The Science Of G-d

I used to be confused.

I used to wonder about the evidence that put all that I had learned about my religion into question; about the “higher biblical criticism” that tried to tear down the meaning of the Bible and convert its contents into a work of literature. There were also occasional archeological findings which corresponded to biblical accounts, but a lot of questions remained unanswered. So I continued to wonder.

Then I read a book entitled “The Science of God” by Gerald Schroederⁱ and I no longer wonder. My attitude has changed.

Schroeder demonstrates, using Einstein's theory and quantum mechanics that the gulf that I once thought existed may not be as real as I had believed (!) – that the two are compatible. I no longer wonder. Science has provided the tools to show that belief is not irrational – that there is evidence for biblical claims and a reasonable and logical explanation for some of the most troubling assertions which may be found in the Bible.

But I regret the work I just read because it is an apologetic which is based on a perceived need to show that compatibility – between science and religion – and it is an attempt to show that belief is factually justified.

That, however, changes it from belief to knowledge. So as reassuring as the “facts” are, I resent them. They make religion rational, and that's not what it's all about. Schroeder has picked up the scientists' cudgel, rather than throwing down one of his own. He has accepted and validated their language and decided that theirs is the appropriate playing field. He leaves room for scientific refutation of his views when he might have pointed out that such arguments are irrelevant. And that's a mistake – it's better to accept “their” scientists' problemsⁱⁱ than “our” scientists' solutions.

Can we “know” what Hashem “wants?” No. Can we figure it out? The more scientific discoveries that are announced – discoveries which demonstrate a correlation with the Bible – the more it becomes obvious that belief, not science, should be the benchmark. Science is merely catching up. Yet we glory in those discoveries, and that defeats the entire purpose of religion, for we have accepted the scientific point of reference. We've “shown them,” using their own tools.

Of course the rationalists find the religious perspective incomprehensible. They have challenged believers to demonstrate its rationality.ⁱⁱⁱ But they have not been challenged to adopt a spiritual approach to their positions. We accept their perspective while they reject ours. It's not what is currently referred to as a “level playing field.” Scientists, although they rely heavily on belief today,^iv contend that no belief makes no sense. Theirs certainly doesn't, for while living by it, they deny its existence.

There are three kinds of belief. Belief is not monolith any more than science. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

The first type of belief (literally) is the kind demonstrated by a child. It reflects an acceptance of what he was taught by parent or teacher. It was usually presented without any counter argument and there was no reason to question it. It is fact! “How do I know? The Bible tells me so.” For many, this childish kind of belief persists throughout life. There are certain unquestionable truths which you believe (know) to be correct because that's what you've always been told and in your circles it's an accepted truth.

Others see “facts”^v as the basic building blocks of belief. Indeed, they actually reject the term “belief,” preferring to designate their views as “knowledge.” It is the belief of the scientist. It is “adult” belief, requiring proof.^vi But it's really not very different from a child's belief. It's an unshakable conviction based on what you've been told “and in your circles it's an accepted truth.” The one major difference from the certainty of a child is that this scientific “belief,” however convincing it may be, is subject to change at a moment's notice. All it takes is a new fact, and a new belief will be substituted for the old. Without second thought or embarrassment. Belief is both absolute and infinitely changeable.

There is also the belief of the convinced convert, and the individual who has “strayed” from the path which he may^vii have been taught as a child. Many of these people have come to the conclusion that the path they have chosen to follow is the “true” one. Whether or not they have good evidence to support their new beliefs, they have no doubts about their veracity.

And so it seems that everyone has some belief about religion – whether it is a belief in it's validity or it's falsity; whether a belief that spirituality or science holds all the answers.

But that's not the case. There are many who aren't certain. We call them “agnostics” (without knowledge) because we are wedded to fancy Greek terminology, but suggesting that they uniformly lack knowledge or belief is not accurate. Indeed, some of them are very well educated on the issues, but confused about the ultimate answers. And some of them are very observant of their religions, whether from a desire to maintain traditions, even if they don't fully accept them, or out of the hope that they are correct and the wish to be on the “winning” side.^viii

But many agnostics believe that no one can have actual knowledge of the existence or absence of G-d. And in this respect they're right. After all, that's what belief is. There's no point in using science to give evidence one way or the other. Even if that were possible – which it isn't – it would be counterproductive. Efforts to do so, like those of Schroeder, may have some didactic value, but they have noting to do with belief.

So I remain confused. But I now realize that I can never have answers, and that that's the way it should be.

Next episode: ““Rules” – They're clear but you're not.
 

I        Broadway Books, New York, 1979.

ii       The scientists can't really explain the origin of the laws of science which they expound, or the source of the speck which, at the time of the “Big Bang” served as the “ancestor” of the universe. They dance around their problems or leave them for future generations.

iii      The idea that they challenge believers to prove the rationality of their religious views is silly, and simply shows that they have no concept of what religion is.

iv       “Logic,” “evidence,” and “theory” are among the terms scientists now use to reflect belief just as they once believed in alchemy and the like. As it says in Ecclesiastes (which, by the way, is a religious book), “there is nothing new under the sun.” That's the same sun that they once believed rotated around the earth.

v        What is a “fact?” That requires a separate discussion, which I plan to engage in sometime in the near future. But, in short, it's something its proponent believes to be provable, or so obvious that it requires no proof.

vi       As such, of course, it is not more than belief in the actuality of what they consider facts. As we have seen, today's facts are tomorrow's “old wives tales.” (N.B. I do not wish to demean old wives. Nor, for that matter, old husbands, of which I am one.)

vii      Or may not. The childhood religious education of some is lacking. But after considering the various options, and often based on study on their own, some decide that their own religion makes the most sense.

viii     Pascal's Wager is an example of this kind of approach.