The Case for God (by realpc)
There is a new book called The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong. It was recommended to me and I read some reviews, but I did not read the book. Of course I can’t really know what a book is like just by reading the reviews, but the reviews convinced me not to read it, and I will try to explain why. The title led me to think it might be a logical and scientific argument explaining the evidence against atheism, which is the kind of book I might want to read. The reviews I read , on the other hand, suggest that it’s the old “religion and science inhabit completely separate worlds and have nothing to say about each other” argument. Which I do not agree with at all. And furthermore, scientific atheists are impervious to that argument because they “know” science has shown that the “god hypothesis” is unnecessary. They “know” that consciousness, intelligence, only can occur as the product of a physical brain.
The form of pro-god argument expressed in that book says that god is beyond human comprehension and cannot be studied by science. It says that god is not a person, is not tangible. And it says that faith in god can make us a better, nicer, happier person. Ok, there might be some truth in some of that, but there is untruth in it also, and the truth it contains is incomplete and inadequate.
I had read one of C.S Lewis’ books, having heard that it was a logical argument for god. But it wasn’t. It was the old “god is beyond science and reason, and faith in god will make you happier and nicer” argument. It just makes scientific atheists laugh scornfully (something they do a lot of).
I’ve had many arguments with scientific atheists, and I have never won, and they never accepted a single one of my points. But the experience has made me aware of exactly what scientific atheists believe (and their beliefs are pretty much identical). I think I know exactly what the major holes in their logic are, and how they misinterpret the evidence. I won’t try to explain all that in this post. I just want to say something about my beliefs regarding science and religion, why I have always considered this of great importance, and why scientific atheism is becoming a powerful force in our society. And why that’s too bad.
I first learned that god is not real many years ago in college. I believed the professors because I didn’t know much, and they seemed to know a lot. They said that science had demonstrated there are no such things as gods, spirits, angels, devils, etc. It was all the childish unscientific fantasies of ignorant uneducated people.
“Knowing” this made me feel smart and superior, but sometimes I still wondered. Why did so many people believe these silly fantasies? Why had people in all corners of the world, in all cultures, held similar beliefs in spirits, demons, etc.?
So I was motivated to find out if what I learned in college was true. Or was it just another myth, another product of human imagination, a story “smart” people told themselves so they could feel superior and scientific? I set out to learn if scientific atheism is actually based on logic and evidence. I read a lot and I thought a lot, for many years.
I found that no, scientific atheism is not based on scientific evidence or logic. Richard Dawkins is not a voice of reason, fighting the dark forces of ignorance — he is a promoter of a myth. And no, science and religion do not inhabit separate worlds, and yes it is possible to study “god” scientifically.
You can say that god is infinitely beyond human comprehension, but that is saying nothing. Almost everything is beyond human comprehension. And what does the word “god” mean anyway? I don’t even frame the question that way. Instead of asking if god exists and is real, I ask whether “Matter creates Mind” or “Mind creates Matter.” To me the latter is obviously true, and is supported by evidence and logic.
We don’t have to seek evidence for an ultimate infinite God, an all-knowing source of everything that is. We can simply ask whether Mind creates Matter. Is the brain a machine that generates consciousness, or a machine that allows consciousness to interact with the “physical” world of our senses (as described by Sheldrake)?
Dawkins’ basic premiss is that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been proven, and that it shows that natural selection acting on random, purposeless events caused life to appear and evolve. The world is made of lifeless “matter” which assembled itself through the Darwinian process into ourselves, and all other living things.
An enormous amount of evidence has been found for evolution, and for the Darwinian process of adaptation by natural selection. Anyone who doubts these facts is stubborn and silly, or ignorant. But there is nothing whatsoever in any branch of science that suggests this is how and why life originated and evolved. Evolution is true. Natural selection is true. They are two different things; one did not cause the other — I have never been able to explain that to an atheist!
The purpose of the Intelligent Design movement is to show that, although evolution occurred, we do not know how or why. ID is a criticism of the Darwinian theory, which says lifeless, mindless matter can generate life and mind. ID says it is mathematically impossible. ID has not convinced the scientific atheists; they just laugh scornfully at it.
I believe our universe is made out of information, not “matter.” Science has shown us that “matter” is not “physical.” Everything is made of relationships, forces, differences. There are dimensional levels above and beyond the world of our senses. The universe is an infinite Mind, I believe.
So Mind creates Matter, and Mind can and does exist separately from physical brains. There are higher, or different, planes of existence than our own. There are beings, entities, “people,” gods, demons, spirits, angels, devils — why can’t there be? Millions have seen them and heard them and felt them — they were not all hallucinating, in my opinion,
This is not a case for “god,” it’s a case for Mind over Matter. The universe is an infinite Mind and it generates Minds, beings, spirits, etc. Each of us is a face of the ultimate infinite God. There are infinitely many aspects of the ultimate God, and there are an infinite number of mental beings, gods, spirits, etc., on all levels.
I am trying not to make this a long post. I have many reasons for what I’m saying, but I know someone might say it’s ridiculous and unscientific, that I am taking vague and untested scientific theories and spinning wild fantasies. No, I am not. But it would take hundreds or thousands of pages, which you would not read, to explain. I will just say for right now that there is more than enough evidence from parapsychology that Mind can exist and operate separately from matter.
I am not basing everything on parapsycholgy, but I am saying it’s at start, and you can’t just deny and dismiss it. Many times I showed scientific atheists evidence from parapsychology and, after they laughed scornfully, they were unable to explain why they refused to believe it. It must be a mistake, it must be fake. They stopped laughing and started yelling and cursing. I was banned from their blogs.
So .. the case for god. I believe in god and I experience god in my own way. I don’t have a definition for it. I feel I am part of a living conscious universe. And actually, yes it does make me a happier person. Nicer I am not sure about.
Ambiance 