Introduction

                                                              

I have had many fascinating conversations with professed atheists about what I think of as God by following one simple rule: I don’t mention the word “God.” When that word is used, it is often interpreted by both the speaker and the listener in terms of assumptions they may not share. If they don't agree on a definition, they will not be talking about the same thing. The same principle explains a lot of the difficulty people have understanding the political opinions of those who view the world through a different lens. This is why we are often warned never to talk about politics or religion with people might not agree with us. What a pity...

It is not necessary to complicate a discussion about spirituality with ambiguous language if you start with a neutral question like, "Is there is anything beyond space and time?" Approaching the question of God's existence by couching it in the language of science can lead to fruitful discussions of how something we can call "God" might exist that is consistent with what we believe we understand about the universe. In the process, we may begin to converge toward a common understanding of what such a thing might be. If we don't agree in the end, at least we will understand where our theories of reality diverge. If we can agree that something outside of space-time might exist, we are ready to begin 

                                            Faith vs Knowledge

I am not suggesting that the question of whether God exists can be answered by even the most advanced physics of the far future. It is generally agreed that the matter will forever remain a matter of philosophical speculation, though I am not yet convinced that this is true.

I believe it is possible to develop a definition of "God" that would seamlessly blend with physics to create a workable model of ultimate reality. That hypothetical structure might even prove testable in light of future knowledge. In that case, events to come might elevate these speculations to the status of theory. For now, choosing to believe in something outside of the physical universe that can operate within it is an act of faith.

The concept of faith presumes lack of certain knowledge. While the term is usually applied only to matters of religious belief, science has not answered every question about the physical world, either. I have not seen any convincing evidence that science alone will never answer every question about the universe and its contents.  Assuming that it will is also an act of faith. 

Although there is much we do not know about the universe, scientists have reason to believe they understand key aspects of it with considerable certainty. However, we must not be too confident in our knowledge. Einstein turned our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics on its head when he developed his theory of relativity, but was reluctant to accept the implications of quantum mechanics. This is what he meant when he said "God does not play dice with the Universe." 

                 Considerations in developing a valid theory of reality

If God exists and influences events in the physical world, it must operate according to the laws that govern it. That God can act in the world in violation of the physical laws that underlying its existence is a logical impossibility. If you believe that God created the universe by imagining it into existence and that there are physical laws governing how it operates, then it logically follows that anything violating those laws would annihilate the universe. How can any system exist when the fundamental laws that govern it can be arbitrarily ignored? 

To put it simply, God cannot create both an irresistible force and an immovable object in the same universe. There are logical limits to its powers.

If God exists and acts on the universe but is not entirely of it, it seems to me that we will have to consider this, as well as what science can teach us about the measurable, if we want to construct the most complete theory of reality available to us.

                  Implications of modern physics for a model of reality

I am not a physicist, but I have some understanding of modern physics. I hope that in my attempt to keep the concepts as understandable as possible for the general public, I do not misstate current scientific beliefs. For those who find my explanations are still unclear, it there is a good chance that I am at fault. Please bear with me and continue reading. Most of what I mention in this introduction will become clearer as you read on.

Some scientists believe that understanding the fundamental nature of what particles may require assuming additional dimensions beyond those of space and time with which we are all familiar. Clues to what we could call God might be found when considering other dimensions that we can infer but not directly measure. This is a fundamental assumption of string theory, which is an attempt to realize Einstein's dream of .a unified field theory that would unite his theory of General Relativity with quantum mechanics.

Some physicists, notably Stephen Hawking, have suggested that the universe we can perceive is only one of many that intersect with ours in some way. The multiverse concept comes in many forms, each with different assumptions and implications. I will not explore the various possibilities in detail, as the subject is complex and the details unimportant to what I am trying to explore in this book. Theoretical physicists have much work to do to be able to prove our disprove the existence of a multiverse, and even more to appreciate how it might operate and manifest in the universe we currently see only "through a glass, darkly."

Clues pointing to the existence of God might also be found in the infinitesimal dimensions where scientists are unable to simultaneously determine both the position and velocity of a particle. This is based mathematically as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, an important consequence of the theory of quantum mechanics. It reflects the inherent randomness of events at the quantum level that Einstein found so unsettling.

Perhaps when we develop a unified field theory that unites quantum mechanics with relativity, we will be in a better position to explore the possibilities of a multiverse and all that implies.

The possibilities of forces acting in multiple dimensions to determine events in our universe, the existence of multiple universes intersecting with ours, and the uncertainty inherent in quantum physics leave plenty of room for how our hypothetical "God" can operate in the world without violating the laws of physics. 


                         The role of doubt in understanding reality

Those who do not believe in God fall into several categories. Although this book is not directed exclusively at them, I hope that there will be those among them interested in considering the ideas raised here. Some might find that when they consider more deeply the possible ways to define God, the concept may make a lot more sense. If they see the potential value in making a choice that leads them to have more hope for the future in these troubled times, I have accomplished one of the important goals of this book. 

There are two kinds of people who call themselves atheists. What they have in common is that both have chosen to live without being influenced by notions of God (the words atheist and atheism come from the Greek atheos, meaning “without God”). Those who have given serious thought to questions of morality typically consider themselves secular humanists. As such, most atheists share the professed values of most adherents to various religions and those who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious.”

One type of atheist is the person who has given up trying to decide whether God exists but is inclined to believe that it does not. Those I have talked to do not seem open to the possibility that they are wrong, but admit they could be. They lie on the borderline between agnostics and what most people think of as atheists. The difference between this type of atheist and agnostics is that agnostics are open to the possibility that God exists, whatever it may be.

In contrast, the more hardcore atheist firmly rejects the possibility of God altogether, implicitly taking the position that they know that God does not exist. I think of this as  "fundamentalist atheism" since, like religious fundamentalists, they take as unassailable fact beliefs that cannot be proven, even when they are patently illogical. Fundamentalist atheists either fail to recognize, or refuse to concede, that one cannot prove the non-existence of something that can be imagined but not measured. To them, what cannot be at least theoretically measured does not exist.

This belief system is also known as “scientism” because it assumes that science can, in theory, explain everything worth knowing. It is important to note that many renowned scientists are not adherents to this religion. 

If you believe that what cannot be measured does not exist, it would follow that cynics are right and love is a mere delusion. But for those who have experienced it, love not only exists but is perhaps the most important force in the universe. Even if we can’t agree on a definition of love, we know it because have known it personally. For many people, the possibility that God is love is sufficient reason to believe in it.

Religious and atheist fundamentalists have something important in common. Both choose to adopt beliefs which foreclose consideration that we might all be part of something much larger than ourselves that cannot be explained in strictly scientific terms.

The problem with fundamentalist belief systems is that they limit the ways in which we can understand the true nature of reality. To understand how a God might exist that is consistent with what we understand about modern physics will requite us to abandon our preconceptions. I will argue for the view that this thing exists both within and beyond the bounds of the physical universe as scientists currently understand it. 

Although most people do not recognize it, true faith is not certainty. Once we begin to assume facts not in evidence, we run the risk of being susceptible to delusions. As many religious philosophers have pointed out, true faith is based on a solid foundation of doubt.

                 The benefits of considering the reality of "God."

I hope that I have not lost any fundamentalists that have read this far. All I am saying is that believing that something that can reasonably be called God might exist is a form of faith, and an eminently logical one. It makes no sense to me to reject the idea without considering whether there might be a logical idea of what God might be that might open our eyes to a more meaningful, hopeful world. This need not be mere wish fulfillment. It may be that what we find is very real.

My exploration of this question began when I realized in 2009 that the world seemed headed toward what looked like certain disaster. That is when I suddenly realized that time was running out to deal with the climate crisis and that elected officials in the U.S. government were never going to take the drastic actions necessary to stop it as long as their positions depended on the goodwill of the Wall Street donors who wanted to keep profiting from oil, war, privatized health care, and other destructive industries

Suddenly, I wanted very badly to believe that there was an inherent purpose to human existence. Without some notion of “God,” it was hard if not impossible to believe there was.  I realized that to choose to believe that there is an inherent purpose to the universe is to choose to believe that God exists. While faith is not certainty, it is enough to change your outlook on life. That is a very valuable thing when the world we know appears poised to collapse.

Until I understood that believing in a benevolent higher power amounts to adopting the belief that life is inherently meaningful, the existence or nonexistence of God seemed academic. I had lived my entire life implicitly assuming that it had a purpose, but when facing the possibility of the collapse of human civilization or even extinction, I had better find a way to believe in a God that conformed to what seemed to me to be reality.

I have learned that Buddhists are taught to practice non-attachment to outcomes. That belief leads to many life-changing changes but I suspect most Buddhists will have a hard time holding onto it when the world begins to experience climate collapse or (God forbid!) global nuclear war.

When I was an agnostic, I assumed the question of God's existence was unknowable and that I had to choose my own purpose in life. After 40 years without giving the question further thought, certain experiences led to insights that made me wonder if God might truly exist. When I started looking at things under the tentative assumption that it might, I saw the world in an entirely different way. Eventually, further experiences led me to believe that it is more likely than not that God exists. That is the nature of my faith. It is based on probability rather than certainty. Of course, so is the interpretation of the results of most experiments in modern physics.

                                           The nature of reality

To understand how God might exist, we need to broaden our ideas of its nature. Children may imagine that God is an old man with a flowing white beard sitting on a cloud, but adults do not. To pursue this line of thought, we must consider what modern physicists believe about how the universe operates. At the same time, we have to recognize that there are many questions to be answered in cosmology and particle physics that may lead to a fundamental rethinking of the nature of the physical universe (or multiverse, if that is the nature of physical reality).

Each of us lives in a subjective world of our own creation, based on our assumptions about reality. I am trying to construct my model of reality by being open to all logical possibilities, including the possibility that God exists and imbues meaning to existence. Any seemingly crazy idea I may hold as a possible truth about reality is nonetheless rational by definition, as long as it is consistent with my other beliefs and those beliefs are not themselves illogical.

In constructing my worldview, I am prepared to throw out any assumption that does not fit all the facts, no matter how fundamental the notion may be to my belief system, if it is logically inconsistent with new information. I make every reasonable effort to consider the validity of an idea before discarding it, and I refuse to deny the facts in order to live with uncomfortable truths.

It is my hope that this effort will contribute to constructing a consensus reality that will allow us to create a world that increasingly approaches perfect justice, the world I believe is referred to in the words of what Christian s call the Lord's prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." If we only follow our own spiritual natures, I believe that we can create a global society as close to heaven as can exist in an imperfect world.

The quest for a conceptual understanding of the nature of reality is one that will not end in my lifetime. I invite the reader to travel with me as far as I can go with you, and that we might help each other to discern the way. 

* It is my hope and expectation that those with more knowledge of physics than I possess will help me refine my arguments with greater precision as this book is written, so that the final form of the published book will be as useful as possible in stimulating more thinking about the topics raised in it. Similarly, I welcome those with specialized knowledge of religious philosophy, logic, psychology, sociology, anthropology or any other relevant field to add their thoughts in the comments section.