Godliness: The H Bond Theory

By M. Bennett

This is the first book to argue for the study of classical divinity in biological terms. Godliness grants admission into a revolution, a new policymaking platform for corporate and government institutions which previously have struggled to find utilitarian compromises between faith and reason. Godliness dares to define, in biological terms, the difference between right and wrong. This book will make you wonder, also, whether cancer may be a condition of hydrogen bond deficiency, how intracellular communication might be affected not only by environmental radiation but by subatomic radiation, and when the promising experimental results of so-called alternative medicine will be factored into our national health insurance models. With empathy for scientists who, historically, were able to catalog only the visible parts of living things, Godliness, The H Bond Theory, highlights survival patterns that occur both within and between organisms, concluding that a new concept of god, a reigning Agent of Choice, could exist anywhere, anytime, because consciousness sets a logical precedent in our quantum universe. It is curious how theoretical physicists are so much more comfortable discussing the plausibility of little green men than the possibility of a supermassive Agent of Choice: they would rather think about an alien than a god. In only seven cumulative chapters, The H Bond Theory maps a mental journey through overgrown, atheist academic fields and out into the light, into sanity, into spiritual humility, using the language of science to guarantee public permission to practice the religious tradition of your choice. So what is Godliness? Godliness discusses the habit of an organism to forgo the consumption of surplus energy for the sake of another organism in its cooperative network of hydrogen bonds. If life itself is just a field of energy, if what binds your consciousness to your body could be measured like the surface tension on a drop of water, if your soul is a transverse wave that can make survival choices between particles, then the same quantum information that passes between your cells might be passing between all of our bodies, utilizing channels such as subatomic particle spin direction to orient us for invisible advantages. If your cells are communicating on an energetic level beneath that of a hydrogen bond, Godliness asks, how would you know if your casual cravings, your cellular choices, accidentally had answered someone's prayer today? Although the easy-to-read, question-and-answer structure of The H Bond Theory principles can be navigated even by the recreational marijuana user, its implications extend far beyond everyday applications, including a critical review of our monetary value systems. Some elements of our financial system, such as the tendency for the most expensive property to contain the highest proportion of hydrogen bonds, already hint at relevance of The H Bond Theory. Other problems, like a growing concern for climate change, indicate an immediate need for hydrogen bond conservation methods, which might help to control the subatomic radiation, the electrostatic levels, of our entire, precious planet. This book is an attempt to unify atheists and believers, Democrats and Republicans on at least one, essential platform: institutional acceptance of The H Bond Theory. Godliness teaches the ten steps of a new argument that it is logical to believe in a living god.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Outskirts Press
• Release date: Jun 8, 2017
• ISBN: 9781478790433

M. Bennett

M. Bennett is an ecophilosopher, former dancer, and veteran of the fine dining industry.   Comment with #CTCT  @ CalorieTheory

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

This book proposes a new theory about the nature of being.

In our daily quest for purpose, for ease, for peace in our decisions and actions, there exists an undercurrent of awkward misunderstanding between us because we do not agree on who we are.

The truth is that we do not even know what we are.

Regardless of whether you call yourself a soldier or a sommelier, a mother or a minister, you must wonder how you are alive.

We all have traditions and suspicions. We all have superstitions. We all have explanations, theories, placeholders that will help us function at the fast pace of duty until either illness or enlightenment offers us a deeper view of our inner selves.

But in quiet moments, we all crave a better relationship between our intentions and our actions. We all want a higher mastery of our faculties, a more direct route between internal ambitions and external results.

And we all desire to know what it is inside of us that is awake, that is choosing. We all desire to know who we are, where we came from, and where we will go.

Without recognizing it, most people already apply the scientific method to their own hypotheses. For all of the years between preschool and retirement, we walk the world with these burning questions in search of evidence, and we share our research data, our life experiences, with anyone who dares to discuss mortal topics. This basic mystery is a human condition that unites us all anytime we look up at the stars, grieve a loved one, or pray.

The theory presented in this book invites you to reopen the discussion in your own spiritual language. Although it is written using the nouns and values of secular science, these words are chosen only as a neutral tongue for easier translation into your own, working hypotheses about life. You may find that only a few of its premises make sense to you, or you may decide you agree with little of the evidence and yet cannot resist its conclusions.

You are a valid experimenter. If you were born into a human body, you have the right to participate in these conversations. Do not let any authority figure frighten the innocent curiosity of your child within.

Please test the theories proposed in this book. Then, trust yourself to share your personal results with confidence, even if friends and family choose to speak a different religious language, or if they speak only the dialect of their particular scientific field.

This book will argue the concept of a living god.

Occasionally, as we proceed, an especially academic reader may feel frustrated during poetic pockets of faith-based language. Likewise, an especially spiritual reader may feel lost during sections that treat concepts as variables. In either event, please scan whatever words you don’t need, as a tourist might skip steps when he climbs the stone staircase toward Machu Picchu. Essentially, these ideas are small; it just takes a few days to cover them all. Once at the end, however, you may enjoy a new view of life, and, hopefully, you will understand why it is so important that a caravan of others should take this journey after you.

Still, it may feel frustrating when our discussion occasionally tries to make an argument out of popular conclusions. You may think we already know the virtues of vitamin C, for example, or why we should drink plenty of water. You may feel that the subject matter oscillates between statements that seem obvious and statements that seem outrageous.

But such is the journey toward a new theory.

The entire purpose of producing a new theory in this manner is to identify connecting points in the messy grid of pop logic. Although we may all share the same mental map, the same evidence, that there are associations between vitamin supplementation and immune health, or that there is correspondence between dehydration and illness, we do not all use that neutral information to arrive at the same conclusions, the same ideas about cause and effect. To know that two phenomena occur together, to agree upon biological patterns, does not explain the nature of their relationship.

To identify what is happening is different than explaining why it is happening.

This book offers a new hypothesis, a new theory, which will become a new worldview only if you choose to test it out in your daily life.

Some of these ideas will seem almost too simple, almost too easy, and it will be their repetitions and intersections that suggest a greater academic relevance. We will take these simple ideas and layer them, like colors of oil paint on a canvas, to create the new theory, a new vision of reality. If we wanted, the data in each of the proceeding disciplines could generate graphs that overlap to highlight the conclusions of a new theory, as overlapping beams above the heads in a crowded theater can generate a spotlight.

But this new theory is not so black and white, neither scientific nor spiritual. If you get to a part that seems to suck, skip it. This new theory is not linear: it is not a stick of bamboo; it is a flower. Even if a few petals fall, that is, you still might find something important but fragile, some special beauty.

Please do not disregard what is possible in defense of what is comfortable. Whether you prefer calculation or contemplation, please apply a steady stream of critical thoughts to consideration of this new theory as a solution to some of our philosophical problems. Hopefully, this new theory will prove to be poetic, a change in perspective that allows us finally to acknowledge something that was there all along.

To begin, let us agree that a shimmer of magic yet remains in the fabric of our civilization.

Even atheists indulge the occasional quest for god. For secular scientists, of course, god is called as many different names as among the religious faithful: the Prime Mover; the Big Bang; the First Cause; the Grand Equation; the Universal Threshold. Each of these is a theory about god, the greatest impetus one can fathom, an explanation for our experiences which necessarily includes all of space and time, not only life now, but also its source and its destination.

Because we are all, physicists, chemists, politicians, and priests, intelligent people who simply speak separate languages, then, we must attempt to understand each other. We can never abandon the hope of sharing experimental results.

For every living being is a contemplative scientist: every living body learns by adaptation, every single day.

Every single person, therefore, has the right to speak from experience. That is the foundation of democracy, anyway.

If you find yourself lonely or misunderstood, learn a new spiritual language and a fresh sea of smiling faces will appear. Never fear. You will find that everyone loves to discuss his own philosophy of life. Why? Because life is yet unexplained, life is magical.

Since it happens to be the language of public education, now, let us begin with the mystic traditions of secular science.

GODLINESS:

IN PHILOSOPHY

1

What is life?

You are alive, so you must know. What are you?

A modern English dictionary may contain half a column of slang references for the word doughnut but nothing about the word life that doesn’t repeat the term. Or, life may be defined as an opposite of something, an absence of death, for example. It seems like cheating. In its finality, totality, predictability, death is easier to identify.

Despite our millennia of human progress, that is, we still don’t quite know what life is. Let us dare to further the conversation.

Incarnation is a universal experience. Anyone who breathes has the right to express opinions on this subject. Anyone with sensations and expressions is capable of lending assistance to the deepest questions of life, even if your only contribution is criticism.

At our present stage of global diplomacy, we must seek common denominators in international definitions of life.

In the English language, again, we often define life as a negative: it is not dead. The mystery of conception, the miracle of birth, and the animation of tissues are such odd and improbable events to accept that our logic systems certainly would argue against them if they were not imposed upon our daily realities. A positive definition of life, a definition that addresses what it is without mentioning what it is not, therefore, seems to elude us.

But most people might agree that the experience of being alive is more than simply a condition of not being dead: it is not a point opposite of death on a graph; instead, it is a range of value, a wide field of possible sensations that fills not only the imagination but also the memory; life extends through both space and time. To continue to define life as an antonym for death would be an embarrassment to the intellect of our historical era.

We must define our terms. We must define our selves.

A Logical Definition of Life

In pursuit of a common language, then, please consider a mathematical view of this problem. Math generates easier translations, eventually, among ideological enemies, no matter which side of an issue you find yourself on.

First, let us first agree that life is not a point. It is not a flash. It requires change, growth, which passes through time. So, as we begin to envision its invisible qualities, let us agree that life fills a range of points.

Next, let us agree, for the sake of argument, that life is not a line. Some people wonder whether all is predetermined, whether the universe unfolds with such order that our choices are illusions. If that is your belief, then forgive us, robot, for interrupting your programmed mission, and please consider another book on the shelf. If not, then you agree that your choices allow for life to touch a wide net of possibilities. The outline of any life must have, at least, a two-dimensional shape. Life covers area.

Now, let us agree that life is never alone. This is not to presuppose the existence of a god. That is a weighted term that requires many more arguments. No, when we declare that life is never alone, it means simply that life feeds off of other life. On Earth, a cell cannot live off rocks, mate with rocks, and reproduce rocks. In order for life to grow, which we have already established as a defining quality, opposite the decay of death, life cannot be alone. There must be cooperative cells within reach of its environment or it will not survive. The area commanded by one life, by one cell, is finite: even if its only companion is an offspring, the existence of life as we know it requires at least that connection for it to navigate space time, a bond between lives.

And so, let us propose that life can travel in four directions.

Graphing Life

As we try to narrow in on a definition, think about how life moves.

First, life can move toward death. It can journey toward collapse, toward nonexistence, inward, toward death. This sounds like the old standby definition, that life is simply a temporary resistance of death. It sounds useless, but it is important to include because the fight with death generates sensations. Life uses these sensations to chart navigation in all other possible directions.

This tendency to acknowledge and to consider death before any action forms the most basic choice that life makes: survival.

Compassionate comparisons of survival habits are critical to the future of world peace.

Second, life can travel laterally, performing locomotion, pursuing options, acquiring new perspectives and new information. Life occupies space, moving sideways through its environment in order to improve its odds of survival. We call this direction adaptation.

Third, however, life can travel outward, toward other life, toward collaboration, toward reproduction. This is an extroverted direction, an expansion called socialization. These biological habits include conquest and conception, of course, but they also include colonization.

Later chapters will force us to consider whether the threshold of life should be defined according to the physical body of a bee, for example, or, due to the extent of chemical dependency, whether the bee should be considered a cell of the hive, the collective, the whole, true organism. These questions may lead you to greater wonders, as to whether acts of spiritual submission like evangelical conversion possibly could create what they say, a church body.

Fourth and finally, life can travel through time, measured as the sum of distance between its choices. We experience proof of this direction in the form of memories. Memories generate feelings, and feelings craft our ideas about spiritual purpose.

This four-dimensional shape, our spatial experience of life, forms a field.

As we continue, moving on to sillier subjects like tree frogs and extra terrestrials, please always remember that your life is a field of energy. Your living field has touched all the air you have ever breathed and every date in all of your cute kitten calendars. Your living field covers a large, four-dimensional volume of space and time. At the thresholds of your birth and your death, space and time still exist, but what changes is the coordinates of a field of energy, you, who navigates between them.

This field is what we call life. This book will attempt to redefine its properties.

In steady pursuit of simpler language, then, let us visit another science, which allows words to become variables, shapes, and images that will be easier to translate across occasionally hostile, religious barriers.

Bioethics

How does biology define life?

Particularly, how do evolutionary biologists, those whose conclusions about survival of the fittest successfully ended the reign of Western manners, that social pacifism which was commissioned by Jesus of Nazareth, how do they define life?

Historically, biology studied only the visible parts of life. Every form of life as we know it includes an organization of visible parts. A living cell has its organelles, which communicate survival needs at the frequency of chemical exchange. A body organ has its cells, which communicate survival needs at the frequency of chemical exchange. A human body has its organs, which communicate survival needs at the frequency of chemical exchange.

During recent decades, however, biologists have begun to study the invisible parts of life, not only through electron microscopes but also through cooperative behaviors.

One category of bacteria, for example, releases methane to effect its immediate environment and to promote the survival of nearby organisms. These bacteria not only control marsh ecosystems but also treat our wastewater. These bacteria literally help us to survive, living even inside us, as well as in others, like cows, goats and antelopes.

The survival patterns of organisms regularly overlap, then, into alliance for the sake of a shared ecosystem, a cooperative environment. This is a fact of modern science that affects much of our agribusiness. So how is it that many corporate policies still treat other organisms as objects, not subjects? How is it that nature can be an ally on one side of a profit margin, and an enemy, on the other?

More importantly, please consider, just for intellectual exercise, just for a warm up, what if there was a larger cooperative organism than a single human body? Not a forest of humans, not a hive of humans, but what would it be called? As a body uses its organs, or an organ uses its cells, could it use us to communicate survival needs at the frequency of chemical exchange? Could our feelings, manifestations of neuropeptides, operate like nerves within a larger, living collective?

Could we be the cells of some larger organism? If so, what might we call it?

Again, just for fun, not serious yet, still in pursuit of a neutral, international concept of life, let us only stop a moment to entertain the