Please note, you can access all previous explanatory and inspirational WTM Emails at the end of this email. Wednesday’s explanatory emails and Friday’s inspirational emails are numbered in order of appearance, so one is odd and the other even numbered.


This is inspirational WTM Email 28


Is science’s scorn of religion legitimate?


Many scientists scorn religion. But now that we have the scientific explanation of the human condition, we can see how extraordinarily insightful some religious metaphors are.


For example, now that we understand that the human condition our angry, egocentric and alienated state was the result of a clash between our emerging consciousness and our pre-established, loving instincts, we can appreciate just how accurate the story of Adam and Eve, Moses’ pre-scientific description of the human condition, is.


Adam and Eveby Lucas Cranach the Elder (1526)

Adam and Eve
by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1526)

Adam and Eve cast out of Paradise, from Old Testament Stories, pub. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London (c.1880)

Adam and Eve cast out of Paradise, from Old Testament Stories, pub. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London (c.1880)


The story contains reference to our loving instincts in its description of how we were created in the image of God, living in harmony in the Garden of Eden; it refers to the rise of consciousness in its description of how we took of the fruit from the tree of knowledge; and it refers to the resulting clash with our instincts in its description of how we were cast out of Eden.


All Moses lacked to fully explain the human condition was the scientific understanding of the difference between genes and nerves, which defends our ‘disobedience’, but which was to take a further 3,000 years to discover!


It is of some significance that while Moses’ account is perhaps the most widely recognised, virtually all religions contain a metaphor about the rise of consciousness corrupting an innocent state as the author Richard Heinberg notes in his book Memories & Visions of Paradise:


“Every religion begins with the recognition that human consciousness has been separated from the divine Source, that a former sense of oneness…​has been lost…​everywhere in religion and myth there is an acknowledgment that we have departed from an original…​innocence and can return to it only through the resolution of some profound inner discord​…the cause of the Fall is described variously as disobedience, as the eating of a forbidden fruit, and as spiritual amnesia [forgetting/blocking out/alienation].” (See chapters 2:6 and 2:7 of FREEDOM for an incredible collection of non-scientific descriptions of the human condition.)


So despite the scorn prominent mechanistic scientists have been pouring on religion recently for example, evolutionary biologist, and famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, has said ‘faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness’ (The Selfish Gene, new edition, 1989, p.330 of 352), and ‘Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder to eradicate. The whole subject of God is a bore”…​those who teach religion to small children are guilty of “child abuse”’ (see par. 938 of FREEDOM), and the founder of sociobiology, E.O. Wilson, has said ‘What’s dragging us down is religious faith…​I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faith’ (see par. 938 of FREEDOM) it turns out that the scientific explanation of the human condition, now that it has arrived, is in accord with the religious one. Which should comes as no surprise really, because as the Nobel prize-winning physicist Charles H. Townes said,


“They [science and religion] both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance. As we understand more in each realm, the two must grow together…converge they must.” (See par. 327 of FREEDOM)



Nobel prize-winning physicist Charles H. Townes

Nobel prize-winning physicist Charles H. Townes


How right Townes was. Now that we have Jeremy’s scientific explanation of the human condition we can readily see their beautiful symmetry.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Read Jeremy Griffith’s breakthrough redeeming explanation of the human condition in chapter 1 of FREEDOM; and much more about the relationship between science and religion while the journey to find understanding was underway in chapter 4 of FREEDOM, specifically paragraphs 326-328.


Discussion or comment on this email is welcomed see below.



See all previous WTM Emails


(Note, Wednesday’s explanatory emails and Friday’s inspirational emails are numbered in order of appearance, so one is odd and the other even numbered.)


Wednesday’s explanatory WTM Email 1 Why solving the human condition solves everything | 3 The false ‘savage instincts’ excuse | 5 The explanation of the human condition | 7 The transformation of the human race | 9 The historic fear of the human condition | 11 Ending the stalled state of biology | 13 One hour introductory talk | 15 FREEDOM chapter synopses | 17 Commendations | 19 Are humans innately and unchangeably brutal? | 21 How did we humans acquire our altruistic moral conscience? | 23 The integrative meaning of existence | 25 How did consciousness emerge in humans? | 27 Understanding the human condition ends the polarised world of politics


Friday’s inspirational WTM Email 2 WTM Centres opening everywhere | 4 Can conflict ever end? | 6 ‘This is the real liberation of women’ | 8 Is God real? | 10 Anne Frank’s faith in human goodness fulfilled | 12 Bonobos nurtured cooperativeness | 14 Understanding millennials | 16 Women’s beauty | 18 Prophetic songs | 20 ‘How this liberated me from racism’ | 22 Art’s agony and ecstasy | 24 Survey seeking feedback | 26 The meaning of superhero and disaster films


These emails were composed during 2017 by Jeremy Griffith, Damon Isherwood,
Fiona Cullen-Ward & Brony FitzGerald at the Sydney WTM Centre.



Please note, we encourage constructive discussion about this information and so reserve the right to moderate or decline posts that we feel are not relevant or inappropriate. In particular, with the subject of the human condition being so confronting, malice can easily occur, and where comments are deemed to be motivated not by objectivity but by malice, they will be declined. It has to be appreciated that the possibility of malice toward this subject matter is very real, and we have a responsibility to manage that as best we can.


  1. Tommy on July 15, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    I’ve been flicking through the commendations for Jeremy Griffith’s work and these from Professor John Morton are of relevance and interest to this discussion, as he is so eminently qualified being a Lay Canon of Holy Trinity Cathedral and Fellow St. John’s Theological College as well as Emeritus Professor of Zoology

  2. Robert Urlich on July 14, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    Clear as crystal to me.
    The most effective agent in catalyzing the drawing together science and religion is modern communication technology. The inter-net was designed to exchange information between a select few at high academic level. Exchange of information using this technology is now available to the masses not just the dizzy heights of academia,
    In Christian religious terms this means that people individually and collectively are equally images of God.
    Equals relate without disadvantage or threat of losing status or authority.
    Surely if there is nothing to contest then Eden must be nearby.
    I would attach a label reading, Truly just.

  3. richard on July 8, 2017 at 8:44 am

    I am not a religious person, but you may be missing the point of the email. The point seems to me to be that religion can now be seen to have been a precious repository of truth about the human condition, albeit in metaphorical terms. The email is not saying that anything in religious texts is literally true. The example given in the email about how the story of Adam and Eve parallels the scientific explanation of the human condition which is that when our species became conscious our consciousness came into conflict with our pre-established instincts, with the result being the psychologically upset state of the human condition, is a case in point. I find that remarkable. Obviously when people take the bible literally they are losing the real meaning of it all, but that is another issue to what is being put forward in this email.

  4. Victor Gaw on July 7, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    Of course. What alternative does religion offers, but nothing but religious delusions based on no evidence but faith? It not acceptable as rational evidence. It’s totally unverifiable. It’s unfalsifiable. Meaning it can not be proven false. When something can not be proven false is logically impossible.

    A classic example is Christianity’s claims that it is the only true religion and rejects all other religions. How do they know? They will cite some verses in their holy books to back their claims as proof. it’s nothing more than Christian hypocrisy that claims that Christian holy book is the latest incarnation of g0d’s law that supersedes the Judean Talmud. Did g0d’s law (Yahweh, the monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, Eternal, All Caring and Loving deity g0d, the Alpha and the Omega) got modified to become a Trinity g0d during the Pagan Roman conversion to Christianity since then? Please more realistic. Think of what the Roman Catholics did to the (g0d’s law) The Ten Commandments, handed down directly by G0d to Moses? Isn’t is blasphemy? Think of it!. Shalom. May Allah bless you.

    I would welcome anyone to respond to my objections.

    • Robert Urlich on July 14, 2017 at 7:49 pm

      Shalom Victor
      At some point of existence there is only potential energy without mass or form.
      Is this not the beginning of creation? Is it scientific or is it just mythology?
      In my culture every opinion has some validity related to the life essence of the holder.
      As I read scripture, Jehoshua, Jeshua, Issa, Jesus or what other name is preferred is one person; born of the line of David, therefore Jewish; he cautioned, ‘Judge not lest ye be judged.’
      The issue is this: ‘All judgments tend close the mind thereby blocking out further possibilities.
      God as El, Allah and many other names, I believe, wishes that we humans keep open our hearts and minds.
      Kia tau te rangimarie me nga manaaki o te runga rawa ki a koe.
      (May the peace and the blessings of the highest be upon you)

  5. George C on June 24, 2017 at 9:58 am

    Indeed it is a beautiful symmetry. Thank you for shedding further light!

  6. Kenneth on June 23, 2017 at 9:21 pm

    Religion is brainwashing,just as most science is too,
    Adam and Eve is childish nonsense,
    For the illiterate, to me ,it has no sense what ever,even symbolically,
    Like the Big Bang,an explanation,
    For the unknowable ,
    The quantum mechanics, of the old testament,

    • George C on June 24, 2017 at 9:49 am

      Science is knowledge.
      Religion and mythology hold the great truths of mankind’s journey through ignorance to enlightenment.
      To throw away both makes no sense to me whatsoever.
      Our choice is to live in a cave or to exit into a sunlight existence.
      I know what I’d prefer and I feel for those that have to endure the darkness and horror when it’s no longer necessary..! Habituation and fear of change seem to cripple man’s potential.
      Love to all that are tuning in to this incredible information and momentous movement. : )

  7. Michael on May 20, 2017 at 2:11 am

    Armand’s and RJ’s comments are IMO highlighting a central issue in e-mail nr. 28, namely if science and religion can/should be reconciled and should “converge” and be seen as dealing with “the same substance”, or if they still are mutually exclusive in spite of Jeremy’s findings… Given that the World Transformation Movement is heavily relying on a new understanding of the temporal dimension in the human condition, a dimension with a whole lot of different temporal levels, issues and personal considerations, it is my opinion that these two cognitive areas, religion and science, are still two mutually exclusive areas which nowadays, thanks to Jeremy Griffith, can be juggled back and forth by way of a third intermediary area, which to my mind best can be described as the “temporal area”… Science and Religion can thus both be viewed compared to Time… preferrably the geological timescale, on which at least I have become aware of three “impasse’s”… two of which Jeremy Griffith has identified and described, and one third “impasse”, one which Jeremy has not mentioned and perhaps not even realized… yet…:)

  8. Gil Pahlow on April 27, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    I grew up with the teaching that “There was only one God”, but over the years that belief has mellowed to ” There is only one God but different peoples have given Him a different name.” Like there is only one Sun shining in the Sky….different peoples have different names for the Sun.

    This was not a problem in our world till we became advanced enough to Communicate widely and began to argue with other peoples about God’s name and the way we believed He required us to honour him. And the better our communication got the more we argue about this subject.

    The above naturally insures that these different peoples have different rules. It is unfortunate that we have taken upon ourselves the belief that we should convert those who believe something that better reflects our own.

    • Robert Urlich on July 14, 2017 at 7:57 pm

      Surely argument over names is an issue of ego and perhaps insecurity.
      The questions we should keep in our minds are: ‘What if I am wrong?” and “What shall I do if that is proven?”

  9. RJ on April 26, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Gosh I don’t relate to Armand’s comments above at all, as to me, it makes infinite sense that the two disciplines of science and religion should, or “must”, ultimately be reconciled — as indeed they are now by Jeremy Griffith’s understanding. And as for Dawkins and EO Wilson quoted above I find their comments abhorrent! So I am definitely in agreeance with the other three comments above.
    Understanding religion was one of the things that gave me the greatest relief when I came across this information. Even as a school girl, I felt very unreconciled in my views of religion. Christianity (in my case) seemed to uphold all the feelings I held so dear like love and morality but then I was interested too in science’s explanatory powers. It has been absolutely wonderful, in fact liberating, for me to finally be able to understand and make sense of the Bible like the example of the Garden of Eden given above. These accounts of our once innocent state are incredibly beautiful now that I can understand them free of dogma (great comment jazz82). And then to be able to answer the ultimate question, of ‘what is God?’ is simply mindblowing.
    Frankly, as to the title question of this post, I’m just glad we have this new paradigm of knowledge to bridge all these numerous unreconciled and poles-apart views that cause so much pain between people, the chasm between science and religion being only one. Our prejudices and defences have been legitimate up until now but this biological understanding changes everything. Finally we have the ‘manual to life’!

  10. Parsimony on April 22, 2017 at 8:35 am

    As one of the resident mechanists on this forum, I do enjoy the rigour with which Mr Griffith approaches all subjects including religious. And upon reflection, when thinking about the Adam and Eve myth or metaphor, it does appear to me, with the benefit of Mr Griffith’s thinking, that whoever wrote it, was indeed describing the emergence of consciousness, and how it contributed to the human condition.

  11. jazz82 on April 22, 2017 at 8:29 am

    In Griffith we have a biologist who is bringing scientific understanding to religious metaphors, and yet, simply for the fact that he is doing that, he is branded by some as un-scientific. What about the brilliant demystification of the Adam and Eve Story in the post in question? Doesn’t that show that the scientific explanation of the human condition and the religious explanation were both saying the same thing?

  12. Armand on April 22, 2017 at 4:05 am

    I started being interested in the ideas propagated by but after having read the following statement “They [science and religion] both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance. As we understand more in each realm, the two must grow together…converge they must.” (See par. 327 of FREEDOM )” I can only conclude that this site is yet another attempt to confuse us all by merging two ideas which are mutually exclusive namely “science” and “religion”. These 2 ideas can NOT be both true at the same time. As from now I will no longer visit (nor affiliated sites) and I have unsubscribed myself from its mailing list. To those choosing to be no longer deluded I advise to do the same.

  13. Annabelle West on April 21, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    The symmetry between it is amazing, simple and clear. Without these understandings people really are in the dark.
    I read an article last weekend about a woman trying to raise her kids and remembered how she described Richard Dawkins as being a ‘pit-bull atheist’ which confirms what you’ve written about him in the blog. Here’s the link if it’s any interest to anyone.
    6 days ago … Nikki Gemmell. Columnist. Sydney … That pit-bull atheist, Richard Dawkins, says raising children as Christians is a form of child abuse.