GOD IN SCIENCE

                 "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of  the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.  I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves... Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature." *

Albert Einstein 

* * *

The above quote by Einstein is as good an example of how many scientist might understand and accept the concept of God; in that the term God is used to identify "something impenetrable " but which  nevertheless is a manifestation of deep reasoning and awe inspiring beauty of the observable universe.   Like most scientists, Einstein did not believe in a personal God, who doles out punishments and rewards based on human conduct.  God represent the inscrutable, the unknown order that eternally manifests the order observed in nature.

While Einstein describes this as his religion, God is not the God of theistic religion that seeks a personal relationship with human beings.  God when used scientifically is not understood as a being separated from or above that which is, but rather stands as a verbal symbol/expression of all that is and presents a sharp contrast to the idea of God in theology. 

Scientifically, God is not concerned with the moral behavior of humans; in that, scientifically speaking, God's purpose does not engage in making judgements about human or universal activity.  This is not to say there are no laws by which the universe functions. It is that they are not concerned with moral behavior. God understood scientifically is all about the laws governing the existence of the universe, laws which we humans have merely scratched the surface of to uncover their meanings and role in our lives.     

* * *

In reading Kip Thorne's excellent book, "Black Holes and Time Warps," I was struck by how many times I ran across the word intuition as he talked about various physicists and the theories that resulted from their intuitions.  I wish I would have conducted a word count on "intuition" because inevitably the progress we see in astrophysics and in quantum mechanics, according to Thorne,  is the result of a series of intuitive moments in which these intuitive experiences by various scientists build upon each other scientists that are often triggered by mundane experiences that sparked an intuitive insight that prompted them to the math to validate the value of such intuitive moments.

The difference between use of God in science and God in religion is the difference that lies between  intuition and inspiration.  Whereas inspiration in religious circles comes from without as a revelation given by a divine source, intuition comes from within as the result of an insight sparked by a mundane (natural) encounter that triggers a new understanding of nature itself.   For example, Newton's legendary falling apple and Einstein's childhood encounter with a compass prompted both to new insights into the laws of gravity. 

One cannot nor should not underestimate the tremendous effects the efforts of physicists and other scientist in the last century has and continues to have on our lives.  With each new discovery we not only understand the universe in which we live, the planet we live on, and more importantly the universe we embody within ourselves.  Medicine is merely one area that has been greatly enhance by a deeper understanding of our universe and the quantum mechanics at works in our very bodies.

* * *

God in religion is always resides in the forefront of human perspective as revelation, whereas God in science resides in the unknowable background of existence.  God in religion provides an unquestionable  theological answer to why we exist.  As such, the common believer knows only that which is deemed necessary to ensure some afterlife and is largely discouraged from questioning the causes of one's existence.  

The concept of God in science, on the other hand,  is set aside in order to understand the workings of the universe in both a macrocosmic and microcosmic sense.  Science has yet to answer why we or anything exist.  For the most part,  scientist are content in not having answers to the question they encounter, which serves as the impetus to pursue what can be revealed through intuition and theoretical discovery.  Science are for the most part content with uncertainty, whereas theistic religion tends to see uncertainty as a lack of faith.  Faith in theism is in the certitude of God's existence.  Faith in science is in the ability of humans to learn and discover the mysteries of the universe we live in and the universe that resides in our being.

* * * 

Perhaps this is the difference between the pursuits of theistic religion and science that comes down to punctuation marks.  God in religion is expressed by an ! that represents certitude; whereas, God in science is expressed by a ?that represents uncertainty. 

* * *

I understand and appreciate the atheistic repulsion towards the idea of a personal God who looks like and acts like us and judges us according to our sense of moral behavior.  I also, like  most atheists, marvel and express awe and wonder at the heights and depths of the universe we are part of speaks, as Einstein put it, to a religious sense of an, as yet, incomprehensible God-like order that is discoverable through human intuition supported by mathematical hypothesis and theoretical application.  

As such, I embrace my own agnosticism and am more comfortable with God as expressed as a ?.  

In addition, while I find the term, God, to be problematic, my own intuition based on personal experiences prevents me from discounting an intuition of something residing in my life and indeed the life that surrounds me that speaks of there being more to life we all experience; something indefinable in itself, something paradoxical, and yet, at some level of our existence, gives meaning to our being.

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm 

* Quote taken from "Einstein's God" by Krista Tippett, (c) 2010, Penguin Books LTD, 80 Strand, London, England. pg.16

GOD IN RELIGION

When thinking of God and religion, what come to my mind is the God of Abraham.  To identify God as the God of Abraham is somewhat misleading because, as mention in my last post, the term God defies definition.  The God of Abraham, the version of God referenced in the Holy Bible. is being used  because it is the concept of God, I know best.   

Not every religion thinks of God as the God of Abraham, but three religions do: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  Theistic religion existed long before God called Abraham to go on a journey to a promised land that Abraham would never see realized in his lifetime, nor in the lifetimes of his two sons, their children and their children's children's and their children in the following 400 years, during which time, they mostly resided in Egypt. 

The God of Abraham is also the God of Moses, the God of Jesus, and the God of  Mohammed.  In the story of the burning bush (Exodus 3), God commissions Moses to return to Egypt and ask Pharaoh to release the enslaved Israelites.  Moses, being more than a bit apprehensive about returning to a land where he was wanted as a murderer, asks God, "Who shall I say is sending me?"  To which God cryptically responds, "I am who (that, which) I am.  Tell them (the Israelites) 'I am" is sending you."  

The Hebrew derivative of the this phrase is "Yahweh" is equally cryptic since, like "I am," it is linked to the verb "to be."  As the name of God, Israelites were forbidden to say it, substituting the word "Lord"  when speaking of Yahweh.  "God is" is very close to the non-descriptive concept of Einstein's use of "God" which I understand to be a metaphor for the ultimate Theory of Everything being sought by physicists.

* * *

In Genesis 4, we encounter the first religious acts recorded in the Bible.  The story of Cain and Abel identifies sacrifice as the first religious rite directed at appeasing God.  We don't don't know why Cain or Abel decided to offer sacrifices to God.  There is no mention of God requiring a sacrifice at this juncture in the biblical narrative, which likely means that the authors of Genesis didn't think it was necessary to talk about an origin of something they saw  as a necessity blood sacrifices were apparently deemed more appeasing than offerings of produce like wheat and barely.  

The most demanding and severe religious rite we know of at the time of Abraham was offering  a blood sacrifice of one's child as the gods or God would command.  So when God commands that Abraham sacrifices his only heir, Abraham obeys and takes Isaac to a mountain top to sacrifice him.  As Abraham is about to do so, an angel of God stops him and, finding a ram, Abraham offers the ram instead.  

Sacrifice is at the center of all religions as an act of submission to the will God (or the gods) even to this day.  This sacrificial sense of appeal and appeasement of a divine entity or entities is alive and well today, even though human sacrifice has been taken of the table in a legal sense, although it remains symbolically alive in Christianity.  Perhaps the most famous human sacrifice of all is that of Jesus of Nazareth, whose crucifixion by the Romans is considered by Christians as a sacrifice to atone (pay the price ) of humanity's sins.  The Sacrifice of the Mass (the rite of Holy Communion) in Christianity is considered a re-enactment of Jesus Christ's original sacrifice.  

Religion provides the basis for the moral paradigms that regulate or gives a sense of order to the lives of its followers.  The God of Abraham, for example, creates a covenantal relationship with Abram.  As such, God renames Abram to Abraham.   Then, in order to establish a religion, a binding covenantal relationship marked by ritual, God demands that every male in Abraham's service is circumcised.   The idea of circumcision obviously predated this event in Genesis  and was adopted to indicate that the household of Abraham, the tribe, had its own God. Again we see a form of blood sacrifice was required  to seal the deal.  

* * *

Theistic religions, as a whole, are associated with the acquisition of power through appeal and appeasement of a divine source.  Hence, the authority of rulers is rooted in religion and remains so to this day.  Even in secular governments and societies, the trappings of religion remain alive and well.  Sacrifice is still required to appease, if not a divine god then a god-like state.  The correlation between religion and the state is strong.  A patriotic allegiance to God and Country are virtually indistinguishable. 

The God of religion, above all else, is malleable.  That is why there are so many theistic religions in existence today.   A much quoted saying regarding religion attributed to Seneca states,  "Religion is true to the common person, false to the wise, and useful to the powerful."Religion is often coopted by leaders of a given state to exercise control of its citizens.

I find there is demonstrable truth to this statement being exhibited in the rise of religion-based nationalism throughout the world.  This is particularly evident in the rise of Christian Nationalism within the United States where God has been enlisted to serve the MAGA movement in portraying its candidate in the upcoming Presidential election, Donald Trump, as chosen by God to be elected president during the national election in November of this year.    

Of course the only people who will be impacted by such a prophetic prediction are those who are ardent Christian supporters of Mr. Trump.  If he wins, it will confirm the prediction.  If he loses, it will be (in the minds of his ardent supporters) because of a lack of faith in God, which is how ardent fundamentalism works in every religion; the prophetic prediction is never wrong, the people are.  

The wise are always in short supply, while the "ardent believer" is not hard to find and is there for the picking by an authoritarian who can plug into their blind trust in the authority of an apparent "strongman."  Such is the malleability of religion and the fickleness of the human mind.  

* * *

By in large, theistic religions don't encourage critical thinking.  Establishing an indoctrinated identity is the mode by which most theistic religions generally operate.  Like Abraham never being able to realize the promise of a Promised Land in his lifetime,  most theistic religions do not hold the promise of a promise land, a Nirvana, a heaven (or a hell) in this life.  Rather, they engage in a wait and see approach that depends  on whether a person merits some form of an afterlife or in many cases will be sent to a paradise or to a hell.  Theistic religion rarely allows for the possibility that we humans are capable of solving this world's (our) problems by addressing the evil or sin we create.  Instead, we are encouraged to defer to God and await a final judgment.

Raised an indoctrinated Christian, I understand the gravitational pull this has on one's life.  The promise of salvation based on believing in Jesus Christ dying for my and every other person's sins is mitigated by a host of "if, ands, and buts." The idea the some people are predestined to be saved while others, as the Gospel of John 3:18 puts it are "condemned already" because they don't believe promotes a sense of helplessness and hopelessness.   What an odd verse that is because, if people  are condemned already, what chance is it that they could ever believe and be saved?  There is no wiggle room in that declaration.  I personally do not believe Jesus said anything like that.   Such a statement is pure theological speculation, but it makes one wonder how many people have gone through life feeling condemned and hopeless because of it.  

Jesus' understanding of God was that of God being a loving father, and not just his father, but the Father of every living thing.  Jesus' teachings exhibits God's love for all creation, and in that love we humans have it within us the power of God to heal the world; that the Kingdom of God which he proclaimed  is attainable in this life if we would reach for it.  

* * *

For centuries, theistic religion was used by civil authorities as the purveyor of moral conduct which would ultimately carry out justice on the good and the evil.  Hope in the promise of an eternal life in some sort of paradise is the spiritual currency that has kept and keeps theism alive and well today, but this currency is losing value in an increasingly secular world; especially, when the moral leadership associated with theism is increasingly subject to scrutiny that frequently reveals a streak of hypocritical behavior within its ranks.

I am not suggesting that theistic religion will go away or that it should go away, but it could go away or be reduced to a cultic artifact as a primitive ideology.  The fact is people tend to be religious.   People need other people, which is the primary impulse to be religious.  

* * *

The concept of an indefinable God is not likely to go away.  I would suggest that what keeps the idea of God alive is its indefinability in search of a definition.  It is this indefinable property of God that keeps the term God relevant in our world.  God as the indefinable source and the metaphorical term for the Theory of Everything gives it a broad appeal in our search for meaning.  Theistic religion is slow to catch up with the reality that scientific discoveries necessitates a revision of its theologies.  What is becoming obvious is that it is not science that is playing at being God, but rather it is theistic religion that believes it speaks for God.

In my next post, I will examine the topic of GOD IN SCIENCE.

* * *

Until next time, stay faithful.

Norm