Jim Keck is a minister I admire even when I disagree with him. Since he is a minister and I am a nonreligious agnostic, the surprise may be that we agree at all. But we do. Even when we disagree. Read on, and all will become clear. Maybe.
On a recent snowy Sunday, Rev. Keck rose to courageously tackle the question, "Does God Exist?"
"Yes," he affirmed and promptly sat down. The organ began to play. The congregation rippled with nervous laughter. Keck then resumed his place at the pulpit to go a little further into the matter.
His rhetorical strategy was to assume the answer and move on a different question: what kind of God do we believe in? I can't call it an argument, since he began by saying he knows God exists for reasons beyond the reach of the rational.
As a rationalist, I bridle at being told something is beyond the reach of reason. An emotional reaction, I admit. However, the rationalist in me can acknowledge the limits to reason. (What's the reason for irrational numbers? I give up.)
But is the question of God's existence really beyond the reach of reason? Blaise Pascal thought so. A truly brilliant man, Pascal was both far-seeing scientist and mystical theologian. He was also a deeply troubled, perhaps mentally ill human being. Since he lived in the 17th century, we'll never know. But, apart from his scientific accomplishments, he left us with Pascal's Wager, a supposedly pragmatic argument for theism (which I have debunked elsewhere), and the memorable phrase, "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." Pascal believed that God is infinite and so beyond the ken of rational man (or woman).
That is what I took Rev. Keck to be saying. Such knowledge of God as we have, he asserted, comes from the heart and not the head. Perhaps. But the assertion is worth testing before accepting. Here are two hypotheses: God is an infinite being known from within, via direct mystical knowledge that is beyond the reach of reason. Alternatively, God is a cultural concept implanted in the mind, usually at an early age, along with a set of claims disposed to make God-belief unchallengeable.
If the former is true, we might predict that people would discover approximately the same phenomenon when they go exploring from within. If, as when we see the moon in the night sky, we were all observing the same thing, we might interpret it somewhat differently -- some of us might see a "Man in the Moon" and some might see a rabbit, but we'd all agree that we see a bright disk that waxes and wanes throughout the course of a month.
Is this the case with God? Hardly. Just within the Judeo-Christian religion, God has been portrayed as a giant walking the Earth, a bearded man in the sky, a three-personed enigma, and an abstract infinite being who is also immanent. Of course, that's not all, but move beyond this faith tradition, and the variety explodes into millions of gods of every possible description. The case for the second hypothesis? It happens all the time, in madrassas, shuls, and Sunday schools.
So, let me return to where Keck ended: what kind of God we believe in makes all the difference. I agree. That is why I am obliged to answer the question of God's existence three times over.
Is God real? Yes. As a culturally generated metaphysical entity, God is real. If that sounds flimsy, consider: money is real in exactly the same sense. Oh, sure, there are bills and coins that represent money (just as there are icons that represent God), but these are not the thing itself. The vast majority of money is a shared belief, noted down in various ways, such as bank statements. So, God is as real as money in the bank. If you reject this category of reality, fine, but would you mind if I help myself to the stuff you decline to believe in?
Is God real? No. If by God you mean an omnipotent, supremely perfect being who controls everything, there is no good reason to believe it. The proposition is both a logical impossibility and an empirically refuted claim. The logical problem with this concept is simple: to be supremely perfect is like being at the North Pole: there is nowhere to go but south. Anything such a God does or creates will necessarily make matters worse, leaving Him less than supremely perfect, or will invalidate the claim that he was previously supremely perfect. Is there an answer to such an argument? Of course! Tons of them. But none, I think, that we are bound to respect for their logical rigor. Rather than get lost in the Philosopher's Funhouse, however, let's shift ground to the reality we know.
It is obvious on even cursory inspection that the world we inhabit is not the work of a supremely perfect Creator. It is riddled with flaws and suboptimal designs. (We wouldn't be wearing shoes if we were perfectly designed for our environment, and we wouldn't be giving money for earthquake relief.) Some theologians think they have found a way around this: blame ourselves. More specifically, Adam and Eve. Everything was just fine, they say, until those two messed things up by eating the apple.
That's great news for those who enjoy self-abasement. Unfortunately, it fails to exonerate God. For, we are assured, He created them. Didn't He know what he was doing? Couldn't he have tinkered with their genes to make them a little more resistant to temptation? You're left believing either that God was not the infallible designer He is claimed to be, or that He is just plain malicious. Either way, the supremely perfect creator idea comes crashing down.
Is God real? Maybe so. If by God we mean a creator who designed and set in motion the Universe we inhabit with the intention that it would give rise to life like us, the answer has to be maybe. So long as we don't get carried away and start claiming magic, perfection, destiny or proof, nothing in science excludes such a possibility. Insert any one of these into the mix, and God becomes a falsifiable scientific hypothesis. On the other hand, leave them out, and God the Creator becomes an intriguing possibility, or if you prefer, a matter of faith.
Is there any reason to believe? I don't just mean the alleged personal or social benefits of belief, but reason arising from the evidence. I think so. And surprisingly enough, it comes from that most despised of scientific theories, evolution.
Our existence is a puzzle. The odds against the Universe allowing for the evolution of life like us appear to be staggering. Among the most widely accepted scientific conjectures to explain our existence is multiple instances of bubble Universes like the one we observe around us, with enough variations that at least one of them can support intelligent, inquiring life. This is generally called the Multiverse conjecture.
There is no foundational scientific explanation for why it happens to be that way (if indeed it does). It might be a quirk of the quantum. It might be a brute fact. A possible explanation is that an intelligent Creator set all such things in motion in order to come up with life such as us.
If you were a Creator intent on such a goal, you might set about it by magic, or by engineering, or by evolution. Many creation stories contain beautiful poetic accounts of creation by magic. It is possible that our Universe was created that way, but if so the mystery is why the Creator took such pains to make it look as if the Universe came about by natural processes combining laws and randomness. The engineering story has the same problem, compounded by many glaring design flaws. (Why all the rubble floating around the solar neighborhood? That's just shoddy workmanship!) Evolution, on the other hand, fits beautifully with what we observe. If you were a Creator and you wanted to be surprised by your creation, you could not do better than to calculate the minimum number of Universes necessary and then turn loose evolution's creative power.
This is not, to be sure, a parsimonious conjecture. Is there any reason, for example, to think a being with the power to do such a thing would be motivated to do it? Again, evolution suggests an answer. The universal value embedded in Darwinian evolution is that life is good. Life is driven to multiply life. Any agent that does not manifest such a disposition disappears from the gene pool. Where does that value originate? I cannot say. Go deeply enough into these questions and at some point you must accept either brute facts, faith, or mystery.
But to my eyes, anyway, there is a beautiful equipoise between impersonal scientific conjectures and the possibility of intentional (though certainly imperfect) natural creation. To me, it amounts to a wonderful universe of possibilities that we may continue to explore, understand, and inscribe with meaning unimpeded by conflicts between religious dogma and science.
Follow Clay Farris Naff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/claynaff
Robert Lanza, M.D.: Is There a God or Is There Nothingness? New Scientific Paradigm
Take the question "Does God exist?" Kant made it clear that "existence" is not a predicate. That is, to say that something "exists" is redundant. The indication that our author here does not distinguish the question of what is "real" from what "exists" gives us a context for his remarks.
I wish that scientists would not confuse religion and science. That is so 19th Century. Yes, traditional religion for millenia gave answers to questions that science now investigates. So I also wish that those who speak for religion would let science do its job. If we cannot tell what religion is without the comparison to science, we have nothing to offer. Religion does compare to superstition, as favorable to unfavorable. And science also can be compared to superstition. Beyond that they have nothing in common, except for those who are stuck in some traditional rut. Grow up and see that both science and religion have grown since those old mossy 19th Century debates. Are you sure you don't still long for the good old days when we burned witches at the stake? Why not, if you are looking backward all the time?
I see our need to find some possibility of a creator like or similar to ourselves to be a symptom of being us. We can't help being anthropocentric. We are the universe looking back at itself, to paraphrase Sagan. We invented gods because we are afraid of the dark and death, and want to know what IT is all about. There is a strong urge to create gods that we can comprehend, and which share the attributes we want in others. Even I, the rationalist, find myself, in my deepest inquiries into cosmology, asking who, not what, is behind all this? Sorry for rambling.
Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?
One little piece I might add: I'm worried an intelligent being still wouldn't explain the "why" behind the Universe. Wouldn't such a being just push the question back a step? If there were such a being, I still might reasonably wonder, "what is the "why" behind this intelligent being"??? And if there is no "why" behind the intelligent being, shouldn't we just say there is no "why" behind the Universe?
So, I disagree with DanOreilly (maybe even Clay) if he thought an intelligent being would shed any light on the "why" in our life (but, I'm not sure he was saying that). At the very least, it seems right to say that even were there such a being (that provided a single but not final "why"), then we have no reason to think that is the same being written about in the current, radically altered version of the Christian Bible.
And thank you, Dr. Pearlstein. There is no reason to tack on those things as far as I can see.
Best,
-David Logan
Reason is a natural attribute of God. He exercised reason in planning the creation of the heavens and the earth. He observed His creation and declared it to be good. He created man in His own image with a mind capable of thinking and observed that everything He created was very good.
God has always behaved rationally and he expects us to function in the same manner. We have good reason to believe that the few apparent contradictions in the Bible are not actual contradictions, but merely appear to be because of lack of understanding on mankind’s part or possibly scribal error.
Having observed the obvious existence of the Creator, it would be absurd for us to think that God could not at times perform the supernatural.
God is reason.
Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?
Maybe. But it has a better chance than folks who just make stuff up. Morality used to be in this category, then researchers started working out where our "moral sense" comes from.
I wouldn't be surprised to see research around our sense of purpose or "why" we think there is a why.
But what do we do with the belief in gods? Do we tack on the belief in efficacy of prayer? A punishment-reward system? Should we stop asking scientific questions beyond some point, since so much is just due to supernatural whim?
Try taking the idea of a natural creator seriously. It need not be an individual, though coordinated action would most likely be necessary. If through science weone day leads to the technical capacity to create a baby universe, and if, as seems certain, ours is doomed, don't you suppose we would want to try to keep life going?
Note (again) that I am not claiming that this IS so, but that it may be so. And of course I want science to advance our knowledge and capabilities as far as it possibly can.