Reconciling God and Science

In many social settings, there are 3 subjects that even today remain taboo for open discussion. Politics, sexuality, and religion. There have been countless debates all over the world about these three discussion. However, religion seems to be the most controversial of the three. No subject has been the cost of such strife and separation to have even led to full out conflicts as religion has. Why is religion so controversial? One reason is that it permeates its way all throughout the fabrics of most global societies. The very essence of someone’s being in some cultures is tied to their religious beliefs. For this reason religion has played a tremendous role in global history and development. In the following, the taboo will be broken, and religion will be discussed in some detail. Using scholarly and peer reviewed sources the following questions will be discussed: a.) is proof for the existence of God necessary? b.) which argument for the existence of God is strongest? Why? c.) can one be moral and not believe in God? d.) .are science and religion in conflict? e.) Can God’s omniscience and human free will be reconciled? f.) .Is there a rational argument for atheism? The intent is to add to the effort to demystify the taboo subject that is religion.

One of the founding fathers, principle author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and perhaps one of the most respected people in all United States history in a letter he wrote to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787 state, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear” (Thomas Jefferson, 1787). This idea to question the very existence of God was not new to the Jefferson’s lifetime, people have for many years and for many years since pondered the very existence of God. Many have argued this point for centuries. However, is this necessary? Research shows that this is perhaps one of the most fruitless arguments to continue to be debated. The fact that even those who will agree to the presence of God, may differ tremendously in how they receive God. Some are atheist, but receive nature as a higher entity, some may be polytheistic, or even believe in pantheism. One belief in the existence is relative to how they experience the one they call God or have been acculturated to experience God.

This dimension of this argument makes knowing which perspective of the argument proving the existence or nonexistence of God is the strongest irrelevant, because there have been enough evidence on both sides that support each argument, however, the very existence of a complex universe, that is beyond human comprehension, and the fact that it is as organized and structured as it happens to be, perhaps show that it was planned and possibly created by a higher life form. It can be concluded that it was God or some higher presence than man, even if it is just the forces of atoms, other molecular structures, or even a ‘big bang.’ Tozer (2008) poses an important question “If God is present at every point in space, if we cannot go where He is not, cannot even conceive of a place where He is not, why then has not that Presence become the one universally celebrated fact of the world?” (Tozer, 2008). Tozer (2008) continues,

“Why do some persons "find" God in a way that others do not? Why does God manifest His Presence to some and let multitudes of others struggle along in the half-light of imperfect Christian experience? Of course the will of God is the same for all. He has no favorites within His household. All He has ever done for any of His children He will do for all of His children. The difference lies not with God but with us…. I venture to suggest that the one vital quality which they had in common was spiritual receptivity.”

Therefore, because the existence of God relies on each person’s personal experience and the very existence is relative to one’s personal reception, it does not matter proving it, because everyone, even if they believe in God’s existence will receive that experience differently. One person’s proof of God may not satisfy another’s, and therefore engaging in this argument can be endless, and lacks definitive reason to argue. It is just as fruitless to prove which side proves the point better, because not only is it relative to one’s experiences, but the presence of the universe itself has proven that something is bigger and more powerful than humans, science will admit that, even if it is not called God.

Following the previous logic of the relative nature of the existence of God to one’s experiences. It can be stated that, just because one does not have a belief in a God figure, this does not mean that they lack morality. In Lewis (1954) An Atheist Manifesto, the author discusses that even with the absence of religion there is still a moral code that is relevant to atheists, the text states,

“If all the energy and wealth wasted upon religion in all of its varied forms, had been spent to understand life and its problems, we would today be living under conditions that would seem almost like Utopia. Most of our social and domestic problems would have been solved, and equally as important, our understanding and relations with the other peoples of the world would have, by now, brought about universal peace. Man would have a better understanding of his motives and actions, and would have learned to curb his primitive instincts for revenge and retaliation. He would, by now, know that wars of hate, aggression, and aggrandizement are only productive of more hate and more human suffering” (p. 54).

In fact, this author seems to blame religious fanaticism for the lack in progress that the world has mad in being more moral or ethical towards each other. There was some form of ethical behavior that existed prior to man rationalizing the existence of a God. ‘Thou shalt not kill (other humans)’ was relevant long before the Mosaic Code was handed down to the Israelites, by their God. It was a matter of species preservation and protection. Therefore to expect atheists to lose all sense of morality due to the non-belief in God ignores this fact. I addition, for years there have been millions of atheist in society, and there has yet to be shown a display of a lack of common morality.

It is in fact fallacy to try to separate religion and science. For many years scholars have tried to make two disciplines separate and in conflict when one another, where in reality they complement one another. Theistic belief in many ways supports modern science. According to Plantinga (2010) “Thinking of science at the most basic level as the project of acquiring knowledge of ourselves and our world, it is clear, from this perspective, that the doctrine of imago dei (created in God’s image, or God’s relation to man) underwrites this project… Indeed, the pursuit of science is a clear example of the development and enhancement of the image of God in human beings, both individually and collectively.” In other words, God creating man in his own image, created man to think, to create, and to understand the things around him, which is modern science, and therefore God intended it to be so.

The argument could be equally made that modern science supports religion as well. Some scientists point to the idea that was mentioned before, that of the universe being too complex to be unplanned or intentionally done. According to Behe (1996),

“Some structures at the molecular level exhibit irreducible complexity. These systems display several finely matched interacting parts all of which must be present and working properly in order for the system to do what it does; the removal of any part would preclude the thing's functioning…such irreducibly complex structures and phenomena, he argues, can't have come to be by gradual, step-by-step Darwinian evolution (unguided by the hand of God or any other person); at any rate the probability that they should do so is vanishingly small. They therefore present what he calls a Lilliputian challenge to unguided Darwinism.”

Science proves that there are certain things in existence that are too complicated to not have been purposely and specifically planned, and that there had to have been some type of organizer. It can be labelled anything, but what is obvious that it beyond the scope of human capabilities and reasoning, at this present moment. It is common to promote the idea that science and religion are in dissention, but a closer analysis show that they prove each other point clearly.

If running logic of this essay is factual, then the existence of God is relevant to one own personal experience, which means that there is nothing wrong with atheist, and just as belief in God can be rationalized, so can atheism. Therefore, the lingering question is the omniscience of God and human free will, how can these two seemingly at odds concepts be reconciled, or even can they be reconciled? Perhaps the best reconciliation is that of Sir Isaac Newton clockwork universe or world machine theory, which has roots in the deist approach to God and religion. It purports the idea of God as the clock maker, who creates the clock (universe), but allows it to function on its own without intervention. Although, this contradicts some religious ideology that supports the idea of an interactive God. This bring science and religion together in a logical manner. This idea is no to state that God or a god figure is not powerful enough to intervene if desired. According to Hoffman and Rosenkrantz (2009) there are two ideas that support this “it might be argued that God does no wrong in this sort of case, because he does not know how to do better (knowledge of the future free actions of created agents being impossible).” In other words like the clock maker, God created man, but has no idea how the creation will work or what it is capable of doing, because of free will. Some biblical scholars use the incident in the Garden of Eden, where God seemed unable to find Adam after the ‘the original sin.’ However, “as an omnipotent God is not required to have power over the free decisions of non-divine agents, it follows that on these views, his omnipotence and moral perfection are compatible, roughly to the extent that God's existence implies a maximally good world” (Hoffman & Rosenkrantz, 2009). In other words based on that logic, one would have to accept that God’s existence means a good world. Either way, this is perhaps one of the best examples of both the idea of free will and the omnipotence of God coming together.

There is no doubt that there is something bigger than human comprehension out there. It may even be too big to label it. Nevertheless, it is no doubt that the relentless arguing of its existence serves no useful purpose, even though these differences have been the root of many conflicts. This conflict bears no useful fruit. This is because the existence of God or the non-existence of God is relative to one’s on personal experience. What is also clear is that just because a person professes to not believe in a higher entity does not make them immoral, or capable of immoral behaviour any more than anyone else. Morality existed long before man recognized the existence of God. Therefore, in reality science and religion do not conflict one another no more than they complete one another. Religion tends to answer the question where science falls short, and vice versa. The idea of God also supports the idea of scientific research in that many theologians God created man in his (its) image, and therefore creation and scientific research is within these human capabilities. In addition, evidence of a higher entity can be seen in the complexity of the universe itself. It does not need explanation. There can be a safe place where the omnipotence of God meets free will, but it takes a compromise on behalf of both perspectives to do it. It is time to put this long overdue debate to rest.

References

Behe, M., 1996, Darwin's Black Box. New York: The Free Press.

Hoffman, J., & Rosenkrantz, G. (2002)., Omnipotence, The Stanford University Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Classical Library. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/omnipotence/.

Jefferson, T. (1787), Merrill D. Peterson, ed. Letter to Peter Carr., Thomas Jefferson: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1994, pp. 900-906. Retrieved from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html.

Lewis, J. (1954). An Atheist Manifesto. The Free thought Press Association: New York. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33825/33825-h/33825-h.htm

Plantinga, A., (2010) Religion and Science. Classical Library. The Stanford University Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/religion-science/.

Tozer, A. W., (2008). The Pursuit of God. Christian Publication, Harrisburg IIC: Harrisburg, PA, Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25141/25141-h/25141-h.htm#Page_61