I will act and I shall understand

Can the truth or falsity of religious arguments be settled or discussed at an intellectual level?

Is the world rational?                                                                                           PDF                       

“The world is rational.”

This was the starting point of my quest for the truth; I was endeavoring to understand religion and the existence of God in a rational way. Just like Kurt Gödel, who is credited with the statement above, I was convinced that there is a rational approach to matters of religion and the existence of a supreme being. This was a radical departure from the common perception that religion is a collection of beliefs and cannot be examined under the lens of insight and rationality.

There have been previous attempts by scholars to explain the existence of a supreme being based on facts and observation rather than divine revelation. This might have arisen due to necessity; theists were oftentimes required to defend their “irrational” religious views in a rational way. This is was the root of “natural theology”. The aim of natural theology was to provide an ontological argument for the existence of God by appealing to reason rather than scripture or divine revelation. Notable scholars who delved into natural theology include René Descartes, G.W. Leibniz and John Locke.⁽¹⁾

The burden of proof

Anyone uttering a sentence must know under what conditions he calls it true and under what conditions he calls it false. If he is unable to state these conditions, then he does not know what he said. A statement which cannot be conclusively verified cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning. ⁽²⁾

To most atheists, the burden of proof for God’s existence lies in the believer. However, there is one critical question which we must ask ourselves. Do believers need to show that their belief in God can be justified? There is a pervading notion that since the existence of God cannot be proved empirically, believers are unwilling to allow sense experience to count against their beliefs: an act which would be viewed as absurd- especially in science^{. (1)} The concept of “God” means different things to different people. Some think that it is “the highest form of thought” which can exist. In this case, God is an abstract creation of the mind. I have a friend who holds this thought. To him, God is like a unicorn – a non-existent flying horse which was created in the mind of a human being. However, unlike the unicorn, this abstract thought has far reaching consequences and gives meaning to our lives. We strive to be “perfect just as our God in heaven is perfect” – although we do not and cannot grasp the concept of perfection since we have not and cannot achieve it. On the other hand, there are those who view “God” as a metaphysical term which is used to explain certain concepts. The most interesting perspective about God I have ever heard is that God is a “necessary being”. The existence and nature of this being cannot be distinguished. I have pondered over the question “why must God exist?” but I am yet to come up with a satisfactory answer.

Verifiability and falsifiability

Verifiability and falsifiability form the basis of Science. Verifiability deals with how statements acquire meaning. Statements which cannot be verified are in principle “meaningless”. Hence, according to verifiability, a statement like “God exists” is not false but meaningless; it is akin to &^*(^%&#) since it cannot be verified. I reason that one might think that the statement “God does not exist” cannot be verified hence it is also meaningless. However, we do not set forth to verify negations. For example, Charles Darwin strove to prove that evolution occurred through natural selection rather than proving that evolution does not occur through a spell cast by a ghost inhabiting the waters of Lake Victoria. Hence, in science, only falsification is deductively valid. In falsification, we consider whether the statement or proposition is falsifiable. Is it possible to conceive a statement which negates the statement in question? In order to understand the concept of falsifiability, which is credited to Karl Popper, I will use the simple table found in J. Daniel Gezelter’s Open Science and Verifiability ^(3). Suppose we want to prove our theorem T which we take as a basis for the observation O. Then,

Falsification If T then O	Verification If T then O
Not O Not T	O T
Deductively valid	Deductively invalid

The statement “God exists” is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. There is no empirical premise on which this statement is based – wouldn’t be nice had Moses recorded some of his conversations at the tent meetings? ⁽⁴⁾ In addition, we cannot form a statement which negates the statement “God exists” since we do not have a sensory experience on which to form the basis of our negation. However, this in itself adds another twist – the statement “God exists” is neither verifiable nor falsifiable because it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. In other words, human beings who are limited in thought cannot relate with a being of perfect thought and character. This is my stance. In order to elaborate on my assertion above, I will try to add a twist to Antony Flew’s Parable of the invisible gardener that is often used to refute the existence of God.

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. “But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.” So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Wells’ The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?” ⁽⁵⁾

I have to admit that the parable is an excellent piece of scholarly argument. However “factually correct” the proposition is, it does not relate directly to the question of the existence of God. Suppose God only came to tender the garden once in a millennium, it would have been impossible to prove, empirically, that God indeed is the gardener. As my friend put it, the two explorers are both “right and wrong” at the same time. This is akin to the statement “theism is a religion of belief while atheism is a religion of disbelief”. Before I try to expound on theism in a rational way, we have to digress and talk about faith which is the foundation of religion.

I believe one plus one equals two

Most atheists and agnostics dismiss theists as an ignorant mass which seeks hope and hides under the shadow of religion. The pervading notion is that unless there is an empirical basis for proving a proposition, the proposition does not warranty inspection. Does science and mathematics transcend the realm of faith? The axioms which form the basis for science and mathematics are arbitrary hence they lack any “inherent truth”. Consequently, science and mathematics also rely on faith. In the words of Hector Rosario,

An objector may argue that science and mathematics are outside the realm of faith, where theology may belong. However, a closer look at the foundations of physics and mathematics, as well as to the history of these subjects, seems to yield a different conclusion. This closer look reveals a delicate membrane that conjoins these experiences: Faith. This is the greatest common denominator of science, mathematics, and theology. ⁽⁶⁾

Recently, while having a conversation with a friend over a cup of coffee, I tasked him to proving to me that one plus one equals two. This was supposed to be a “simple task” for an Electronics Engineering student but he failed. I explained to him that it took some form of faith to believe that one plus one equals two. This simple arithmetic basis forms a building block on which mathematical intuition can develop on and eventually leads one to solving more complex problems. Let us delve a little more into the formulation of mathematical syntax using an excerpt from Edward Nelson’s paper:  Mathematics and Faith.

How is the syntax of arithmetic formulated? One begins with a few marks whose only relevant property is that they can be distinguished from each other. An expression is any combination of these marks written one after the other. Certain expressions, built up according to simple definite rules, are formulas, generically denoted by F. Certain formulas are chosen as axioms. With a suitable choice of axioms, we obtain what is called Peano Arithmetic (PA). ⁽⁷⁾

Even though axioms are considered as self-evidently true without proof ⁽⁸⁾, what mathematicians possess are “axiom systems for which no one can give a convincing demonstration of consistency” ⁽⁷⁾. Why don’t we regard this troubling? I think the answer lies in the fact that faith plays a significant role in almost every sphere of life. For example, I will introduce myself to you as “Trevor”. If hear my mother calling me “Trevor”, the belief that my name is “Trevor” is reinforced. However, if I show you my identification card with the name “Steve” written on it, you will start doubting whether my name is “Trevor”.

The world is rational, so is the existence of God

To me, both science and religion are like trying to extrapolate a line on the Cartesian plane. Suppose we have a car approaching you at a speed of 80km/h from the west. Suppose we know a certain city which is located to your west called Meru, and we can confirm from a timer inserted in the car that it has been travelling for 1 hour. We can deduce from the speed of the car and the time of travel that it departed from Meru. However, the car might have departed from another location and branched into the road you are basing your calculations on. In this case, the mathematician who confidently claims that the car must have departed from Meru based on calculations and a layman who believes that the car departed from another location have no basis on which to argue. An atheist can argue that the theist is like someone who believes that the car fell from the sky and started advancing to the observer. However, this would be absurd since we do not have a sensory experience of cars falling from the sky.

I believe that the world is rational and this points to a greater being that is the source of this rationality. Just as the causality principle puts it, “Everything has a cause and events don’t just happen”. The most common rational ontological argument for the existence of God is “intelligent design”. There are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. In addition, it is estimated that the number of stars in the observable universe is 10 sextillion. ⁽⁹⁾ The sun is one such star and our earth orbits the sun. The earth is the only known planet which supports life. This does not rule out the possibility of life existing in other planets. However, the position of the earth in the Goldilocks zone around the Sun doesn’t seem to be a coincidence. In “Astrophysics for People in a Hurry”, Neil deGrasse Tyson writes,

Had the Earth been much closer to the Sun, the oceans would have evaporated. Had Earth been much further away, the oceans would have frozen. In either case, life as we know it would not have evolved. ⁽¹⁰⁾

Some might dismiss my thoughts on intelligent design based on cause and effect. Maybe the Earth supports intelligent design because it is located in the Goldilocks zone and it did not form in the Goldilocks zone to support life. However, there are more examples of intelligently designed systems which do not arise spontaneously because of need. In addition, questions of gender, morality and emotions seem to debunk the notion that certain things can appear ex nihilo out of necessity. Intelligent design does not refer to beauty. Every time I see a video about intelligent design, there are images of pristine ecosystems, birds radiating with various color, lakes with clear waters and very good-looking human beings (you know what I mean). This gives the wrong notion of intelligent design. Intelligent design is simply everything having a purpose and order behind its existence. Some may argue that there are cases of disorder that negate the foundation of intelligent design. As one of my friends put it, the earth is disorderly and man is on a quest to establish order.  However, the very fact that we believe that there is some order dictating natural events shows that we believe that there is some order in the first place.

Secondly, just as Kurt Gödel, I believe in an afterlife under a rational basis.

I am convinced of the afterlife independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife^{. (11)}

Okay, Trevor lives the way he wants. He steals kills and destroys, then dies and…that is the end of Trevor’s story. This does not make any rational sense. The belief that morality developed primarily because of altruistic genes does not hold much weight. It is absurd to consider the end of life on earth as the end of life. It is rational that people are held accountable for their deeds on earth. Does this sound unconvincing? It is probably the same way I felt after reading the first paragraph of Neil deGrasse’s Astrophysics for People in a Hurry.

In the beginning, nearly fourteen billion years ago, all the space and the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one-trillionth the size of the period that ends this sentence. ⁽¹⁰⁾

Wait…doesn’t this sound familiar?

         In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

No! There is a fundamental difference between the two statements above which must be explored further. The former statement is a scientific theory supported by observations and calculations. It is akin to the analogy of the mathematician who theorized that the car came from Meru. However, it does not necessarily show the beginning of the universe but the beginning of the “big bang”. The latter statement shows the beginning of the universe; a supernatural intelligent being. However, it is not drawn from any empirical observation. It is akin to the nonprofessional who postulates that the car started from Meru without any observable findings to back the proposition. This is where the cause of disagreement lies. Although scientists have not explained satisfactorily the beginning of the universe, they have at least drawn a conclusion based on observations and calculations. The creationists on the other hand seem to have no basis for their propositions. One might try debunking the “big bang” by questioning where the point came from. This argument can be drawn from the causality principle whose validity is widely accepted.

That neither existence, nor any mode of existence, can begin without an efficient cause, is a principle that appears very early in the mind of man; and is so universal, and firmly rooted in human nature, that the most determined skepticism cannot eradicate it. ⁽¹²⁾

However, the same question can be reflected to creationists - “Where did God come from?”. The answer to this question will also beg other questions to be asked – infinitely. The best answer to this cycle of questions comes from Richard Swinburne. He said that in life, after you assign a cause to an event, you don’t jump to assigning a cause to the cause you assigned. The same is true for the “big bang”. The big bang theory and the evolution theory are magnificent scientific tools. However, they do not negate the existence of God.

I will act and I shall understand

Can the truth or falsity of religious arguments be settled or discussed at an intellectual level? In other words, can we explain the basis for religious arguments rationally? I set forth to try to prove that it is possible to explain religious arguments rationally. My special focus was the existence of God since it is the most contentious of all the arguments.  There have been great philosophers and ingenious scholars who have tried to do the same. However, I have concluded that it is challenging to argue about religion based on rationality. Although atheistic arguments are more “rationally appealing”, why do I choose to be a theist?  Just as Gödel, I believe that it is possible to know something objectively that you cannot perceive through your sensory experience. ⁽¹³⁾ Since I believe that the world is rational, and that rational order points to a super natural and intelligent being, the intelligent being must have a way of communication to human beings about their purpose for existence. God communicates constantly through revelations. In the words of Herschel,

The nations of the world have produced many thinkers who have striven to reach God by intellectual inquiry alone. They have, in fact, dived deep into the stormy waters, but have come up with naught. God cannot be grasped by the intellect. The Jews have a different way: “We will act and we shall understand.” Reaching God—the understanding—arrives together with the act, emanates from within the act (the Kotzker rebbe). ⁽¹⁴⁾

Only through acting can one grasp the intricacies of religion and God. However, revelations have to be in balance with reason.  Unlike the pervading view, especially in atheists that the religious submit to irrational beliefs which are intractable, interpretations of religious texts are affected by socio-cultural factors.

Religious worldviews are not rational because they produce overwhelming arguments that “prove” the truth of the worldview to all competent people. They are rational because they are structured and elaborated in a critical and reflective way, using rational criteria for judgement that are always open to diverse interpretation. ⁽¹²⁾

In conclusion, in matters of religion, I will act and I shall understand.

References

1. Davis, Brian. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion . s.l. : Oxford University Press, 1993.

2. Waismann, Friedrich. Logische Analyse des Wahrshceinlichkeitsbegriffs. Erkenntnis. 1, 1930-1.

3. Gezelter, J. Daniel. Open Science and Verifiability. s.l. : http://web.stanford.edu/~vcs/Nov21/dg-OpenScienceandVerifiability.pdf.

4. Bible. Exodus 33.

5. Flew, Anthony. Theology and Falsification . s.l. : http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/flew_falsification.html.

6. Kurt Godel's Mathematical and Scientific Perspective of the Divine: A Rational Theology. Rosario, Hector. s.l. : Metanexus, February 27,2007, Vols. http://www.metanexus.net/essay/kurt-goumldels-mathematical-and-scientific-perspective-divine-rational-theology.

7. Mathematics and Faith. Nelson, Edward. s.l. : https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/faith.pdf.

8. Foundation Mathematics - Axioms . Mathworld, Wolfram. s.l. : http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Axiom.html.

9. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michael A. Strauss & J. Richard Gott. Welcome to the Universe:. s.l. : Princeton University Press, 2016.

10. Tyson, Neil deGrasse. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. s.l. : W.W Norton & Company.

11. A Brief Lookat Mathematics and Theology. Davis, Phillip J. s.l. : Humanistic Mathematic Journal 26, Vol. file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/A%20Brief%20Look%20at%20Mathematics%20and%20Theology.pdf.

12. Thomas Reid's Inquiries and Essays. Ronald E Beanblossom, Keith Leherer. Indianapolis : s.n., 1983, pg 330.

13. Seeing the Thunder: Insight and Intuition in Science, Mathematics and Religion. Housley, Kathleen L. s.l. : http://www.metanexus.net/essay/seeing-thunder-insight-and-intuition-science-mathematics-and-religion, Aug ,9 , 2011 .

14. Heschel, Abraham Joshua. God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism . New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1955.

15. Ward, Keith. Is Religion Dangerous . s.l. : Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2007.