The History of God

"Truth can never suffer from the proper activity of human reason and experiment, but only from their improper or unbalanced activity."

Four or five years ago I read a book that, at the time, I thought was fascinating. It was presented as a biography or history of (the Judeo-Christian) God, and it detailed the gradual withdrawal of God from the realm of Man. In the 'beginning', God was having rather 'human' interactions with Man. 'Hey, let's go for a walk in the garden.' 'Hey, your sacrifice really didn't appeal to Me and now I'm angry.' God was more capricious and whimsical - almost Human - in His interactions with Man. But gradually God seemed to withdraw from the realm of Man. You could not longer see God directly, or God was hidden in a burning bush. Then it got even harder to get God directly. You got angels or messengers instead, and gradually even the appearance of these faded away.

Now the skeptical might say that these stories of God's appearance were simply attributing natural phenomena to 'God', and as our understanding of the world evolved, our need to attribute things to 'God' lessened. Perhaps. This didn't diminish my fascination with the book though, which I remember as having speculated about this fact from a 'Did God get bored with His creation and move on to other things?', as well as a 'Was God at one time something else (like an alien)?' angle. (Remember, I love a good speculation. ;)

Unfortunately that book was a library book, and upon its return to the library, I moved on to other things. And promptly forget the name of the book. Every so often I would think about that book, and the other night, while paying homage to the goodness that is a used book store, I found A History of God, by Karen Armstrong (1993). Was that it? Had I found it again? I can't tell by a cursory glance! For two dollars, I figured I'd find out. (And another book finds its way onto the stacks that litter my humble abode.)

Why do I bring this up? If you are a scientist working at or near the edge of our current knowledge, people invariably want to know what you think about God, and/or what your ideas say about God. Some scientists have no problem telling you exactly what they think, sometimes so loudly and rudely that you forget that they are scientists who, presumably, at some point engage in actual science. Others shy away from the discussion on the grounds that science and religion are inherently different realms. Others argue that science has already chipped away at this much of what we needed God for, so it is only a matter of time before we don't need God at all.

We no longer need a god to explain things like a solar eclipse. The believer will say that God is in the beauty of the design of the system that produces a solar eclipse. The non-believer will say that natural law exists for reasons that have nothing to do with God. Eventually the two sides will come to the point where science cannot yet explain the rules or the 'why' of certain things, and there we will see God or an Ultimate Creator inserted into the argument. As long as there are gaps in our knowledge, there will be a psychological yearning for an explanation. God rules the realms that Science has not conquered.

I have, at times, been profoundly moved by the absolute brilliance of certain aspects of Nature/the universe. But for me this only suggests that if there is a 'God', he is so far beyond our understanding that we cannot presume that he thinks or feels or wants in any way that we can understand. This is the fatal flaw I see in religion - the attempt to bring 'God' down to level where we can say we know what he wants. As our understanding of the 'program' of the Universe grows, we must acknowledge that any ultimate Programmer has always been, and is still, beyond our complete understanding. Therefore it seems incredibly presumptuous to claim we know what would please or displease this Being. Exit many of the harmful activities associated with religion.

(Believers may invoke the argument of divine accommodation (Theopedia - who knew?) , which says, essentially, that certains truths have been 'dumbed down' by God for we poor inferior beings. But the minds of we poor inferior beings continue to make inroads into our understanding of the Ultimate nature of things, so our inherent capability to understand is there. It is more likely than that any past misunderstanding of 'the way things are' has been due to our limited knowledge at the time, and not bad intel from God.)

Science today cannot tell you if a God exists. Science can tell you what you don't need God for. Since we progressively need a God to explain fewer and fewer of the aspects of our universe, it is tempting to conclude that one day we will understand it all and 'God' will vanish from our thoughts. Unfortunately, the assumption that the need for a belief in God will one day disappear does not mean that we can now dismiss religion altogether. Religion (not God) is a powerful force in our world now.

But Religion changes with the times. More slowly than we would like, perhaps, but it does catch up with society and science eventually. To hasten this process, continued dialogue is vital. Mind you, I said 'dialogue', not 'condescending, patronizing dismissal of your beliefs'. (The process of your education as a scientist took years. Do not expect the same respect for science to emerge instantly in others who have not been thusly educated.) Similarly, it is difficult to engage someone in a productive dialogue, let alone a persuasive dialogue, if you do not understand where they are coming from. An ambassador of science must understand the language and customs of his hosts. Building a common understanding of language and ideas seems like a worthy goal. If this is not at least one of the goals of a place like the Templeton Foundation, then perhaps it should be.

Well, that's it for this edition of the soapbox. If I hadn't currently been reading The Spiritual Brain, by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary (2007), I might have let the temptation to blog on this topic go by. (Non-materialist neuroscience - who knew?) If I hadn't just found A History of God, I might have resisted the urge to add my beans to the pot. But such is the purpose of a blog - to collect and store spontaneous emissions of fecundity. ;) Until next time...