> How would you propose testing your belief?
> If it's not testable, isn't it just like your
> former Christian belief?
Great question, Ray.
My philosophy is essentially pantheism and non-duality. I don't subcribe to these views out of personal preference. For instance, I don't believe there's a plan for my life, mapped out by some higher power. It would be comforting, but I can't fool myself that it would be true, not when the data shows that this is a world where children are raped, killed, or die of malnutrition. Nothing is taking care of us. So the "God" that I beleive in isn't a personal divinity that I can pray to.
Why not just abandon the idea of God, then? you might ask. Because atheism/naturalism doesn't cut it, either. We live in a Universe of phenomena that requires explanation, a Universe that mysteriously began in a highly ordered state and has been getting more disordered ever since (entropy). So I subscribe to pantheism because it's what I'm left with after I deal with monotheism and atheism. So, it's by a process of elimination, really.
Non-duality is actually easier to defend, because all of science's attempts at a Theory of Everything are "field" theories. In a field, everything is a unity. Reality doesn't consist of fundamentally separate objects floating in space. It may appear to be like that, but that is a surface appearance over a more fundamental quantum-entangled reality. The question is not whether non-duality is true, but what *kind* of non-duality is true. Science is currently not regarding consciousness as a very important aspect of non-duality, whereas I see it as central. Science sees a non-duality of the material Universe, with consciousness being a largely insignificant factor of that. I see consciousness as being as significant as matter, if not more so, and my fascination with psychokinesis was a way of trying to make that testable. Scientists like Dean Radin have done far greater work than me in this regard.
My book is called "I, Universe", not because my ego is so gigantic that I think I'm the Universe, but because there is no "I" inside my head. The ego is a fiction (albeit a useful and necessary one). But in terms of the fundamental nature of reality, the only intelligent way to use the word "I" is in reference to the whole, because the Universe (literally "undivided turning") is a unity.