I'm a little tired right now, but I wanted to tell you that I'm presently reading Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design. It really has me thinking, and I want to write an essay, maybe several, about various points made in the book and my reactions to them. So that is in the works.
Like Nietzsche over a hundred years before, Hawking also announces the death of God, but unlike Nietzsche, Hawking announces the death of philosophy (metaphysics) as well. So of the three disciplines that have historically defined the origins of the universe (and everything in it), Hawking kills off two: religion and philosophy; only science remains. I guess I say, "Not so fast." Religion may be unnecessary for a number of reasons, among them increased literacy, which decreases the need for a minister, priest, or rabbi to interpret. However, I think there is definitely still room for God. (Maybe I'll feel different by the time I reach the end of the book.) I agree in principle with science, and I certainly believe in the scientific method and that religion is not science, but I also believe that science has not yet explained everything, although I do believe that it ultimately could. Unlike other aspects of the universe, humans have minds and feelings, and my feelings and mind gravitates toward a notion of God simply because I need to believe in a god. The thought that I am extremely insignificant in this world scares me. The thought that all I really am is a collection of molecules and atoms among molecules and atoms scares me. Further, I believe in God because I understand my own frailty and because I need to believe in a power greater than myself--in a being who is less fallible than I on whom I can depend. Fear motivates me to believe in God--not the fear of any hell, but the fear of a future. I fear life itself. (Oh, Sarte was so right.) So yes, Nietzsche, religion (and spirituality) may be an opiate, but so what? Perhaps opium grows wild for a reason. Life is difficult; after all it kills.
Humans are more complex than atoms. That's why the social sciences tend to be more difficult fields in which to do research than the physical sciences. Atoms don't talk back; people do. Further, people lie, which, of course, undermines the objectivity of the scientific method and causes a higher rate of error than you'd have in a similarly tight physical study.
Newton's laws of gravity and motion hold up until masses near the speed of light, at which point Einstein's general theory of relativity takes over, since objects seem to slow down as they approach the speed of light because the universe is expanding and because space-time is curved. However, because Newton's theories hold for phenomena under a particular set of (general) circumstances, they are considered general theories or laws. In creative nonfiction, as in postmodernism, social phenomena are situational, specific. Therefore, creative nonfiction writers do not bother to disguise the fact that we are, indeed, subjects in our own works, since we cannot keep our own biases out of our work. We lay our biases on the table for critique, and so that our readers will understand the limitations of our conclusions. Physical scientists are not such burdened. Although they have consciousnesses, the phenomena they study do not have that characteristic and that makes a huge difference when it comes to objectivity.
But even in situations dealing with physical phenomena there are gaps to be filled and science has yet to answer, Where do humans fall within the spectrum? We too are basically chemical and physical processes, according to science. For me to give up my belief in God, science would have to tightly define how we fit with the rest of the universe. Why do we have minds while the planets do not? What were the processes that influenced the development of each? As Hawking pointed out, answering--or just attempting to answer--why something is as it is, is not science. Science has to answer how. To me, science has to answer how and why, as well as when, where, and what, too. Science has to draw a complete picture. Also, science differs from religion in a number of respects. The most important aspect, however, is that of replication. Truth is replicable in science. That replication is what adds that layer of objectivity. Faith doesn't hold up under cross-examination.
Like I said, I don't think that hardly any of the scientific theories are wrong (however I do think that some of the basic assumptions are), but I still believe in God. I try not to debate my spiritual beliefs, because they are faith-based, and rarely do I even talk about exactly what they are, but I'll share a few things with you. I don't believe that God is omnipresent, omnipotent, nor omniscient. I don't believe that God can multitask as well as many religious groups seem to think so. I also believe that God is not a co-dependent and, therefore, does not buy constant repenting for the same sins. Obviously, people who do that are not sorry. So I don't bother to repent for things for which I'm not sorry. God would know that I wouldn't be sorry anyway. I'm working on the third part of the Serenity Prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer), "The wisdom to know the difference." I'm growing in wisdom daily. However, I realize that I will always be a work in progress. When I pray, I pray only for knowledge of God's will for me and the power to carry that out.
I also believe that just like other types of phenomena, some human related phenomena happens by accident--by chance that is still related to scientific determinism. This use of determinism in science doesn't mean preset, but instead "as a consequence of" or "as related to." God is not evil or bad. God doesn't cause cancer or famines, but God helps us to die and to live. Maybe death really is ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Comments