Life Meets Faith: Is it reasonable to disbelieve in God?
The high school I attended in Dundas,
Ontario some years ago was not exactly an
incubator of religious faith. My teachers did
not seem to be much aware of the global
prevalence of religion and frequently made
remarks that questioned faith - Christianity
in particular.
I heard it communicated, intentionally or not, that people have no need of God. Physics teaches us how the universe came to be. Biology teaches us how people evolved. Psychologists tell us how to behave. Political leaders and social workers can manage public life.
God, it was suggested, is a projection of the human mind, an attempt at wish fulfillment. Christians, Muslims or Freemasons can be very sincere, but that doesn't make them believable. Their talk about higher powers or inherent noble purposes is doomed from the start. Creatures more capable and powerful than humans don't exist (except perhaps as imaginary aliens). And "noble purposes" are not inherent in anything. We construct them.
It's unfortunate that there is no higher power, no god who has an eye out for us. But that's just the way it is. In fact, in the end, a god is unnecessary. Allowing his picture to hang on the wall just clutters up your personal mindscape.
On the other hand...
Today it is not unusual to hear top scientists speaking in favour of God. One of them is John Polkinghorne. He is president emeritus of Queen's College, Cambridge, England, a fellow of the Royal Society and an Anglican priest. He is the author of Belief in God in an Age of Science, Science and the Trinity and many other books and articles.
Polkinghorne claims that evolutionary processes do not seem able to account for some of most interesting things about us humans. In "God and Physics," an essay in the book God is Great, God is Good, he tips his hat to evolution. But he goes on to say that it does not explain how Isaac Newton could in one stunning leap of the imagination conceive of the whole universe as being held together by the force that brings an apple to the ground once it leaves the tree.
He finds it remarkable that the physicists can explain the universe using elegant mathematical formulas. Polkinghorne asks, "Why is it that some of the most beautiful patterns that mathematicians can dream up in their minds are found actually to occur in the structures of the physical world around us?"
It would be "lazy," he writes, to just shrug our shoulders and say "That's just the way it is." The "deep intelligibility of the universe" points to something beyond itself. There is a mystery about the world that drives us to look beyond it. It is the same mystery that Einstein referred to when he (quoted by Polkinghorne) said that the mystery of the universe is that it is comprehensible.
Is there anything we can do with this mystery and with the deep sense that the world is pointing beyond itself to something other? Polkinghorne says that the believer in God can affirm that the world is wondrously intelligible because the Creator did not simply initiate a Big Bang and leave it at that (although the Big Bang itself can be seen as possibly the most wondrous of all events pointing to something deeper). God continues to "hold in being" a world endowed with astoundingly comprehensible structures.
With all due respect, I think that what I picked up in high school from my teachers concerning God is wrong. In Polkinghorne's words, "Materialism does not explain enough."
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
I heard it communicated, intentionally or not, that people have no need of God. Physics teaches us how the universe came to be. Biology teaches us how people evolved. Psychologists tell us how to behave. Political leaders and social workers can manage public life.
God, it was suggested, is a projection of the human mind, an attempt at wish fulfillment. Christians, Muslims or Freemasons can be very sincere, but that doesn't make them believable. Their talk about higher powers or inherent noble purposes is doomed from the start. Creatures more capable and powerful than humans don't exist (except perhaps as imaginary aliens). And "noble purposes" are not inherent in anything. We construct them.
It's unfortunate that there is no higher power, no god who has an eye out for us. But that's just the way it is. In fact, in the end, a god is unnecessary. Allowing his picture to hang on the wall just clutters up your personal mindscape.
On the other hand...
Today it is not unusual to hear top scientists speaking in favour of God. One of them is John Polkinghorne. He is president emeritus of Queen's College, Cambridge, England, a fellow of the Royal Society and an Anglican priest. He is the author of Belief in God in an Age of Science, Science and the Trinity and many other books and articles.
Polkinghorne claims that evolutionary processes do not seem able to account for some of most interesting things about us humans. In "God and Physics," an essay in the book God is Great, God is Good, he tips his hat to evolution. But he goes on to say that it does not explain how Isaac Newton could in one stunning leap of the imagination conceive of the whole universe as being held together by the force that brings an apple to the ground once it leaves the tree.
He finds it remarkable that the physicists can explain the universe using elegant mathematical formulas. Polkinghorne asks, "Why is it that some of the most beautiful patterns that mathematicians can dream up in their minds are found actually to occur in the structures of the physical world around us?"
It would be "lazy," he writes, to just shrug our shoulders and say "That's just the way it is." The "deep intelligibility of the universe" points to something beyond itself. There is a mystery about the world that drives us to look beyond it. It is the same mystery that Einstein referred to when he (quoted by Polkinghorne) said that the mystery of the universe is that it is comprehensible.
Is there anything we can do with this mystery and with the deep sense that the world is pointing beyond itself to something other? Polkinghorne says that the believer in God can affirm that the world is wondrously intelligible because the Creator did not simply initiate a Big Bang and leave it at that (although the Big Bang itself can be seen as possibly the most wondrous of all events pointing to something deeper). God continues to "hold in being" a world endowed with astoundingly comprehensible structures.
With all due respect, I think that what I picked up in high school from my teachers concerning God is wrong. In Polkinghorne's words, "Materialism does not explain enough."
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
