“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
–Psalm 14:1
Sooner or later, every person has to make one very basic, but profound, decision that will significantly impact his life’s path. Does he believe that the Universe has a Creator? Or does he believe that the Universe is random and organized itself by chance? While people on either side of this line think those on the other side are ridiculous and foolish, I decided I was firmly on the side of “Creator” rather than “Chance.”
Now, I’m not saying I don’t believe in science. I do not believe religion and science are mutually exclusive whatsoever! I would consider myself a very educated individual and over the course of my education I learned all kinds of amazing and wonderful scientific principles! However, when it comes down to beginnings everyone has their own form of faith. Some believe that some unknown catalyst caused everything to form from nothing. Some believe that, given enough time, nothingness becomes “somethingness”, and that chaos becomes order. I, however, believe that this world provides undeniable proof of intelligent design. I believe this universe began with a supernatural spark---Creation.
All I have to do to come to this conclusion is ponder the complexities of this universe. I do not believe in a Creator because I am uneducated or dull—but rather, it is because I am so deeply informed on the intricacies of life that I know in my heart, without a doubt, that our Universe required an Intelligent Inventor to design the world with purpose.
Similar examples have been used before, but I believe they are apt illustrations for this concept: imagine a watch and all its intricate parts. Imagine the little springs and coils, gears and knobs. Think about how carefully every teeny part needs to fit together perfectly in order for that watch to spring to life and count time with accuracy. Now, imagine that I've given you a bag filled all the necessary parts to make a watch and I told you to shake the bag vigorously until the parts happen to—by chance—fall into place perfectly and become a working watch. Impossible, you say? I think so! Even if I gave you the benefit of millions, or even trillions, of years to keep shaking that bag—I think you would be hard-pressed to get those pieces to fall together into the right spots by chance! And, furthermore, even if you did get those pieces to fall together by chance, we’re still missing a key detail—those watch parts were not formed from nothing! Those parts required the work of a skilled craftsman to create!
In my mind, it just makes sense that this world and Universe had Someone overseeing its design. The only way nothing becomes something is by supernatural means. If any of us traces our thoughts back far enough, we’ll come to realize that any belief system requires a leap of faith. I believe in a God I cannot see. Scientists believe in a catalyst they cannot prove that somehow turns nothing into something, and creatures into completely new creatures. Either way there is something inexplicable that requires belief despite a lack of proof.
What do you believe? Why?
**This was part 2 of 7 in the "Why Believe" series. I would encourage you to read the complete series!
What do you believe? Why?
**This was part 2 of 7 in the "Why Believe" series. I would encourage you to read the complete series!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.I will just say that although we could disagree on a lot of points, I’m thankful for the dialog and I don’t want disagreement to be misread for condescension by either person. I just enjoy discussions.
ReplyDelete“Now, I’m not saying I don’t believe in science..."
I think everyone has to at least say they believe in science because of how obvious its power for discovery is and the very intricate knowledge of physics which allow us to send robots to Mars.
I’m not quite sure what believing in science means though. I think it is more important to understand why science works, not simply believing the knowledge that comes from it. Science is a critical way of examining the world. It is the acknowledgement of how prone to being wrong humans are and the attempt to try and put in as many checks and balances as possible. Do not trust authority, investigate reality, attempt to prove yourself wrong, throwing out bad ideas if they do not check out experimentally. It is about looking at the data, attempting to explain it, then attempting to prove it all wrong. Then it is about explaining to others, your methods and what you tried, so that others can see if there was a mistake somewhere. So while it is true that religious people can be scientists and scientists can be religious or spiritual the actual methods by which data is interpreted or the pursuit of truth is carried out are quite different.
Watchmaker Analogy
I’m curious what resources you have looked at for this subject. William Paley’s “watch maker” argument has been tackled by a lot of authors, speakers, philosophers, and scientists. If their counter arguments aren’t convincing, I’m curious why?
"Those parts required the work of a skilled craftsman to create!"
Do they? Well of course these specific cogs and gears and springs do. We don’t know that simply by fiat though. We know that because we know how watches actually work and are made. Any watch that we know of does have to have a watchmaker because that is how watches are made. The analogy could hold true if each time life was created it was created by humans as the skilled craftsman. However that is not what is observed about life at all. Life plays out all its drama on its own without any skilled craftspeople or overseers that we can observe. It might be intuitive to say that because we know that people can create complex things that no other process can; unless it is [insert god]
All I have to do to come to this conclusion is ponder the complexities..."
The way you came to this conclusion was through some pondering? Do you think it is a little odd that with some pondering you came to the same conclusion you were (I'm assuming here) raised to believe? I think that trying to seriously consider our origins and the facts about the reality of our universe requires a much closer look at what nature actually does through experimentation and science rather than introspection and early 19th century theology. It seems like the idea of science and knowledge are appealing but the actual methods by which science progresses are being disregarded.
"I believe in a God I cannot see. Scientists believe in..."
You did not come to this belief by an independent inquiry through rigorous research, fact checking and well, science. Nor did your predecessors who carried on the same tradition. Just because there are two competing claims does not mean the likelihood of both is therefore 50/50. It means there are two possibilities with a range of likelihoods based on the evidence. Is this also presuming that the likelihood of a Christian creator is the only option on the table?
What do you believe? Why?
I believe that this is a brief point in the long history of our planet and overall story. I believe that we have learned some incredible things so far and we would be shocked to learn what is in store. I also believe that if any person believes they know something 100% with their heart, it’s a red flag for looking at any issue critically.
Thanks for the chat.
Mike,
DeleteThank you for your response! You have some interesting ideas that I’d like to respond to. I appreciate your respectful approach… I’m so glad to be able to have a civil debate!
First, I try to keep my posts simple and straightforward for the sake of brevity and clarity, so I do realize that they sometimes come across as overly simplistic. My attempt in this post is not to scientifically prove God, as we both know that would be impossible and the term “faith” would be irrelevant. My approach, rather, was to point out that both religion and science require some element of faith. The foundation of science is theory. Some of those theories are tested and proven, however many are not and remain just that—theories: reasonable ideas that people put their belief in. It is in this vein that I say I believe religion is just as reasonable to believe in, as the origins of our universe are anybody’s guess. To me, an Intelligent Design makes more sense than Chance because of the intricacies of even the simplest of organisms in our world. The analogy’s purpose isn’t to prove that a watch couldn’t come together, but rather that something with innumerable “parts” coming together at the perfect time, in the perfect place, to work perfectly begs orchestration (at least in my mind). Our world is a world of order and rules. Your belief says those rules developed on their own over time, my belief says those rules were put into place. When it comes down to the very basics, neither of us knows for sure how matter or energy came into being, but we both have our theories.
Do I think it’s odd that I came to the same conclusion that I was raised in? No, not really. There are many, many things that I believe that I was raised to believe. That doesn’t mean I believe them unquestionably. My parents also told me that the sky is blue, the stove is hot, and that lying is wrong. I tested and pondered these things for myself and came to the same conclusion as they did. Is that innately wrong or foolish? The thing is, I walked away from my faith for a couple years as I went through university and struggled with all the “big questions” as I was away from the protective “bubble” of home and experiencing exponential gains in knowledge. However, in this time of struggle and wondering and questioning I came to the conclusion that this is what I believe, just as you came to the conclusion of what you believe. Every person struggles with the “big questions”. Some people will wind up at the same place they began and some people will wind up on another path. Either way, it’s all part of the process.
Fact-Checking God: As I said earlier, I am not trying to scientifically prove God. But just because science can’t prove the existence of God (just as it can’t prove many things; like how the mind exists, evolution, and origin), doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist, nor does it mean I haven’t done research. I have studied world religions, theology, philosophy, psychology, etc. I have looked at the various worldviews in existence and questioned why each believes what it does. I have read and listened to various arguments. However, I still needed to come to my own conclusion, and this is where I’m at.
Do I know that I’m right with 100% certainty? No. Absolutely not. I know I don’t have all the answers. But I’m not doubting my decision or my belief at this time. I can be doubtless without being certain. I sat down at my computer chair without doubting it would hold me… but I could never be 100% certain of that fact. But, alas, it still held me. And it would have still held me if I was blind, and couldn’t see it, and was told I couldn’t scientifically test its strength prior to seating myself. Science doesn’t make things exist or not exist. Just because something can’t be proven doesn’t mean it’s not possible or real. The only reason I brought up science is because many people believe it is opposite to religion and the “be all, end all” of everything… which I disagree with. I hope this makes sense!
Analogies can be a great learning and teaching tool IF they don’t fall apart too quickly. All analogies can eventually break down and it is the responsibility of the person giving the analogy to be honest about where the analogous comparisons break down.
DeleteYou gave an analogy which compares independently verifiable trivia with a massive religious claim which has many completely unverifiable claims that also completely contradict our understanding of biology and physics. Can you independently verify that virgins can give birth? Is this an experiment that can be duplicated by looking up or burning your finger? You can study thermodynamics and medicine and understand how the burner burns you. You can study electricity and learn how the electrons can heat up the metal which sears your skin. You can learn about physics and the electromagnetic spectrum to explain the colour of the sky.
Do you seriously contend that burning your hand on a stove or the perception of “blue” when looking up in the sky is anywhere near the same as being told that roughly 2000 years ago a Jew was born to a virgin who was the son of god who thought that blood sacrifice was the only way to make amends for a fruit faux-pas from a few thousand years ago?
Is sitting down at a chair REALLY a good comparison for god? Is the non-visible chair line REALLY analogous to an invisible god? Being blind means that your eyes cannot accept the visual information provided by light bouncing off the chair. There are other ways to test it though, he can sit on it, feel it, be explained the purpose and construction, he can visit stores and experience where chairs can be purchased and even visit the factories where they are produced. You can explain the various materials involved and how we get them from nature. NONE of this holds true for not “seeing” god.
Where can you go to learn about the biological processes of a virgin human birth? Where can you go to learn about a time when there were just two human beings even though the evidence says that such a claim is absurd? Where can you go see the impossible physics of a wooden boat which rides out the mother of all deluges? Talking creatures without vocal chords and complex brains to process speech? Life expectancies 10 times the highest we have ever had at a time when demons explained the world of the microscopic? Heaven? Hell?
My point is there are thousands of claims in the bible that are claims about the nature of nature and reality. Some of these claims are so wrong that if you are attempting to justify them through science or serious thought, you will probably be called on it. In the same way, if I kept describing Christ as having 4 arms and stated that the reason he had to come and save the world was due to the sins of Noah and Mohammad. You would point out that the bible doesn’t actually say that, that I am in error and you would probably be curious about my sources on the subject. You may even wonder how seriously I have actually looked into this topic. So where have you got your information about biology and physics?
When scientists use the same methods of evidence and reason they come to the same general conclusion (That is why there is no Japanese science or German science or South Chilean science, there is just science). This lends credibility to the methods. When religious people use the same methods of revelation and introspection you have countless anthropomorphic and completely contradictory claims about the world and the facts about it. Does this lend any credibility to the methods?
Aaah, the proverbial claws come out. I knew a respectful, non-combative debate was too good to be true. ;)
DeleteAs I said in my earlier reply, I am not trying to scientifically prove God's existence... I never claimed to be attempting to do so. I was merely pointing out the "faith" aspects of both and I found faith in a Creator to make more sense to me than a "Big Bang" as a starting point. And with that as a starting point, it isn't so difficult to believe that the Creator of the Universe could do other seemingly impossible things---such as virgin births, saving arks, and long lifespans. When you decide what you believe at step one, everything else falls into place---whether you choose a Creator or a Big Bang...because everything makes sense in the framework you've chosen.
I know that burning stoves and blue skies are different... I noticed you did not mention anything about my ethical example of "lying". There are things we can see and have proof of, and there are things we can't. Surely you would have to admit that there are things that science just can explain. You know that your theory has its limits too.
The important thing here is to understand that I am focusing on the beginning of the Universe and how I believe Creation makes more sense. I am not trying to scientifically prove God or the miracles of the bible... they wouldn't be miracles if they could be explained by scientific means. And the reason I accept their possibility is because I accept at Step One, God created the Universe. I don't accept at Step One that a random event somehow brought matter and energy into being. I am looking at the very beginning here, and from that worldview foundation, I can accept miracles.
Your mistake here is in assuming that I am trying to make religion a science. I am not. I am breaking down scientific theory and religious theory to their absolute basics and when I compare them both in their ability to explain existence, creation comes out on top for me.
Being a former Christian, I know that I am not telling you anything you haven't heard before. As a former Christian, you know that I am speaking with the utmost respect and concern when I say I hope that someday you'll find your way back to your previous faith.... but I am not trying to convince you that I'm right. I'm just sharing the answer of why I believe what I believe and it all starts with the comparison of a random, unexplained event bringing matter and energy into existence, or a purposeful, unexplained Creator bringing everything into existence.
I've made my choice. :)
I'm very sorry if I have given any offense. I believe we both agreed that looking at each others claims and reasoning was expected.Anything I neglected was due to time and character limit. I don't believe I ever attacked you as a person I just tried to look critically at the ideas presented. Sorry again if it seemed that way. I was curious about what you have looked at so I could look at it as well. I don't know how else information gets shared.
ReplyDeleteToodles
Oh, no offense taken! My comment was meant to be lighthearted as you seemed to be getting quite impassioned. No personal attacks were there but comments like "Do you seriously..." and "REALLY" were perceived by me as combative, not attacks, per se. I just wanted to make I wasn't making you angry. :) Sorry, my personality in "real life" is rather lighthearted and cheerful, and I resort to humor to try to defuse tense situations.
DeleteI truly do appreciate your feedback, and I think sometimes the intention of written communication is sometimes lost. I likely misinterpreted the tone of your response. Reasoning is expected, yes. But I interpreted your reasoning with a negative "tone". I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. :)
I like to hear your thoughts on why you believe what you believe, but if your expectation was for me to "prove" my belief, I think you're going to be disappointed. Much the same as if I had asked you to "prove" your belief. When we get down to it, neither of us can prove our stance (God/No God), but we can explore simply "why" we believe what we believe.
Also, I wanted to clarify my use of analogies, as I think they are being misinterpreted:
ReplyDelete1) Watchmaker: -my purpose was to show that intricate objects with purpose require skill to work. No amount of time or "chance" will change that. A watch in comparison to the universe is very simple, and yet a "No God" theory posits that the Universe came into existence by chance and, given time, it ordered itself into something that works... my argument is why do "No God" theorists readily accept that something vast and intricate can come together in time by chance, but a watch coming together and working by chance seems ludicrous?
2) Stove, Sky, Lying: -my purpose in this example had nothing to do with God. It was merely an example of how someone could believe the same thing as their parents without being foolish. Just because someone is raised to believe something doesn't mean that something isn't right---regardless of its ability to be scientifically proven. So, yes, stove and sky can be proven. Lying, on the other hand, cannot. That doesn't mean the belief that lying is wrong is less valid conclusion to come to.
3) The Chair: -again, this metaphor had nothing to do with God. This example's purpose was to show that, even without scientific testing, something can be true. The seat can still hold me, even if I don't test it. Its *ability* to be tested is not the argument here. The argument is scientific testing *itself* does *not* make something true/untrue. While it definitely makes things more reassuring when we can prove it with science, science itself does not make something true. There are many things in this universe that have no scientific explanation. Just because they have not been tested/proven does *not* mean they *can't* be true.