God and the test-tube

One of the big hot topics of cultural debate is the clash between religion and science. Physics and chemistry and biology seem to have stripped the universe of its mystery, whittling things down to our level, so many (perhaps less adventurous) thinkers assume with a sigh of relief that we just don't need God anymore. The old stuffy establishment with its rulings on how to live and think can finally be overthrown. The silly superstitions that have kept humanity afraid of its own shadow for millennia can at last be expelled. But from a faith standpoint the situation is by no means this simple, and while apologists for religious conviction (especially Christian ones) can easily come across as desperate in their attempts to scavenge the pitiful remnants of a useless relic, still there is much (everything, in fact) to be said about the reality of the spiritual and its importance for humanity. There is much to be said about the reconciliation of human reason and human faith. Perhaps too much, the cynic may think with some disdain--the literature on this field is vast. This little essay is in no manner meant to settle the score. I am young and still learning, and it falls to the power of no single mind to determine the intricacies of our glorious universe and its relation to the Maker. Certainly it falls to no one, not even the collective race, to sound out the depths of the deity. We must ever be in grateful, humble dialogue with one another in our search for truth, so that by giving and taking we work toward a fuller picture of reality and our place within it. Humanity is a community, and must pursue its intellectual/spiritual betterment as such. In any event, what I'm doing here is simply laying out some rough thoughts about the general swathe of the whole religion-science controversy. The idea is to get you thinking and out working on your own theories to add to the discussion, as well as to engage with myself in conversation with critiques and questions so that I can sharpen up the articulation of my own beliefs.

Here's how I see it. I think pure naturalism's attempts to "disprove" God based on the idea that, with science's increasing understanding of the origins of the universe, the old notion of a creator is no longer needed, are probably attempts to "level the field"--I think it's all born of this terror at the ultimate unknown; the idea of a personal, willful force greater than the universe itself is too much to deal with. That kind of entity may demand something of us, and certainly it would be beyond our agency to comprehend in full. So we stick to what we can know: natural processes. Granted, the naturalist may turn the table and say, "Your insistence on a creator is born of a desperate need to make sense of a great and terrible universe which you can't wrap your mind around; you need this grandfatherly figure as a crutch to compensate for your intelligence or powers of understanding." Here we come to a sort of impasse, because we have two completely different perspectives. The only way one could change one's perspective is through some kind of life-altering "epiphany", a conversion by private insight or a shift in worldview. Indeed, belief in God is not simply another intellectual acquisition thrown into the mix, but rather it is a starting point all to itself. Acknowledgment of a creator is its own worldview, determining the manner in which one believes; so while certain evidences may press one toward the acceptance of monotheism, still it is something that requires a shift in the whole outlook of the individual. Worldviews are mysterious things, not necessarily arbitrary or ingrained, certainly built on experience; but they are not so easy to pin down as to label them as conclusions at the end of thorough scientific investigation (perhaps, though, worldviews are born of spiritual inquest, as it's a much more subtle enterprise). My point is, God cannot really be "argued" for in the way that one can argue for the existence of quarks. Such a transcendent idea as a creator can only be grasped through a largely unaffected decision at the core of one's selfhood to rearrange one's ideology and opinion. How this comes about is, in my view, a profound enigma that we can never really fathom because it is part of the essence of who we as humans are...and it is a hard thing indeed to turn our rational powers inward upon the heart of that rationality.

All that being said about the great gulf between theists and atheists/agnostics, dialogue is certainly possible still. Supernaturalists should realize that when one looks at the universe and sees order and beauty in it that point to a creator, most probably one has already accepted the idea of a creator, or at least belief beforehand certainly makes the conclusion easier to reach; also, when an apologist says that naturalists are narrow-minded to not allow the possibility of there being any reality beyond our own, they must be aware that this is not necessarily the case, for the "reality beyond our own" being argued for by the religious person is most probably identifiable with some manifestation of religious tradition, and that is what many atheists or agnostics tend to react against--they identify any notion of a creator with the authoritarianism and dogmatism they find so unattractive in organized religion. Although this is a very serious point to consider, since it is a cultural factor that plays into how one shapes one's worldview and thus starting assumptions, and so perhaps many naturalists could be "excused" for their "naivety" (wouldn't they all recoil at that phrase! but it's all about perspective, again--and just because there are many perspectives does not mean there is not one ultimate truth; multiplicity of ideas should never be an excuse for epistemological apathy), still naturalists need to be more intellectually honest, and take seriously the widespread "phenomenon" of spiritual experience; furthermore, they should consider the possibility that the universe's fine-tuned set-up, specifically relating to the abundance of rational life here on earth in seeming defiance of a great many odds, point toward an intentionality standing behind the observable; also they should realize science's proper place in exploring the physical and chemical processes which make the universe move along, and that it has little if anything to say about what forces may be driving the processes along "behind the scenes", for if there is anything along the lines of a super(supra?)natural deity at work, then that takes us immediately beyond the realm of scientific inquiry, which is disposed to treat of only those natural forces we can actually manipulate.

It should not be expected that one would find actual "traces" of God throughout the cosmos, save for the fact of the cosmos itself. If God is spirit then his effects upon the workings of creation as creator will not be distinguishable (readily) from the actual processes operating within creation itself. If you want to talk "results", especially results within the same category of the acting agent in question (spiritual), then the real effects of God can be seen through the experiences of religious persons. I of course do not think that all religious testimony and behavior stems from true encounter with the divine, but if one sets out honestly to pursue the reality behind all the varying claims made by religions and spiritualists, one can find adequate systems of "measurement" to gauge the validity of religious/spiritual experience (the astonishing growth of Christianity within the first century of its inception and its current impact on third-world countries, for instance, could very well count as actual evidence of something real happening). Granted it could be argued that the effects of religious experience are "only" psychological, catering to the needs of a community or individual; but the paradoxical and truly bizarre changes that can be wrought by faith often seem to rise beyond what we know of the capabilities of the human pysche. Even if it could be "shown" that all religious experience stems from neural reactions (and it's rather doubtful that humans can ever really come to grips with just what is at work in their own consciousness), that still says nothing about the spiritual reality that may be lying behind and informing that empirically observable phenomenon. Here we are again at first principles: are we willing to accept the idea of a realm beyond the natural? In the same way it does not help saying that the universe arose from "purely natural" causes--of course it did. The universe has always been natural. But science makes this claim from within the confines of the natural world. What can be studied within this spectrum is only the natural. Whatever may have "willed" the whole tapestry of reality into existence is beyond the scope of science. The actual details of how the universe came to be the way it is cannot be used to show the absence of God, as if there would be a point where we could put a finger on a physical imprint of the tangible intervention of God into the physical realm, or take a theoretical snapshot of the breaking-in of an external being (what would that even look like? maybe the incarnation? but as for God working within the processes of creation, God being spirit, wouldn't we not be able to see him, since he is strictly outside the processes, ontologically?). A theology that sees God as working alongside his creation, encouraging it to in a sense "make itself" under his guidance, really avoids the awkward idea of a distant deity who at intervals puts a stop to the regular cosmic laws and pokes his head in for a cameo or to make a repair. Even the lack of a qualifiable "spontaneous appearance" of matter and energy (in other words, if creation out of nothing were shown to be impossible because of the fact that the origin of substance was far more complex than that) could not disprove God, because it still says nothing about what might be outside the limits of the natural, ordering the pieces into place. Besides, the fact that there is something rather than nothing has to be explained, at the last, by some appeal to metascience.

The sciences look at what's here. Religion must be brought in to tell us why it's here (and the arrogant naturalist who says "It's here because of such and such reactions and processes" has completely missed the point; this response deals with the forming of the current universe, not the deeper question of what ultimately caused there to be anything for the universe to form in the first place). The idea that if there is a God then it should be possible to investigate him with empirical means (studying the universe and exploring its history through hypotheses and actual tests) is ludicrous and unfair. If there is an entity completely different from the observable order, as Christianity claims, how should the tools of science ever hope to reach it? And if there is an entity who is also a person but still remains separate from the creation, as Christianity also claims, how else must we truly seek him but by opening our hearts and pursuing an actual relationship with him? Now if a naturalist is content to say that we don't need something outside the universe willing it to be, that we simply can accept the fact of the universe just being here, then that is well and good for the naturalist, but it is a faith-claim, and the claim that there must be a force beyond nature willing her to be should be given as much a hearing in the philosophical court, if not more (because honestly it seems the more reasonable option, and the more in line with religious experience throughout history). First principles and worldviews really make the difference here. It comes down to starting assumptions.

For the Christian, everything should be based on the figure of Christ. Whatever else we may say about the world, we have Christ at the center to guarantee us of at least one thing: God's love for his creation. This must be the ground of the Christian confidence in the reality of a creator and the manner in which he has chosen to interact with his creation. By following the example of Christ and ministering to the world in his name, we put forward a far greater argument for the reality of the religious message than any philosophy or science could ever muster. True, other religions or even Christianity itself may mount "critical realism" arguments based on the worldwide experience of the divine (as I myself do), or the reasonableness of the universe (note: entropy may be the overwhelming majority force throughout most of the universe and suggest against "reasonableness", but the whole structure of creation taken as a whole, and understood in terms of a) its intelligibility--because the whole argument of scientific progress is that we as humans can understand this universe--and b) its peculiar accommodation to life, and especially rational life, all that taken as a whole in a real sense overrides the fact of entropy, so the sum is greater than the parts so to speak, or the fact of life is greater in magnitude than the force of entropy), and these arguments probably do help in persuading more open-minded thinkers to accept the reality of a creator. But the Christian's truest testimony to his or her conviction is the encounter he or she has with the creator in Jesus Christ. We should boldly stand on the assurance we have in that Person and his work, and take confidence from the transforming power of the faith built upon his name, and from this position, through a life of servitude and love, strive to bear witness to the existence of God and his call to all people to enter into fellowship with him. From this perspective, one is better convinced of God's reality not by scientific observation, but by a loving awareness of Christ as Lord and a renewal of the heart by the relationship formed with him by faith; it is then that the Christian can take the tools of science, and examine the universe to better understand the ways in which the God he or she knows in Christ actually operates. But the faith of Christianity can also be used to fill in the holes of science, and provide light where science only finds darkness--namely with the issue of futility and ultimate decay. Christianity, precisely in the hope of the resurrection of its Lord, can look beyond the apparent bleakness of natural process and see a new world waiting on the other side. Of course Christianity would be a meaningless sort of thing in its proclamation of a loving God who calls us to put our trust in him, if the universe were complete and utter madness, and there were no ray of goodness or hope to be found anywhere in the world; but from simple human interaction it is obvious that there is good to be found in the world, and from science's perspective we can see that there is a very particular sort of shape and form to the universe we live in, one that seems "set up" almost to make room for rational souls and thus loving relationships.

I realize this is a sloppy mess, and I repeat myself a good bit, but again it's more fuel for further discussion, and open to suggestions and counter-claims that will help me (and hopefully anyone who chooses to engage me in the issue) clarify my position. The next note, "A dose of everything", will provide more discussion material.





(A final note: the idea that with the technology afforded us by scientific advances we will eventually come to master the universe and so not need God as a crutch to lean on in our ignorance, is at best a case study in missing the point. The Enlightenment notion of humanity's limitless prowess should be thoroughly diluted now by the sober pessimism of post-modernism. Whatever great things humanity achieves, they will always be tainted by the race's penchant for destroying itself. Besides, the more science--especially quantum physics--explores of the universe, the more it realizes just how unpredictable and unknowable can really be. That does not mean that there is no sense to be made of nature, but rather that we should be humble in our search for facts, realizing the limits of mortal reckoning. There is so much left to know about the vastness of the cosmos, so many far corners of space and time not even thought of, much less searched out, that it would take far longer to actually exercise dominion over all nature than humanity actually has to live on this earth. And if it is rebutted that science may one day overcome death itself, I reply that this is doubtful in the extreme, for nature always finds a way to keep her regular processes moving along, and a cessation of hominid death would lead to a decisive imbalance in the evolutionary scheme that nature would not tolerate. It could be further rebutted that a) the elimination of death could be evened out by the elimination of procreation, and b) mastery over natural processes entails control over the evolutionary process, the ability to bend it to our whim. I reply that a) the elimination of procreation would first require the elimination of the human desire to procreate, which would entail the de-humanization of humanity altogether, thus a loss of our collective soul, which I don't see happening, and b) complete domination of all physical and chemical processes would only come with humanity's complete domination of itself, and it should be obvious from the horrors of the twentieth century that humanity will never be able to fully rid itself of the inclination to wickedness and self-destruction. Furthermore, even if it seems that we do not need God to make us secure and content, that says nothing about the need we have for him in a spiritual sense, the need for relationship. Many souls will doubtless find on the other side of death that they do in fact need God, eternally speaking. A way to approach the subject of Christianity's importance is by taking a "Kingdom-oriented" tack; by this I mean that we should realize that the purpose of Christianity is not first and foremost to gain mastery over nature or eliminate disease and famine or make everyone morally better, but rather to sow the seeds of the eternal Kingdom of God. This spiritual reality will only be fully realized in the next creation, whatever that means. What it certainly does not mean is that Christianity cannot make a difference here and now. Certainly it can, and should, be argued that Church has had a greater impact on the world as we know it than any other single institution or community. The contemporary humanitarian movement and even empirical science, though certainly being contributed to by other faiths and secular society, owe much of their shape, drive and success to the pioneering efforts of Christian visionaries. While Christendom has transformed the world to a large degree, much of what it does is currently "unseen", and we will need a full-scale resurrection of the created order to actually observe the full effects of the faith's mission. This response will seem unsatisfactory to many skeptics, what with the notion of "now-and-not-yet", this idea that much of the reason we need Christianity is not obvious at present but will be made so in the next life. But it is the best thing I can muster up. I cannot give a definitive answer to exactly how Christianity works in the world, or what exactly it's supposed to accomplish in the here and now--nor even the conundrum of those who reject the Word or who have never heard. What I can say is that it all comes back to Christ: in him we find the fullness of reality, immediate access to the creator, and it is the joy and confidence that this encounter produces that leads Christians to share their message with all peoples, inviting the nations to join together in communion with one another and the Father of all. Why would one want to reject that? While I do believe that sinners "need Jesus" in the sense that he can transform persons like no other spiritual force or idea or personality, I believe that the real thrust of Christianity is more positive--what I mean is, it's not a question of what happens if you don't accept it, it's about what happens if you do. And if you do, you become part of the project to prepare for the next world, and enter into a real, loving relationship with God in the here and now. So while the sciences may equip us with the apparent power to control all the elements of the universe, and psychology/anthropology may show us that all our supposed moral problems are really neural or merely cultural, and secular humanitarianism may claim to have the power to bring hope to the masses, and the Western dream of capitalism may teach everyone that they can make their own way just fine with a little ingenuity and a lot of determination, none of it touches on the fact of knowing Jesus Christ the Lord and Savior. And if anyone thinks science is bound to replace religion any time soon, they need to think again. There will always be those with holes in their hearts that only spirituality can fill, and the major religions, namely Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, have such a devout following that one can only imagine their numbers swelling. Religion is here to stay. God is here to stay. What we have to decide now is...which road to God is the best?)