Faith and Reason

 "Faith" is not  a substitute for thought.

 All universal truths and all of the universe cannot be understood by the human intellect alone. If we did have understanding  of all conditions it must come somewhere in the future since we clearly do not totally understand truths, or truth, now.  We must assume the human intellect can be expanded beyond what we have available now.

 While I can't attest to that last assumption, I can say, unequivocally,  we do not now have the tools to understand these infinite things.  We must, therefore, have had to ASSUME that, the moon was not made of green cheese before 1969, since we had no direct, or little direct evidence. In other words we accepted on faith that the astronauts wouldn't sink into it.  We may have suspected they wouldn't and we may have observed the moon, but we did not have, or had little, direct empirical evidence until 1969.

 We accept a number of things "on Faith", that the car coming toward us will stay in its lane, that others will stop for a red signal, etc. We simply do not have the power to predict the future. It is unlikely we ever will have. The human genome project is fairly far along, and while new discoveries are being made every day, some things, like the future, teleportation, invisibility seem simply beyond our genetic proclivities.

 There is an element of doubt in the word "Faith".  No one knows about God because no one can know. Attempting to understand the infinite is currently impossible with a finite mind and always will be.

 Science believes there are 11 dimensions at last count. But we only perceive four, even though we can deduce the rest from scientific experiments. We don't KNOW for sure. Electricity, as of this moment, is still a "theory".  We can't yet "prove" how it works.

 I believe in a God not because it explains the unexplainable as the ancients may have believed. Rather I believe in God because it offers us a benign rather than chaotic vision of the universe; a meaningful design and purpose, rather than random events. While science can get us close to the "Big Bang", it cannot explain where those elements that caused the bang came from.  I don't believe there is any conflict between science and God. Conflict with Religion, certainly! That man-made construct is full of human excess, pain and hatred. That is not God. It is a human response to God, badly done. In keeping with my benign vision, something purposeful must exist to start the process. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

 So when I say we must accept the existence of God on "faith" I am simply saying we call this infinite causing form "God".  Does He or It interact with us daily?  Debatable! Does He or It control us physically or mentally, NO!  Does He or it have a purpose for each and every person? Unlikely but debatable. But I think that a world with less randomness is a better explanation than having chaos rule.

Although sometimes I see nothing but chaos. As a colleague said, " I think that apparent “random events” are important to the design of the universe.

 There are various physical constants of the universe that have been measured, the speed of light is just one.  Others include the charge of electrons and protons, the strong nuclear force that hold atoms together, Planck’s constant, and others.  We have empirically measured these constant forces, but there is no explanation for why they are that value, they just are.  If some of these constants were slightly different values then life as we know it would not be possible, even the very nature of the universe would be different.  Certain constant values would have led to a universe that would be much more “chaotic” in nature.  I believe that a higher power “God” had a role in setting up these “random” parameters that make it possible for life to occur in the universe we inhabit.  Empirical proof exists for the values of universal physical constants, but it is a matter of faith as to why they exist (is it totally random or purposeful).

 There is a counter argument of sorts.  It takes life and a certain level of intelligence to even have this conversation we are having.  Therefore the physical constants of the universe would have to fall within certain ranges, before you and I could even contemplate the idea of faith and God. There are scientific theories that indicate that an almost infinite number of universes may exist (random).  Perhaps only a very small fraction of infinity allows for universes where God can be contemplated as a moving force of the universe (ordered existence).  A small fraction of infinity is still infinite, but be careful if you find a way to jump from one universe to the next.  You would probably cease to exist upon arrival."

 There is the possibility of Spinoza's God whom Einstein believed in. A Non-Theistic God, who had no "person" but was the forces of the universe somewhat like Luke Skywalker's  "force" but less specific. It can be said of Spinoza's God that "the universe IS God.  Heaven is not in the equation, but rather a sort of Buddhist spirit merging with said universe upon death. This claim can be said to be an extension of science's claim that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only altered.

As a friend once said,  "Can matter be destroyed? Yes. If you want proof, come round to my house and try my wife's cooking."

Finally, although Einstein spent a lifetime and failed to find a "unified field theory", or purpose, we can't prove it doesn't exist anymore than we can prove it does. If the universe is random, how do I explain what makes me feel good about myself when I do a good deed that society, the humanists, know nothing about? It can't be social because I did it alone, but I feel good! How about the sense that  goodness has attributes beyond empirical measure? The similar near death experience of the dying, so similar despite differences in age, ethnicity, background.  No I can't prove God exists any more than you can prove he does not, but we a better with Him than without.

Prof. John P. Middleton