At lunch today I visited a physicist friend on the UNC campus. He's using magnetic resonance imaging to study the properties of metallic glass. For no particular interest (other than curiosity), I asked him point blank whether he believed in God. (I later explained to him that most of my posts here lately have been about religion.)
Being less direct than I am, and rather than simply answering my question with a "yes" or a "no" or an "I don't know," he started talking about how a friend of his, a biologist, had answered the same question. The biologist first said, "No, I don't." But some time later he changed his mind, even "became a Christian." It was all because of a proof he had discovered for the existence of God.
I got all excited. "Is the proof written down? Can you show me a copy?"
It was written down, and my friend had read it, but he didn't have a copy.
I asked him if he thought the proof was valid.
"Yes, it seemed valid." He said it was "a calculation" about something in evolution theory. His friend had started by thinking about the hypothesis, "If God doesn't exist..." and come up with it.
"So, if you thought it was valid...."
"I rejected it anyway. I didn't liked its conclusion."
"You mean, that God exists?"
"Right. For the moment anyway, I don't believe it."
His reaction seemed so familiar to me! I was reminded of my interchange with Tom Sheepandgoats. He tells me that there are passages in the Bible (I believe that's where, and I'm paraphrasing, so I may not have it just right) that clearly establish that man was meant by God to "live forever." I'm willing to read these passages (if I can find them or have them pointed out to me), but I know that I'm still going to have the "so what" demurral about it. So what if the Bible says that? The old "hearsay" problem would intervene. I wrote about the hearsay problem weeks ago and discovered that Thomas Paine had already written about it in 1793 or thereabouts—I had read his very writing fifty years ago (The Age of Reason, a highly instructive book for any young or old rebel). Parts of the Bible might have been a revelation from God to some of the people who wrote it, but to us today it is no better than hearsay. It was not revealed to us. (I haven't thought about this lately, but I think it's still cogent.)
By the way, my physicist friend is Chinese and a citizen of the People's Republic of China. His wife is a Muslim.
There's any number of situations in evolution in which the odds of such and such happening through pure accident (mutation) is greater than 1 / # of atoms in the universe. Usually things on the cellular level or smaller. Maybe that's what he was referring to.
ReplyDeleteI've seen this in passing. I don't specifically have the details. I point this out lest you want me to retrieve it all :) and I'm already puttering away at my other assignment.
And for once, I don't have to say "Go to JWs" there are a number of books out there by credentialed people that you can check out. Darwin's Black Box, by Michael J Behe is one of them
ReplyDeleteDear Tom, yes, I figured out that the biologist's "calculation" (the term my Chinese friend used) was probably a probablistic one. And I'm affected by such probabilities, which would tend to persuade me that something about the development of life forms on Earth transcends mere chance. Remember (as I'm sure you do) that I tend to want to believe in a spiritual dimension in the Universe (one that is part and parcel of it, not some sort of adjunct, and one that we can apprehend and know, not simply "have faith" about). In fact, I'd say that a part of me is sure of this, which is probably why I'm as concerned as I am about the food chain (that is, about "the problem of evil") and why I look askance at mythical explanations for evil like the one Brandon summarized the other day (however enamored I may have been of Joseph Campbell's work on the power of myth).
ReplyDeleteAnd I note the rueful(?) smiley connected to your "lest you want me to retrieve [all of the probabilistic details]." You seem to realize that even I would not ask you to do that for me <smile>. Indeed not. I asked for some help with the JW stuff because, as you know (with gracious forbearance), I am loathe to start reading Watch Tower or whatever. But please also know that I do not (because I don't want to) require you to do this or anything else for me.
Also, how can I require you? I have done zero for you. The only payoff that I've been able to imagine there might be for you, remember (we discussed this), is that you could want to have the triumphant last word (after you should successfully persuade me to agree with you).
Somehow I don't read you as being so altruistic that you're pursuing me like some Hound of Heaven for my sake....
Neither do you seem, like me, to be on any voyage of self-discovery. You give every impression of having arrived where you're going to end up, and being fairly proud to be there. Like that analogical life-insurance salesman, you seem to have taken the position that you're going to sell me that policy, damn it, and the game ain't going to end until you've won. Your pitch has been ameliorated only by your rhetorical skill in seeming to be ever objective and fair.
Another possibility just popped into my mind. Maybe you aren't so sure that you've ended up in the absolute right place. But you could feel surer if I (and how many others are you pursuing?) should buy that policy?
Pure speculation, of course. Like you, I have to say, I don't really know.
Hi Moristotle,
ReplyDeleteWow, those are such ungenerous sentiments towards Tom. I feel like I have been missing out on the discourse here, but you two (and Brandon) seem to have enough of your plate without my extraneous point of view interferring.
I find it much easier to make a case for God's existence than non Existence, have you explored why you are faltering in this premise? Especially with the vision you had, and in general I think you believe more than disbelieve, but something/things are holding you back? What are they? I am just really curious about the thought process behind it all.
As I said before, I have never questioned His existence, maybe whether He is listening to me or not, or the veracity of this path I am on, or etc. But never that fundamental existence question, since it seems *so* obvious to me, everywhere I look, I see the imprint and face of God.
I would like to hear more from you...and please don't categorize me into that insurance salesman persona, my sensitive soul couldn't take it.
Dear Maliha, I wondered where you've been! You must indeed be a "sensitive soul" if you thought I was being ungenerous to Tom. I trust, after you see Tom's own reply, that you'll realize you overreacted.
ReplyDeleteAnd Brandon seems to have wiped his own plate clean. At least, he hasn't made another appearance.
I hope you didn't miss the weight of my statement above to Tom that "I tend to want to believe in a spiritual dimension in the Universe (one that is part and parcel of it, not some sort of adjunct, and one that we can apprehend and know, not simply 'have faith' about). In fact, I'd say that a part of me is sure of this, which is probably why I'm as concerned as I am about the food chain (that is, about 'the problem of evil') and why I look askance at mythical explanations for evil."
I think that statement reveals where I'm looking to "explore [my] faltering" (as you put it). The waking vision I had at age twenty-two still stands; its truth has long since become one of those self-evident propositions that I didn't think anyone could doubt—until my physicist friend yesterday explained that he didn't think God was necessary, because "science can figure out and control everything"!
So, yes, I am definitely looking into what is "holding [me] back." Since I learn by positing things and exploring them, I will posit off the top of my head that I am fundamentally averse to merely borrowing someone else's answers to these questions. I am utterly serious about being rigorously critical (skeptical)—even if I may not be that good at it.
"The problem of evil" is not just a historically interesting "problem of philosophy." It is fundamental. I don't speak of the food chain lightly. When I heard my mousetrap slam shut night before last and heard the tiny (and innocent) creature throwing itself about in its death agony, I felt sad...and guilty. I will not subscribe to an explanation for why "the universe" is like that that pretties things up with regard to God.
The adamant statement I just made makes me think, too, that I must have some pride. In fact, I can almost remember what I wrote on the Book of Job for my freshman literature course at Yale (forty-six years ago!). How Job wasn't having any of the preposterous wager between God and Satan. In fact, I still have that paper, in a box that is waiting in a closet for me to put it back into the attic. I'll fish it out and refresh my memory as to just what I did say.
Thank you, dear, for your comment.
Hi Morris,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I may have jumped to conclusions; the image of an insurance salesperson though was strident in its own way.
I guess, I was wondering too at your excitment on the "formula" to depict the existence of God. Do you really need to see such a formula? (Look out to the universe and there's plenty)
I am surprised too at how a scientist can be so arrogant to assume/believe that science explains everything. I have more respect for people like Wolfgang smith and other believing scientists who are humbled by their knowledge of the intricacies of the universe and are quick to see the limitations of reducing everything to empiricism.
There are different ways of knowing; the senses are just one; intuition, inspiration, etc are others. We can't insist on one alone, because it would make us blindsided to the rest of life. The stuff that makes life.
Well I'll stop here for now, take care of you dear wayfarer.
Maliha, the insurance salesman analogy was my own for Tom. And it was felt, it came up from my unconscious. As I told him early on, I felt as though he were trying to grasp me with his tentacles. (So I guess I had already implicitly compared him to an octopus.)
ReplyDeleteOne reason, by the way, that I am willing to put these analogies here is that they speak more of me and my feeling response to Tom than objectively of Tom himself. (I trust that this has been apparent from my phrasing.) Tom (like Yahweh) is that Tom is, and nothing I say about Tom changes what Tom is (except insofar as he might change something as a result of thinking about something I've said, but that isn't my intention).
Nothing that you or I or Tom says about God is going to alter anything about God. It's all about us, so to speak. We are little lost sheep who have lost our way, to paraphrase that Whiffenpoof lyric.
No, I don't need to see the formula. I was excited for another reason. Someone only a step removed from someone I knew seemed to have come up with his very own "proof." Before that, I'd only read about distant people (like Anselm or Thomas Aquinas) who had formulated such proofs.
But you're right, there are the superior "proofs" of our own vision, feeling, intuition. Have you read Gary Zukav's book about the sixth sense (The Seat of the Soul)?
Hmm, you may have just helped me discover something. I have for the most part thought of and characterized myself to others as "mystical." That is, I've emphasized my intuitiveness over my thinking and reasoning. So, another question I might ask myself now is why I am so emphasizing the latter these days?
Yes, I marveled at my physicist friend's statement about science. This man is so willowly, so slight, so gentle. He giggles for laughter. I think I was too amazed to engage him further. Anyway, what would or could I have said? And what does it matter? God is that God is, etc. My scientist friend's science is all about him, and he will work it out.
Peace Morris,
ReplyDeleteThe change of emphasis in describing yourself from a mystic to rational, could be a function of experience and/or pragmatism?
I sense some changes in myself especially when I revisit some things that used to *really* inspire me,bringing me to tears, now they make me cringe slightly. What was that about?
I think emotions/feelings/intuition have their own limitation as well, the two sides have to be balanced for us to be in harmony? (I am just postulating here.)
Maybe your physicist friend was just pushing buttons and saying what he didn't necessarily believe?
You are right though, God is God and nothing we say will change that.
I read something yesterday that made me glow with some understanding about how everything in existence is a grosser manifestation of God; such that even visible light is visible only because of its darkness (which is why we can't see when physical light is too bright.) It's unrelated to our discussion, but it made me wonder at how much time we waste trying to ponder what is wayyy beyond us.
And peace unto you too, Maliha!
ReplyDeleteI suspect (or my muse suggests) that my recent change of emphasis from "mystic" to "rational (and doubting) thinker" could have been an effect of my tormented preoccupation with politics for some months, which was exacerbated (if not clarified) by my reading of Sam Harris's book, The End of Faith: Religion, Terrorism, and the Future of Reason.
I may now be returning to the sub species aeternitas point of view recommended by Mr. Kierkegaard, where mysticism is the only way to go.
Can you give an example or two of "some things that used to *really* inspire [you], bringing [you] to tears, now they make [you] cringe slightly"?
Your statement about "emotions/ feelings/ intuition [having] their own limitation as well" reminds me of something a self-described "white witch" once told me (Ms. Denise Brown, in case some hazard or fate should bring her to read this). It dismayed me at the time. She said that in matters of faith, feelings should not be expected to remain at the same level. She said this in response to my complaining that certain feelings having to do with my "belief in God" had left me.
It appears to me that, whether Denise was right in general or not, I personally need the feeling.
I really doubt that my gentle, courteous physicist friend was pushing any buttons.
Of course I am right about "God is God"! Didn't the burning bush say so unto Moses? <chortle>
We probably waste a very inordinate amount of time "ponder[ing] what is wayyy beyond us." If pondering is ever a waste of time....
A footnote. My conversation with the white witch occurred in May 1990. She and I had just met to participate in a session of that year's international conference of the Society for Technical Communication, in Santa Clara, California. I was coming off my "Youie summer" and nearing my crash into chronic fatigue and depression, heralded by my falling asleep at the wheel of my little Chevrolet Nova on my way home from IBM and waking up in the median still doing fifty on a curve....
I have faithfully completed the assignment that you made me do. :) Of course, it goes in the previous thread, but I'll also put a comment here since you've speculated about my elusive motives. And I note that Maliha served as my ally, scolding you for your ungenerous comments. HA! Though I must be mindful not to gloat. These things have an ebb and flow to them and perhaps in the future she will chasten me with regard to you!
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying things and even asking questions to which I feel I know the answers. I am fortunate enough to have sufficient time to pursue things that interest me. That may not always be the case, but for now it is. So I answer your statements and questions when I feel I have something relevant and unique. It's really no more complicated than that. And of course, I will desist the instant you indicate you would like me to.
I confess I am surprised to see you surmise I am proud. I don't really know why you would conclude that. Surely there are many areas of life in which you feel both competent and confident. Does it follow that you are proud? Trust me on this - there are aspects of life in which I am decidedly inept. But this is not one of them.
So much for motives. The longer comment is on the previous post.
See, Maliha, you do seem to have overreacted to my comment to Tom, don't you agree?
ReplyDeleteHe does take exception to my speculations "about [his] elusive motives," but then so have I about his...his speculation, or assumption, for example, that I would of course be comforted to believe that I shall live forever.
Tom graciously reminds himself to "be mindful not to gloat. These things have an ebb and flow to them and perhaps in the future she will chasten me with regard to you!" (You very well might, Maliha, should the occasion arise. I'm glad that you feel comfortable enough with yourself, not to mention with Tom and me, to speak your mind.)
Tom avows surprise that his belaboring beliefs held over a lifetime (since he was a teenager) in an area of life, he says, that "is not [emphasis mine] one of [the ones]...in which [he] is decidedly inept" strikes me as an indication of pride on his part.
Res ipsa loquitur?