Our scientific community is
increasingly comfortable with the concept of the "Big Bang" origin of
our Universe. Under that concept, shortly after the Big Bang, our
Universe consisted of a wave front of energy, expanding away from the
location of the Big Bang, and a fairly large quantity of matter, which
was a disorganized mass of very primitive atoms, like Hydrogen. It
would be fair to characterize that state of affairs as "chaos," which
in Thermodynamics is a disorganized state of matter and/or energy, the
ultimate manifestation of which would be a totally even spread of all
matter and all energy throughout the entirety of the "closed" system,
such that no differential existed which could ever perform any "work."
Out of the chaotic state which
existed shortly after the Big Bang, the randomly disbursed gas
molecules began to draw themselves together into gas clouds, which then
condensed and formed stars, planets, and the other forms of matter
which we now know about. The stars, in turn, upon reaching the
necessary critical mass, began to generate energy by a process of
nuclear fusion, which we now understand somewhat, but have yet to
control on a scale smaller than a fusion bomb. At least one of these
stars, our own, and probably many more, developed life on at least one
of the planets surrounding them.
We know that one of the
primary forces which drive the basic gas molecules to collect
themselves together and form stars is the force of gravity. We also
know so very little about the force of gravity and how it operates. We
can describe what it does, and we can mathematically model its
strength, but we cannot yet conceive of how it does its job.
Viewed from a mystical sense,
the process of evolution is clearly anti-entropic, because it created
ever higher and better organized forms of life out of the disordered
chaos of the lower forms of life, ending up with at least the
development of mankind. But it is still unclear whether our mystical
feelings can be supported by scientific facts. Thus, our mystical
feelings view the history of our Universe as a process of creating
order out of chaos, a process which would clearly be anti-entropic. But
the actual scientific evidence in support of our mystical feelings is
not so clear cut.
Like so many people before me,
I just have to admit that my gut tells me this long process of
creation, stars and planets from interstellar gas clouds, life from
primordial ooze and lightning strikes, higher forms of life from lower
forms of life, intelligence from instinct, is the result of an
anti-entropic force which is creating order out of chaos.
But the scientific facts are
not all known to support that gut feeling, or to contradict it, either.
We can assert that the order developing on Earth comes from a flow of
energy from our Sun. But that merely begs the question of how the Sun
came to be created in the first place. We are not yet capable of fully
answering that question, but it is clear that scientists are working on
that problem every day.
If the atheists are correct,
then there is no "outside" source of creative flows, and we are each
but one form of a temporary and accidental biological contamination in
a Universe which is gradually running down to an eventual "heat death."
Amazingly enough, for a question with such a deep philosophical
meaning, ongoing scientific research ought to provide a clear cut
answer to this proposition within the next few decades. Until science
provides that answer, I intend to follow my gut feeling, and believe
that there IS an outside creative force which is causing order to appear out of chaos; there IS an anti-entropic God force which is our Creator.
Maybe this is my own wishful
thinking expressing itself. But, in contrast to all of the other
arguments for or against the proposition of God's existence, this
theory is at least supported by, and consistent with, our current level
of scientific understanding. The atheists can no more prove the
ultimate conclusion than can the theists. By declaring myself to be an
Agnostic, I align myself with whichever conclusion is eventually
reached as a consequence of scientific inquiry. I also accept the most
potent debate points which the theists can offer in this debate: the
presence of a great deal of order in our Universe, and the apparent
creation of increasing amounts of order as time goes by. But I also
must acknowledge the fact that the apparent creation of increasing
amounts of order may be only an illusion which masks our lack of
understanding of the underlying processes which really control our
Universe. Only science can provide the Truth, and only in our future.
My position of tentatively
accepting the existence of God, until and unless science proves
otherwise, is entirely consistent with the progress of scientific
inquiry down through the ages. We have always looked first for a theory
which explains phenomena which we can clearly perceive. Our first
attempt is usually called something like a "working hypothesis." This
means a theory which explains the parts which we are certain of, and
does not contradict anything else which we are certain of. As research
progresses, we refine our concepts and change the name to a theory, and
as we become more certain of its correctness in all cases, eventually
the name is changed to a law. This process occurred over time for
Newton's Laws of Motion.
In my mind, then, the Atheists
and the Theists are like two scientific camps which are working to
validate their respective, but totally contradictory, theories about
God. I now believe that the weight of the evidence is in favor of the
existence of God, but I am quite willing to accept scientific proof to
the contrary. This is entirely consistent with how all rational
intellectual inquiry has proceeded down through the ages.
But the final point which I would like to emphasize is that, just because I believe that God "probably" exists, that does NOT
lead to a conclusion that any of the religions which mankind has
adopted down through the ages is any more deserving of respect from an
intellectual point of view than is any other religious belief system.
Each of those belief systems is so clearly tainted with manufactured
falsehoods and/or inconsistencies galore that none is deserving of my
adherence. In point of fact, even the most prominent of the Christian
churches propounds such drivel that it is a wonder anyone believes.
Because we are in the Late
Civilization period for our own Western Civilization, I would
particularly like to single out the Christian fanatics for outright
contempt. They are the clear product of the "Second Religiousness"
predicted by Spengler. They arise in a reaction to the increasing
disorder in a Civilization after the "death" of the "soul" of that
Civilization. As a clearly (and increasingly explicitly) reactionary
group, they have little or nothing to offer us but an attempted
restoration of order through despotic dictatorships and other
despicable means. In a very deep sense, these so-called fundamentalist
Christians are themselves the anti-Christ which they claim to oppose.
If Christ were here right now, he would denounce them all, as the New
Testament clearly proves to me.
So, in conclusion, do not try
to take my acceptance of the existence of God as any license to try to
convert me back to Christianity, within which I was raised as a child.
I reject the modern Christian church as a religious model as much as I
reject Hitler as a political model. Both are despicable, in my view,
and instead, I search for something which is clearly better for all of
mankind.
Even if science ultimately
proves that the creative forces which have led me to declare the
existence of God are, in fact, reconcilable with all of the various
Laws of Thermodynamics, including Entropy, I would still choose to
declare a belief in God, unless it could be scientifically proven that
no God exists. In any case, given the extreme difficulty with proving
any negative concept, I do not expect that to occur.
There is no group of humans,
left to their own devices, which has failed to develop a religious
doctrine which contains one or more concepts which we of the West would
view as God concepts.33 That is at least empirical evidence that mankind needs some sort of God concept as part of its existence.
Theist arguments 1, 3, 11, and
15 (see Book II, Section C) each incorporate some version of that
theme. But if we are to knowingly invent God to suit the needs of
mankind, then let us at least do it honestly and openly, the way that
we promote Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We should not delude
ourselves by claiming an honest belief in something which we have
ourselves created from whole cloth. Having not hidden our
sleight-of-hand, in the event that science provides a different answer
at some time in the future, we can willingly discard a knowing fiction,
replace it with real Truth, and not find our essential psyche disrupted
in the process.
If history teaches us anything
about religion, it is that the fundamental purpose of our religious
beliefs is to provide a useful framework within which we can conduct
our daily lives. Few religions go so far as to establish any
significant larger purpose beyond the salvation of the individual
person, which usually results from that person behaving as the "powers
that be" would wish. If that is all which religion can provide to
mankind, it still may be enough to justify the fabrication of a God
concept.
But if we must fabricate a God
concept of our own, let it at least be a coherent and comprehensible
concept which could survive atheist argument number 3 (see Book II,
Section D). Our God concept should also survive atheist argument number
5 (same), and avoid the motivation of people to do evil things "in the
name of God." The remaining three atheist arguments may be easily
overcome by simply pointing to the necessity which results in a need
for SOME God concept in our daily lives, which should at
least be the result of some scientific study of our deep psychological
needs for that God concept.
The true words of Jesus Christ
clearly show that there were only two requirements to be close to the
Kingdom of Heaven (see, e. g., Mark 12, 28-34), a love of God and
the so-called "Golden Rule." The "Golden Rule" may be derived though a
process of inquiry according to philosophical principles. Even
Aristotle derived an equivalent expression: "We should behave to our
friends as we would wish our friends to behave to us."34
So, if science validates a need for a God concept within mankind, and
if Philosophy may be used to derive the Golden Rule, we then find
ourselves with the two essential elements of the beliefs of Christ.
Further study would probably yield a discovery that such beliefs are at
the foundations of virtually all of the world's great religions, and
may therefore be said to be the basic religious beliefs of all of
mankind.
The ultimate conclusion which
I draw from the foregoing it that it would take a great deal of
persuasion from science and Philosophy to convince me to become an
atheist. I choose to believe in God, although I choose NOT to believe in the fashionable churches of this moment in human history.
33 This sentence is carefully phrased to allow for Buddhist beliefs. If you ask a Buddhist about the existence of God, the Buddhist would most likely declare that Buddhism has no belief in God. But if Westerners study Buddhism, we would find one or more concepts in Buddhism which we would declare to be God concepts. There is such a tremendous cultural gap between Westerners and the Oriental adherents of Buddhism that full communication becomes virtually impossible.
34 From Bartlett's "Familiar Quotations," quoting from Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of Eminent Philosophers," Book V, section 21.
