Throughout recorded history the majority of humanity has seen the existence of a Creator, Who intentionally brought the Universe in to being and sustains all life, as an obvious truth.
This truth does not stem from any doctrine or belief system, but it is at the heart of all religions, and is the underlying, indispensible principle of most spiritual practices. Even Buddhism, which is often misrepresented as an atheistic tradition, recognizes the existence of a guiding consciousness. As the Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, said, "Let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists."
Scientific discoveries have only reinforced this realization, as it becomes even clearer that the Universe was carefully designed. Prominent British mathematician Roger Penrose calculated the probably of random chance producing a Universe conducive to life at vastly less than the scientifically accepted definition of "zero." Even if one were to accept arguments from those who claim that the Universe is not so "fine tuned," we must rely on the mind-boggling, and empirically unproven, concept of multiple Universes, and even then the probability of random events leading to life only budges from staggeringly unimaginable to extraordinarily unlikely. And we are still left with such clearly designed, and incredibly complex, mechanisms as DNA and the brain.
This is not a "God of the Gaps" explanation, any more than looking under the hood of a car and deducing a designer is "Engineer of the Gaps." To postulate a random, undirected, meaningless, existence in the face of this unbelievable complexity and purpose of life is, in actuality, the much more irrational, and less logical, conclusion. This has been compared to proposing that a hurricane whipped through a junkyard and randomly assembled a jet plane.
Late in his life the previously ardent atheist Anthony Flew famously noted, "What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together."
For his honesty, courage and humility, Flew was mocked, and even labeled as senile, by many ardent atheists, who saw his statement as an unforgivable, heretical violation of their strict dogma that any hypothesis is acceptable except God.
To make the scientific claim that one will "go where the evidence leads," and yet consider such utterly unsupported hypotheses as multiple Universes, alien seeding (which, of course, still leaves the questions of where the aliens came from), mind memes (a total fantasy) and lightening strikes that animated primordial chemical soup to create life (which has never been scientifically reproduced), while not even considering the obvious possibility of a deliberate Creator, is to be intellectually dishonest at best.
What are the reasons for this irrational, and often very nasty, refusal by some to even consider the existence of a Creator as a viable hypothesis? I offer several possibilities:
A Childish Concept of God
For many, the belief in a Creator is rooted in a personal, direct encounter, in which God is experienced, often as pure consciousness, pure creation, endless love, the animating energy of everything, or the Ultimate Reality. For those who have not experienced this Presence, though, God is a concept. And this concept may be sophisticated or childish, based on ones maturity, knowledge and innate gifts. The childish concept sees God as some kind of being -- perhaps with a white cloak and long beard -- who somehow made the world according to a "sacred text." When Richard Dawkins, for example, said, "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in; some of us just go one god further," he showed such a childish image of God. And he showed a lack of any experience in the spiritual realm. If he had any direct experience he would have known that all these societies were attempting to describe the mystery of Spirit in human -- often archaic -- terms, and that the idea of competing gods is a literalistic and immature one. He also would have humbly recognized that theology is an activity for which, frankly, he has little talent or understanding.
This childish view of God is not limited to atheists, but also applies to those "religious" folks who place dogma over personal experience, and for whom any digression from dogma is punished.
Tyranny of the Mind
The human mind is a powerful tool, but can also be a cruel tyrant. While it is skilled at storing and analyzing data, it cannot feel, and so there is much -- such as art, music, compassion, love, sex or Spirit -- that it cannot truly know. The mind, though, insists on analyzing these things, and tries to convince us that its analysis is the only way of knowing. It does this because it has little trust or respect for anything that is not measurable and linear, and consequently it resists recognizing the other essential human facilities: the needs of the body, the wisdom of emotions, and most especially, the guidance of Spirit.
For those who have developed strong connections to body, emotions and Spirit, the mind can be managed and used properly. But there are those who, for a variety of reasons, have weak connections to body, emotions and Spirit. For these, the mind has free reign, dominating their lives and seeking to eliminate anything that it cannot rationally comprehend. Then the mind eliminates anything that challenges its supremacy. And for such a tyrannical mind the concept of a Creator God -- an ultimate intelligence that dwarfs its own -- is completely intolerable.
An Ego Strategy
As I've written in several previous blogs, the ego is the software implanted in us to ensure survival. Its job is to scan for threats and devise strategies to avoid pain and death. The ego knows only fear, and it will fiercely fight anything that threatens its survival. And nothing is more frightening to the ego than sharing or ceding control with another, because this feels like death. So the ego's favorite strategy for protecting itself is the refusal to surrender to anything or anyone. It will even go so far as refusing to acknowledge a mistake, to apologize, to recognize superior abilities in others, to admit a weakness and, most pathetically, to ever express gratitude.
I recently heard a man state that he "does not believe in gratitude," but instead prefers the word "appreciation": "I appreciate a delicious meal or a beautiful sunset, but I feel no need to say 'thank you,'" he proudly proclaimed. This is the voice of ego. And to make the claim, as did the late Christopher Hitchens (who I deeply respect for his exposure of injustice), that there is no Creator/Designer because Hitchens did not approve of the way that eyes are designed, is also the pathetic voice of ego; it is the refusal to say "thank you" for the gift of life and the miracle of sight. This is very sad.
Clearly one does not need to believe in God or follow a religion in order to be a wonderful, happy, caring, human being. What matters most is how we treat each other. But the refusal to even consider that a Creator may exist -- often accompanied by the adamant desire to "prove" otherwise and to ridicule those who do -- especially in the face of much blatant evidence, is an indication that a psychological mechanism is at work. Perhaps what is needed for such an irrational position may not be more intellectual investigation, but psychoanalysis.
Emma Brooke: The Curious Person's Guide to Mindfulness
"Throughout recorded history the majority of humanity has seen the existence of a Creator, Who intentionally brought the Universe in to being and sustains all life, as an obvious truth."
All humans in recorded history that had this viewpoint were IGNORANT of the facts around them. We NOW have a better understanding of how things work and happen and therefore do not need to believe in such FANTASY anymore!
Now I will read the rest and make comments based on the ignorance of it!
Recently there was a scientific paper that showed that a universe with out the weak nuclear force could still support life. Thus we know that at least some radically different laws of physics can support earth-like life. And this ignores the possibility that life that is different in fundamental ways from the life we know could arise. Already on earth we have found life using arsenic in its construction. Something thought impossible until then. So don't make the mistake of assuming that the life must be earth-like.
Also you say that people cling to unproven hypotheses like multiple universes. They are called hypotheses for a reason, no self-respecting scientist would assert them as proven fact given that there is no proof. However there is an equal lack of proof for any of the proposed gods. there are books for the gods, and there are books on multiple universes etc. They have an equal amount of proof behind them (aka. none as yet) so why do you favor god over the other equally proven hypotheses?
Wrong. You misunderstand and/or mischaracterize what science is. Science is a tool. It is not a belief system, as religion is. Science is a methodology that employs extremely stringent practices to find out how the natural world works. One of those stringent practices is that science only considers natural causes for natural events. Why? Because using the tools that scientists use, the natural universe that is available to our human senses is the only thing that science can test. How would you go about planning an experiment to test for a being that does not live in our universe? You can't, therefore, science doesn't waste time trying. Does that--in any way--rule out the possibility that such a being doesn't or can't exist? NO. It is you who are being disingenuous by insisting that science and religion are flip-sides of the same coin--they are not. What do you care if a scientist like Richard Dawkins doesn't buy into your theology? How can that threaten your faith?
Maybe the biggest reason is that it is not really a viable hypothesis at all as it is totally unsupported by any facts. Hypotheses are a dime-a-dozen – a hypothesis in itself which is adequately confirmed by the fact that there have been and are so many different religions and conceptions of god. But it is the demand for some facts that is the only sure method of determining which hypotheses are able to hold water, of determining which are potentially useful and which are pure moonshine if not total delusion.
The well-known British scientist and Nobel laureate P.B. Medawar in his essay “Two Conceptions of Science” asserted that there were three stages in the “hypothetico-deductive” method of science:
(a) Framing some hypothesis as to the character of the general law;
(b) Deducing consequences from that law;
(c) Observing whether the consequences agree with the particular facts under consideration.
[End Part I]
While I will argue that, as suggested by Rabbi Lurie, that method is a common inheritance of all humanity and is used across the board, religion and theology really only have a very questionable hypothesis but have no credible or consistent consequences and observations that would follow if the hypothesis were true. For example, the “Great Prayer Experiment” proved that the efficacy of prayer in medical applications was statistically insignificant and, in some cases, made things worse. Either God was asleep at the switch that day – not a good sign for an entity that is supposed to be omniscient – or he, she or it isn’t there.
In addition, the Muslim and Christian conceptions of heaven are very different in terms of the activities expected to be enjoyed there. Not to mention the fact that the triune Christian god is heresy to Muslims. Wildly contradictory hypotheses tend to be considered indicative of some serious flaws even where there is some utility and apparent correspondence to reality – certainly not hallmarks of religion – as in the contradictions between the theories, the hypotheses, of general relativity and of quantum mechanics.
Reasonable on the part of Rabbi Lurie to present “god” as a hypothesis; not at all reasonable to assert that that is all that is required.
It occurs to me that you don't understand how "proof" and it's attendant burden actually work.
Throughout recorded history the majority of humanity has leveraged some form of slavery.
Throughout recorded history the majority of humanity has treated women and gay people as inferior.
Throughout recorded history the majority of humanity believed—sincerely—that spirits controlled disease.
A historical pedigree and popularity do not make truth. And that's just the first sentence.
What a mess.
I think that perhaps you should up your medication. These are just words to TRY and explain what we understand of nature at present. When we lived in the dark ages we feared everything and positied a God to explain bad weather and illness. And propitiated this God with live sacrifices of, first humans, and then animals to make amend for what was percieved as sinful actions that had brought on the bad weather, illness etc. I suppose this barbarism was all part of your lovely God's plan then. And you call us childish!
I will leave Richard Dawkins to respond to your insulting him, but enough to say that to attack people instead of the argument is a sign of how serious we should take your mature opinion.
...'The human mind is a powerful tool, but can also be a cruel tyrant. While it is skilled at storing and analyzing data, it cannot feel, and so there is much -- such as art, music, compassion, love, sex or Spirit -- that it cannot truly know.'
So you are implying only the religious can enjoy music, art, being compassionate, enjoying love and sex! What a hypocrite, coming from the religious who do everything in their power to be kiljoys with people sex.
I didn't say, or even imply, that only religious folks can enjoy music, art....
How did you arrive at that? All I was saying is that we so not connect to these things through the intellect (I think you will agree that great sex is not an intellectual experience). This is a psychological insight.
As far as Dawkins, this wasn't meant to be an insult, but a fact. he is a brilliant scientist, but clearly has no feel for theology. We all have our strengths and limitations.
ps, Judaism generally celebrates and encourages sex, as does Hinduism.
All the best,
Alan
Thank you for responding to part of my post in response to you.
Please repread what you posted and you will see how I arrived at my horror.
The human mind cannot feel! It cannot truly know...
I'm sorry Alan that is woo woo speech. Every human enjoys art, music etc.
the religious do not have a special place for extra enjoyment.
I used to be religious and while I enjoyed the communual spirit and music etc. The hypocricy and contradictions left a nasty taste in my mouth.
Why do you think people find science so satisfying?
No matter where it is practiced, the answers are always the same. Any differences are ironed out by experiment, peer review and healthy debate.
Whereas Religions never agree. Otherwise why are there so many religions and even denominations within each one. Surely it is because it is just guess work. No one can argue with you priests, rabbis Imans etc.
As for sex. Why does jusdaism feel the need to mutilate childrens penises? Not picking on yoour religion, they are all as bad. Believe me i have examined them all.
I do not agree as it has been proven that during climax, the entire brain is fully active. Also I do not agree that the intellect is not used during Art, Music, etc. As I am an artist and use every bit of my emotions and intellect to create my works.
Your ignorance offends me. Please educate yourself a little more before making statements you know nothing about!
Yes Rabbi, This was before science educated people into not accepting the first dumb thing that came into their scared heads.
...'Scientific discoveries have only reinforced this realization, as it becomes even clearer that the Universe was carefully designed.'
Which scientific discoveries are these Rabbi? There are many branches of science and you chose to talk of Probability of Roger Penrose, ignoring all the other sciences that make a God both unlikely and un-necessary!
...To postulate a random, undirected, meaningless, existence in the face of this unbelievable complexity and purpose of life is, in actuality, the much more irrational, and less logical, conclusion.'
Rabbi please stop inserting all your God talk into science!
Undirected as opposed to adaptation to the circumstances of Life.
Meaningless existence. Perhaps your life is meaningless without God, but mine certainly is not!
Uuhhmm ..... no; Buddhist teaching is that belief in a god or any kind of universal super-conciousness is irrelevant to enlightenment. There are schools of Buddhism that involve god-like beings (not all schools hold to this concept); but they are not creditted with holding supreme power in the way the Abrahamic god is. There is no creator god in Buddhism and thus, no creationism.
I have looked into the quote by Roshi Soyen Shaku used to support your contention, and suspect that, either he was incorrectly translated, or that he was speaking in terms he thought his Western, non-Buddhist audience would understand. Even if this were not so, it is not credible to take the words of one Buddhist teacher and extrapolate an entire philosophical standpoint for Buddhism from it; Buddhism is quite definitely a non-theist-based belief system.
Rabbi Lurie, you are incorrect in your contention that Buddhism supports the idea of a creator deity, or even "a guiding conciousness"; it does no such thing. You might want to extend your understanding of Buddhist philosophy before you comments on such matters again.
Thanks for your comments.
Perhaps I am mistaken about this. I have studied Buddhism quite extensively, and I understand that there are many strands of Buddhism that have very different view on this - some that do accept the idea of a consciousness that guides reality and some that don't. As you noted, there certainly is a spiritual realm in Buddhism that has beings superior powers - often the Hindu dieties who are all aspects of the Ones Source. I understand that Buddhism in general, though, does not see this as relevant.
A good friend of mine is a Tibetan monk who teaches at a major university and who studied with HH the Dalai Lama, and we discussed this. He said "Buddhism certainly believes in God, the One, although we are not interested in exploring this, but are focused on lessening human suffering here on Earth."
I used the Shaku quote because it is an early, and predates much of the distortion that the West has given to traditional Buddhism.
Thanks again for your comment, which I take very much to heart.
Alan