No Title
"Thus God made the world, because He conceived it in His
mind, as if from the outside, before it was created, and we do
not know its rule, because we live inside it, having found it
already made."
Brother William to Adso, from The name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
Is there a God and how can a scientist live with it?
I don't know. That is the honest answer. If anyone should offer a
definitive yes or no answer to the question of God's existence
they must have some supernatural knowledge for nothing in the
methodology of science (i.e. reason) can provide such an answer.
But I do choose to have faith that there is a God and that God is
Christ Jesus who willfully gave His life in payment for our sin
which His justice demanded be punished.
I see no conflict between science and religion nor do I experience
any in my academic setting. The atheists in my department are more
than happy to team up with the Jews and Christians against the
Muslims to ensure that alcohol is permitted at the end of year
party. Over tea we discuss science and other stuff and will
occasionally talk about religion and then go on with our happy
business of discovering the rule of the world (as Umberto phrases
it). Where we chose to focus on what we have in common, and
concentrate one what we can discover rather than fighting over
what we can't, we can all live in peace.
It is important to remember that science is a philosophy, a way of
thinking, developed to learn about the universe we live in. This
method of careful study, analysis, theorizing (i.e. the invention
of ideas to explain our observations and the analysis thereof) and
experimentation to test the theories we invent has proven very
successful in providing a working knowledge of the universe. I am
careful to state "working knowledge" because our theories are
still not the absolute truth but our inventions to explain what we
see. As technology advances we find we can see a whole lot more
than before and a lot of what we see is unexplained by what we
have theorized in the past. There is no end in sight for this
process of knowledge synthesis, this "refining of everyday
thinking" as Einstein called it.
There is a barrier to our knowledge which can not be penetrated by
our science. Imagine a box. You are in the box and never been
outside it. With science you can test and explore everything in
the box and develop a complete working knowledge of the inside of
the box. So what is outside the box? You can poke a hole in the
side of the box and look out to the other side and study the other
side but sadly, you still don't have any clue about what is on the
outside of your box. You don't know if you were in a yellow, red
or purple box. With our technology and scientific method we can't
even poke through our box-the universe-to see what is outside
let alone get a complete picture of the box we are in because we
can't look at it from the outside nor at the smallest scale at the
things inside the box. Our technology and science can
never yield absolute truth, it can only ever point out
which ideas are false and which have not been disproven. The only
way we can know about what is on the other side of our box is if
something from the other side reaches in and tells us about the
other side. This is Divine Revelation.
Every religion (a word implying relationship with the Divine)
claims such revelation and has generated tomes of theology.
Theology is the scientific study of what is believed to be Divine
Revelation. Yes, I call it a scientific study. While Theology's
evidence is questionable so is all other evidence raised in other
scientific inquiry. Using the rules for systematic inquiry
invented by Aristole1,
which we call science, we can analyze the various theological
claims and develop tests to verify such claims. Some people, like
Richard Dawkins and others, will claim that theology is
unfalsifiable and thus unscientific. Well, if it isn't falsifiable
how can Dawkins and others claim to prove that God doesn't exist?
Richard Dawkins spends a lot of time trying to disprove
theological claims. Obviously they can be tested and thus theology
is open to scientific inquiry, i.e. it is a science. It is,
however, a science that precludes controlled testing-we have no
God-positive nor God-negative control samples to which to compare
our data! It is a science of theory (like much of analytical
psychology) and thus a very weak one. (It is the ability of
controls which makes natural science so strong and effective at
advancing knowledge.) But let us not confuse theology with
religion.
For a brief time I attended evening classes at a local Bible
school (but I dropped out to pursue my PhD in cell biology
instead). In the class we were warned that this particular class
can cause one to lose one's faith-i.e. renounce your religion.
The year before someone, having started studying theology, had
left the school and his religion because he felt what he had
learnt disproved what he believed. A religion is a personal
relationship with God. Some relationships, like human
relationships, are shallow while others are deep. Shallow
relationships (such as those who do lip-service to God and cling
to the outer fringe of their religion without actually living it)
don't cost much and so don't break as easy but deep relationships
can shatter. Imagine a happily married couple and one day the one
spouse arrives home and suddenly tells the other that his life is
a lie and that they don't know him or her at all (for example,
they had told their spouse they were an investment banker when in
reality they were a mob enforcer). Well, the trust which the
relationship is built up on is shattered. Theology is what we
think we understand about the other person in the religious
relationship: God. If we suddenly find out that God isn't who we
thought he was, after devoting a lot of our time to Him, then we
are likely to lose faith. Theology can destroy religion, but it
can also build it if we follow the advise of Rene Descartes: "If
you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at
least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all
things."
Much of theology is us wanting to worship a God (or not worship a
God) of our own design. (Christians, Jews and Muslims don't
identify with the God Dawkins and other routinely build up in
their books and then systematically knock down.) Theology is a
effigy of the real God which has been fashioned to our
convenience. For some people this theology becomes their God and
their religion. It is a lie and nothing comes from lies but
trouble. If, on the other hand, we start from a position of
doubting the theology we have received and test it against God as
he reveals himself to us then we can begin to truly know and
commune with God. But how can we even think that there is a God?
And if there is a God how does it reveal itself to us?
Before we get to that bit lets just back track to the conflict
between religion and science. Science cannot yield absolute truth
and therefore can say nothing about morality (right and wrong). To
discuss moral issues in any sensible fashion you need to assume an
absolute truth beyond scrutiny, i.e.: God. Without such a moral
yardstick morality is nothing more than calculated selfishness,
that is, deciding the best course of action rather than the right
one. On the other hand, having Creationists operate nuclear power
plants according to their Bibles is not a good idea (see below for
the reason for this analogy). Nor should they be allowed to build
bridges according to their Bibles believing that God alone will
stretch out his hands and support the bridge like He does the
heavens. There is a place for everything. Religion's is personal,
and critically important for assessing eternal outcomes in a
transient world. More importantly it is central to fully
experiencing life with purpose. A life unfilled with a God or gods
quickly finds meaning in nature (pantheism) or philosophies, like
science or communism, with disastrous effects. To have a sense of
purpose in our lives which is useful it must have a sense of
continuity (permanence) which neither nature nor philosophy
offers. Our purpose of living must out live us so that we are
beholden to it for our actions. Science is for practical matters,
for developing an understanding of the physical universe which is
useful to our living. It is purposeless and its "truths" are
transient. We can live and operate without science and in
ignorance as to what has been discovered with it (while few of us
understand the theory of quantum electrodynamics we rely on it
everyday when we use electrical equipment) and as we make it up as
we go along it can't give our lives purpose (perhaps meaning but
meaning is what we make of life rather than what our life is made
for which is purpose). Science and religion will overlap as the
practical matters of every day decisions will intersect between
religion and technology. A Jehovah's Witness can, based on his or
her faith, refuse medical treatment but his or her faith cannot
invalidate the effectiveness of that medical treatment. The
conflict comes when one side chooses to force its self on the
other, such as in forcing a Jehovah's witness to give their baby a
blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant. People cause
conflicts. Intangible things like ideas (even bad ones) about
science and religion don't. If religion and science seem to butt
heads it is because there is someone wishing to force their
theology on reality or their perception of reality onto someone
else's theology. Science isn't the truth, but nor is theology. As
Kant makes clear in his Critique of Pure
Reason2, the
absolute truth concerning the physical world is unknowable by
means of reason. We can only approximate based on our experience.
But let us now return to the eternally important issue of whether
or not there is a Creator God.
Well, the box we are in had to come from somewhere. This is the
Cosomological
argument as expounded by Newcomb3. It is important to realize that his
argument or proof is theoretical and doesn't satisfy the actual
answer which would require physical proof. Mathematical theorems
are theoretical proofs as well but you can physically test them.
It is an argument based on logic and reason assuming certain
things we all assume to be true are indeed true. While the
logic4 is sound it is
unconvincing to many atheists, but they like many other people
with strong theological opinions, are not so much looking for the
truth as much as trying to get reality to conform to what they
believe is the truth. They are no better off than the Bible
thumping Creationist who argues against the age of dinosaur
fossils because he/she doubts the methods of radioactive isotope
dating (while happily using the electricity from the local nuclear
reactor which runs according to the same math we use to date
fossils) because the Bible has to be literally true according to
the translation they prefer, ignoring that the word for "day" in
the original Hebrew of the Genesis 1 text (which is "yom") can
also mean "period" or "chronological stage"5.
Those who are confident of what they know to be the absolute truth
never find truth.
So, it is only logical to believe that there is a Creator and that
this Creator seeks relationship because we seek relationship and
this desire has to come from the Creator which means It has this
desire also. Where to from here? Thanks to
Dawkins' superb book,
The God Delusion we can comfortably push aside all the
world religions except for the Big Three Faiths: Christianity,
Judaism and Islam, trusting to Dawkins' careful and thorough
analysis of the other "faiths". None of the others conform with
what we know about the universe6 or
what we can deduce about the Creator being of the Cosmological
argument. This being must, by definition, be omnipresent,
omniscient, omnipotent and must care (i.e. be loving7) because we have this quality and it
has to come from It. By default such a being is also just and
honest (remember, justice and honesty are traits we intrinsically
desire and are thus reflections of the First Cause): It loves and
knows everything and can do anything. Again, such qualities are
only embodied in the B3Fs. How can we weed through these last
three?
One of Aristole's rules for analysis is noncontradiction.
Something can't both be A and B if A is A and B is B; and A can't
be the same as B if A is A and B is B. Or put it another way, a
banana can't be an apple and an orange if apples are apples and
oranges are oranges; and apples are not oranges. Lets test a
theological claim.
Mohamed claims that he
is a prophet and prophets cannot lie. Mohamed also claims that
Jesus and Moses are prophets and thus cannot lie8. Moses says that God has given the land of Caanan (i.e.
modern day Israel or as some may prefer: Palestine) to Israel as a
possession forever (see Genesis 15v18-21 & 17v18; Numbers
34v1-15 and Exodus 23v31). Mohammed has this to say:
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, or acknowledge that Islam is the religion of Truth, even if they are Jews or Christians, until they submit to jizyah to you willingly and feel themselves subdued.
Qur'an 9:29
How can Muslims tax (jizyah) Jews (people of the book) unless it
subjugates them by taking possession of the land-their land,
given to them by God? For Mohamed to speak the truth, to give a
Divine law, God's promise to Abraham must be set aside. What is
worthy of worship and adoration in a God who breaks promises? If
Mohamed is a prophet then shouldn't he be telling his converts to
respect the Jews and their right to Canaan instead of subjugating
them? Furthermore, this law contradicts the Word of God through
the Prophet Balaam to the Canaanite kings who sought to kill the
Jews:
"Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that
curseth thee."
Number 24v9
and,
"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will
curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."
Genesis 12v3
Clearly, God wants to bless the Jews and will curse anyone who
curses them, and what is singling out non-Muslims for a tax other
than wishing them ill-i.e. a curse?
How does this compare to Qur'an:
"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of God; and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the son of God; these are the words
of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved
before; may God destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Qur'an 9:30
Or how about this quote from Mohamed from one of their accepted
religious texts:
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight
the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The
stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew
behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do
that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.
Sahih Muslim, Book 41v6985
So, the God of Moses blesses the Jews and the God of Mohamed
curses them as evil. So which is it? It is important to note this
isn't a matter of an inaccuracy in details but of the theologies
(built up from many portions of scripture) are at odds with each
other. The theological spirit of the two religions are mutually
exclusive.
Mohamed claims that what God says last is what he really means but
how is this commensurate with God who knows everything and is just
(i.e. doesn't lie because lying is wrong). If Mohamed speaks the
truth then Moses is a liar (and he makes God out to be one as
well). If Moses is a liar then he can't be a prophet and if Moses
isn't a Prophet then Mohamed is a liar because he said Moses is a
prophet. Both Mohamed and Moses cannot be correct. There are only
two options: both are wrong or Moses is right. Mohamed makes a lot
of claims which don't stand up to careful scrutiny without having
to undermine the religious texts which he relies on to make his
case that he is a prophet. For example, Mohamed claims to be the
prophet described by Moses in Deuteronomy 18v15-22 but to support
this he has to undermine the writings of Moses by claiming that
God changed His mind since then. Talk about sawing off the branch
you sitting on...
Mohamed claims that Jesus is a prophet and only through Mohamed
can man serve God. What does Jesus say about himself? Jesus claims
to be God. Read the book of John or simply look at 6v35, 8v12,
11v25-26, 14v6 and 14v9. Jesus claims to be God and to have the
power of God. Jesus goes further in 14v6 to say that He is the
only one through whom one can have true religion: a real
relationship with God (Mohamed makes the same claim, see quotation
Qur'an 9:29 above). Again, Mohamed cannot be right, he can only be
wrong. Only Jesus can be right.
Even if one ignores the injustices of Islam (such as severing a
man's clean hand for stealing leaving him an outcast to suffer and
be unable to make an honest living) it's theology falsifies
itself. It is in utter contradiction with what it claims. Muslims
will claim that their text, which is the most recent, must be the
most accurate but all the evidence we have says that the Hebrew
Torah has gone unchanged since the time of the first Diaspora
(when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple).
There are several lines of evidence for this. The first is the
seeming incoherence of the five books of the Torah. If these books
were cobbled together by scribes long after the fact one would
think that it would show some semblance of organization and
structure. Instead the narrative jumps around from serious laws to
historical events and back again. This is more in line with how
a (single!) human mind works (i.e. the Mind of God in
whose image our mind is formed) jumping from subject to subject as
one thought triggers another in an unpredictable fashion. Also,
these scribes never bothered to correct any of the inconsistencies
in the details which Atheists are quick to pounce
upon9.
If you are going to revise a text to make it support your claims
aren't you going to get the facts right? In the original Hebrew,
if you count every 50 letters moving forwards though the first 2
books it will spell out the word "TORH" (Torah, or
way)10.
If you count every 50 letters through the last 2 books it will
spell "HROT" which is TORH in reverse. If you count every 50th
letter moving forwards through the 3rd book (Leviticus) it will
spell the name of God: YHWH. The Torah is the way to God. The gap
of 49 letters between each letter is also significant. "7" is
the perfect number in Jewish numerology, representing completeness
and if often chosen by the YHWH to represent Himself (7 days of
creations, 7 lights on the Menorah etc...). YHWH and the Torah
are 7×7, in other words: perfect. The inconsistencies are
there on purpose, perhaps serving as a lesson not to get bogged
down in the details, to show that a super-intelligent entity was
behind it, i.e God. Did some scribes conspire to cobble the 5
books together with mistakes and a code or was the whole set
dictated to Moses by God as the Torah claims? If the Torah has
been modified over the years the code would have been lost. A
further nail in the Muslim coffin is the first Diaspora. When the
Yemeni Jews met up with their Eastern European brethren in the
last century for the first time since the first Diaspora (3000
years!) there were only 9 single letter differences11.
9 differences in 2500 years is very few for a hand copied text.
The Torah is virtually unchanged since God gave it to Moses in
1386 BC.
Regarding the Christian texts, we have the Letter of
Polycarp to
the Philippians which dates back to 110-135 AD and contains
word-for-word quotes from scripture from all four Gospels and the
letters of Paul, Peter and John. We have over 25 000 New Testament
manuscripts which all mostly agree with each other (except for
small translation issues). What is important is that we know they
were around from before the last eye witness to Jesus Christ died.
That John, who is quick to point out the fulfillment of Prophecy,
does not mention the destruction of the Temple in any of his
writings even though Jesus predicted this and it is recorded in
the three other Gospels, is evidence that his and the other Gospel
writers concluded their works before 70 AD when the Temple was
destroyed and these works were available widely enough for
Polycarp and Paul to quote from to make their cases. Importantly,
this also implies that those who copied scripture were loyal to
what they were copying and did not feel entitled to go back and
add in information which would advance their cause or make
corrections. That so many alternative translations exist is a
great asset to Christianity. The different translations can be
compared with each other to arrive at the original
meaning12. With the destruction of Israel in 70 AD and
its rebirth in 1948 the Jews had to rely on the Greek translation
of the Torah made around 100 BC to understand the old Hebrew.
Sadly, Islam lacks the benefit of multiple translations and today
can't be certain whether 72 virgins or grapes await the faithful
in Heaven13. It has been very difficult
presenting the above Qur'an verses for this very translation
issue. The translations vary so much as to be totally different in
meaning from each other. All that is left is Judaism and
Christianity.
It is easy to tell between Judaism and Christianity: simply read
the Gospel according to John and compare it with the prophecies of
Isaiah. You will need a good commentary (they are freely available
on the internet) to help you as you need to understand the history
and culture of the Jewish people to understand John's argument but
all the evidence is presented in John14. The Hebrew scriptures promise a Messiah, who will be
God, and will die and save His people15.
Rene Descarte says "When it is not in our power to follow what is
true, we ought to follow what is most probable." I do not know if
there is a God but I have faith in Jesus Christ as the most
probable manifestation of the true God who instilled in us the
desire to seek Him and, because God can only be just, made it
possible for us to find Him.
I understand that the contents of this page may upset you because
it threatens what you believe, but how can you be so certain of
what you believe? Have you, yourself seen God or searched all the
universe and beyond and proven him not to be there? Follow Rene's
advice, he was smarter than you (and me). Based on what is
probably true we build bridges, gain power from nuclear reactors
and apply Darwin's theory of Natural Selection to all spheres of
biology. Why not have faith in the probable when it comes to the
matter of your soul.
What cements my faith in Christ? Well, I have been party to
several miracles (i.e. events that defy probability and have no
natural cause)16. These all involve other people so I can't write about them
here.
Why not start doubting by going on an
Alpha Course in your vicinity. It and
the food is free and the food is normally good.
Footnotes:
1See
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/.
2Kant inadvertently provides a proof for God: The
ontological argument of Bishop Anselm goes that if we can think
about God then He must exist. Kant proposes that there is a real
world and a phenomenal world which we experience. This phenomenal
world is the real world colored by our understanding of it. Let us
consider the sensation you get in your limbs when you restrict
blood flow to it and then that blood flow returns. The English
refer to is as "pins and needles" and to English speaking people
it feels like pins and needles stuck into the skin. The French
call is "ants" and to them it feels like ants walking on the
skin. I wish I was French because ants sounds more pleasant than
pins and needles. If we can think about God we must have had some
exposure to Him which is transmitted through our culture. If we
hadn't experienced God we would not have a concept of him. To say
that God was invented by cave men terrified by lightning strikes
and thunder is preposterous. How could cave men attribute
lightning to God unless they already thought there was a God, and
if they did do this then where did this thought of God come from?
If we can think of God then He must exist but who is He?
3I don't agree with
where Ron takes his argument with "Theory of Evolution, or: How
Low Can Probability Go?" If you read
Paul Davies' "The mind of God",
"The Origin of Life" and "The Goldilocks Enigma" you will
understand that in the Universe the odds are stacked in favour of
life and not against it.
4To quick recap: Aristotle's science assumes there
is a cause behind every event. We have no evidence to doubt this
assumption. The Universe exists and our best available data (what
we call the Big Bang Theory) says it was an event and this had a
cause. Everything in the Universe is a result of the initial
action which caused it. We have free will and seek relationships
thus the first cause must have free will and be a
relationship-seeking being to be able to instill this into the
unfolding Universe. Therefore there is a relationship-seeking
independent thinking First Cause, i.e. a God. Attempts to avoid
this logical conclusion delve into absurdity. The multiverse idea
still requires a multiverse generator which will require a First
Cause. An Eternal Universe is contrary to observation. Where does
the First Cause come from? This is hardly a reasonable objection
to accepting that there is a First Cause. We don't need to know
where our coffee came from to drink it, we don't need to know
where the First Cause came from to accept that there was a First
Cause. In any case, as time and space only come into existence
with the Big Bang the First Cause doesn't have to come from
anywhere except itself. The God of the Bible claims to be eternal,
i.e. He simply exists-I am that I am.
5See
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html#SFCA4zL9zwT6.
This interpretation was adopted by Saint Augustine long before it
became the issue it is today, see
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html.
6No, Buddism does not
compare with what we know about the Universe. The Big Bang Theory
implies a definite beginning and is not eternal or cyclical (which
would defy the laws of thermodynamics to which we have found no
violations in spite of looking really hard) which is at odds with
Buddist theology. That we can doubt our existence (I think
therefore I am of Descartes fame) also implies that we are not a
dream. As the Buddist "non-god" is nothingness this god can't
have a relationship which the cosmological argument reveals as the
quality of the First Cause which is an intelligible entity.
7Real
love, not that soppy, romantic and lustful kind, the real type
which would go into the slums of Calcutta and minister to the
outcasts without regard to personal health or safety and without
the certainty of any reward.
8To be
fair to Islam, the Qur'an says that a believer may lie in order to
deceive his enemies and live but when Mohamed, Jesus and Moses
address their believes in scripture they are not addressing
enemies. See Qua'an 3v28: "Let not the believers Take for friends
or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in
nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of
precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah
cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to
Allah."
9See
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblecontradictionserror/Bible_Contradictions_Errors_Bible_is_Full_of_Contradictions_Errors.htm.
10See
http://www.answeringislam.net/Religions/Numerics/torahk.html.
11See
http://wolfishmusings.blogspot.com/2008/11/im-convinced-torah-proofs-cause-more.html.
12If you think this isn't a real problem consider
Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. In it Frodo is described as having a
"gay" time in the Shire and Sam as tossing "faggots" on the
fire. The meanings of the words gay (happy) and faggot (a bunch of
sticks) have changed a lot in 50 years. In another 50 years time
one will need to examine the alternative translations of the Lord
of the Rings to understand that Frodo wasn't gay and Sam didn't
burn homosexuals.
13See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houri
and scroll down to "72 Virgins".
14John's Gospel is a
long argument for why we can believe in Jesus while the other
three are historical accounts. As consequence John's recollections
are ordered to make a point rather and to be read as chronological
history. It is important when reading John to notice how many
names are dropped in conjunction with the place where the event
transpired. John was giving testimony with the expectation that
those listing could go and verify what he was saying by
themselves-just as Luke eventually did in order to write his
Gospel.
15This is only
sensible. God created the world and us. He is responsible for us
and since we are incapable of saving ourselves by His own design,
it is up to Him to make a way out for us. In Christ God takes on
the punishment we would have received. The wages of sin is death,
but God's free gift is eternal life in Christ (Romans 6v23). Only
the God of the Bible is fully just, suffering to save His
creation. Importantly, God as/in Jesus experiences the same human
suffering every other human being must experience. God doesn't
spare himself. He is not remote from the human condition. Some
will say that this is bad theology and it probably is but I don't
think God cares for theology as much as He cares that we believe
that He saved us and can forgive any transgression.
16Having a baby or finding a parking spot
close to the mall entrance when your foot hurts are not miracles.
A miracle is a doctor surgically removing a women's womb and she
conceiving, or the car that occupies the space you want simply
disappearing into nothing so you can park there instead. Miracles
are by definition SUPERnatural events which defy the laws of
universe and have no natural explanation. They are beyond the
magisteria of science and so its OK if they contradict science.
That is why they are used as proof of God: a supernatural being
which can act in a supernatural fashion. Importantly, any miracle
must be tied to a supplication to or a prophecy from God. Random
events and coincidence don't qualify as miracles. For this reason
there is a lot placebo effect when it come to prayers and miracles
which makes it very difficult to tell miracle from natural event.
File translated from
TEX
by
TTH,
version 3.86.
On 22 Jan 2010, 13:13.