Introduction: The problem of God

         

                                                             


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 such a discussion 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 physics can lead to fruitful discussions of how something we can call "God" might exist. In the process, we may begin to converge on a common understanding of what such a God might be. If we don't agree in the end, at least we will understand where our theories of reality diverge.

                                            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 convinced this is true. I believe it might be possible to find a definition of God that could inform a logically coherent theory of reality that is testable, if only in light of future knowledge. For now, to choose to believe in something outside of the physical universe that can operate within it remains an act of faith.

The concept of faith presumes lack of certain knowledge, but science has not answered every question about the physical world, either. Assuming that it will is also an act of faith. I believe it more likely that science alone will never answer every question about the physical universe. 

That said, I believe that any concept of God must be consistent with the laws of physics, to the extent that we believe we understand the universe with some certainty. We must not be too confident that we have identified the most fundamental laws of physics, or we may find ourselves as unprepared to accept the physics of the future than Einstein was to accept the implications of quantum mechanics when he said "God does not play dice with the Universe." 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.

                 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 introduce any erroneous information. For those who find these explanations are still unclear, it is not unlikely that I am at fault. Please bear with me and continue reading. Much of what I mention in this introduction will become clearer as you read on.

There are reasons to believe that understanding the fundamental nature of what scientists sometimes view as particles may require assuming that there are more than the four dimensions of space and time that we are familiar with. Clues to what we might call God might be found when considering other dimensions that we can infer but not measure, as string theory postulates.

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 may not add much to our what I am trying to convey 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 it might operate and manifest in the universe we now 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," expressed in quantum mechanics as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The possibilities of multiple dimensions determining events in our universe and the existence of multiple universes intersecting with ours, combined with the uncertainty inherent in quantum physics, leaves plenty of room for how we might choose to call God can operate in the world without violating the laws of physics.

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.


                        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 value in making a choice that leads them to have more hope for the future in these troubled times, I have accomplished my most important goal in writing 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 give any serious thought to questions of morality generally 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. They are not really 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  atheist fundamentalism since all fundamentalists take as unassailable facts 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. I will argue that this thing exists both within and beyond the bounds of the physical universe as scientists currently understand it. 

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. 

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 reject the idea without adequate consideration of what God might be. Without some notion of “God,” it is hard if not impossible to make the case that life is inherently meaningful. To choose to believe that God exists is to choose to believe that there is an inherent purpose to the universe. While this 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. Given the current state of the world, the question of whether life has inherent meaning seems to me to be of utmost importance. Buddhists are taught to practice non-attachment to outcomes, but I suspect most of them will have a hard time holding onto that belief if they live long enough 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 a whole 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

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. Any seemingly crazy idea I may hold as a possible truth about reality is nonetheless rational, as long as it is consistent with my other beliefs. In constructing this worldview (multiverseview?), I am prepared to throw out any ideas that do not fit all the facts, no matter how fundamental the notion may be to my belief system, if they are logically inconsistent with new information that transforms my model of reality.  

It is my hope that this effort will contribute to creating a consensus reality that will allow us to create a world that approaches perfect justice. The world that I believe is referred to in the Christian prayer "Thy Kingdom come (when) thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."

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).

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 travel with you. It is my fervent hope that those who have ideas that will help guide us on this quest will share them here and help us move closer to that elusive goal.