Posted by Michael on March 16, 2009 at 15:12:27:
On Origins
The debate on origins is often an interesting one. When one starts researching this topic, one finds that there are quite a few different ideas and philosophies on the origin of the universe, and also on the origin and progression of life itself. The individuals that promote their philosophies on this topic are usually very passionate about their particular idea, often to the point of becoming overtly hostile to anyone that exhibits an alternative view. I have often seen, heard and once or twice even participated in heated arguments on a myriad of topics that relate in one way or another to the origin or progression of the cosmos, the planet, life itself and also humans. If one remains objective, a discussion about origins does not ever need to become an argument. After all, in discussing origins we are not really busy doing anything of immediate importance. We are not solving world hunger or global warming. It is usually just the bouncing of ideas between two people who, more often than not, don’t know half as much about the topic as they’d like to admit. However, not many people are able to remain objective. The lack of objectivity is usually because it is very difficult to separate one’s ideas on origins with one’s religious beliefs or lack thereof. The question inevitably arises whether the universe was always there or if the universe had an origin. The next logical question is then whether the universe came into existence by itself or if it was created. Thus, the debate on origins often becomes in essence a debate on the existence of God. When this transition is made in a conversation, when people start talking about God and their beliefs, rational arguments are often put aside in favor of some ideas that some might consider ridiculous or extreme. I am certain, however, that such discussions do not need to deteriorate into degrading mockery or open ridicule. If it does, it usually means a lack of understanding on the part of one or more parties involved, or a lack of respect, or both. Now with regards to the existence of God, there are two options. Either He exists or He does not. There is no midway on this issue. Therefore, whatever your personal view is on this, statistically you have a 50% chance of being right. If you are right, then it is too bad for the other guy and if you are wrong, then it is too bad for you. Now here is an interesting fact. It is not possible for you to objectively prove or disprove the existence of God with any form of intellectual or theoretical ammo at your disposal. This is true of scientific arguments and religious arguments. To illustrate this, let us start with science. Assume God does not exist. If this assumption is true, then proving His existence is obviously impossible. Proving His non existence would unfortunately also be nearly impossible, because you would be trying to prove the non existence of something that was not part of the existing universe. It is hard enough to disprove something that may be part of the known universe. For example it is theoretically possible that there exists intelligent life somewhere else in the universe, but until we have explored every nook and cranny in search of it, it is impossible to say for certain whether or not it exists. Considering that the comparatively simple task of the complete exploration of our own solar system will not be achieved anywhere in the foreseeable future, it is quite safe to say that we will never know the answer to this comparatively simple question. Similarly, if we assume that God does exist, then proving His non existence would be impossible, but proving His existence would be nearly just as difficult, because once again we would be trying to prove the existence of something that is not part of the universe. If He does exist, he exists outside of the observable universe. In the same way that the builder of a house is not part of the house himself, God, as the Creator of the universe, cannot be part of the universe. He would be outside the universe. If that is the case then proving His existence would literally be impossible for anyone in the universe, because you can’t prove the existence of something that exists outside of space and time, because it is all we know and can perceive. The only one who can prove His existence is God Himself, if He chose to reveal Himself to us through the barriers of space and time, or indeed space-time, as the clever ones seem to be calling it nowadays. So we are in a slight pickle. Therefore, anyone who has one opinion on the existence of God and ridicules another person for having the opposite opinion, is either unaware of the above mentioned difficulties, or he seriously overestimates the value if his opinion. Either way, respect for an individual of this nature dwindles rather briskly because it is difficult to respect an ignorant or arrogant person. Now in the light of this, there is some good news and some bad news. The bad news is each individual has to decide for him or herself, whether or not God, if he does exist, has indeed revealed Himself to us in any way or form through the barrier of space-time. The good news is that we don’t have to worry that our religious views or lack thereof is in any danger of being altered in the discussion about the natural universe. Science, in all its branches, as the study of the natural universe, cannot address an issue outside the universe. Therefore we do not have to fear science as a possible challenge to our religious views. Whatever is discovered through application of the scientific method can only further our knowledge of the universe itself, not anything beyond. So the hardcore atheist doesn’t have to worry that the absence of the missing links will prove the existence of God and similarly the religious person doesn’t have to worry that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life will disprove the existence of God. Ultimately it will always boil down to one’s personal belief. Now this could either make you feel better or worse depending on your particular point of view. All the atheists and agnostics out there so desperately trying to disprove God’s existence through furthering their knowledge of evolution, will, unfortunately for them, never achieve their goal. Maybe this is why some of them become so increasingly hostile towards religious people. Those who do believe in a Creator God, on the other hand, will never be able to prove His existence to others by means of a fundamentally scientific argument. This is probably why faith in God is regarded by many religious people as a divine gift. Since many religious people consider it their spiritual duty to try and convince others of their beliefs, or at least the fundamentals of their belief system, this may come to them as somewhat distressing information. So, what about religious arguments? Religious arguments are in essence very often not overly scientific and because of this, they are often rejected off hand by many. This may not be wise, because not all unscientifically derived information is necessarily untrue. Many religious arguments are based on some form of written scripture. These were handed down from generation to generation over centuries. While it is not unwise to question a written document, regardless of its age, I believe it is very unwise to reject a piece of written work without knowing and understanding its content. Consider the fact that religious scriptures, such as the bible, were delivered to us by innumerable people over many generations, who each thought it important enough to pass along to future generations, often at great personal cost. I think it would indeed be very unwise for any individual to disregard this work without thorough investigation. Having said that, does the bible prove the existence of God? Yes, but only if its words are true. So are they? Even though there is a lot of circumstantial archeological and corroborative written historic evidence to support many of the characters and events described in the bible, many of the stories that are told in the bible are exceedingly difficult for us to prove. Add to this the fact that many of these stories involve the active participation of God, as well as many scientifically unexplainable events. It is therefore understandable that the authenticity of many of the described events in the bible is questioned by many. So the bible would prove the existence of God if we new beyond any doubt that it was true, but we need an independent reliable eyewitness to verify every story in the bible for it to be true. Considering that the only eyewitness independent and reliable enough to verify the entire bible is God himself, we are once again left with a problem. Some people believe that God verifies the bible in the person of Jesus Christ and that Jesus and the bible is the way in which God revealed Himself to us through the barrier of space-time, but this once again requires faith. Even though I’m presenting these ideas in a slightly circumlocutive fashion, I’m quite certain I’m not saying anything you didn’t already know. I mean, surely if the existence of God was easy to prove, we would have done so a long time ago. The question that follows now is why some people are so convinced of their particular point of view, despite the apparent lack of empirical evidence. If we can’t empirically disprove each other’s beliefs, why do we still try so hard to do so by other means, for example by speaking louder? In the case of the religious person, the motivation is relatively easy to understand, because for many of them it is considered a part of their religious duty. For the non religious person, the motivation seems less clear, because what their neighbor believes would be of no consequence to them either way. Maybe they just don’t want to be alone in their views. Whatever your beliefs are, however, it is fundamentally important that you are allowed to have them and that you are not discriminated against or ridiculed because of them. This is a very important part of a free society. As long as your religious views do not negatively impact on the basic rights of your fellow man, it should be respected. However, this is not a discussion on religious ethics.
So in light of the above, let us consider evolutionary theory for a moment. As far as the progression of life goes, there seems to be evidence that life forms have changed over time. Since these changes must have taken place over millions of years to account for the complexity and diversity of life by means of a naturalistic process, it is not possible to observe evolution in action. However, there is good circumstantial evidence to support many aspects of evolutionary theory. There are many gaps to be filled in the theory, for example the origin of life itself, the nature of the original life form, the transition to multicellularity, the mechanism and reason for the diversion of life into plants and animals, the evolution of different species, the evolution of things like the central nervous system and the eye, to name a few. In short, evolutionary theory has a long way to go, no matter how you look at it. Now on each of these gaps, volumes could be and I’m sure have indeed been written, but the content is immaterial. Whether or not there are plausible explanations for these gaps or not, the opposing views will always be the same. The religious person will always see the hand of God in the gaps that remain, while the non religious person will probably always be of opinion that that particular gap has just not as yet been adequately explained, but we will get there some day. Both, however, stand the chance of being disappointed. For the non believer, someday may never come, but this will probably not distress them too much, because they assume they have all the time in the world. If, on the other hand, it turns out that the fossil of the common ancestor of all life is found and all the mechanisms and steps of its evolution to human beings and all other life forms are eventually satisfactorily explained, by means of a naturalistic process, the religious person’s views may be shaken. Even if this does one day turn out to be the case, the question remains: Would this discovery disprove the existence of God. The answer is quite simply no. It could still be the way in which God chose to create the universe and life and even human beings. What I am thus trying to illustrate with this brief look into the possible future is that the current heated debates on these issues are in fact entirely unnecessary. The non believers really should abandon their condescending general attitudes towards believers on these issues and just leave them to harbor their “unscientific” ideas, seeing as it doesn’t really affect them in any negative way. Conversely, the believer should not try to convince the non believer by means of any scientific argument, but rather by spiritual testimony and by being a witness to God’s work in your own life. One important fact that must not be forgotten, however is that the question of God’s existence will one day be answered for certain, either in the negative by man’s own inventiveness (this being exceedingly unlikely in light of the above mentioned problems) or in the positive by God’s own revelation. If God is not, the universe would be that much the poorer. If God is, I hope your views are correct. And yes, if He does exist, there most likely are correct views, but that’s a story for another time. As for myself, I strongly believe that God does exist. The reasons I have are many, but few of them are likely to be satisfactory to the skeptic. The most recent one that I can think of is that I believe that God has led me to understand that I do not have to fear death. Even though this concept is a scriptural truth, to which all who adhere to the bible will testify, I believe this has been revealed to me individually through my personal life experience. The culmination of all the intricate events in my life that ultimately led me to this experiential understanding, cannot (for me at least) be explained by any other means than the hand of God in my life. Now the skeptic may scoff at this view, but as I explained before, this only reveals ignorance and arrogance. If losing your fear of death is of any importance to you, I suggest you take up the search for God. I believe He can be found very easily. Proving His existence may not be so difficult after all.