Religion: Putting God on trial once again

I thought you couldn't be tried twice for the same offence, not here anyway.

The publicist for a new novel, banned in Malaysia, advises me that the author wishes to put God on trial.

With his new book, The Book of Walla, Krishn takes a controversial approach in capturing and relaying the power and significance of spirituality worldwide, essentially putting religion “on the spot” to explain its starring role in human conflict. Its main character, Dr. Shoorab blames religious dogma for upheaval in his life, and consequently sues God. The defendants – from all different religious sects – find themselves putting these differences aside.

Interesting, but not new, I am afraid. It is the central thesis of the Book of Job, possibly the oldest book in the Bible (3500 years old). And don't count on getting God convicted when he starts to argue his case.

Banned in Malaysia? I'd rather be banned in Britain for the anticipated publicity. But we'll see.

Help wanted ads: God wanted - only for climate change - no other responsibilities

In "The world may have to turn to God to save itself from climate change, claims one of Britain's most eminent scientists" (07 Sep 2009), Richard Alleyne, the Telegraph's science correspondent, reports

Lord May, the president of the British Science Association, said religion may have helped protect human society from itself in the past and it may be needed again.

Speaking on the eve of the association’s annual conference, the committed atheist said he was worried the world was on a “calamitous trajectory” brought on by its failure to co-ordinate measures against global warming.

Sir David Attenborough: 'Man was given permission to exploit the natural world by the Bible' He said that no country was prepared to take the lead and a “punisher” was needed to make sure the rules of co-operation were not broken.

The former Government chief scientific advisor said in the past that was God and it might be time again for religion to fill the gap.

“Maybe religion is needed,” said Lord May, who was brought up a Scottish Presbyterian but went through an "inverse epiphany" at the age of 11.

He sure did go through a reverse epiphany if he thinks that you can hire God to do some jobs but not to completely reorganize your life in the true way - which may or may not include validating your current specific theories about climate change.

My favourite writer, C. S. Lewis compared it, rightly, to going to the dentist. The dentist can fix the tooth that aches, but once he begins poking around, he inevitably finds a number of teeth that have not yet begun to ache but certainly will, when they are past the point of simple repair.

If that is the problem, avoiding the dentist is not the solution.

Why science without God destroys itself

Recently, a commenter asked me if I would post my recent ChristianWeek column, "Why science without God destroys itself," and here it is (with a couple of links):

Why science without God destroys itself

by Denyse O’Leary

In recent columns, I have looked at the big promotion campaign for materialist atheism, based in part on the claim that atheism is supported by science. The claim is without substance, so far as I can see. On the contrary, the fine tuning of the universe in which we live so much testifies to a divine Mind that great scientists who conspicuously lacked orthodox piety have been compelled to admit that. Yes, many deplore the obvious inference, and try to find a genuine loophole (Arthur Eddington’s term). But admit the problem they must, for they can hardly deny it.

Besides, as University of Waterloo chair of physics Robb Mann recently pointed out to my adult night school class at the University of Toronto, discoveries about the nature of our universe made during the last few decades have only confirmed and strengthened the case for the Creator. Not only that, but the most promising candidate for emptying the universe of God - string theory - is in crisis, if not in ruins. And its companion theory - cosmic inflation - if it were to succeed, would demolish science.

We’ve hardly space here to unpack a complex debate, enlivened by public squabbles between prominent scientists. But here are a couple of key points:

One good candidate to replace God was string theory. Briefly, it pictures the elementary particles of our universe as similar to notes resonating on a guitar string. These strings - if they exist - originated in weird, exotic events that occurred before the Big Bang. And how does that dispense with God? Because string theorists hope to show that there was never really any beginning to the universe, such as the Big Bang. Think about that: It means that, even if God exists, God is superfluous to the existence of the universe. You can still believe in God if you want, but God is not part of the explanation of how the universe came to exist. The universe originated in perhaps unknowable prior events. However, the mathematics underlying string theory has come under severe criticism recently, for generating all possible values (like the results you get when you try dividing by zero).

Many scientists have been working hard to find evidence for an infinite number of universes (a multiverse). Their bottom line argument: Our universe happens to look fine-tuned or designed. But infinitely many others look different. So our universe could be the way it is randomly. The movie What the Bleep Do We Know? introduces one version of the multiverse.

Cosmic inflation theory is an increasingly popular multiverse theory. It holds that our observed universe (which is currently expanding only slowly) is a tiny part of a much more rapidly expanding structure. That structure's existence and its different rates of inflation (rather than God) explains both the Big Bang and fine tuning of our universe. In fact, our universe is simply one of an arbitrarily large number of tiny parts that happen to expand more slowly than the whole. The other parts are infinite additional universes. Welcome to the multiverse!

Many arguments against the multiverse involve complex physics reasoning, but Dr. Mann offered my students one that is much more basic: In a multiverse, everything that we can self-consistently imagine - objects appearing by magic, for example - can actually happen. We can no longer rule out events as impossible. Remember, “impossible” means “not possible according to the laws of this universe.” But there are no longer any limits to that. You don’t believe in magic? But how do you know that another universe, where magic exists, has not overlapped ours and thus created magic? Getting rid of God by arguing for a multiverse - far from advancing science - destroys science!

The older philosophers knew this, I think. That is why even thinkers who imagined that they had “seen through” popular piety still believed in the “God of the philosophers”. Their remote God’s self-consistent reality and unvarying laws underwrite the possibility that we can come to understand our universe. A multiverse is incomprehensible by definition.

And - will this become a trend? - just this month, philosopher Antony Flew, who abandoned a half century of atheism on account of design in the universe, published There IS a God (Harper One 2007). I'll have more to say about Flew’s book in my next column.


Journalist Denyse O’Leary (http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/) is the author of By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy and co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Are there really innate ideas of God?

Speaking of the April edition of Touchstone, Discovery Institute's Logan Paul Gage argues therein that "Innate Religious Beliefs Are Evidence of God, Not of Evolution":

Those whose education emphasized the diversity of world religions may find it surprising, but many researchers think some religious beliefs are innate. Research is showing that "when forming God concepts, not just in theistic traditions but even in non-theistic traditions ... we have a natural tendency to believe that divine beings have [certain] characteristics," says [Michael J.] Murray. We naturally believe in a super-knowing, super-perceiving, super-powerful, immortal creator.

Various research is cited on the opinions of small children.

I must admit I am skeptical about what this research really amounts to. Small children rarely found religions, and the adults who do found them must convince other adults of their divine origin.

Many religions have featured mortal gods (Norse), limited gods (Greeks), gods that are emanations of a single divine (Hindu), ancestors with limited power that take the place of gods (animists), or gods that are only somewhat relevant to the key issue of salvation (Buddhism).

I think that the diversity of world religions is real, rather than an artifact of biased education. Of course, two factors may leaven the lump: Small children may imbibe their parents' understanding of God in a number of ways other than explicit teaching. Also, globalization of culture means that ideas about God from other cultures will also enter the mix.

Once again, Gage's interesting article is not yet on line.

Key atheist argument is a shell game, philosopher says

I see that a number of people were interested in ”The teacher, the kids, and the atheist lobby“ (= what a Canadian high school philosophy teacher says to students about the recent atheist lobby).

Well, then, you might also be interested in a friend’s comment on the key argument, “God’s existence is improbable.” David Rice III writes,

If God's existence is improbable then it won't do to say that theistic explanations are impossible, they would also be improbable by extension and hence possible. But if theistic explanations are impossible then the existence of God is also impossible. It's a shell game.

I replied,

One characteristic of the current malaise is that people like Dawkins are so seldom called on these obvious points. As long as a guy is bashing religion (especially the Christian one), it doesn’t seem to matter what fool thing he says.

In fairness, the same fate befell the Dalai Lama. He was invited to address a neuroscience conference a couple of years ago, and you should have HEARD the ignorant remarks, by supposedly intelligent people who thought they were being clever. (Fortunately, the conference didn’t buckle, and he did give the address. But so many administrators, faced with these problems, seem to be wearing a “Where should I go to surrender?” sign on their backs.)

Mario Beauregard and I talk about the Dalai Lama and the neuroscience conference in The Spiritual Brain

State senator sues God

Well, it had to happen some time. I’m not sure if this is funny. The Nebraska state senator is trying to make a point about frivolous lawsuits. Clever story, but probably lost on people who don’t know what “Omniscient” and “Omnipresent” mean. That’s their own fault, though.

50 Nobel laureates talk about God

Here's a free e-book of what 50 Nobel Laureates who believe in God have to say.

It should be noted that 50 Nobel Laureates is written primarily for inspirational purposes and is not intended to be a source of detailed or balanced biographical data. Nevertheless, the book is a treasure trove of interesting information. Also note that the author's criteria for including Nobel Laureates who "believe in God" does not imply a specific type of belief or adherence to any specific religious group or denomination. The individuals included in the book represent a wide range of religious beliefs, religious affiliation, and religious practice.

One can, however, inferthat they are not adherents of modern materialist atheism. Anyway, there is always non-materialist atheism.

Lighter moment Agnostic receives reply to letter to God!

An agnostic student wrote the following letter to God:

Dear God:

Why didn't you save the school children at:

Moses Lake , Washington 2/2/96
Bethel , Alaska 2/19/97
Pearl , Mississippi 10/1/97
West Paducah , Kentucky 12/1/97
Stamp, Arkansas 12/15/97
Jonesboro , Arkansas 3/24/98
Edinboro , Pennsylvania 4/24/98
Fayetteville , Tennessee 5/19/98
Springfield , Oregon 5/21/98
Richmond , Virginia 6/15/98
Littleton , Colorado 4/20/99
Taber , Alberta , Canada 5/28/99
Conyers , Georgia 5/20/99
Deming , New Mexico 11/19/99
Fort Gibson , Oklahoma 12/6/99
Santee , California 3/ 5/01 and
El Cajon , California 3/22/01
Pennsylvania 2006
Virginia Tech College 2007

Sincerely,

Concerned Student

A while later, she received the following reply:

Dear Concerned Student:

I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,

God

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy, and of Faith@Science. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Free will and neuroscience: Why free will must be a foundation

Jonathan Kay's wrote a decidedly unenthusiastic column (January 23, 2007) about the recent anti-God crusade, spearheaded by arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins. Kay, an agnostic, noted,

It's something to think about, even if you're not sitting in prison or mourning a loved one. Life finds a way to break most of us long before death arrives. People get divorced; they watch relatives die; they lose their health, their friends, their money. According to my (admittedly casual) observation, the people who snicker loudest about God are either young or lucky -- usually, both. And so they still labour under the conceit that mere cleverness will be enough to see them through life.
The atheists may be right about God. Who knows? But God or no God, it's clear that something in the human soul requires a belief that life has a purpose that transcends the material plane. One would think that a more-rational-than-thou empiricist such as Dawkins would recognize this unchanging aspect of human nature. Our Western faiths provide that spiritual nourishment -- and in their modern form, do so without inquisitions, holy wars or, for that matter, suicide belts. For all his smirking dinner-party arguments against God, does Dawkins really think this world would be a more humane place if we all looked to The God Delusion instead of The Bible for truth and comfort?

A Nathan Pila wrote in response, disagreeing. (For some reason, I cannot find any reference to the post online, but if I ever do, I will link to it.)

Which prompted a response in turn from a colleague of mine, Don Waller, who said:

Re: The Problem With Atheism, letter to the editor, Jan. 24.

Letter writer Nathan Pila's response to Jonathan Kay's column (Thy Rod and Thy Staff, Jan 23) is essentially an assertion of a worldview commonly known as physical naturalism. Specifically, in this case, that there is no mind or soul independent of the brain; all thought and behaviour is purely the result of neurochemical synapses in the brain.

It is true that some biologists have proposed this view, however, it is by no means a commonly held view. There are serious scientific and philosophical reasons why physical naturalism cannot be tenable. One philosophical argument is based on the idea of free will.
Human beings are known to exhibit what is known as libertarian freedom, that is, they can literally choose between bona fide options... A or B.

If all thought and behaviour are indeed only the result of the biochemistry of the brain, then free will cannot exist, and all we have left is pure determinism.

Furthermore, any concept of moral obligation and responsibility is also nonsensical if determinism is true. But we do not live this way because we do not believe this way.
Mr. Pila concludes by asserting that God's existence is irrelevant. If neurochemical determinism is true then one could also argue that indeed nothing truly exists including Mr. Pila -- he and his letter are just a fabrication of my biochemical synapses. Such a position is indefensible. God's existence is therefore a possibility, and if so, that existence is not irrelevant.
- Don D. Wallar, M.Sc. (Neurochemistry), Newmarket, Ont.

Also, here's an article by Andrew Higgins, originally in the Wall Street Journal, on the European version of the atheist crusade.

My next book! The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary, Harper August 2007).