A God for Skeptics
For me and many others, the debate about the existence or non-existence of the Christian God has pretty well burned out. I I was skeptical when I first heard the idea at age 5, but I've always hoped that somebody would explain it to me. After 61 years, I think I'm entitled to move on. -- ME
Sagan – Varieties of Scientific Experience
Among the leading advocates of Skepticism, Sagan was unique in his wide-ranging and sympathetic knowledge of religion. In this collection of talks, Sagan takes on the religious mind-set in a very broad and comprehensive way. He is also perhaps the most convincing advocate of what he calls the "God of Einstein" aka the "God of Science", which is a strong theory based on observation -- the mother of all theories that underlies Science itself--the "faith", if you will, that the Cosmos is logical, consistent and, to a surprising extent, understandable by the mind of Man.
Whatever our sympathies for Christian tradition may be, we must admit that all the traditional ideas of God need to be tossed overboard. Sagan regards "The God of Einstein" to be more or less an established fact. Note that this world view is not attractive because Einstein advocated it -- only that it appeals to the modern skeptical and Scientific mind and Einstein is perhaps the best known proponent. In fact, Einstein himself stood with one foot in traditional European religion and the other foot in the scary new world view he did so much to help create. Besides the issue of God, he had a lot more to say about "religion" -- all of it worth reading.
Einstein’s conception of God which is pretty much identical to the laws of physics, discovered and undiscovered – the pattern of rationality and consistency that the Scientist sees in the universe around him points out that there is no good reason why this pattern should exist – its discovery is profound and amazing.
The law-abiding universe has its roots in the Old Testament, where God is seen as the singular law giver. Of course in those times, there was no separation between ethics and physics, but the gods behind every bush had been banished and a consistency was expected, in contrast to the Gods of Chaos, where pretty much anything could happen. Personally, I see the God of Einstein as part of our tradition, the logical end point of the process of rejecting occult powers, evident in so much of the Old Testament. To be sure, this is not the mainthread of our tradition ...
The strongest case against God is made indirectly as Sagan parades all the possibilities, all the myriad definitions of God, and the slippery modern Western definitions. Interestingly, he points out that one of the accusations against early Christians is that they were atheists, not believing in the Roman gods. The common conception of the Westerngod goes something like this (does anybody really believe in this anymore?):
- The creator of the universe,
- Not part of the universe, above and beyond it in a separate realm,
- eternal,
- omnipotent,
- omniscient,
- merciful
- responsive to prayer
To the Western mind, God must have all of the above attributes or not exist at all. Oddly, theologians seem to think that if they "prove" any of the above attributes they have proven them all. it is the "all or nothing" dogma in it's naked form. Theologians have painted themselves into a corner. For traditionally-minded Christians, the plausibility problem is even greater, since God is saddled with additional attributes:
- In order to become his own father, he impregnated a virgin
- To satisfy the ancient debt of Adam to himself, he (apparently somewhat reluctantly) sacrificed himself to himself, an act which makes up the core of his claim to be merciful
- He has deliberately planted evidence (such as the fossil record, the Big Bang etc) that contradicts the Biblical account of history to "test our faith"
Not all traditions require God to have all these attributes. For example, Hindus are permitted to contemplate the nasty, destructive side of "God". Perhaps Sagan's most powerful and subtle argument is to remind us of this fact -- which serves to point out how arbitrary our idea of God is.
We can’t really take seriously ideas of God that have Him too busy to answer prayers, lacking in power, lacking in knowledge or power, subject to experimental verification etc. The Biblical God collapses of His own weight or, if you wish, the impossibility of the claims we make for Him and/or the lack of evidence that these claims are true. Of course, the other problem is that these claims have no explanatory power. To the ancient mind, God's interventions explained a lot of things, from the causes of sickness, setbacks on the battlefield and even the weather. To the modern mind, a Universe without God looks pretty well identical to a Universe with God lurking around in the background.
Sagan provides ample examples of what would constitute as evidence of God's existence, such as a single fact about the Universe that was not known to the ancients (such as the fact that the Sun is a star), in place of all the “factual” but incorrect description of the Cosmos that is included in the holy books which is simply a re-hash of beliefs common when the texts were written.
Sagan makes a strong case for being especially cautious when examining “evidence” for things we would really love to be true (such as alien visitations or a loving God) and reminds us of how hard it is to accept evidence against dearly held beliefs (see Kathryn Schultz and Michael Shermer on the same topic).
To me, the only alternative seems to be the God of Science – "Einstein’s God". The "believer" might think this is all about exchanging religious authorities for "Scientists". However, it's really about throwing a whole way of thinking overboard. To be sure, authorities still exist, but we celebrate those who successfully challenge "widely held" belief (as opposed to burning them at the stake). Evidence is king. Consistency, logic and fact-checking are the order of the day. Most importantly, this view is not without personal, moral and ethical consequences. About this subject, Einstein had a lot to say.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.but ...
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the formation of sound judgment and action
Like myself, Einstein believed that rejection of the traditional ideas of God did not release us from the obligations of morality, nor the personal virtues such as humility and service. This strongly suggests that our highest personal obligation is to achieve what we might call enlightenment.
The existence of "Einstein's God" is not 100% settled. Like Evolution it is theory, not an article of faith. Like any theory, it is subject to disproof. In principal, we could find parts of the Universe or situations in which the laws of physics do not hold true or perhaps they hold true sometimes but not always or perhaps when a shaman says certain words but not when he says other words. This is similar to the "theory" of Evolution, which would be in deep trouble if, say, we found human bones in a fossilized dinosaur stomach or a the ruins of a 65 million year old city.
This is in sharp contrast to "faith" in God, which seem to be immune to disproof for the simple reason that this "theory" doesn't actually say anything about the world. In the rare cases when the "theory" does say pretty definite things about life on Earth, the "believer" is rewarded by ignoring the contradictions between the "theory" and experience. The most flagrant example of this problem is the issue of evil, which cannot exist in a world governed by a God with all the attributes listed earlier in this essay. Even so, people struggle on, finding reasons to believe in the face of daily evidence that the world is full innocent people suffering in terrible ways. Quite notably, continued faith God despite overwhelming contradictory evidence is an source of great pride among the "believers". Does this mean there is no God? Well, yes, but the main lesson is an urgent need to change the way we think.
"Faith in God" is not a theory. It is a superstition, notably defined by Sagan as "belief without evidence"
Comments
Post a Comment