evil acts each day. When we perform wrong actions in circumstances where there is no viable alternative, then we must do what we must do. It does not make the action right, but there is also no need to consider ourselves bad for committing those wrong acts. It is a higher level of mental maturity to be able to objectively acknowledge the responsibility for choosing to commit wrong acts. When there is no viable alternative, rather than continuing with the self-serving belief that the circumstances change wrong to right, it is a progressive step in our moral development to objectively acknowledge the wrongness of our actions, and accept the responsibility for our actions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If you were the parent in the example, what would you do? Would you have killed the attacker to save your child's life?
TINNY: I'm not sure what I would do. I have never harmed another person, I'm not sure if I could no matter what the consequences; but I also don't think I could resist the desire to save my child. I pray my life will be spent in a loving and peaceful world where I shall never be required to make such a choice.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That is my hope also, dear child.
TINNY: Could we quit talking about such sad things?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: For now we can, but you know the path to a better world is not yet free from those tragic realities.
TINNY: I know.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since evil has no absolute expression and exists only on the material plane of existence, does that make all actions in the physical universe evil?
TINNY: It does from the perspective beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: While all actions on the material plane are evil from the absolute perspective, the effects of those actions can be both good and evil. Is that correct?
TINNY: Yes, all actions on the material plane are evil in that their nature is inextricably linked with the deterministic characteristic of matter, causality. Depending on whether the effect of the action supports or opposes the natural order, the outcome is good or evil. There are, though, no purely good or purely evil outcomes from actions. Each act brings about many effects, some good and some evil. In the relative sense an action which brings about noticeably more good than evil has a good effect, although as I have just said, from the absolute perspective all actions within the material existence are evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could it be evil to eat, to drink, or to breathe?
TINNY: All those are evil acts, from the perspective beyond the material plane.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can they be? If we didn't eat, drink, or breathe we would die.
TINNY: Then we should eat, drink, and breathe. If those actions sustain and continue our lives the outcome is good relative to our position on the continuum of progressive development.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Eating, drinking, and breathing are evil in the absolute sense but good in the relative sense?
TINNY: That is essentially true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a simple explanation of why such common and necessary human acts as eating, drinking, and breathing are evil from the absolute perspective?
TINNY: Simply put they are evil because they continue to bind us to the physical existence. To fulfill our final destiny we must become free from all material connections.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying we will eventually give up eating, drinking, and breathing.
TINNY: We must if we are to reach our natural goal, which is perfection in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will we be as we are now when that final goal is reached?
TINNY: We will not be restricted by physical form.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see, and without physical form there would be no need to eat, drink, or breathe.
TINNY: That is true. That is our future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: With such common human acts as eating, drinking, and breathing being in the absolute sense evil, should we feel at all bad or wrong when we do those things?
TINNY: Acts such as those show how we may accept the objective reality of our actions without emotional harm. Of course we should not feel guilt because we do any of the things necessary for survival at our level of developmental progression. It is because good and evil have so long been considered moral issues, judged only from a subjective perspective, that we link being bad with the performance of evil acts. From an objective understanding of good and evil we can see that it is not the act so much as the circumstances, effects, and intentions of the act which determine good or evil on the material plane of existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is that objective understanding of good and evil necessary to our continued developmental progression?
TINNY: At whatever point on the continuum of developmental progression we have reached we must be able to know good and evil in order to make right decisions as to how we should behave.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we truly know good from evil and right from wrong will we then be able to act in perfect accord with that knowledge?
TINNY: I wish it could be that easy. To know the true nature of good and evil is a necessary step toward right action. It is a step that must be taken before right action can occur through the exercise of free-will. If we know good from evil the connection between the mind and body will result in our behaviour changing in a direction which would be more in harmony with the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be a sudden shift in behaviour toward that which is known to be right?
TINNY: The speed of the shift in behaviour will vary between individuals from the almost instantaneous to the imperceptibly slow; but, it will always occur.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What determines the rate of change by which behaviour is brought into line with the knowledge of good and evil?
TINNY: There are many factors which affect that rate of change. Some of those are: the degree of surety as to the truth of the knowledge; the consequences of wrong action; how integral a part of life the wrong behaviours were; how rewarding the wrong behaviours were perceived to be; and perhaps the most influential factor, the degree to which the correct knowledge of good and evil is commonly held by the other members of society, particularly those others who have greatest personal significance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if all of human society were to hold a common, objectively true understanding of good and evil?
TINNY: There would be a virtually instantaneous transformation of human society. We would rush toward the path of right action. This change would result in the end of all present social problems facing humanity. We would have a world that was so good it would be a veritable utopia compared to the way things are in the world at present. We would make a quantum leap to a higher order of developmental progression on the path to perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And that great change would happen just because all human society held the same objective knowledge about the true nature of good and evil?
TINNY: Exactly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If everyone was in agreement as to the true objective nature of good and evil wouldn't we have total conformity, a world where everyone acted the same way?
TINNY: The opposite would be the case. We would have greater diversity in human society than ever before.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would that be?
TINNY: There has always been a need to place limits on human behaviour to protect individuals and society from the effects of wrong actions. Those limits have been enforced through law, custom, and social mores. In a world freed from the constant threat of wrong action we would no longer have that pressing need to constrain the realm of human behaviour. We would have a freedom of action never before available. Freedom within the range of right behaviour would allow a far wider expression of human action than could exist within the relatively narrow range of acceptable behaviour which included both good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it the range of good is larger than the range of good and evil combined?
TINNY: Good alone stands unlimited, while when good and evil are combined, fears of evil result in the placing of constraints which affect both good and evil.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we won't have conformity when the world is basically good?
TINNY: No, we won't have conformity. It would be boring if everyone were exactly the same. Besides, if everyone were the same it would limit the progression of the human species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How would human progression then be limited?
TINNY: We must explore many paths to reach our destined goal, perfection in every aspect. In that new world of goodness we will be freed from the constraints of evil, and new paths never before possible will be open to us. I don't think we can yet realise how great that freedom shall be.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think that new degree of freedom will come in your lifetime?
TINNY: I know it can and I expect it will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I feel you were able to answer quite well the question as to the true nature of good and evil. Before we go on to another topic I would just like to clarify several points.
TINNY: Sure, go ahead.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since free-will is our goal and is to be considered good, what happens if someone uses their free-will to choose to do evil?
TINNY: It is impossible to choose to do evil through the exercise of free-will. Evil acts are always brought about by circumstances which are linked with our deterministic nature. We are controlled by the causal links with our physical nature. We are caused to do evil. If we were entirely free of external causation we would only ever choose right actions, actions in accord with natural law. Since we are only partially free, and remain partially linked to the causal physical nature, we sometimes act because of those external influences.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we can only do good by the exercise of our free-will, and evil cannot be done through the exercise of free-will but only through the influence of external causes, do we have responsibility for our evil acts?
TINNY: We have responsibility for all our actions, good and evil. When we commit evil acts, even though they are brought about by external causes, we still own responsibility since we could have exercised greater free-will in that situation, but did not. It is that relationship between action and causal factors, mediated by human consciousness, which sets us apart from all less developed levels of material form. It is for that reason human consciousness is at the turning point where free-will first has the potential to take precedence over determinism. It is that responsibility for our actions which resulted in a special word being created to describe evil at the human level. While both animals and humans can commit evil acts, evil is called sin when done by a human being. The concept of sin is recognition of conscious responsibility for wrong actions at the human level.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In your explanation of good and evil you have separated the act from the result. Would it be right to also separate intention from both the act and the result?
TINNY: It would. All acts by their essential nature are evil. All resulting effects from actions will have a combined good and bad outcome. When the good outweighs the evil the outcome is considered good, and when the evil outweighs the good the outcome is considered evil. If the intention is wrong the intention remains evil regardless of the outcome; and, if the intention is right the intention remains good regardless of the outcome.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In all those instances when you refer to good and right or evil and wrong, you are referring to the objective definitions, is that correct?
TINNY: Yes. What I am saying is only true when using the objective definitions, where good and evil are determined by the natural order of physical existence. If what I have been saying about good and evil was evaluated according to the common or subjective definitions of good and evil, then what I have been saying would not be true, it wouldn't even make sense.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I am fairly astounded that the act, the outcome, and the intention are so loosely linked. Tell me if I have understood correctly. All acts, because they bind us to the material plane through causality, are essentially evil. From any point on the continuum of developmental progression we may judge relative good and relative evil by the effects of the act. All actions will have some good outcomes and some bad outcomes; those being considered good when they aid the developmental progression of material form, and being considered evil when they oppose the developmental progression of material form. When the combined effects of an act predominantly aid the progression they may be considered good; and when the combined effects of an act predominantly oppose the progression they may be considered evil. If an act is committed with the honest intention of aiding the developmental progression that intention is good; and when an act is committed with the intention of opposing the developmental progression that intention is evil. It is possible to have good intentions and commit an act which has predominantly evil results; and, it is possible to have evil intentions and commit an act which has predominantly good results.
TINNY: What you have just said was pretty complicated.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was it accurate?
TINNY: I think so. When a statement becomes too complex it gets hard to be sure whether it is true or not.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have covered quite a lot about good and evil. We could go on much longer as there is still much to be said, but perhaps for now it would be best to go on to other subjects. Before we do, let me ask just a couple more hopefully simple questions.
TINNY: Fine with me.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since evil from any personal point of development is relative, does that mean what is right and wrong for various people will be very different?
TINNY: Oh no, I didn't mean that. Although good and evil are relative to position on the continuum of developing physical form, that doesn't mean that the differences are very great for any specific level of physical form, such as human beings, which share a very small range on the continuum. When a very small part of the continuum is considered, the relative good and evil for individuals sharing that small part would be very similar. Human beings might share as much as 99% of relative good and evil in common with each other, perhaps even more. That allows the knowledge of good and evil to be commonly shared throughout the human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One last question about good and evil before we go on. In the progression of human values, what is the next step?
TINNY: The next step in the progressive development of humanity is to truly understand right and wrong, even if circumstances don't yet allow a change of behaviour.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The thought before the action.
TINNY: That is how it must be at the human level. If it were otherwise we would not be exercising our free-will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Something else I would like to discuss which is related to subjective and objective views of reality are the meanings of faith, belief, knowledge, and truth.
TINNY: Would you like me to begin by giving what I think to be the definition of each of those terms?
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That would be a good start. Do you think those four terms fall naturally into some order?
TINNY: I think the order you said them in is the natural order for those terms: faith, belief, knowledge, and truth. Faith, belief, and knowledge are all directed to truth. Faith being less than belief, belief being less than knowledge, and knowledge being less than truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Faith has for thousands of years been considered one of the most beautiful and important of human attributes and you call it the least of the three approaches to truth.
TINNY: I mean to take nothing from that beauty. Faith is more than beautiful, it is necessary to the progression of humanity. Perhaps I could define the terms first before we discuss them further.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Go ahead.
TINNY: I'll begin with faith. Faith is a particular type of belief. It is belief based on trust rather than proof. A belief is that which is accepted as truth. Non-conclusive evidence is sufficient to account for belief. It requires less evidence for belief than it does for knowledge. Knowledge is that which appears to be true based on factual evidence. Knowledge is the possession of truths and principles with reasonable certainty of fact. Truth is indisputable fact, agreement with reality, that which is.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So faith is less likely to be true than belief, belief is less likely to be true than knowledge, and knowledge is less than its object, truth.
TINNY: Actually it is very hard to separate one from the other because although those different aspects of human consciousness have different names they are all represented on the one continuum. There is no fixed point where faith becomes belief or where belief becomes knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is it that faith is necessary for the progression of humanity?
TINNY: Actually, faith, belief, and knowledge are all necessary for the progression of humanity. One of the characteristics of consciousness as it develops is the understanding of the true nature of existence. When self-reflective consciousness appears at the human level that search for truth becomes inner-directed rather than externally directed. Human beings go beyond the external experience of physical reality to the creation of mental processes to understand that reality. In the beginning many important questions appeared to be beyond the realm of available evidence. Wise thinkers in those early times were able to come to incredibly accurate conclusions about the true nature of existence, considering they did so with little or no objective evidence. Those whose lives encompassed tasks other than thinking about such difficult human questions accepted the words of the wise teachers as truth. That acceptance of certain basic truths on faith, for thousands of years directed humanity from its barbarous origins to the beginnings of civilisation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those wise teachers you speak of, how did they come to possess truth?
TINNY: Much of their knowledge of truth came from within.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As the stories are passed down from those early times it is claimed that many of those basic truths were gifts from God.
TINNY: I wouldn't deny that.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were those real experiences or mystical experiences?
TINNY: All experiences are real. It is the interpretation of the experience which sometimes varies from reality.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those messages from God, they would be revelation. Do you accept that revelation truly occurs?
TINNY: Without a doubt. Revelation means that truth is revealed. The very nature of our being, in relation to the physical existence, is to accept revealed truths. Everywhere we look truth is revealed to us, ours is to correctly interpret the information we receive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds like a very natural type of revelation, which comes to us from every aspect of the physical existence. What about supernatural revelation?
TINNY: Nothing that exists is supernatural, although often that which we have yet to understand has been labeled supernatural.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm finding it hard to get the answer l want from you. I'll be more to the point. Does any form of revelation come from God?
TINNY: You'll probably still think my answer evasive. All revelation comes from God. As I have described God there is nothing that exists which is not from God. There is no difference in saying revelation comes from our perception of existence, or saying that it comes directly from God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Maybe this will be direct enough to get to the question I really want you to answer. Does God appear in some form, or send messengers either physical or spiritual, to certain individuals and tell them of truths to be passed on to the rest of humanity?
TINNY: I remain fully open to that possibility
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people take on faith that such appearances by God have occurred.
TINNY: As I said earlier, I think faith is very beautiful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you take appearances by God on faith?
TINNY: I take nothing on faith.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why not?
TINNY: Because of the progression of human consciousness we have been discussing. Early, when there was not much evidence for the great truths, faith was their guardian. We then went through a period, which has not yet ended, when there was a growing amount of evidence to support those truths. Faith blended with belief; faith became belief. We now stand at the brink of a new era when human consciousness shall take a giant leap, beyond faith and belief to knowledge. The human race is finally able to know, through factual certainty, those great truths which previously could only be partially known through faith and belief. When truth is known, to accept on faith alone is a step backward in our progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is knowledge beautiful like faith was?
TINNY: Oh, knowledge is beautiful, but different than faith. I love knowledge because it brings me so close to truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can knowledge bring you closer to truth than faith?
TINNY: Yes, it can.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What if the truth gained by faith is identical with the truth gained through knowledge?
TINNY: Perfect truth is one aspect of perfected existence. As that perfection is approached by envolving material forms, direction progresses from external causation to inner guidance. When truth is held by faith, it is often related to trust in another's words and perceptions, an external source. When truth is held through knowledge it is the inner experience of the evidence which brings realisation. When one comes to personal acquisition of truth, rather than acceptance of truth acquired by another, a point is reached on the envolutionary continuum closer to the goal of perfection.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So progression is not only by possession of truth, but also includes the means by which truth is gained.
TINNY: That is how things are. No aspect of our progression exists unconnected with all other aspects.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where do such things as scientific theories fit into that search for truth?
TINNY: Science has envolved as have all things. Early scientific theories were based on little objective evidence, many being held by faith. I would say that presently, scientific theories generally fall somewhere between belief and knowledge. I try never to forget that even the most accepted scientific facts are at this point still only theories.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?
TINNY: That no so-called scientific fact is so perfectly known that it can be considered an absolute truth. What we call scientific facts are really statements of fact that have been established at extremely high probability. While those facts may be true, because of our limitations, we can only know them less than perfectly. For that reason it is important to question all we think to be true. Those things we most want to be true should be held up to the strictest scrutiny. The search for truth is no simple matter, and to take a simplistic approach to that difficult task is sure to lead one astray. We humans can be most subtly devious beings when it comes to protecting our cherished beliefs. To truly experience our free-will we must move beyond that weakness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You seem to be remarkably free in your thinking, open to all possibilities.
TINNY: I try always to remain free from dogma.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does dogma mean?
TINNY: I consider dogma to mean holding on to a set of beliefs which are closed to new information, interpretation, and change.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If someone was dogmatic they could hardly be open to all truth could they?
TINNY: Not unless they happened to be possessors of the perfect and absolute truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many who are dogmatic would say that they do possess perfect and absolute truth.
TINNY: It matters not what people say or believe, the reality is that no human being possesses perfect and absolute truth. I find it most amazing that people holding such diverse ideas can all be so sure their truth is perfect and absolute, while believing the ideas held by others are false and even foolish. I think it is in such areas that human thought can be seen at its most naive.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true to say that people who think their beliefs are right and the beliefs of others are wrong, and refuse to accept any alternative to truth but their own beliefs are dogmatic?
TINNY: That covers it.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kinds of people are dogmatic?
TINNY: All kinds of people are dogmatic. I think everyone is dogmatic to some degree about some beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any belief systems which seem to be most connected with the holding of dogmatic ideas?
TINNY: Religious beliefs and political systems have been historically notorious for the dogmatism which they incur in their supporters. If a person is a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, or even a Muslim they will to some degree hold dogmatically to their beliefs. Likewise, if a person believes in democracy, communism, capitalism, socialism, or anarchy they will be bound by dogma to some degree.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Talking like that you will probably offend just about everyone.
TINNY: Perhaps I will, but that is only because they may see me as threatening their cherished beliefs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you threatening their beliefs?
TINNY: The truths I speak will support some, perhaps much, in each of the belief systems I have just named, but those same truths will also conflict with some of that which is accepted by those belief systems. Even where my words support many times more than they oppose, to a truly dogmatic mind the support is as nothing and the opposition of even one word can not be tolerated.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it just those systems of belief you mentioned which are the main havens of dogmatism?
TINNY: Not at all, I just named the well known religions and political ideologies. I say they are most connected with dogmatism because the various religious and political ideologies have such great importance in the lives and thoughts of so many. It is hardly surprising that those are areas of significant dogmatism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since you named major conflicting religious and political views mustn't some be right and some wrong?
TINNY: They are perhaps all more right than they are wrong, although some are more right than others. But within the beliefs held and the truths propounded by each of those religious and political ideologies is something of value to the future of humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But much of the tension and struggle in the world today is due to those competing belief systems.
TINNY: Then they should stop competing and start cooperating. Share that which is right and true; correct that which is in error.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many would say such a thing could never happen. The adherents of some of those ideologies are convinced others are totally wrong, even evil.
TINNY: Such beliefs are the necessity of dogma. As I look at those varied religious beliefs and political systems I am overwhelmed by all they share in common.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You have an unusual perception of the world.
TINNY: Do you mean I'm wrong to see things as I do, to see the common thread shared by the great belief systems of the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are right, not wrong. Yours is the vision of the future. I only called your perception unusual because it is not presently shared by many.
TINNY: There will be more soon.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many more, very soon.
TINNY: I'm glad you said I was right in how I see the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not perfectly right, you understand.
TINNY: Oh, I know. I'm sure I have dogmas in my thinking also. The nature of dogma affects not only major religious and political belief systems, but also personal beliefs. The restriction of dogma is one of the hurdles that maturing consciousness must overcome.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you follow any of the religions or support any political systems?
TINNY: Yes, but some might think I follow all religions and none, that I support all political systems and none.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by that?
TINNY: As I live my life, some things I do and some things I believe might label me as a follower of various religions and a supporter of various political systems. I study them all, learn from them all, and value some aspects of them all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't you see some of them causing harm in the world?
TINNY: I can see the harm that is caused by those who follow the various religions or political ideologies. I also can see the good brought by those who follow the varied religions or political ideologies. I reject the evil done but not the ideologies. I will work to bring the good aspects of all to greater expression throughout the world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have no ill feeling toward those religious or political systems, since evil has come about under their influence?
TINNY: I have no ill feeling toward any ideology, institution, or individual. Often the wrongs done were accomplished during attempts to further goodness. I appreciate right motivation.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can you have no ill feelings towards those who do wrong?
TINNY: If I have ill feelings toward any ideology, institution, or individual I then perpetuate the negative character. I feel compassion for all who do wrong. No wrong can be done without also harming those who do the wrong. Wrong is done through ignorance. In a world of more positive influence, less wrong would be done. Any person who harbours ill feelings slows the progression toward perfection of all, including themselves.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you say it is true that all wrong action results in a general increase of wrong action in the world and all right action results in a general increase of right action in the world?
TINNY: That is truth
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you truly feel love for those who do wrong?
TINNY: I can feel nothing but love for all.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are pure of heart.
TINNY: I try to live in accord with natural law. At the human level love of all is in accord with the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does it take to become so loving? You say it is natural at the human level to experience such loving feelings, but this fullness of love is not common in our world.
TINNY: This expression of love is available to all, since the potential to love exists within the consciousness of every person. To allow that natural attribute of consciousness to be manifested requires growth in an environment which does not punish loving expression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying we can learn to love?
TINNY: We can learn not to hate. If we do not learn to hate our natural love will be expressed, not suppressed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is it that we do not have a world which nurtures love in its fullness?
TINNY: The reason is ignorance.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then truth shall free humanity from the influence of evil.
TINNY: You are slowly showing me how all this seemingly unrelated knowledge we have been discussing can be the path to a world free from the present social ills and threatened destruction of our species.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You are showing yourself that truth through self-realisation.
TINNY: I expected a very different answer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What did you think would be the solution to the problems faced by humanity?
TINNY: I didn't really have any idea.
