Let me start by clarifying a couple of things. I am not, and most likely will not ever, say that there is no God. I am also not saying that there is a God, and am just as adamant that I will likely never say that. If you would like detailed instructions on what you should believe, then find another blog. There are plenty out there that will do just that - just not this one. I do, however, think it's an interesting discussion, and a question that everyone should seriously think through.
The science vs religion debate has been raging since Aristarchus became the first well known heretic for exhibiting independent thought. Probably even before that, actually. It's a pointless argument for a lot of reasons, not the least being that the basis of most of the world's religions is faith, not proof. You can not prove or disprove the existence of God. Period. As a scientist, I very rarely say that you can't possibly do something. But in this case, that's precisely what I'm doing. Science can't disprove it because any scientific principle that is used can be countered with, "God made that principle." Proving it is just as tricky, because a "miracle" cure could be due to modern medicine, The complexity of the human eyeball has been explained scientifically ad nauseum, but is still used as an argument to "prove" that God exists. And that vision of the Virgin Mary by the underpass? Yeah, that's probably just mold, which will make you sick if you camp out next to it.
The thing that people fail to realize is that it is okay to come to a conclusion without absolute proof. Scientists do it all the time. How many times have we been "sure" of something, only to have someone disprove it a few decades later? Once we were "sure" the Earth was the center of everything. Then we were "sure" the sun was the center of everything. Now we have a good idea where the center is, but have the sense to admit that we're not sure of anything. The important thing is to keep questioning. This applies to both sides of the argument. Science is worthless if one does not take the time to fully understand it and have the willingness to change your opinion when necessary. Religion is worthless if you don't question it and resolve that it really makes sense to you … as opposed to believing whatever your parents told you to without question.
The problem I have with this argument is that neither side answers the fundamental question: What happened at the very beginning? Quantum Fluctuations provide a pretty good explanation of how "something" could come from "nothing." But fails to answer WHY it happens. Mainly because the purpose of science is to answer "how," not "why." Religion has a similar problem. Okay, so God said it, and it was so. That answers the "why" but not the "how." Not to mention that it doesn't answer the question of "What created God?" Is it really okay to accept that God has "just always been," but not accept that energy and space (the only requirements for the Big Bang) have "just always been?" I admit that both of those arguments bother the crap out of me.
It has often been said that an organism only has the capacity to understand something simpler than itself. A worm can't possibly understand the inner workings of a more complex creature. In fact, it likely can't understand much beyond "Dig, eat, dig, eat." - because that is its function. Something as complex as a digestive system is beyond its capacity because it is totally alien for the worm. Humans, on the other hand, have the capability of understanding almost all animals…..except humans. Why do you think the study of Psychology progresses so much more slowly than the other sciences? Because we simply do not have the capacity to understand our own complexity, much less something bigger and more complex than we are, such as God or the science behind the creation of the Universe. If there is a God, we have no more hope of proving it scientifically than a worm has of explaining how it gets nutrients from dirt. If there isn't a God, I doubt we will fully understand the inner workings of the Universe. That, in fact, would make us Gods - which is not only mind boggling, but starts a whole new series of debates.
So my point is that I'm okay with not knowing. People who (frequently) tell me to "make a decision" and get off the fence of Agnosticism are asking the impossible. Don't get me wrong, I plan on continuing to TRY to figure it all out. We can always learn more, but we will never understand it all. So like a good scientist, I refuse to settle on a theory until I have adequate evidence. I have, however, settled on a couple of core principles. First, if there is a God, he did not give us intellectual abilities for nothing. We are allowed and expected to question, and draw conclusions in whatever way we see fit. (I would be seriously worried about my child if he never asked questions, and I suspect that God feels the same way.) Second, since questioning is an integral part of our existence, I find it hard to believe that a loving God would send us to hell if we looked at all the options, and chose the wrong one. Everyone makes mistakes. That is, after all, one of the core beliefs of Christianity as well.
This is a topic that I have long found fascinating, and have put a tremendous amount of thought into. I simply do not see how religion and science conflict or oppose each other. In fact, something I think is really cool is that I know a retired VSU professor (who taught in the science field) who actually has a lesson for his Sunday School class that explains how science and religion perfectly compliment each other. I totally think that would be worth looking into the next time he teaches it.
ReplyDeleteYou know language is a funny thing. For instance, it has understood finite origins but infinite permutations. We can break down the use of language into simple organizations where letters are arranged by certain rules to form words to which words are arranged by certain rules to form sentences whereby sentences are arranged by certain rules to form paragraphs…etc. Another funny thing about language is that in a general sense the only time it functions is when it doesn’t work. Most of the time people use language in order to inform, explain, define, or fix (as in to fixate) ideas. Science, religion, philosophy all have a long standing tradition to have the last word to come up with the universal end explanation to all things, and each call it different things: universal theory of spacetime, God, metaphysics respectively (Of course there are different terms as there are different theories and religions. I’m just using these for expediency). Nevertheless, the act of coming up with the last word, if it’s successful, is to no longer use language. The basic function of a question is to have an answer: the supposed end to the question. In a sense, we communicate so that we won’t have to communicate again.
ReplyDeleteNow bear with me. I’m going to be more direct with my point about the discussion of whether or not there is a God, but there is a reason I started with language. Of course, it’s what I study, but it is what we know. Knowledge is comprised of language and how we use language. We cannot know anything without it. Knowledge is the product of the arrangement of language. But it’s never really finished because language is too fixed and cannot do much but refer to itself. As Richard Rorty observed, “the world does not speak; only we do.” There is no connection between language and a reality, a universe, or an outside world. As a result, the use of language will never stop. There will be no absolute truth, no infallible universal, no final word.
So does that mean we should stop searching for answers? I think not. I don’t like the way most others use labels, but if had to use them I would have to call myself an agnostic. And I agree that “the important thing is to keep questioning.” However, I would be careful of the answers that such inquires yield. Trying to achieve the final word is dangerous. However, achieving answers that have a specific purpose can be useful if critically analyzed and carefully utilized.