Tag Archives: theism

Decisive Agnosticism

Last week I went a few comment rounds over on the Moment Matters blog under the Breaking Prejudice on Atheists post. The post’s lead topic—that a study showed that atheists are just as caring as theists—doesn’t surprise me at all. Atheists, after all, believe that all meaning in life comes from within and that the universe is a cold, empty, uncaring vastness dotted with little sparks of life here and there.

Now, I’ve always found fanatical atheists to be just as annoying—just as wrong (in my view, obviously)—as fanatical theists. If you are incapable of acknowledging that your worldview is not factually based and therefore could be incorrect, I basically consider you to be… well, insane. That is to say that the reality inside your head does not correlate accurately with the external reality.

But what I wanted to write about today was the idea that agnostics are indecisive. As an agnostic with spiritual leanings, I think that is bullshit.

Continue reading


God: Three Questions

When it comes to a spiritual position, there are at least three major positions you can take. There are three metaphysical questions you can ask yourself. Each question, if you answer “no,” halts the process and defines your position. The questioning continues so long as your answer is “yes.” As the questioning continues, you approach a more and more specific concept of “God(s).”

Basically, it’s a flow-chart that calculates your metaphysical point of view.

More importantly, it helps illustrate that spirituality is not limited to being strictly a theist or an atheist. It’s bigger than that. There are levels. And levels within levels.  I think it’s interesting to compare and contrast those levels. Do they have things in common? If so, might they be equivalent in some ways?

Part of what concerns me is the idea that a given mode of spirituality is somehow the One True mode. I find that idea repellent. It seems illogical that the Operator(s) of the Universe would specify a single set of rules and deny spiritual success to all not following those rules. It seems much more sensible that the Operator(s) of such a vast and varied Creation would be just as vast and varied spiritually.

As Mohandas Gandhi said, “Religions are different roads converging to the same point. What does it matter that we take different road, so long as we reach the same goal. Wherein is the cause for quarreling?”

As I’ve mentioned before, all spiritual systems seem to have in common the idea that how you live life matters, that there is such a thing as good and evil. Given that common central core, perhaps those fundamental things might be worthy of our consideration if not our focus and energy.

In any event, there are three big questions we can ask. The answers to these questions are not currently provable by logic or science. I suspect that the existence (or not) of God(s) transcends physics and cannot be answered by logic or science. Proving a negative, the absence of God(s), is tricky. Proving a negative is always tricky. But we may someday prove conclusively that the human mind universally creates God(s), and that will be very close to negative proof. And, of course, if we ever actually see God(s), that’ll be conclusive positive proof. You can prove a positive if what you seek is found!

But for now, the answers depend on how you believe reality works and are matters of faith.

Here are the questions:

  1. Is there a “metaphysical” reality at all (or is the physical all there is)?
  2. If there is a metaphysical reality, is it inhabited by a self-aware being or beings (or is it just a higher plane of reality or some sort of force)?
  3. If there are self-aware metaphysical inhabitants, do they interact with our physical reality and if so to what extent?

In other words:

  1. Is there anywhere for God to be?
  2. Is there anything that thinks, “I am God”?
  3. Is God (or are the Gods) concerned about us?

#1–Is there a metaphysical reality?

The world we know, all the matter and energy in the universe, is the physical reality. A metaphysical reality is somehow ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ that physical reality. It won’t be something we perceive under normal circumstances; it won’t follow the laws of physics. But to make it worth considering it must be accessible in some fashion that transcends our normal perceptions and physics.

It seems logical to assume that either it exists or it doesn’t. There seems to be no middle ground. The question divides viewpoints into two distinct camps: those who believe in a transcendent reality and those who believe in an existential reality. This is a crucial fork in the road; it’s where the believers and non-believers part ways.

If you decide there is no metaphysical reality, that’s it, no more metaphysical questions. The physical world is all there is. Humans—all life forms—are just machines that carry out the driving imperative of all life machines: perpetuate the DNA. We are nothing more than a very successful survival mechanism designed by a complex molecule. Life is nothing more than interesting chemistry.

Which is not to say there’s no majesty or mystery. That chemistry is extremely interesting, and there’s plenty of mystery! And one thing science teaches us is that some questions don’t have answers, no matter what. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle puts a limit on how sharply defined the universe is. The Turing Halting Problem shows that computer algorithms cannot answer all questions. Reality is not algorithmic or specific; it’s chaotic and fuzzy.

If you doubt this, try to answer this simple question: what is the first real number after zero? The question has no answer (like the one about the sound of one hand clapping). No matter how many zeros you put in after the decimal point, there’s always room for one more.

So answering “no” to the first question still leaves lots of room for fun and thought. But a physical universe has no intrinsic meaning, which means life has no intrinsic meaning, which make it much harder to define a moral platform. Physics (and certainly chemistry) is interesting enough to get you out of bed each morning, but you have to try to forget that actually nothing you ever do will ever have any real meaning in the fullness of the universe.

On the other hand, if you believe there’s more to reality than physics, you can then ask yourself questions about what that meta-reality might be. Which brings us to the next question.

#2–Is there a God?

If there is a metaphysical reality of some sort, a natural next question might be whether there are metaphysical beings (or even just one). While it might be possible to accept the idea of a metaphysical reality of some sort, this question represents a jumping-off point for many. If the idea of a metaphysics is one giant leap, the idea of metaphysical entities is another.

According to most Christian religions, the metaphysical reality consists of a Heaven and a Hell (and for some a Limbo). Those places are inhabited by native beings (such as Angels or Demons) as well as the souls of former inhabitants of the physical reality. They are also inhabited by über-beings (God and Satan) who reign over their respective domains. And of course God is the Creator behind the whole thing; Satan is more of an acting CEO of his domain.

Other religions have different metaphysical realities and different beings, but most bear in common the formal idea of God(s) and of good versus evil. The details, customs and practices vary considerably, but all these have answered the first two questions with a “yes!”

But it is possible to believe in a spiritual metaphysics without believing in God(s). Buddhism, for example, is a metaphysical belief system that lacks a God (although it does have Devas and other metaphysical beings). And as with most successful religions, Buddhism has its variants. Some versions of it approach the idea of a metaphysical universe that just runs like a giant machine. (And, in fact, Buddhism does contain a giant wheel!)

Another example of a metaphysics without a Deity is “the Force” from the Star Wars movies. And even the Force, with its Good Side and Dark Side, embodies the idea of Good and Evil–that one characteristic so common in spiritual metaphysics. Many people who have a basically unstructured view of spirituality believe in something along the lines of the Force (or in some very stripped down version of Buddhism). The central view here is that we are all connected, are all morally equal, and that life matters for reasons beyond the physics.

There are other view that see a metaphysical reality, but see little or no spiritual element. There is the Platonic idea that reality is the imperfect expression of an underlying perfect mathematics. Math seems to describe reality in such eerily accurate ways that it begs the question of which is more real: the math or the reality. There is no such thing in real life as a perfect circle, but they are trivial in math. That physical reality lacks infinity and infinite points suggests a transcendence in math.

Or, perhaps, as in The Matrix, we’re all part of some sophisticated computer simulation. When we die we just wake up in the real reality (where once again we can ask the same three questions!). To make the simulation work, of course we are not allowed to know we’re part of a simulation. A more cruel version of this, like the Platonic idea, suggests we’re nothing more than algorithms running in a vast program, and we are no more real than is the answer to 2 + 2.

The point is not to assume that a metaphysical reality necessarily involves the God(s) of any religion or any God at all. This second question draws the distinction between the idea of a metaphysics and the idea of God(s). Those who believe in a purely physical universe got off at level one. Those who believe in a Deity-free metaphysical universe get off here at level two.

Which brings us to the third, most fantastic, question.

#3–Does God care about us?

For many, this may be the hardest question to answer with a “Yes.” It seems pretty easy (at least to me) to believe a metaphysics is possible (even likely). And it seems fantastic, but at least possible, that there could be a supernatural will behind existence. At the same time, I do understand the strong psychological reasons to assign that to wishful thinking. I will say that, for me, the probability seems vanishingly small, but is still non-zero, so I try to keep an open mind.

There is a sub-distinction we can make. Deists believe the universe was created with purpose and meaning by God(s). Theists go a step further in the belief that our daily lives are of interest to God(s). Theists believe that prayers are heard and acted upon, whereas deists believe prayer is only an exercise in meditation (which can certainly be of value to the one who prays, if not to anyone else).

I, for the most part, am a deist with strong agnostic leanings and the occasional dash of theist (which may well have more to do with my upbringing than reality).

The idea of a God that is concerned with our day-to-day lives seems beyond the fantastic. Yet this is exactly what many big religions say. That God is so powerful and omniscient as to be involved directly with our daily lives. Such a God hears prayer (and apparently frequently says “no”). Such a God seems to have such a vast and sweeping plan that considerable pain and misery is necessary to achieve the plan. Apparently, as in many movies, it all turns out all for the good in the end (at least for some).

The psychological reasons to consign God(s) to wishful thinking really kick in here. To the extent the universe is, or seems to be, blind and uncaring, even cruel, it is easy to see why the human mind would want to believe in a supernatural being with a master plan. It is easy to see why we so desperately want and need to be connected to something that is concerned about us.

The thing is there have been many times in my life when one explanation of events is that “God took care of me.” On the other hand, “coincidence” and “luck” are also possible explanations. So is the idea that life isn’t as bad for most people as the news and horror stories make it seem, and we all muddle through somehow. The thing that has intrigued me in my life is the nature and frequency of these “coincidences.”  It seems almost preposterous that it could be so, but until I see some proof one way or the other, I’m willing to leave it as an open question.  It would be illogical and unscientific to consider the matter settled.

In any event, as with all these questions, the answer is up to you to decide! Does God watch you, listen to you, adjust life for you in any way? If you say definitely not, then you get off here on the third level. You’ve climbed to the metaphysical level and further to a deist level, but this is your stopping point.

Which leaves the top level for Theists who’ve piled belief upon belief upon belief. And while it’s not an impossible proposition, it does require great faith. And if nothing else, perhaps that faith turns out to be important in the greater scheme of things.

I leave you with a final, question that applies to all levels:

#0–Is Your Faith Exclusive?

Given that any position you take and hold as true involves an element of faith, a reasonable question is whether your faith is the only correct view.

If you are hard-core atheist, are you absolutely convinced you are correct, or do you understand your view to be a matter of faith. Granted, science is consistent across time and space, but much is unexplained (and unexplainable). Do you leave room to doubt?

Likewise, if you believe in a spiritual path, do you see it as but one path up the mountain, or do you see it as the one true path. Are those on a similar journey up the same mountain, but who take a different path your kin or your enemies?


Existence and Consciousness

My recent post about how the Big Bang and “Let there be Light” seem equally fantastic to me triggered an interesting comment from a reader. A detailed response requires more elbow room than a comment allows, so here’s a follow-up article instead.

One of the points involved that our scientific ideas, no matter how inaccurate they may turn out to be, are at least based on evidence. And to the credit of science, when we recognize errors in our interpretation of the evidence, science changes to accommodate the new interpretation. This has been, as I mentioned in that post, hugely successful. One of the failures of our spiritual metaphysics is that it clings to frameworks defined thousands of years ago and often stubbornly refuses to accommodate new information.

However the idea that there is no evidence for the existence of God(s) seems wrong to me. There is the fact that the universe exists and the fact that we recognize and are aware of its existence. Existence and consciousness are daily experiences for us all, and they beg for some explanation. Yet for all its progress, science hasn’t answered those questions. One can argue it hasn’t even made much progress towards an answer. It has some guesses, but the more you study those guesses, the more you realize they are filled with assumptions (at least in the case of the Big Bang).

Continue reading


God: Universal Apprehension or Delusion?

One of the things that strikes me about the idea of God is how universal that idea is. To the best of my knowledge, every society in every age has had some sort of spiritual core belief.

I used to state this as the assertion that every society believed in some sort of god or gods, but it was pointed out to me that Buddhists don’t actually have a god. They do have some metaphysical entities, and more importantly, Buddhism is certainly a belief in a metaphysical reality that transcends this one.

So the question is: if humans universally find themselves finding God(s), what does this mean?

It would seem to mean one of two things: First, that there is some universal twitch in the human mind that invents the idea of god to account for the nature of existence. Alternately, it could mean that humans apprehend some aspect of reality (as we do justice and equality) that really does exist.

Atheists are quite clear on it being the former. Theists are equally clear on it being the latter.

So while physicists search for the absurdly named “God particle,” psychologists search the human mind for the “God circuit.” There has been some progress along these lines, and it may be that someday we will find God in our own minds. (That may, or may not, close the matter. Human belief is a powerful thing, and you mess with it at your possible peril.)

It may turn out that belief is a feature of evolution (wouldn’t that tweak the Creationists). It may turn out that we need the idea of god (if not the reality) in order to form working societies. Atheists like to point out that science is very useful, since it creates refrigerators, medicine, atomic bombs and potentially lethal bacteria. Religious belief is also useful to society, since it creates charity, social cohesion, inquisitions and crusades.

Particularly powerful swords, such as chain saws, gun powder, justice, love, television, science or religion, tend to have two edges. The key is in how you use (or misuse) them.

Michael Shermer has a new book out, The Believing Brain, that sounds interesting. I’m hoping he addresses some of the latest science on the mechanisms of belief (the first possibility that I mentioned above).

I have to be honest that I sometimes find Shermer as strident and insistent about his atheism as I do any religious fanatic. Certainty on this topic tends to repulse me regardless of from which side it comes. Both atheists and theists have a tendency to argue passionately that their beliefs must be correct. (I will give credit to atheists for–as far as I know–not actually killing anyone over it.)

But I am sometimes reminded of alcoholics and drug users who are also very insistent that you join them in their worldview and practice. Belief on the level of such certainty does sometime strike me as an addictive drug. One of the few things of which I’m certain is that little is certain (another of life’s ironies).

The thing is, both sides are matters of faith at this point. Atheists are just as hard-core in their belief in a specific worldview as theists. Only the nature of their Belief is different.

It seems interesting to me that we accept many universal human perceptions, but we argue so much over this one. That all humans (normally) see color or spacial relationships bothers no one. That so many societies have a perception of abstractions, such as Honor, Truth or Justice, also seems easy to accept.

But a perception of God drives atheists (and some scientists) crazy. That universal perception, they feel, must be wrong. Color and spacial relationships are testable and quantifiable, which accounts for their acceptance. Social abstractions are less so (in fact, many scientists look down on social sciences as not being True Science at all), but still aren’t the quagmire that belief seems to invoke.

With so much heat, it almost seems there has to be some fire here somewhere. When something is so compelling and universal, I think it begs for an explanation.

I want to close this with the observation that belief in a spiritual metaphysics and worldly religions are two very distinct topics.

I am not a fan of most worldly religions. To some extent, I consider the concept an oxymoron. A spiritual metaphysics is, pretty much by definition, not a worldly thing. These organizations that feed off our (putative) spiritual connections are just that: organizations. And they often suffer from the same flaws as any organization. They are run by flawed humans and often serve the primary purpose of surviving and growing.

[This is the second of a series of posts about spirituality. The first is Big Bang? Let there be Light?]


Big Bang? Let there be Light?

In an earlier post, I wrote that:

The problem for any honest theist is,
“What if it isn’t true?”
The problem for any honest atheist is,
“What if it is true?”

Ultimately both represent ways of looking at the universe. There is no factual conclusion, no proof, about either one; both are matters of faith and belief.  Science can argue all it wants that the Logic and Scientific Method is superior to believing in an ineffable reality, but given all we do know and all we don’t know, in the end it is still just a worldview.

Make no mistake. I am far more a scientist than a theist. (And to the extent I’m a theist, I’m far more a deist than theist, which means I can accept the idea of a Creator (or Creators), but I’m not too sure about the Presence of a Daily Hand. Specifically, I very much doubt that prayer is other than a form of personal meditation; I very much doubt Anyone is Listening.)

I do think Logic and the Scientific Method are far superior…

For some things. For many things. For many, many things.

But not for every thing.

It is a Yin to the Yang of what for now let’s just call meta-reality.

That science clearly works is amply demonstrated in everything from ships to radio to HD TV to robots on Mars. Math, a big part of science and logic, clearly also works (for many things, but not every thing).

Math describes so many aspects of life so well that it’s spooky. It forces the Plato and Aristotle distinction: Does math make reality; or did we just invent it so it describes reality.

Math is funny due to infinity (as in counting to) and infinite things (like how the digits of pi go on forever). The idea of an infinite collection of things, like hotel rooms, creates paradoxes, which suggests math is made up. And the simple ratio between a circle’s radius and rim creates a magic number that no math formula completely describes.

And yet, various maths do describe how reality behaves in eerily accurate fashion. The behavior of light, the path of a cannon ball, waves on the water; math describes them wonderfully well. Math is fascinating and cool, but I’ll leave that for another article.

The more I learn about the physics behind the Big Bang, the more it sounds just as fantastic as, “Let there be Light.” Or whatever world-creation myth or universe theory you prefer.  They all sound equally preposterous and equally fantastic to me. An age-old philosophical conundrum, “Brain in a Jar,” points out that it’s almost impossible to tell if this is the Matrix, Memorex or Reality.

It may sound preposterous that the universe was created as a conscious act of some kind by an incredibly powerful mind, but consider exactly what the Big Bang is.

Quantum physics has a well-established principle, called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It’s a law of physics, and it says that the more you narrow down certain aspects of reality, the more other aspects become not narrowed down. In fact, when you really crank on the narrowing down of one, the other property jumps all over the place. Seriously all over the place.

Two of these see-saw properties are space and energy. The more you narrow down space to a point, the more the energy value of that point jumps all over the place. If you narrow space down to a nearly infinitesimally small point, the energy can vary so much that it is statistically possible for it to be enough to make a Big Bang.

In this view, everything—you, the city around you, the earth, the sun, all the stars, all the galaxies, everything—is the result of a (wildly improbable, but possible) energy fluctuation of an infinitely small point. Einstein taught us that energy and matter are but two sides of one coin, so where you have a huge amount of energy, you can have a huge amount of matter. A whole universe of matter.

A question that occurs to me is that, against what background did this take place?  If spacetime was created by the Big Bang, if our laws of physics were created by the Big Bang, by what laws of physics, and in what environment, did the Big Bang occur?  If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to physics in our spacetime, does it equally apply to the non-spacetime before the Bang?

So take your pick. Math simulation, Matrix machines, created by God(s), quantum fluctuation, turtles all the way down.  They’re all preposterous; they’re all fantastic.

Believe anything that suits you, that seems right, but be honest that it might be something else.  No matter what you think it is; it might be something else.

Good general principle in life, actually.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 318 other followers