Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Is it Reasonable to Believe in God?

I suffered through philosophy during college.  Even took a philosophy of religion course.  Wrote a paper arguing for the existence of God.  Made an A on it.  Made an A in the class.  Realize now, I didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about.

Much of the reason why, I believe, is because my brain flatly wasn't mature enough to handle the concepts being put forth.  (I've learned quite a bit about brain maturity by studying Family System's Theory.  Our brains mature at different rates.  Apparently, mine has taken a while.)

Recently, I have delved into books which deal with philosophy and theology.  For some reason, my brain can handle this stuff now.  I actually get it, and it's opening up a whole new area for me in apologetics (defending and articulating the Christian faith.).  Whereas at one time I was overwhelmed by certain arguments, I now can see the flaws in those arguments and come back at them with my own.  Of course, many of my arguments have flaws as well, but one of these days...

One thing which has intrigued me recently is the argument for a reasonable belief in God.  Now, I personally do not believe there is an argument which proves the existence of God.  I believe we come to belief through faith and faith alone.  I don't think one can "measure" or offer any sort of scientific proof for the existence of God.

But I do think the evidence can lead us quite a way in that direction; hence the idea, belief in God is reasonable.  (I'm particularly indebted to Timothy Keller, Richard Neuhaus, John Polkinghorne, and Oz Guiness for directing my thoughts this way.)

The particular issue which has gotten my attention is the "Fine Tuning" of our universe.  Simply stated: our universe is marvelously put together.  There are some mathematical constants, which, if they were off just a hair's breath, would make it impossible for the universe to exist.  So how did our universe come to be so finely tuned?  How did this universe "beat the odds" and come to exist in such a way that life can actually come to thrive on this little planet in the midst of a very big cosmos?  Let me quote John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale's book Questions of Truth here:  "As Tony Hewish once remarked, the accuracy of just one of these parameters is comparable to getting the mix of flour and sugar right to within one grain of sugar in a cake ten times the mass of the sun."  (page 44) That's extremely fine tuning.

There are basically four possible conclusions one can make according to Polkinghorne and Beale (page 44 and 45):

1. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but God has ensured in his loving wisdom that it is so, so that we can come into being.

2. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but just by luck the one that exists is anthropic.

3. This fine-tuning is highly unlikely in a random possible universe, but there are such a vast number of other universes that it is not unlikely that at least one of them is anthropic.

4. There are as yet undiscovered reasons why this fine-tuning is not highly unlikely in a random possible universe.

Number one is a reasonable response based in faith.

Number two is basically a cop out.  I've seen such a rebuttal on the Wikipedia site regarding bridge playing.  It reads:

   An analogy from common experience where the odds can be readily calculated is given by John Allen Paulos in Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences (1989), that the probability of a very mundane event such as that of getting any particular hand of thirteen cards in a game of bridge is approximately one in 600 billion. It would be absurd to examine the hand carefully, calculate the odds, and then assert that it must not have been randomly dealt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

In some ways, the argument is accurate--if it applies to any ordinary hand.  But if a person were dealt all thirteen spades in said hand--a perfect hand, so to speak, then the questioning must surely begin.  Oh, and the mathematical odds that Paulos is describing are far too small to compare to the fine-tuning of our universe.  To get a comparable statistical analogy, it would be like getting two or three such perfect hands in a row.  As a card player, if I see someone get two such hands, I would personally believe the deck is stacked and had been put together by someone.

3. This option is purely based in faith as is option number one.  One cannot measure other universes.  One can only conceive of them.  This response certainly isn't scientific by any extreme.  So which option is more reasonable, believing in a being that fine-tuned a universe that we humans can live in or believing in multiple universes that we cannot see, measure, or confirm by any means that we know of?

4. I'll let Polkinghorne have his two cents on this one again: "Option 4 might correspond to the idea that the true fundamental theory (unifying relativity and quantum theory) has no arbitrary constant.  This seems unlikely, and even if it were true, the fact that such abstract physical requirement let do anthropic fine-tuning is surely the most astonishing coincidence of all."  pg. 45.

Again, none of these things absolutely prove the existence of God, but can one deduce the existence of God from the evidence?

I personally think so.  Especially if you are open to different perspectives.  More on that later.

No comments: