Now we come to the part which is the whole point of this website: the part about my own philosophy. My worldview, my take on the mysteries of this strange life that we live for a blink of the eye of eternity. What are we here for? How did we get here? What does it all mean? Does it mean anything at all? Is it all some giant cosmic coincidence or are we playing out some giant cosmic drama?

I have already mentioned that, if I were to attach a label to my philosophy, then I would call myself an idealist. I subscribe to the view that reality is pure mind-stuff. It is tempting to compare that view to computer-generated Virtual Reality: something akin to what they attempted to show in the Matrix movies. However, the word "virtual" suggests that there is a "real" (i.e. physical) reality which is merely approximated by the "virtual" reality. Idealism - especially the monist variety - says that what we experience as physical reality is, in fact, an illusion produced by the infinite mind. Why? Because the manifestation of a seemingly physical universe, complete with a set of physical laws, is just one of the ways through which the infinite mind can express itself and through that expression, explore itself and ultimately know itself.

Unfortunately, I live in a part of the world where my kind of idealism is not taken seriously by most people who have been taught in western schools and universities. Academics, educators, scientists, journalists and anyone who is anyone with regard to informing the public are - by a huge margin - materialists. That means that they are diametrically opposed to the notions I have described above. The religious authorities here tend to vacillate on this question. At best, they will say that they are dualists: meaning that they believe in body and soul; mind and matter. In my view, the western religious philosophy is deliberately simplistic and calculated to appeal to the uneducated because control of the masses has always been the primary focus of organised western religions. It is this very fact that provoked a backlash over the last four hundred years or so, ushering in what has become known as the "Age of Enlightenment". As with pendulum swings, however, the momentum of the swing away from the simplistic religious view carried it to the other extreme: that of anti-theism and dogmatic materialism. I would contend that this position is every bit as naive as the religious dogma it sought to replace.

The early philosophers of the enlightenment: Descartes, Newton and Berkeley did not abandon the concept of spirit. Rather, they sought to use the developing tools of science and reason to highlight the evidence for the supreme consciousness, the great architect of the universe, the one they called God. I find it odd and utterly ironic that those who idolise Newton as the father of materialism should ignore the fact that, not only was he devout in his belief in a supreme being, but that he was an alchemist to boot. As with any true alchemist, nothing was closer to Newton's heart than his quest for spiritual enlightenment.

But this early open-mindedness of the 17th century thinkers was, from the outset, doomed to be overtaken by that very momentum they had helped to create. By the middle of the 19th century, the western world was primed for the appearance of some paradigm-shattering idea that would move the pendulum back through its nadir and on its way to the opposite extreme. Enter Charles Darwin and Natural Selection. Evolution by means of Natural Selection has become the equivalent to a religion for materialists and Darwin is their messiah. Anyone who dares to question Darwin becomes subject to howls of derision and character assassination reminiscent of the treatment of heretics by the church. A priest who questions the veracity of the Gospels will not do his career in the church any favours. An academic or scientist who questions Darwin will not do his career much good either.

Perhaps the pendulum has now reached its other extreme. The prevailing culture has materialism at its heart and by that I mean both types of materialism: the philosophical "there is nothing that cannot be explained in terms of physical matter", and the other definition of materialism that describes humans obsessed by money, luxury goods, houses, cars, etc. In my country, there is a special academic post called the "Chair for the Public Understanding of Science". This post has been held for several years by the arch materialist and atheist, Richard Dawkins (yes, him again). Recently it was announced that he is to be succeeded in that post by another avowed atheist - another academic with plenty of media exposure - Marcus du Sautoy. Admittedly, it would be hard - but not impossible - to find a suitably qualified scientist who is not a materialist. But I suspect that there is more to it than that. I suspect that there is a concerted effort to wage an "information war" against religious beliefs and other "superstitious nonsense". The propaganda of this war would have you believe that the fight is against religious fundamentalists and biblical creationists, but that is only because they are easy targets. The true aim of this war is to discredit and eventually eliminate any anti-materialist ideas from the minds of the populace.

The interesting question here is why are they so aggresive in this crusade? Why so threatened? The only answer I can come up with is sheer arrogance: "See how clever I am? Who would dare to suggest that I might be wrong?". Yes - we can add insecurity to arrogance. I have to admit to being an avid spectator on the sidelines of this battle and also to being intensely frustrated at the schoolyard nature of the debate. Oddly enough, when it comes to another aspect of ideology - that of political alignment - I (and most of those who share my philosophical views) would line up along-side many of the atheists and materialists as liberals or even socialists. We all like to think of ourselves as "free thinkers", opposed to the fundamentalism of the religious right-wing. Dogma is the enemy of free thought which is why it I find it hypocritical of the political liberals who are, at the same time, dogmatic materialists.

However, the task at hand is to explain my idea of how the world works. How we got here and why. I'll try to enlist the help of some great thinkers in attempting to show how this worldview differs fundamentally from the materialist view.