By: Ryan Kohlsdorf
Religion has always been the means for a controversial dinner table conversation. In fact, at any social gathering you are assured to spark heated debate simply by its mention. However, in recent times it has become increasingly attractive to debunk and deny religious doctrines, and rightly so. With the advents and advances in contemporary scientific fields, the idea of God has become less and less appealing. The atheist’s argument has become a cultural symbol of the educated man (or woman’s) integrity. The view that the two can coexist seems continually diminished. No doubt a number of prevalent religious views have been threatened by our empirical institutions and most literal, anthropomorphic views have been severely undermined. However, the case has not yet been closed. In fact, with new research, the case for a Creator is still wide open.
Atheism, as mentioned, has become a cultural stronghold, a symbol representing the enlightenment of scientific knowledge and the abolition of faith-based belief structures. This is unquestionably a virtuous stance. If we are going to establish a framework of knowledge that is anyway consistent or verifiable we will need a method that appeals to reason and empirical validity. Most critiques of religion often begin with historical anecdotes about the creation of the universe. These often come in the form of proof of dinosaurs and other organisms that predate the Judeo-Christian theories about the origins of life, the world, and the universe. Secondly, atheists elucidate the impossibility of the universal formation based on the theological conditions and claims in the Old Testament. These are facts that simply must be accepted and the atheist has a verifiably strong case that these dimensional claims are outdated, impossible, and have been proven otherwise.
Next, there is a claim from many religious people that God is some kind of human like being that lives in the celestial realms above us. Not only does this claim lack orientational validity (there is no up or down in the celestial regions) but also physical impossibility–there have been no other planets found in our nearby galaxies that are suitable for human life. It seems that if we truly accept the doctrines of science, this view must also be cast aside. Perhaps it’s helpful to remember Nietzsche’s reminder about the nature of the world:
The astral order in which we live is an exception; this order and the relative duration that depends on it have again made possible an exception of exceptions: the formation of the organic. The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity chaos– in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, beauty, form, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms. (Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 109)
In consistency with this view, none of our aesthetic or anthropomorphic views knit neatly with the universe and we are continually baffled by its spectacular arrangement. We are talking about a world which departs from our anthropomorphic perspective. If we are to assess it accurately, we must remember that the universe is most often not like us, not made in God’s (or our) image.
Though the case at this juncture does not appear strong for the theologically minded, there are always advocates who endorse these outdated views and unfortuantely many of those individuals directly influence our politics and scientific pursuits, invalidating modes of social and scientific trajectories by claiming they are against the will of God. This is not only a slander to science and the “miraculous” deeds it has accomplished but also ignorant and unfair. The majority of our modern conveniences can be traced directly to the pursuit of science in all of its many facets.
Unfortunately, carrying this argument indefinitely is also farcical. Assuming atheism merely because contemporary theories display contrary evidence to ancient thought systems is by no means a full disproof of God. In fact, it is highly possible there is a god, maybe not an anthropomorphic god, or even a personal god. It could very well be the case that god is merely the coherence we find in physical law, the very thread that holds the universe together. In fact, Einstein, one of the greatest physicists in history urged the world when confronted with quantum physics that, “God does not play dice,” a sure indication that he was reluctant to endorse a view in which the universe is merely an absurd particle dance. Perhaps then our views of god are extremely outdated, both in the religious fanatic’s eye as well as the atheist’s.
Isn’t the assumption that god must be the way he is depicted in ancient scriptures a very infantile view? Need the architect of the universe be merely human-like? No. In fact, a close inquiry into the scientific paradigm provides us with a number of fascinating arguments that at best mystify the scientific mind. The intricacy of cellular process, the mysterious link between biology and chemistry, and, from a larger scale, the vast amount of space that is the universe all seem to be pretty mysterious to have “just happened.” Hopefully there is room in our contemporary scientific models for us to at least consider the possibility of a creational or life-giving force, or at least one that fully acknowledges the great mysteries of life.
Historically speaking many great physicists were spiritual believers. Newton was an alchemist and hermeticist. Einstein was a believer in some kind of higher power, and the list continues. The views are not incompatible but we must be willing to step forward and admit when we have been wrong both historically and presently. The case is not closed for a creator, but the Judeo-Christian stance as well as other Genesis stories and cosmologies have been severely discredited.
The Dalai Lama has been an admirable figure in this reproach, acknowledging shortcomings of traditional cosmologies in light of contemporary science and I hope the churches will take similar steps. If we can make any case whatsoever for the existence of god, it will be through exploring the empirical world and understanding its mysteries. As we begin to do so, it is possible that we can approach the light at the end of the tunnel.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Read another article from this author —-> Shaman
It's Got the Whole World With No Hands: Atheism and the Contemporary Scientific Worldview,
TJ
1 Apr 2012Do you stand with science, spirituality and/or religion? Why or why not?
Philosophical conversations with this author inspired the idea of Taboo Jive.
Linda
1 Apr 2012Science and no, not spiritual.
Oberon
1 Apr 2012Both. I prefer spirituality over religion.
Julia
1 Apr 2012Definitely Science.
Betti
1 Apr 2012Science of course and nope, feeling spriritual would have to make one believe in some sort of god in my opinion.
John
1 Apr 2012Science and religion (or spirituality if you will) in no way have to be mutally exclusive.
Xander
1 Apr 2012Science, and the spirituality that comes from acknowledging the awe-inspiringly complex universe we are part of.
Coti
1 Apr 2012The fact that anyone believes they have to support only one school of thought is beyond me.
Genin
1 Apr 2012I have read Laurie Cabot’s Books and she mentions Science a few times. I would go with Science and Spirituality.
Jacqui
1 Apr 2012Science with a deep sense of purposeful Soul-fulness. I am more than the sum of my biological and physiological parts. Whatever I am a manifestation of, Science or Spiritual or Both, I consider myself no greater than the tree outside and no less than the possible creator – connected to every other living creature on this planet.
Garry
1 Apr 2012I stand with Science. But I also follow my own Spirituality. They are not conflicting. But Religion is a joke! A fascism that the world no longer needs. We’ve known it is wrong to steal, lie and kill LONG before some beardy sky-man told some old Hebrew that it was so. We didn’t need stone tablets. We knew in our hearts it was wrong. We’ve always known. Whether we choose to follow it is a different story, however.
EinsteinLite
4 Apr 2012Nice article Ryan.
It should be noted that the god of what is, is called pantheism. This is a valid philosophy for rationalists.
In an infinite multiverse, there is no need for a creator, as I stated in one of my articles.
I must take exception to your statement on Einstein. Einstein followed Spinoza’s god as he stated, which is also nothing other than pantheism. He has no need for anything behind what is manifest.
Luckily, the four Horseman have given religion a good thrashing. Let’s hope it continues…
Ryan
4 Apr 2012Hello everyone. Thanks for all of your comments. Its great to know that this has been provoking thought. I would like to respond to EinsteinLite:
Firstly, thank you for bringing this up.
What I was describing was essentially pantheism and it is very keen of you to notice that this deserves mention. Pantheism is in fact consistent with most phsysical approaches and Einstein was certainly an endorsement to that view. I hope I didn’t create too much cofusion in this regard: Einstein was a pantheist and a follower of Spinoza. However, my reference of Einstein was more of a base touch to confirm that he held a belief in God (albeit Spinoza’s God and the necessity apparent in a mechanical universe). Secondly, I am reluctant to personally support the mechanical view of the universe wholeheartedly. There are a number of physicsal anomalies, particularly at the quantum level of existence as well as the light particle duality, which forces those notions to be put under question. Furthermore, with these brief critiques in mind, I am reluctant to endorse any contemporary view, even a scientific one. It could very well be the case that there are a number of other views, perhaps ones unthought of at this point, that could also be the case. I simply wanted to leave the case open for those as well rather than to fully endorse the pantheistic viewpoint. That being said, your critique is fair and I should have mentioned something about pantheism and Spinoza as these are also relevant pieces of information and I applaud you for pulling that to my attention. Also, your article on ‘Gods not Great’ was exemplary, well written and offers a great deal of pertinent information to the conversation at hand. Thanks again
EinsteinLite
5 Apr 2012Thank you Ryan, for your thoughtful response. I basically agree with your positions. I expect there is much to be learned in science as well as philosophy. Panentheism is a step up from Pantheism and adds meaning to the universe. I find it a very compelling philosophy. I like your points about quanta and light duality also. Metaphysics is something I very much like to discuss. I must be off now but I expect this conversation to continue. Oh, by the way, thanks for the compliment on ‘god is not great’, a real face-slap of a book…
Pingback: The Devolution from Hunter Gatherers to Consumer Culture: We No Longer Live Life, We Consume It