God is
29/07/16 04:40
It is probably a product of my age, but I have little interest these days in debating the existence of God. The notion that God is is so deeply engrained into my psyche and worldview that I can’t imagine my being without God. Furthermore, the arguments presented by those who claim not to believe in God are all ancient. There doesn’t seem to be any new information in the arguments of today. It is rehashing arguments that have been going on for centuries.
Nonetheless, I do try to be a careful listener. Not long ago I encountered a particularly strident atheist who seemed bent on converting me to his point of view. He had a statistic, which I have forgotten, about the number or the percentage of Anglican clergy who do not believe in God. I wondered how he obtained that statistic. It seems to me that in order to get that kind of a result, the question must have been worded in such a way that “god” was defined as something quite unlike the God in which Anglican clergy believe. Nonetheless, he thought that Anglican clergy who do not believe in God is particular dangerous because it is their job to promote belief in God. From his point of view there are people who are actively engaged in intentionally leading people away from the truth when they themselves know the truth. A scientist, he claimed, would never do anything of the kind.
I decided not to engage the argument. As I’ve said before I seem to have tired of such arguments.
I did, however, ask him if he believed in money. I took a $20 bill out of my wallet and asked if he believed it was worth $20. He replied that of course he was aware that the value of the paper and ink - the raw materials of which the bill is composed are not really worth $20. The bill, he said, has a commonly accepted value that means that he can trust that it will be exchanged for $20.
I observed that the entire monetary system is a product of human imaginations and not based on any objective values. It is simply a very clever and complex bit of fiction that we have all decided to believe. When people stop believing in that fiction the piece of paper loses its value. Such is the case in Costa Rica, which has seen periods of financial instability and rapid inflation. A US dollar will buy nearly 550 Costa Rican Colon. Last time I was in Costa Rica, I think it was only worth about 480.
He was quick to point out that it isn’t the same thing at all.
I decided to move on to other topics.
Had I been younger and more combative, I might have spoken of the speculative nature of mathematics. There is no substantial evidence that can be offered as proof that the so-called laws of mathematics have any identity independent from the human imagination. It is a system of measurement and calculation that was invented by humans to explain part of the observable universe. Just because we humans think in terms of mathematics doesn’t mean that mathematics are adequate to explain the entire universe. There have been some dramatic instances of mathematics being a very accurate system of measurement. For example, the gravitational waves recently detected by teams of scientists are remarkably similar to the projections of the mathematical models that were developed before the waves were detected. The fact that was was detected is what was predicted is a validation of mathematics as a way to talk about the universe.
It is not any indication that mathematics is the best or most comprehensive way to describe the observable universe.
I remember a college classmate who was a math major who loved complex calculus. He would get into a kind of ecstatic state when talking about a particularly complex formula. He spoke of the beauty and wonder of mathematics with great enthusiasm. It was a joy to talk to him precisely because I felt the same thing about a particularly beautiful theological statement. Humans have the capacity to observe and revel in the beauty of the universe. We do, however, interpret that beauty in different ways.
Compared to religion, science is a relative newcomer in the history of human evolution. We have solid evidence of theological roots of our contemporary scriptures that are around 4,000 years old. The scientific method, on the other hand, arose sometime in the 13th century or so. Roger Bacon (1214 - 1284) is often credited as the first scholar to promote inductive reasoning. He didn’t actually invent the scientific method, but the thought of scholars of his time gave rise to what we know as the modern scientific method. That’s about three millennia after the concept of monotheism.
It is also one of the benefits of a solid liberal arts education. Unlike my scientist friends, I have studied the history and philosophy of science. I do know a bit of the story of the particular ideas which they simply accept as established fact and upon which they base their thinking.
So when someone wants to talk to me about what is “true” or “false,” I need to consider their authority. From a theological perspective truth is never possessed by any single generation. The true nature of reality is something that is beyond the ability of any individual - or any time period. It took generations for the idea of monotheism to arise. The first to consider the concept hardly had a fully developed theology.
It is remarkable to me that those who are such strident believers in biological evolution can’t allow that there is also an evolution of human ideas. The concept of God held by religious people today is different than that held by our forebears. And generations in the future will have far more sophisticated and more fully developed theologies than we.
For me, it is all about relationship. God doesn’t exist because of our thinking. Our thinking evolves because of our relationship with God.
That, however, is not an argument for my atheist friend. Fortunately I don’t have to convince him of anything. The relationship with God is far beyond a single generation. When our time has passed and all of the current atheists have done what they can to persuade us to abandon belief, there will still be people pursuing a relationship with God.
And God is love.
Try arguing that love does not exist. It would sure take the joy out of science for most of the scientists I know.
Nonetheless, I do try to be a careful listener. Not long ago I encountered a particularly strident atheist who seemed bent on converting me to his point of view. He had a statistic, which I have forgotten, about the number or the percentage of Anglican clergy who do not believe in God. I wondered how he obtained that statistic. It seems to me that in order to get that kind of a result, the question must have been worded in such a way that “god” was defined as something quite unlike the God in which Anglican clergy believe. Nonetheless, he thought that Anglican clergy who do not believe in God is particular dangerous because it is their job to promote belief in God. From his point of view there are people who are actively engaged in intentionally leading people away from the truth when they themselves know the truth. A scientist, he claimed, would never do anything of the kind.
I decided not to engage the argument. As I’ve said before I seem to have tired of such arguments.
I did, however, ask him if he believed in money. I took a $20 bill out of my wallet and asked if he believed it was worth $20. He replied that of course he was aware that the value of the paper and ink - the raw materials of which the bill is composed are not really worth $20. The bill, he said, has a commonly accepted value that means that he can trust that it will be exchanged for $20.
I observed that the entire monetary system is a product of human imaginations and not based on any objective values. It is simply a very clever and complex bit of fiction that we have all decided to believe. When people stop believing in that fiction the piece of paper loses its value. Such is the case in Costa Rica, which has seen periods of financial instability and rapid inflation. A US dollar will buy nearly 550 Costa Rican Colon. Last time I was in Costa Rica, I think it was only worth about 480.
He was quick to point out that it isn’t the same thing at all.
I decided to move on to other topics.
Had I been younger and more combative, I might have spoken of the speculative nature of mathematics. There is no substantial evidence that can be offered as proof that the so-called laws of mathematics have any identity independent from the human imagination. It is a system of measurement and calculation that was invented by humans to explain part of the observable universe. Just because we humans think in terms of mathematics doesn’t mean that mathematics are adequate to explain the entire universe. There have been some dramatic instances of mathematics being a very accurate system of measurement. For example, the gravitational waves recently detected by teams of scientists are remarkably similar to the projections of the mathematical models that were developed before the waves were detected. The fact that was was detected is what was predicted is a validation of mathematics as a way to talk about the universe.
It is not any indication that mathematics is the best or most comprehensive way to describe the observable universe.
I remember a college classmate who was a math major who loved complex calculus. He would get into a kind of ecstatic state when talking about a particularly complex formula. He spoke of the beauty and wonder of mathematics with great enthusiasm. It was a joy to talk to him precisely because I felt the same thing about a particularly beautiful theological statement. Humans have the capacity to observe and revel in the beauty of the universe. We do, however, interpret that beauty in different ways.
Compared to religion, science is a relative newcomer in the history of human evolution. We have solid evidence of theological roots of our contemporary scriptures that are around 4,000 years old. The scientific method, on the other hand, arose sometime in the 13th century or so. Roger Bacon (1214 - 1284) is often credited as the first scholar to promote inductive reasoning. He didn’t actually invent the scientific method, but the thought of scholars of his time gave rise to what we know as the modern scientific method. That’s about three millennia after the concept of monotheism.
It is also one of the benefits of a solid liberal arts education. Unlike my scientist friends, I have studied the history and philosophy of science. I do know a bit of the story of the particular ideas which they simply accept as established fact and upon which they base their thinking.
So when someone wants to talk to me about what is “true” or “false,” I need to consider their authority. From a theological perspective truth is never possessed by any single generation. The true nature of reality is something that is beyond the ability of any individual - or any time period. It took generations for the idea of monotheism to arise. The first to consider the concept hardly had a fully developed theology.
It is remarkable to me that those who are such strident believers in biological evolution can’t allow that there is also an evolution of human ideas. The concept of God held by religious people today is different than that held by our forebears. And generations in the future will have far more sophisticated and more fully developed theologies than we.
For me, it is all about relationship. God doesn’t exist because of our thinking. Our thinking evolves because of our relationship with God.
That, however, is not an argument for my atheist friend. Fortunately I don’t have to convince him of anything. The relationship with God is far beyond a single generation. When our time has passed and all of the current atheists have done what they can to persuade us to abandon belief, there will still be people pursuing a relationship with God.
And God is love.
Try arguing that love does not exist. It would sure take the joy out of science for most of the scientists I know.