Q: If you could ask God any question, what would it be? and what would be the question that God asks in response?
A: Eric: Why are you so explicit in the Bible but so silent in nature?
God: How would I get people to read my book if they knew the ending?
Contrary to popular belief, evolutionists make no claim that biological evolution proves that God does not exist. In fact, many leaders in the field of evolutionary theory are theists, and many of them have no problem reconciling their beliefs with their work. All attempts to disprove evolution have proven futile. Considering this, doesn’t it make more sense that God created evolution than the idea that proving evolution happened somehow disproves God’s existence?
This untruth was born out of a mix of religion and politics. Creationist’s primary goal these days is to force the teaching of their beliefs in public schools, and they know that something must have a scientific basis in order to be a part of public education. (Notice we have no classes on astrology or acupuncture.) A Creationist’s beliefs are centered around the idea that God created the universe, and anything that appears to prove their beliefs is important to them. Makes perfect sense. The problem is that Creationism as a workable theory is so vague that it can never hold up to scientific rigors; not to mention the fact that it is obviously a political movement working under the guise of religious freedom.
All believers in God (whichever one you’re talking about) believe that the universe was created by a higher power. Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; the only debates now center on each of the many processes that drive it. Given this, Creationists should view evolution as one of the many “miracles” performed by God. But their political motivations have distorted the debate to the point where their main argument now is that evolution a man-made concept intended to improperly teach people about the origins of life.
Oh, the irony.
Why is it a logic leap to say that existence implies a creator, but statistical inevitability is not?
During a discussion I was having with one of my very good friends, a question came up that I had to stop and think about. It’s a delicate matter, with an important subtlety that has to be carefully spelled out. I don’t want to offend anyone, but I do want this point to be clear.
The discussion was about evolution, but more specifically, The Beginning. I was attempting to explain that creation (which implies a creator) is a leap in logic, and their response was that saying that something is statistically inevitable is the same kind of logic leap. But this is not true. So why is it a logic leap to say that existence implies a creator, but it isn’t to say that life is a statistical inevitability?
Statistical inevitability implies that something will happen given a long enough time scale. Aside from the true origin of the universe (which is impossible to determine), if the universe came into being on its own, it explains why it would’ve taken a very long time for things to finally take shape. The most-used and most appropriate analogy for this is the monkeys with the typewriters. Given enough time, if you put a handful of monkeys (even relatively stupid ones) in a room with a typewriter, they will eventually bang out all of Shakespeare’s writings exactly as they were written. Though this is highly improbable, it is statistically inevitable. The same is true for the formation of our galaxy, our sun, our solar system, our planet, our environment, and all species on the planet. Though it is highly improbable that life should spontaneously appear on some rock in the middle of nowhere, it is statistically inevitable given the laws of physics.
It is the essence of statistical inevitability that life would eventually develop over a long enough time period. There is no need for a creator in the definition of existence because if there was a creator, then something must’ve created the creator. Use the principle of Occam’s razor. If everything we know was created by something, it implies a creator. If there was a creator, then where did the creator come from?
I have been raised to believe in God, and I have always felt a presence, though my definition of the source of that feeling has changed over time. But, throughout that time, I truly believed in a higher power of some kind, continually watching over me. I simply couldn’t think of the world without a consciousness such as God. So, I have spent the vast majority of my life assuming that he/she/it existed. It hasn’t been until fairly recently in my relatively short life that I have even seen the world through the eyes of a born-again atheist.
I love to talk to people about the existence of God. Though the theists I talk to may agree with a lot of what I’m saying, if a conversation gets deep enough, we almost always reach a point of irreconcilability. It becomes very difficult to relate to one another, and I think that is because atheists and theists (whatever your definition of a theist may be) live in two different worlds. Our belief or non-belief in God is more than just an opinion; it’s a lens through which we view the world. I understand what it feels like to know that something was watching my every move and listening to my every thought. Even after I began thinking of myself as a non-believer, I had to call myself an agnostic because I still felt “it’s” presence.
So, I want to suggest something to anyone having a discussion about the nature and/or existence of God. When you discuss theology with someone, think of what you consider reality to be. If you are a theist, you know that there is a higher power of some kind, and all of your reasoning stems from that understanding. If you are an atheist, you know that no deity exist, and all your reasoning stems from that understanding. Don’t try to apply the other person’s reasoning to your beliefs because that’s not where it belongs. Instead, put yourself in their world just long enough to help you understand why it is they react the way they do. If the all atheists seem to use the same arguments, remember that theists see it the same way, too.
In our schools and public places
The meme of submission minus reason perpetuates,
Replicates like bacteria in our sweet minds.
We live, some learn, and work ourselves to death,
But that was why we were created, wasn’t it?
So much needless and mindless discussion,
Of things that do and can change nothing.
Philosophists invent discussions, decorated with tautology,
Like how many angels on the tail of a needle.
Perhaps, they feel it gives credence to their creed,
Founding to their faith, like the Council of Clermont.
I have always wandered the spiritual hallways,
Lit by Dharma and Trinity, Brahman and Satori,
But they merely took me places I had not been.
The door my hands couldn’t open always intrigued me,
Summoned me, and a few times I even tried to break it down.
Until finally, one day, it quietly swung open,
And I saw myself grinning on the other side.
God, protect me from your people,
With closed minds and blind third eyes.
Misinformation and half-truths
Are barely discernable from the lies.
I’ve felt your presence and your power,
My biology is impossible to deny.
But I do not fear to think these thoughts,
I’d rather know uncomfortable truths than reassuring lies.
I appreciate all you have done for me,
And all the gifts you have bestowed upon us.
So do not be shocked or surprised
If I use them to their full extent.
Please calm the nerves of your other admirers
With their holy armor helmets without a view.
Let them realize that varying opinions
Is part of your gift of graceful freewill.
Assure your children that it is acceptable
To completely ignore your divine providence.
Teach them the lesson they should have known,
Of peace, love, and unconditional tolerance.
Let one of my favorite fictional characters take over for a moment and I will get right back to you…
“I’m a Christian in the sense that I find Jesus Christ to be an admirable historical figure. I think the Sermon on the Mount is one of the greatest ethical statements and one of the best speeches in history. I think that ‘Love your enemy’ might even be the long-shot solution to the problem of nuclear war. I wish he was alive today. It would benefit everybody on the planet. But I think Jesus was only a man. A great man, a brave man, a man with insight into unpopular truths. But I don’t think he was God or the son of God or the grandnephew of God.”
–Ellie Aroway, in Carl Sagan’s Contact (1984)
Ah, yes. Ellie (Sagan) hits it right on the head, if you ask me. I have always felt this way (the last three sentences would be my amendments of the past few years). I was thrilled to read Sagan write that because it was what I have always wanted to say but just did not realize how.
I do not think it takes away from his greatness by saying that he was just a man. In fact, I think it does him great disservice to associate him with unrealistic claims as being the Son of God. If he were here now we would lock him up and call him crazy. Following his teachings is a great way to live your life, but I just cannot seem to understand the need to believe that he was a supernatural being. If that is the case, then there are many godlike people on the planet. Should they claim they are the progeny of a deity?
© 1999-2023 Eric P. Metze