If we are searching for the potential existence of god, how are we likely to find him?
A strong philosophical worldview should be where any real journey toward truth starts, as it is important to consistently view all information through the same lens. How can we be truly objective, for instance, if we use different criteria to judge different sides of an argument? Forcing consistency ensures that all facts are being evaluated in a similar manner, standardizing comparisons between different sets of observations. This is not to say that worldviews can never change – this should be both expected and encouraged – but when they are changed, they should void all previously held conclusions. If we have very well defined models, identifying and compensating for a change will be straightforward as we can simply follow the logical chain of reasoning. If our models are more ambiguous however, we will drift along like a boat without an anchor, making no real progress toward any meaningful answers. Although there are many different areas of philosophy, I break down my own personal worldview into pillars focusing on the nature of the universe, the fundamentals of existence, and the nature of truth/knowledge.
The first supporting pillar of my worldview focuses on the essential essence of the universe. In other words, what is behind the vastness and complexity that we see all around us? The question to ask here is: “When we get down to the fundamental truths of the universe, are we dealing with natural or supernatural explanations?” Do we expect to find the same physical truths under every rock, or do we eventually hit a point where we have to look outside of our universe for an explanation? At first glance, it might seem impossible to answer this question without first addressing the existence of the supernatural – the very question I am setting out to answer. After all if god does not exist, then considering anything but natural explanations is a wasted exercise. The problem here, of course, comes in the absolutist phrasing of my question, allowing for only two mutually exclusive answers. Be very careful with philosophy in this regard, as things are rarely so clear cut. If a certain way of thinking tends to illicit such unrealistically polarized conclusions, the weakness most likely rests with the model itself, not the facts used within it. Anyone claiming that their particular philosophy is ‘absolute truth’ has to struggle with subsequently disproving every other philosophy that came before it. The intangible nature of logical models makes this an almost impossible task, as contradictory ideas can literally spring up overnight. Even if absolute certainty is not possible, we still have to fight the very human tendency to try and see the world via clearly delineated categories. Water is either hot or cold, the light is either on or off, and the sun has either risen or it has set. It would be strange to say that the water is 63.4°F or that the sun has reached 22% of its apex, even though we would be communicating far more information than before. We are less inclined to think of things in shades of grey, and we are left with an internal struggle to be comfortable with uncertainty. In the The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan revealed just how dependant on certainty we really are:
“Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science — by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans — teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.”
While we cannot legitimately speak about certainties, we can still talk about things in terms of probability. I personally believe that all of the universe can be explained through natural means, a belief called Metaphysical Naturalism, but I cannot prove this fact. I have not personally witnessed all that there is to witness, and there are explanations that elude even our greatest scientific minds. If I were to base my conclusions off of Metaphysical Naturalism, I would be making the same faith-based leaps that theists make when discussing god. Without conclusive evidence, I cannot construct a properly skeptical worldview with Metaphysical Naturalism at its heart. Instead, I must compromise a bit and adopt the weaker form of Naturalism called Methodological Naturalism. Put briefly, it is my view that natural explanations should be expected for all observations, and any investigation should start there first. I believe that even if we cannot provide a good natural explanation, one should be expected at some point in the future. Those who believe in supernatural explanations, in my opinion, need to demonstrate that there will never be any potential natural models before they can defend their position. In The Language of God, Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project and devout Christian, warns that:
“…caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the middle ages, to the origins of life today, this “god of the gaps” approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that’s –possible). Faith that placed God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps. Faced with incomplete understanding of the natural world, believers should be cautious about invoking the divine in areas of current mystery, lest they build an unnecessary theological argument that is doomed to later destruction.”
Simply pointing out a gap in our understanding is not enough. Believers must also be able to demonstrate why that particular gap can never be filled by science. If a gap has a chance to be filled, as in a natural answer could be found, then there is simply no need to add the further complexity of including the supernatural. This pillar will help keep my conclusions fact-based while still leaving god as a potential answer.
Although Naturalism provides guidance on how the universe works, we still need a model to describe its constitution. When existence is broken down into its smallest parts, what kind of substances do we find? Can consciousness, sentience, cognition, matter, energy, and light all be defined with the same set of physical components, or are there more ethereal elements of existence that are not readily observable? The answer to this particular question is important because it sets boundaries around what we are allowed to consider. As with Naturalism, I hold the personal belief that the entirety of existence can be broken down into an interaction of physical matter with physical phenomena. This particular philosophy is called Materialism, and it is as equally improvable as Metaphysical Naturalism. As before, I have to sacrifice my personal belief and adopt the much more open-ended worldview of Dual-Aspect Monism. Dual-Aspect Monism simply states that the mental and physical are both two aspects of the same substance. This philosophy does not try to say whether that common substance is natural or not, just that consciousness – or the human condition, if you will - can be explained with the same techniques used to describe physical phenomena (like electrical impulses and cell structure). While not ruling out the supernatural entirely, Dual-Aspect Monism forces logical consistency between biological facilities and mental experience. If consciousness was completely separate from its physical machinery – if it were surreptitiously placed there by god, for instance – then it would not be affected by changes to the brain. Anyone who has ever taken prescription drugs, alcohol, or suffered head trauma will speak to the power that the physical state of the brain has over how we experience the world. Whatever explanation is lurking behind sentience needs to be explained with a model that takes this physical dependency into account.
With a model for explaining both the makeup and nature of existence in place, we now need to ensure that we have a consistent way of evaluating the arguments made within this framework. When faced with tough decisions, we all have different standards that we use to determine what conclusion best fits our view of the world. Are observation and experience the only appropriate tools to use, or can intuition, revelation, and a priori reasoning be used as well? It should come as no surprise that I tend to side with observable and externally verifiable statements, which is referred to as Empiricism. I do not completely rule out intuition, revelation, or personal authority as potential sources of truth, but the imprecise nature of these claims makes them less reliable than their rigorously tested counterparts. It is also important to note that the amount of evidence required to substantiate a claim should scale in direct proportion to both its probability and significance. If I want to know the score of a football game, I would have no problem trusting the word of a complete stranger on the street. After all, the risks are low in this case and the information is not significant enough to warrant further research. When it comes to buying a house or some other major life decision though, I want to see it for myself and even the word of trusted friends is usually not enough (on its own) to ease my mind. In a similar vein, while it is easy to believe the stranger with the football score, what if he also claimed that aliens attacked the stadium at halftime? The sheer improbability of this new claim would make you instantly doubt his word, and you would either disregard his testimony outright or seek out corroborating evidence. If god truly exists, then the stakes of finding out the truth cannot be greater. God would represent a magnificently complex and singularly important entity and the ramifications of his potential existence require very compelling evidence to support it. Whenever I am given personal testimony, revelation, or intuition as evidence, I will always ask for externally verifiable ways to stress the validity of those claims.
I assume that anyone holding opposing worldviews will now start accusing me of rigging the game against god. There is some validity in this, as the natural, physical, and observable slant to my models puts the burden of evidence squarely on the supernatural side of the argument. Unless I find compelling evidence to move toward a supernatural explanation, I will always default to a natural one. This is both intentional and appropriate, in my opinion. Those claiming to know god are the ones who are making extraordinary claims and they should be held accountable to build a supporting case. If the evidence presented is not compelling, why should I believe in god? There is the tendency among believers to want to flip this argument around, asking for a reason not to believe (see Pascal’s Wager). Just like the strangers claims of an alien attack at the football game, it is not our job to explain why he is wrong. We are naturally skeptical at first, and it is his job to present a case compelling enough to make us listen to his story. All I ask is that we take a similarly prudent look at the evidence for god. If the case is not strong enough, there is simply no reason to believe in his existence.
