There is an interesting facet to human actions. It's nothing new; you've heard it all before. When individuals do "good" we generally praise the individual. Rarely do we praise God for the actions of a "good" person. But when someone does something truly evil, we are quick to blame the Devil. No one (especially those of religious faith) wants to accept that people can do "evil" on their own, or that God could allow such actions. Again, this is no great revelation.
However, there is another peculiar irony in which we are also guilty...one which I have not heard discussed very often. Let's examine the human reaction to "natural" phenomenon.
When we see beautiful things in nature, we are apt to praise God. When a new child is born, when the crops come in plentiful, when the sun breaks through a particularly heavy storm, etc.... In these cases we so often thank God for his creation, wisdom, and mercy. But when major catastrophes occur, something interesting happens... we do not blame the Devil. When an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, etc.... kills countless humans, we do not blame the Devil (in fact we don't blame the Devil anytime a life is taken). Instead we consider it to be part of "God's Plan". "God works in mysterious ways." We still cannot accept that God would allow these actions to occur, but rather than seek out something to vilify, we rationalize the occurrence as being a part of a grand scheme which we cannot understand. And this leads to 2 conclusions.
First, the "Devil", that is to say a negative deity, was created out of the distinctly human condition known as "free will". You see, even the perception of free will ultimately leads to the concept of morality...that our actions are a result of choices. The concept of the "Devil" was created to both rationalize "evil" actions, while at the same time creating a negative consequence in an attempt to deter future evil actions.
Second, because we cannot associate the "actions" of the natural world with free will, we cannot associate these unfortunate natural occurrences with choice. And as such these events seem to be outside the realm of the Devil. The natural world, the events which govern it, and its consequences are all solely governed by God.
Now...why is this important to recognize or understand? Well in many ways it just comes down to rational thought processes. If we choose to believe that God is in control... If we choose to believe that God takes an active role in this world... Then we are forced to believe that God either makes these horrific tragedies occur, or that (at very least) he allows them to occur. And the only way to rationalize that concept is with the absolute epitome of all Deus ex Machinas..."God's Plan". When humans cannot know the cause, or rationalize, an action, they have no choice but to admit that their conclusions were wrong, or resolve the problem with some unknown force/creation.
And now the plot thickens. As I pointed out in my last blog, the reality is, no one can ever fully know the original cause of all that is. So in many ways, we are all forced to accept (at some point) a Deus ex Machina. But the current problem is that many accept that Deus ex Machina long before they should. Bill O'Reilly was famously quoted recently as justifying the existence of God because of the tides. Right or wrong, for Bill O'Reilly his Deus ex Machina was the tides. To him, that was the ultimate unexplainable proof that God existed. We, of course, know that the tides do have a very real cause (gravitational pull of the Moon) as governed by the physical laws of nature. But for many others, their Deus ex Machina comes in when they can no longer rationalize the shear horror of natural catastrophes. Because they are incapable of accepting that their concept of God is wrong, they must rationalize that it is simply God's Plan which they are incapable of understanding.
But there is a far more logical answer. The universe was created by God, but the universe operates without God's interference. Admittedly, the concept that "God created the universe" is, in itself, a Deus ex Machina. But it is one which no rational thought can disprove. Regardless what scientists discover, they will never be able to prove that God did NOT create the universe; they can only continue to prove that His creation does not require his involvement. Within the universe, all actions are governed by a set of physical laws. The universe simply exists. It's actions are only "bad" when we deem them to be bad because of the impact to us as a species.
In Summary: Rationally speaking, the Devil cannot exist without God. But the opposite is not true. God can exist without the Devil; and in all likelihood...He does. And God does not cause "good" things to happen, nor does he allow "bad" things to happen. God's creation simply exists as it was meant to.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Monday, March 14, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Does God Exist?
It is probably one of the most pivotal questions in the history of humanity, as a rational, thinking species. Is there a higher power? The existence of God has generally answered 2 primary questions: 1) How was this all created? and 2) What is the objective basis for morality? For now, I will focus solely on God's existence as creator, not judge.
There is an interesting argument called the Creation-Evolution Argument. But here is the irony. "Creation" as defined by Judeo-Christian theology is actually the combination of both the Creation of the Universe and the Creation of Life. While the Bible handles these 2 "events" together - science has 2 distinct theories about these events. The Creation of the Universe is explained by the Big Bang model, and the Creation of Life is described by the Theory of Evolution. Yet the common Judeo-Christian complaints are generally focused more on the Theory of Evolution. Both scientific theories are in direct opposition of the written "Word". But the Theory of Evolution attacks the ego of man as it implies that we are the descendants of a "lower" species. But I digress.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, I will consider the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be related in the sense that they describe the formation of both the universe, and life within it. But there is also another correlation between these two theories that I will address later.
Now - in this discussion it is imperative that we disregard the Bible as a "source" of record. I certainly value the faith others may have - but belief in the Bible is, in many ways, just a symbol of faith. You may have Faith that it is the literal translation of God, and that is fine. But within the realm of a serious analysis, it is no more reliable than a child who believes all good people come from rainbows. And many would be furious at this point After all, if we accept this to be "fair" terms have we not disarmed the Judeo-Christian beliefs altogether??
I say no. Proof of God's existence is everywhere to be found without the Bible. And therein lies the problem. So you see, without the Bible, and its parables - we can find evidence of a grand architect, of a creator. But that does not imply that he created the universe as written in some book. In spite of all the physical evidence, it is just extremely difficult to imagine that all of the complexity of life has been the result of random accidents.
And yet it is that very randomness which is the primary correlation between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. Both theories share a common idea... Within a constrained set of laws, and given enough time and space, randomness will create complexity. The galaxies, and stars, and all of the various types of planets are all creations of random acts within a constrained set of physical laws (gravity, magnetism, etc...). Similarly, all life has evolved through a series of small random changes over billions of years within the constraints of physical (and chemical) laws.
Now - speaking of cop outs... It is easy to state, "Well if this is truly how nature works, then that is how God intended it to work." In the scheme of things, there really is nothing wrong with this premise - and I will be coming back to it. But recently, I'd say "science" has been guilty of the same thing. Recently, Stephen Hawking proposed that the Universe does not "require" a God. What was his premise? Randomness. You see - Hawking theorized that perhaps our universe was only one of an infinite number of other universes. So we are right back to the original notion... Given enough time, randomness will create complexity. So while there may very well be an infinite number of universes out there which have produced nothing more than disparate gases - other universes like ours, have created vastly complex systems of life. The only "soundness" to this theory is that it is consistent with out basic concepts of creation, scientifically speaking.
So where does this leave us? Judeo-Christians may cling to their written Word, but ultimately the Bible is no proof or disproof of a God. Atheists may cling to the science of the random, but again this is no proof or disproof of the existence of a God.
The answer? Faith. Just faith. On the surface, this answer seems to imply that we must have Faith that God exists. But in truth it goes beyond that. The mind is incapable of conceiving of the beginning of time and space. We can theorize about it as a concept, but we are not actually capable of understanding any moment in which Space and Time did not exist...thus we are incapable of fulling understanding how all of this could have been "created". So, from an atheistic perspective, the only answer our minds can comprehend is to simply state that "it has always existed". But even this is difficult to swallow, because the mind has just as hard a time trying to understand infinity. The point is this....science may one day prove how everything began, but I very seriously doubt it. Either way, at this point in our civilization there is no proof either way. Thus an atheist's claims are based on faith just as much as a Christian's claims. In the end, an atheist must rely on faith that the universe was created and runs due to randomness - because there is no way to conclusively prove that it's creation was itself a random act. And what else is Faith but belief in the absence of proof? And of course from a religious perspective, having faith that God created all, does not necessarily imply that God must be an active participant in his creation.
So there it is... Ultimately the question of God's existence is a bit of a moot point with respect to human knowledge and understanding. Science may one day prove itself, and of course there is always the possibility (I guess) that religion may prove itself (rapture, etc...). But until either of those days are upon us, atheists and Christians alike (as well as all other religious beliefs) are resigned to faith for a creation belief.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
There is an interesting argument called the Creation-Evolution Argument. But here is the irony. "Creation" as defined by Judeo-Christian theology is actually the combination of both the Creation of the Universe and the Creation of Life. While the Bible handles these 2 "events" together - science has 2 distinct theories about these events. The Creation of the Universe is explained by the Big Bang model, and the Creation of Life is described by the Theory of Evolution. Yet the common Judeo-Christian complaints are generally focused more on the Theory of Evolution. Both scientific theories are in direct opposition of the written "Word". But the Theory of Evolution attacks the ego of man as it implies that we are the descendants of a "lower" species. But I digress.
So, for the purpose of this discussion, I will consider the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be related in the sense that they describe the formation of both the universe, and life within it. But there is also another correlation between these two theories that I will address later.
Now - in this discussion it is imperative that we disregard the Bible as a "source" of record. I certainly value the faith others may have - but belief in the Bible is, in many ways, just a symbol of faith. You may have Faith that it is the literal translation of God, and that is fine. But within the realm of a serious analysis, it is no more reliable than a child who believes all good people come from rainbows. And many would be furious at this point After all, if we accept this to be "fair" terms have we not disarmed the Judeo-Christian beliefs altogether??
I say no. Proof of God's existence is everywhere to be found without the Bible. And therein lies the problem. So you see, without the Bible, and its parables - we can find evidence of a grand architect, of a creator. But that does not imply that he created the universe as written in some book. In spite of all the physical evidence, it is just extremely difficult to imagine that all of the complexity of life has been the result of random accidents.
And yet it is that very randomness which is the primary correlation between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. Both theories share a common idea... Within a constrained set of laws, and given enough time and space, randomness will create complexity. The galaxies, and stars, and all of the various types of planets are all creations of random acts within a constrained set of physical laws (gravity, magnetism, etc...). Similarly, all life has evolved through a series of small random changes over billions of years within the constraints of physical (and chemical) laws.
Now - speaking of cop outs... It is easy to state, "Well if this is truly how nature works, then that is how God intended it to work." In the scheme of things, there really is nothing wrong with this premise - and I will be coming back to it. But recently, I'd say "science" has been guilty of the same thing. Recently, Stephen Hawking proposed that the Universe does not "require" a God. What was his premise? Randomness. You see - Hawking theorized that perhaps our universe was only one of an infinite number of other universes. So we are right back to the original notion... Given enough time, randomness will create complexity. So while there may very well be an infinite number of universes out there which have produced nothing more than disparate gases - other universes like ours, have created vastly complex systems of life. The only "soundness" to this theory is that it is consistent with out basic concepts of creation, scientifically speaking.
So where does this leave us? Judeo-Christians may cling to their written Word, but ultimately the Bible is no proof or disproof of a God. Atheists may cling to the science of the random, but again this is no proof or disproof of the existence of a God.
The answer? Faith. Just faith. On the surface, this answer seems to imply that we must have Faith that God exists. But in truth it goes beyond that. The mind is incapable of conceiving of the beginning of time and space. We can theorize about it as a concept, but we are not actually capable of understanding any moment in which Space and Time did not exist...thus we are incapable of fulling understanding how all of this could have been "created". So, from an atheistic perspective, the only answer our minds can comprehend is to simply state that "it has always existed". But even this is difficult to swallow, because the mind has just as hard a time trying to understand infinity. The point is this....science may one day prove how everything began, but I very seriously doubt it. Either way, at this point in our civilization there is no proof either way. Thus an atheist's claims are based on faith just as much as a Christian's claims. In the end, an atheist must rely on faith that the universe was created and runs due to randomness - because there is no way to conclusively prove that it's creation was itself a random act. And what else is Faith but belief in the absence of proof? And of course from a religious perspective, having faith that God created all, does not necessarily imply that God must be an active participant in his creation.
So there it is... Ultimately the question of God's existence is a bit of a moot point with respect to human knowledge and understanding. Science may one day prove itself, and of course there is always the possibility (I guess) that religion may prove itself (rapture, etc...). But until either of those days are upon us, atheists and Christians alike (as well as all other religious beliefs) are resigned to faith for a creation belief.
Then again, I could be completely wrong...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
