I've been following the raging debate about God vs. Science that has been taking place in the books of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and the pages of the New York Times (Stanley Fish, God Talk, Part 2 ) with amusement but also with a betting interest. The more people reject the concept of a Supreme Being--and that may or may not include less anthropomorphic Eastern concepts, such as Buddha Nature or the Tao--the easier it is to lump them all with the Hitchenses of the world. For these folks, it's all a matter of such simplicity. There is no scientific evidnce that God exists or plays a role in human history, ergo, secular humanism is the only way to go. My problem is that it's never been that simple. The best way for me to sum up my dilemma is to put it this way: The only thing more absurd on the face of it than the idea that "God" created the known universe (and, presumably, any number of others unknown to us) out of an act of will is the idea embraced by scientists and atheists that the universe "just happened."
Continue reading To God or Not To God.

