theism, atheism, naturalism, pantheism in review

Perceptions of God in review: naturalism, pantheism, theism

What is the most rational worldview; naturalism, pantheism, or theism that the Bible teaches? Check out the facts!

In this writing, various conceptions of God are considered, such as naturalism (matter is all that exists; there is no God), pantheism (the deity of everything), and theism (only one God who has created everything and is separate from what He has created). Which of these notions makes the most sense and is consistent with the facts? Are all conceptions of God equal and correct, or is only one of them truth-based?

Worldviews and perceptions of God are also constantly changing. 2000 years ago, many gods and spirits were believed in Europe, but as the gospel spread, faith in one God replaced it. For centuries, Europe became the center of the Christian faith, but is now re-entering a non-Christian society. It has been replaced by an atheistic worldview that denies the existence of God. The religions of the East, which involve the divinity of all and reincarnation, have also become more common in Europe. On the other hand, in some European countries, such as Britain, the faith of Islam wins the industry. It is estimated that in a few decades, Islam would be the largest religion in Britain. The reason is the increased immigration of Muslims and that they have more descendants than ordinary Britons.

So we live in this current situation, but the truth of the worldview and the concept of God is never culturally bound. Every person usually inherently considers the worldview in which he or she grew up to be true - but the truth of the worldview does not depend on what one believes or thinks. The worldview is true or false regardless of a person’s thinking and beliefs.

Nor can all views be true at the same time. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be valid at the same time. Likewise, pantheism and theism are opposing views that cannot be valid at the same time. Some of these perceptions may be correct, but not everyone can be it at the same time. This is something comparable to mathematics. Some answers may be closer to the truth than others, but only one answer may be correct.

In any case, we will next bring up the different aspects of the most common conceptions of God. Which of them makes the most sense and holds true to the truth? We are going to investigate that.

WEAKNESSES OF NATURALISM AND ATHEISM. Naturalism is a worldview that does not acknowledge the existence of God, but matter is all that exists. There is nothing outside of it. This notion has become widespread in the West, especially with Darwin's influence. Before, it was taken for granted in Europe that God created everything, but Darwin led society in a direction in which faith in God’s work of creation and God’s existence was lost.

However, there are fundamental weaknesses in the naturalistic worldview. Here are a few of them.

The beginning of everything. The first problem in the naturalistic or atheistic worldview is the beginning of the universe. When God is rejected as creator, one should explain why the universe exists. Why is there something instead of nothing? What is essential is that the universe cannot be eternal, otherwise all usable energy would have run out. No star would spew out its energy or radiate anymore if we went infinitely far in the past. It clearly refers to the beginning of the universe. Scientists also acknowledge that the universe, including the solar system and the earth, must have a beginning.

How, then, did the universe originate and where did it get its initial energy, which the stars still use? No atheist scientist can give a clear answer to this. The problem is that the universe cannot be born of itself. Rocks, planets, or stars do not appear from scratch because it is against the laws of mathematics. Nothing arises out of nothing. It is an impossibility even if atheist scientists try to argue against it. The only possibility is that the eternal God created the universe — all matter and energy — and that explains all existence.

The same problem is with life. The main rule in this area is that only life brings life, and no exceptions have been found to this rule. What can be deduced from this? Since the life of the earth must have a beginning — the life of the earth is bound to the sun, which could not have existed forever — and only life produces life, this refers even more clearly to God in the case of the first life forms. It is useless to talk about the birth of life by itself, because there is not a single evidence for it. The only chance for life is God’s work of creation and scientists should admit this fact and not come up with imaginative stories of how it all came about by itself.

Evidence of God’s work of creation is also the fact that all modern animals and fossils are and have been always ready, perfect, and their structures functional. It suggests that the first ancestors originated by God and did not evolve from some protozoan as required by the theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins has raised this point, that is, the finished structure of animals — something that is also evident in fossils. He does not believe in God’s work of creation or intelligent design, but the reason lies in his preconceived notions, nor in what can be inferred from the evidence:

The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (1)

One more look at fossil records and natural history museums. These museums should have evidence of species change, but in reality they do not have them. This clearly suggests that the inheritance of species from the same stem cell through evolution is imagination and a lie. The following couple of comments show how museums lack evidence for the theory of evolution:

Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (2)

None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [3])

One more comment on intermediate forms or, in fact, their shortcomings. They exist nothing but in the imagination of atheist scientists. Taken as such, the evidence clearly points to a creation in which the animal and plant species were immediately ready and not semi-finished:

No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla… The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning… Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types… This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only… If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)

The conclusion from the above is that the universe and life must have originated in God’s work of creation because they have a beginning and cannot be born of themselves. In addition, fossils and existing animal species suggest that they were created in approximately their current form. This is evidenced by the fact that all the structures found are functional and ready. Of course, animals and plants undergo variation and adaptation within the framework of heredity, but that does not negate the fact that animals and plants were immediately created complete and perfect.

Reason cannot be trusted. Atheists who resort to the naturalistic worldview tend to consider themselves intelligent and smart when they do not believe in the existence of God or the work of creation. However, the naturalistic worldview provides a bad foundation for human reason. If atheists believe they are here as a result of the Big Bang or are descendants of ape-like animals, how can they trust their reason? How can inanimate matter like a stone become rational and thinking beings? Or can man rely on his own reasoning if it comes from some simple organisms or monkeys?

This is one of the weaknesses of the naturalistic worldview. A person cannot trust his own reason, even though he can consider himself very rational. It is possible that his reasoning is not at a very high level if it comes from Big Bang or monkeys.

Instead, if man was originally created in the image of God as the Bible shows (Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.), it provides the basis and explanation for the existence of reason, thought, consciousness, language, emotion, and religiosity in man. These qualities exist because we were created in connection with and near God, and because these qualities are from God.

The same explanation applies to the existence of the senses. Atheist scientists cannot give a proper explanation of how complex organs such as the ears, eyes, and other senses were born, but God’s work of creation explains their existence. The book of Psalms says:

- (Ps 94:8,9) Understand, you brutish among the people: and you fools, when will you be wise?

9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

No basis for morality. The third problem with naturalism is that it provides no basis for morality. That is, if man is derived from mere matter and the primordial cell, and there is no God and no faith in him, there are no binding, objective and final values at all. There is no authority outside of man in atheism, while in the Christian faith, for example, there are ethical guidelines that are binding on all (the teaching of Jesus and the apostles). This does not mean that an atheist could not be moral, but that he has no objective basis for his morality from this line of thought. Nor can we speak of evil and good, for they are personal and time-bound perceptions (“My morals, your morals, etc.”). Everyone can define their own values because ethics and morality are not related to God. Who can then say that, for example, Saddam Hussein's morals have been better or worse than others?

The problem with this view, however, is that people inherently distinguish between right and wrong behavior. They know naturally that stealing is wrong, that murder is wrong, or that child abuse is wrong. Or if from a person is stolen, he/she is abused, or his/her child is sexually abused and bullied, his or her anger usually rises immediately. Where does this come from, or where does the notion of right and binding behavior arise? Naturalism and atheism cannot answer this question, but the existence of God provides a valid explanation for it. Because we humans are created in the image of God (Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.), it best explains the consciousness of right and wrong behavior. God is righteous and has put this quality in man, even though man can harden his conscience. We naturally believe that there is a measure of morality that is beyond man.

The following verses refer to the same subject. Paul spoke of how people naturally have an idea of right and wrong. Everyone understands deep down that there are deeds that are right and deeds that are wrong.

- (Rom 2:14-16) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves:

15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

When Paul referred in previous verses to how people inwardly feel the difference between right and wrong, he linked it to the coming judgment. This is easy to understand logically. Just as there is a authority in societies that condemns murderers and other wrongdoers for their evil deeds, the same principle applies on the pages of the Bible. Among other things, the following verses refer to a judgment that will occur on the basis of works.

- (Rev 20:12-15) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

- (Hebr 9:27) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment:

- (Rom 14:10) But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nothing your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

- (Col 3:25) But he that does wrong shall receive for the wrong which he has done: and there is no respect of persons.

WEAKNESSES OF PANTEISM. As stated, pantheism means the notion of the divinity of all. It is very similar to the naturalistic worldview, but the word materia has been replaced by god, as the following explanations show:

Naturalism = everything is matter and there is nothing outside of it

Pantheism = everything is god (Brahman in Hinduism) and there is nothing outside of it

Naturalism and pantheism thus resemble each other very much. Naturalism is mainly the prevailing perception in Western countries, while pantheism is common e.g. in Hinduism. Moreover, neither view recognizes the existence of a Creator God separate from creation.

The problems of pantheism are almost the same as in naturalism. These include:

The beginning of everything. As stated, the universe and life have a beginning. They have not always existed, but have a beginning. This is an inevitable conclusion given the rules of thermodynamics.

Here, then, is the great problem of pantheism, which is the same as in naturalism: pantheism gives no explanation for the beginning of the universe and life. For if there was no matter in the beginning, there could be no god (Brahman in Hinduism). That would mean that Brahman should have created himself from scratch, but that is an impossibility because nothing can exist before his existence or create himself. It is impossible to take anything out of nothing and nothing alone can create anything. Pantheism is thus at odds with the beginning of everything. It is better to believe that Almighty God is separate from the creation He has created and that He has done so at a particular moment, as the following verses show:

- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

- (Isa 66:1,2) Thus said the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that you build to me? and where is the place of my rest?

2 For all those things has my hand made, and all those things have been, said the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembles at my word.

- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

- (Rev 4:11) You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.

- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,

6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

The same problem applies to every single person, every single large tree, or table made of wood, for example, which have not always existed. For since every human being originates from the union of the germ cells of the father and mother at a given moment, and wood or objects made of it have not always existed, how can they be part of a god or gods when they have not always existed? Such contradictions are encountered if one wants to hold on to pantheism.

Reason cannot be trusted. As stated, pantheism is based on the teaching that man and all of nature are part of God. There should be nothing outside of this god, Brahman. Everyone should just understand and be aware of this. It is taught that Maya, the illusion, prevents us from seeing this fact, but when a person experiences enlightenment, he gets rid of the illusion. The influential guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh has expressed how we cannot trust our intellect and reason in this matter:

It is not that the intellect sometimes misunderstands. Rather, the intellect always misunderstands. It is not that the intellect sometimes errs; it is so that intelligence is a mistake. It always makes a mistake. (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: I Am the Gate / Harper and Row, New York, 1977)

However, if a person cannot trust his reason, what can he usually trust? Reason and thinking is an attribute given to us so that we can study and reflect on whether things are true or not. If the use of reason and logical thinking is abandoned, there is not much left; at most madness and insanity.

On the other hand, if man and all of nature are part of God, we should know it all the time and originally. How can God be so ignorant that he does not even know and know his own divinity? Why is some kind of enlightenment experience needed to be aware of the matter, usually through long-term and introverted contemplation? Such a thing should be known all the time if it really is to be true.

In addition, a great danger in inward-looking meditation is that perceived “enlightenment” and other experiences are false experiences. Many drug users have similar experiences, and no one usually says they are divine. Likewise, people with mental illness may have false imaginations and visions, nor are they said to be divine. The risk of making mistakes in this area is high if you look for the so-called lighting experience through long-term meditation.

The same possibility is described by the former Hindu guru Rabi Maharaj in his book "Gurun kuolema" (Death of a Guru). He raises the possibility that perhaps even the bliss he seeks is a delusion because he cannot trust his own reason and perceptions. This possibility is worth considering, as is the fact that the pantheistic notion is itself a "Maya," an illusion or a lie:

If there was only One True Being, then Brahman was both good and evil, both death and life, both hate and love. It made everything pointless, utterly insane. It was not easy to keep my thoughts intact and at the same time think that good and evil, love and hate, life and death were all one reality. Gosine reminded me that reason can’t be trusted - it was part of the delusion.

If reason was also a maya as the Vedas taught, how could I trust in any teachings? How could I even believe that everything is a ‘maya’ and only Brahman is real? How could I be sure that the bliss, which I tried to reach, was not a delusion, if I could not trust my observations or my deductions? In order to accept what my religion taught, I had to deny everything that my brain said. But what about other religions? If everything was One, then they were all a part of the same whole. From this seemed to follow that god is confusion, because it is the Truest Reality. My thoughts were in disorder.

No basis for morality. When the problem with naturalism is that it does not provide a reliable basis for morality, there is the same problem with pantheism because it makes the distinction between good and evil useless. For when Brahman, the divinity of all, contains both good and evil, light and darkness, all ethical differences disappear. The difference between good and evil is seen only as an illusion and morality becomes relative because the opposites are actually equal. Rabi Maharaj referred to this in the previous quote.

The notion of the disappearance of the distinction between good and evil comes from the writings of Hindu teachers themselves. Swami Vivekananda has pointed out how good and evil are the same:

“Good and bad are one and the same" (4) and "also murder is God" (5)

Guru Bagwan Shree Rajneesh – while explaining the Bhagavad Gita, the holy book of the Hindus – also refers to the idea that our deeds are meaningless:

Kill, murder, completely conscious of the fact that nobody has been murdered and nobody has been killed. (6)

However, the fact that no distinction is made between good and evil raises the question of where such a view will lead if it is put into practice. If this teaching is actually carried out, will it not only lead to an increase in suffering? It causes anarchy in society and an increase in human misery, because cruelty and non-cruelty or love and hate are no longer relevant. The doctrine of the unity of everything thus only causes harm. The book of Isaiah aptly says of such harmful doctrine and thinking:

- (Isa 5:20) Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Another problem with the pantheistic perception is that people nonetheless know the difference between right and wrong behavior. Everyone naturally knows that certain things like murder, theft, or sexual exploitation of children are wrong. They categorize deeds in their heart because they know some things are wrong and others are right.

The notion of right and wrong is also manifested in the law of karma. Hindus believe in the law of karma as well as in the divinity of everything, Brahman, where good and evil are the same, but these two views are in bad conflict with each other. The contradiction arises because in Brahman there is no difference between good and evil, but according to the law of karma, the evil deeds of men always follow them to the next life: they are punished in the following lives for the evil deeds they have done in the past. Rauni-Leena Luukanen's well-known book "Kuolemaa ei ole" (p. 186) makes this idea very clear:

An important teaching is: A man reaps what he has sown. We are responsible for everything we have done. (…) People do not generally understand the meaning of the law of Karma.

Therefore, if one believes the above doctrine, one should rightly ask, how can these two things: the law of karma, the consequences of which are tried to be avoided by doing good deeds, and Brahman, in which, however, is no different between good and evil, be valid simultaneously? Would it not be inconsistent to try to apply these two opposing things together at the same time? How can this be done?

So what can be deduced from the perception of right and wrong? The most rational explanation, as stated above, is that God has put this quality into the human race because man was originally created in the image of God (although this image was distorted in the Fall). A sense of right and wrong also points to a future judgment.

Loren Cunningham, who has visited every country in the world, talks more about the topic. He refers to how the notion of right and wrong is common to all peoples — regardless of whether these people have had contact with other civilizations or the Bible. Man naturally knows the difference between right and wrong behavior, even though he can harden his heart. Such things do not arise by themselves from some kind of inanimate substance like a stone, but God has put this quality into the human race:

I have met people from every country in the world and noticed that the idea of love, responsibility, right and wrong, conscience and moral exists in every culture. Every language has a concept for right and wrong. This has been even before any contact with other civilizations or with the Bible. (7)

The rationality of the theism. As stated, theism provides the best explanation for the existence of reason, thought, morality, consciousness, language, emotions, senses, and religiosity in man. These qualities exist because we were created in the image of God, in His connection and intimacy, and because these qualities are from God.

Theism is also the most sensible explanation for the existence of the universe and life. It is impossible for them to have been born of themselves, but they have been created by Almighty God, who is separate from creation. Only in this way can the existence of celestial bodies and life be explained. Among other things, the following comments from scientists point in the same direction.

I think we have to go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this idea has been ostracized by physicists, and in fact by me, but we shouldn't reject it just because we don't like it if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, 31, 1980)

Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)

Theism also best explains the diversity of life, and that there are thousands of species of plants and animals. They exist because God, the Creator, prepared life on earth. If the theory of evolution were to be correct, thousands of intermediate forms and half-developed wings, hands, feet, and senses would be observed in the fossil record, but they are not existed. They are not found in natural history museums or anywhere else. Darwin thus misled science when he presented his theory. He was right that there was a change in the organisms, but drew the wrong conclusions from it. He concluded that when organisms change within certain limits, they originate from the same progenitor cell. Here he erred and thousands of atheist scientists followed him. It makes much more sense to stick to the fact that God created all thousands of species, yet so that species can be varied within certain limits. From creation it can be inferred that it was created by God, as Paul wrote:

- (Rom 1:19-22) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

God has revealed Himself

- (Hebr 1;1-3) 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,

2 Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

As stated, the Bible speaks of God being the Creator who has done everything: the stars and space, nature with its plants and animals, and man. These things are not born of themselves, which is an impossibility, but are created by God.

However, the revelation of the Bible does not remain here. The Bible also tells how the creator of all things became man through Jesus Christ. In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, he is referred to as the Word. He, the Word, was in the beginning with God the Father and came here as a man. The following verses tell of this Word, that is, the God who became man, through whom all was born and who is the same as Jesus Christ:

- (John 1-3,14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Why then did the Word, the Son of God, or Jesus Christ, become man? He came to atone for our sins and bring us into contact with God. It is customary in religions for man to try to approach God through his own actions or perhaps sacrificial animals, but the teaching of the Bible is, God has already done everything in Jesus Christ for us to get in touch with God. Our part is just to accept this truth, not to doubt it. Among other things, the following verses tell how God reconciled the world to himself through Jesus Christ. This happened on the cross, when Jesus carried the sins of all people there, having lived a perfect and sinless life before that. Everything happened because of us:

- (2 Cor 5:18-20) And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be you reconciled to God.

- (1 John 4:9,10) In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

What does the previous one mean? It means that the atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross is enough for every person to have access to God. There is no such evil man that cannot forgive his sins. On the other hand, no one is good enough to earn salvation outside of Jesus ’atoning work. Jesus is the only way to connect with God for all and all kinds of people. There is no other way and no opportunity because we are so deficient in ourselves. Among other things, the following verses show how salvation is in Jesus. He is the only way to connect with God because He has borne our sins on the cross. If we reject him, we will have to pay for our sins in hell ourselves. So do not reject Jesus, but welcome him into your life. Jesus' position as a savior becomes clear e.g. in the following verses:

- (John 6:67-69) Then said Jesus to the twelve, Will you also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.

- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

- (Acts 10:43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins.

- (Acts 13:38,39) Be it known to you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

If you have welcomed Jesus into your life and put your faith, or trust, in the matter of salvation in Him (Acts 16: 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house.), you can pray, for example, as follows:

The prayer of salvation. Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.

REFERENCES:

1. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153

2. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

3. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19.

4. Vivekananda in Swami Nikhilanda, (käännösohjelma) "Viveekananda the yogas and other works" (New York: Ramabrishna-Vivekananda center, 1953) julk., p. 530

5. Sama

6. Rajneesh "The book of secrets", part 1, p. 399. Rajneesh explains spiritual wisdom to Arjuna, a warrior of Bhagavad Gita.

7. Loren Cunningham / Janice Rogers: Kirja joka muuttaa kansat (The Book that Transforms Nations), s. 133