In one way or another all of us are searching for evidence of God.  Granted, few words in the language are more loaded than “God.”  Those more linguistically tempered wisely sidestep the inevitable religious associations by using a bevy of other, more neutral appellations.  For them such terms as Pure Being, Supreme Consciousness, Ultimate Intelligence, The One or Divine Awareness are closer to the ideal they have in mind.  Oh, you can dance around it all you want.  Regardless of label we all know what we’re really talking about.  We’re searching for the source; something that deliberately designed and infused the grand pattern in which we exist with purpose and meaning.  In a world gone crackers with absurdity, endless relativity and intellectual complexity this desire is understandable.  But take heart, as the tubercular munchkin Alexander Pope noted for us all, “hope springs eternal.”  Occasionally, previously hidden patterns of experience or structure emerge so sublime, calculated and profound as to seemingly defy the possibility of random process.   They seem to suggest an order or meaning beyond the immediate phenomena.  Dare we say they seem indicative of a deliberate higher intelligence or calculated scheme at work?  The “fingerprint of God” as it were?  All attempts at self restraint notwithstanding, our yen to infer meaning from the revealed and to extrapolate the grand from the specific comes easily. However, in our sanguine, more fortified moments we wonder, is divining the existence and nature of any ultimate intelligence within the capability of human study?  Can we recognize the calculated from the incidental; distinguish the random from the conceived?  Are any of the paths of our physical or psychic studies capable of providing any evidence of an Ultimate Intelligence?  Or do many of us labor under a delusion of the possibility of our pursuits?

Let’s be clear.  I’m not talking about the ability to know God, the Ultimate, Pure Being, the Whole Ontological Enchilada or whatever.  From an early age I was inculcated in this impossibility by my mother.  While many of the details of her philosophical education have long since faded she remembers just enough to be aggravating.  Any metaphysical topic crossing her path received the same Aristotelian grapeshot; “there can be no such thing as an uncaused first cause.”  Though the weariest of tropes, it succinctly reveals the inherent problems our limited minds encounter in conceptualizing any existential Ultimate.  Of course greater sages than my mother have stressed this essential concept for millennia.  No, all intellectual pretense aside, I’ve no illusions about being able to understand any Ultimate intelligence.  What I, like many wonder is whether we have the ability to recognize the mere existence of such an entity.   The mystics are fond of saying the Ultimate lies within everything and I suspect they’re right.  But is there a specific pattern, arrangement, structure or ideal that underlies and orders existence that we can latch on to?  Could anything we see, sense or think confirm for us an Ultimate presence?

It’s often said there’s a pattern or order to life.  This is a reasonable assumption.  After all, everything that’s here must have come from somewhere through traceable and definable processes.   Our science operates along this very assumption as its investigative approach relies on the principles of causality and deconstruction.  You want to know what something’s made of and how it came to be, take it apart and follow the trail backwards.   Unfortunately, when searching for grand schemes two problems immediately emerge; finding Ultimate order is difficult as any such pattern of existence would likely be so enormous we’d have trouble recognizing it and secondly, should we glimpse this pattern how could we tell if it was a signature of intelligence or just the result of random causal factors?  Many remain undaunted by the problems associated with the former.  They cogently argue any ultimate pattern of existence must by necessity be replicated within smaller, more accessible phenomena.  Fair enough.  But pattern is one thing, intelligence quite another. The existence of a greater intelligence of which we’re all a part has been the holy grail of Western philosophy for the last twenty five hundred years.  However, distinguishing intelligence from randomness has proven to be a considerably thornier proposition.

My most recent brush with the fingerprint of God occurred when prodded by a friend to check out the work being done in the field of cymatics.  Cymatics studies the effects of sound and vibration on matter.  Many cymatic experiments involve vibrating a diaphragm coated with a thin layer of loose particles with sounds of varying frequencies.  Once any particular sound begins, the particles leap into a stunning array of complex patterns mirroring many of the symmetries found within the natural world.  Each different frequency creates its own unique formation.  Insisting I appreciate this magnificence for myself he directed me to that grand repository of human knowledge; YouTube.  After spending a few hours together watching a variety of shimmering patterns resembling snowflakes, spirals, honeycombs and an array of other geometric formations emerge from a range of synthesized sounds I had to admit this was pretty interesting stuff.  Afterwards my friend began advancing his theories.  At first he was measured, making controlled observations on the intrinsic qualities of sound and its inherent relationship between pattern and nature.  The stakes rose as he noted how patterns of such complexity and consistency revealed a hidden order of existence.  When he began freely substituting the word “intelligence” for “order” I knew the conversation was morphing from the reasonable to the inspired.  It was now just a matter of time.  Finally the whole thing blew apart.   “There’s no way you can tell me these patterns aren’t the finger print of God,” he sputtered.  I was now in familiar territory.

The fingerprint of God.  How many times have we heard this analogy?  Would that any common felon leave as much evidence around a crime scene as God reputedly does around existence.  We’ve all heard of dozens of possible phenomena spanning dozens of centuries and dozens of disciplines claiming to prove the presence of an intelligent order within existence.  The list of possible physical candidates reflecting an Ultimate Order is imposing.  They include cymatic reaction, crystals, tonal relations, energy fields, (zero point, morphogenic, Akashic, take your pick), human DNA and to the delight of Transcendentalists everywhere, a multitude of natural phenomena such as florid patterns, pine needle arrangements or everybody’s all time favorite, the chambered nautilus.   For those less empirically inclined we have the mathematical schemes.  Beware; there are more of these cunning constructs than digits in pi.  Some of the perennial favorites include Euclidean geometry, the Golden Mean, number theories galore, (Gematrian, Fibonacci, Euler and Zuckerman, just to start) and of course the sensation de jour, fractals.  All reputedly reveal and order the fundamental relationships inherent within creation.  There’s no denying all of the above within their own right are fascinating and significant.  It’s indeed possible any or all of these intriguing phenomena are exactly as advertised; revelations of an ultimate intelligence ordering and defining an existence of which we’re all a part.  However, while not wanting to rile those more insightful and observant than myself I can’t help but think there’s more to consider.

Let’s first look at the physical examples.  For all we know any or all of the above phenomena may be nothing more than spectacular, elaborate, highly ordered, significant yet ultimately mindless manifestations of random processes inherent within existence; the accidental results of a particular confluence of time and energy.  Hard as it is to appreciate, ingeniousness of design and function is not necessarily evidence of deliberate conscious intention.  Just ask Darwin.  One need not stoop to the absurdity of the “Infinite Monkey Theorem” to wonder if such incredible phenomena are merely incidental results occurring when certain factors meet specific circumstances.

And the math and geometry?  Despite how clever, inspired and enduring their formula, they remain imposed sets of abstract relations of our own design.  Their effectiveness in ordering existence does nothing to suggest existence is ordered around them.  Let’s face it, anything (including the pebbles in the pile of gravel at the end of my driveway) can be mathematically ordered should one feel so inclined.  Even those recurring proportions found within the world could simply be the result of larger, more uniform and enduring forces or circumstances related to physical existence rather than calculated intelligence and intention.  Don’t misunderstand; there may indeed be elements within empirical phenomena or mathematical constructions indicative of a deliberate design.  The problem is we can never be sure.  Any measure of proof is still lacking.  Even in the face of any accepted “universal laws” such as gravity we can never distinguish the product of grand intelligence from the consistent, though incidental result of random physical factors.  It would appear no matter how enhanced our understanding of external phenomena or mathematical relation should ever become, any sense of mystical certainty will never be forthcoming.

The intrinsic limitations of sensory phenomena often force modern seekers in a different more intimate direction.  If Ultimate intelligence eludes objective certainty, perhaps it can be subjectively experienced.  At this point many abandon the purely empirical in favor of the multiple varieties of interior or psychic awareness currently in vogue.   Searching to personally verify what they suspect to be true, they examine their own intuitions or “peak” experiences, create alternate psychological states through meditation or psychotropic substances or root about the burgeoning literature on psychic phenomena.   Knowing the imprimatur of objective science impossible they seek a proof valid only unto themselves.  Though traditionally drawing its fair share of the reality challenged and emotionally penurious there’s nothing inherently anti-intellectual about the interior approach.  However, the more measured soon understand no matter how seemingly vivid or intensely experienced, psychological or metaphysical experience is ultimately as circumscribed by the same problems as the empirical.

A discussion I had after reviewing David Fontana’s recent book “Is There An Afterlife?” comes to mind.  A dedicated researcher of afterlife phenomena, Fontana melds his own investigative experiences with those within the archives of the British Society for Psychical Research in an attempt to understand the possibility and nature of afterlife experiences.  His approach is scholarly, meticulous, directed by established research protocols and infused with the requisite amount of skepticism.  Though Fontana is appropriately circumspect about his findings, any open reading of his work strongly suggests there is likely a dimension of consciousness remaining after clinical death.  However, a fellow reviewer was ready to extrapolate much further.  Nibbling at the hook he suggested I “consider the implications.”  “If any of these studies are accurately reported we have evidence of a higher order of intelligence at work.”  I carefully noted no matter how “real” these events of spirits, poltergeists, materializations, etc., may be they provide “evidence” of only an extended aspect of existence.  To assume anything regarding a higher intelligence at work would be arguing beyond the evidence.  I further noted even instances of more complex varieties of afterlife experience such as reincarnation (as presented in the voluminous and highly persuasive case studies of Ian Stevenson) reveal only added capacities of consciousness, not the existence of a divine hand.  I understand it’s always easier to take skeptical positions when you’re dealing with someone else’s subjective revelations.  Would direct personal experience be as readily contextualized?

Searching to expand the scope of conscious awareness has led many to experiment with a variety of altered mental states.  Of these, few are as dramatic and immediately “revelatory” as those associated with the use of traditional psychotropic materials.  Many of these natural substances such as ayahuasca, peyote, salvia divanorum and the San Pedro cactus are traditionally rooted within the shamanic framework of native cultures and are intrinsic to their ritualistic practice.  Today their use has expanded beyond the scope of their original context as they enjoy increasing favor with modern psychonauts, myself included.  Under the effects of these powerful substances many claim enhanced sensory perception, the ability to access different dimensions of existence and ontological insights far beyond those available to normative consciousness.  Assuming the sensory phenomenon attendant with the use of these materials have a legitimate reality of their own (as opposed to being epiphenomenological figments of the mind) the question remains; could these perceptions reveal evidence of an Ultimate Consciousness or grand scheme within existence?  Sorry, we still can’t make that leap.  One may confidently state these heightened perceptions attest to a number of ontological possibilities; a vast dimension and quality of existence lying beyond our normal sensory impressions, a realm of simultaneous universes unaffected by the laws of time and space as we know them and so on into the night.  Make no mistake; these would be no trivial insights.  They dramatically expand our existential awareness in unprecedented ways.  However, by themselves they do little to reveal or confirm any deeper purpose or ultimate intelligence behind the phenomena.   These same limitations extend to any subjective insights revealed through any meditative or ecstatic episode one may experience.  One can never discount the possibility anything sensed under these conditions to be just additional aspects and layers of an alternate reality playing itself out in a depth and complexity heretofore unknown.  Despite the genuine value and transformative effects these experiences may yield, the extent and nature of any Ultimate essence would still remain unknown.

Under such circumstances, what need occur for us to distinguish ultimate intelligence from random phenomena?  What apparition or event would allow us to reasonably infer the difference between the two?  Unfortunately, it would seem no quality of phenomena or vividness of experience is capable of confirming the existence of the Ultimate.   In this case we’re dealing with a one way line of reasoning. This isn’t algebra; just because a + b = c does not mean c – b = a.   What we’re after is a different kind of unknown.  Working the proposition in reverse just doesn’t get it done.  It’s a maddening circle of logic; until such time as we can know the Ultimate we can never be sure what constitutes evidence of the Ultimate.  Some might think this position rigid, extreme and allowing for little humanistic grace.  They’d be right.  However, when dealing with empirical or intuitive phenomena, either directly or indirectly experienced, issues of causality and meaning can never be extrapolated beyond the evidence at hand.  The most we can take away from such episodes of experience is a greater appreciation and sense of awe for the depth and dimension of existence.

Two important distinctions need making.  I don’t wish to imply there are no other kinds or levels of intelligence and consciousness other than human or Ultimate.  The likelihood of there being higher dimensions of consciousness whose depth and quality are different, possibly more expansive and evolved than our own seems quite likely.  Such alternate levels of consciousness need not necessarily reside in a different plane or level of existence.  It’s also likely there are many aspects and qualities of our own consciousness operating beneath the level of our subjective awareness.  The vast body of evidence emerging in the field of psychic studies suggests human consciousness to have dimensions and levels of ability far in excess of that revealed within ordinary perceptual circumstances.   However, on either level the experience or phenomena themselves could simply be extended aspects of incidental factors intrinsic to our state of being.  Nothing would indicate these alternate levels of consciousness originate from or are indicative of any type of Ultimate or divine presence.

The second necessary caveat concerns a conspicuous effort to keep the operation of reason outside the scope of this discussion.   My only intention has been to briefly address the limitation of both objective and subjective “experience” towards recognizing the existence of any type of Ultimate force.  Though similarly incapable of providing any “fingerprint” or definitive proof, the use of reason is likely the most productive path towards Ultimate understanding.  The search for ontological absolutes has obsessed Western philosophers from the time of the pre-Socratics up through modern Process and Integral theorists.  Many are the great thinkers who’ve made impressive and scholarly runs at the existence and nature of a Supreme Consciousness through deductive reasoning.  Of course, any discussions of the problems, limitations or fallacies associated with the use of human reason towards accessing Ultimate ends would be grist for yet another mill.

The inability to differentiate between random phenomena and intentional creation shouldn’t dampen the search for Ultimate answers.  Physics, psychology, anthropology, theology, mathematics and psychic studies all remain valid and necessary pursuits.  Any information gleaned from any phenomena or experience within the totality of our existence remains interesting in its own right and expands the scope of our awareness while bringing us closer to a more complete comprehension of our own nature.  However, no matter how dramatic or revelatory the event, nor how far it extends the limits of our understanding, we must appreciate nothing is capable of bestowing Ultimate meaning on the symptoms of existence.  The “fingerprint of God” seems a concept forever to remain unconfirmed.   We need to understand this reality so as not to confuse the objects and significance of our pursuits.  We need to appreciate the limits of our inquiries.  Doing so affords the chance to move towards the bigger more relevant issues at hand.  This is not the attitude of a defeatist but rather a realist.  I would remind there remains great nobility in making progress toward unattainable goals.