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."
Either way--Fiat lux or Big Bang--represents a creation ex nihilo, which presumes a kind of nothingness beforehand. Believers argue that God always existed, and so there never was nothingness, and, of course, you have to take that on faith. Science, on the other hand, offers up a creation scenario known as the Big Bang that it fails to explain adequately--that is, with scientific precision--where the infinitely dense matter that exploded into the expanding universe came from. Indeed, both scenarios leave the mind gaping and groping for an explanation. Atheists insist that God is an invention of humanity and that science can explain everything that believers look to God to explain. Anything that science cannot adequately explicate at the moment--like, say, the precise origins of whatever existed before the Big Bang--is simply the result of not having enough information.
I can relate to that. Even those religious mystics, from St. Teresa of
Avila to Sri Ramakrishna of Bengal, who have had what are known in the
trade as mystical experiences, have described them as, well,
indescribable. The word that the great American psychologist and philosopher William
James (pictured at left) used to define these experiences is "ineffable." I have long thought that mystical experiences, near-death experiences, miraculous
healings, extra-sensory perception, telepathy, bilocation and other
seemingly inexplicable phenomena could all be explained if we but had
enough information. (Although watching DVDs of a favorite old TV show of my childhood, One Step Beyond, has made me realize just how flimsy some of those explanations can be.) I even accept that some of that information might
be of a nature that our consciousness, as currently configured, is
incapable of understanding. And that holds true whether we are speaking
about scientific reality or divine Reality. In the end, religious belief is only as good as its manifestations. Many great mystics and writers on mysticism have said that genuine enlightenment always manifests as the desire to be of service. And being of service presupposes the ability to control one's egoistical desires. Secular humanists can be as selfless as religious practitioners, so belief is by no means a necessary precursor to ethical, compassionate action. In many cases, as we continue to observe, it can be a hindrance. (See my previous blog entry on Donald Rumsfeld's selective quotation of scripture to support an immoral war.)
In this regard, in my next entry I'll discuss David Foster Wallace's now famous 2005 commencement speech at Kenyon College and what it says about the possibility of following a secular path to divine awareness.
Leave a comment