-->Below is excerpted from an email thread debating the existence of god. A friend asked that I weigh in and this is my initial entrance. Upon reading the subsequent responses it became readily apparent that we were engaged in a vigorous, enjoyable, yet decidedly inconclusive debate with blue, green, and yellow views all arguing against the majority orange stance that empirical science reigns supreme and a belief in god is silly. I could have directed you towards older, more academic papers, or made up a newer, more rigid argument on a topic, but I am finding that it is the ability to ‘shoot from the hip’ to a specific audience that is valuable in my life, and this is what I have done here.<--
To All Concerned,
Devin here. Sorry, Dave invited me and I am loving that this thread exists. Please grant me my few cents.
May I first beg of you all, God fearing and godless, read ‘Integral Spirituality’ by Ken Wilber. This is a man who reads at a PHD level in 16 disciplines with seemingly total recall and the pattern recognition of a savant. He is a trained scientist who can explain to you the wonders and the shortcomings of the cutting edge of quantum physics and many other theories. This book is about the topic we are discussing, and to be honest, I believe that it has the potential to become the most important book written in the past couple of decades. If not, it would at least provide this argument with some really useful jargon. It directly addresses the need for scientific proof of a belief in god, and answers, with a resoundingly affirmative yes, that god does have a place in the post-modern world. People such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Tony Blair have been actively using the ideas presented by the Integral model. I will be paraphrasing much of its tenets below. But first:
READING THE HOLY TEXTS CAN NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
We can argue the holy texts until we are blue (vMeme) in the face. The truth is that they are relative (trapped in time), dualistic interpretations of the absolute non-dual ever-present ground of being. This book is cutting edge shit. It too will fall prey to the evolution of consciousness, but at the moment I do not think that there is a better explanation for spirits role in our world. It is grossly rigorous, and I am not sure how readable it will be for someone who is new to the Integral framework. Perhaps ‘A Brief History of Everything’ is a better starting point. Regardless, I dare you to become Integrally aware.
We are at an amazing juncture in the history of civilization. At no other point in time have we had the ability to access all of the world’s belief systems as we do now. This is an amazing opportunity, and if viewed incorrectly, a massive burden. The doors are open, but there is much filtering to be done. An integral framework seems to me to be the best map we have at the moment. Please let us throw nothing out prematurely.
WHY GOD
I was raised an atheist. I still agree with the vast majority of the ideas that formed that belief in both myself and in my atheist parents. Because of this, I do now believe in God. I don't care if it is not capitalized, but it no longer bothers me if it is.
This has been a very hard fought conclusion. I have experienced transcendental states and enjoyed moments of extreme connectedness with all that I know. These have been nice, but they alone have not convinced me that god is the best description for the ultimate truth that underpins existence. It is also my rational understanding of these and all other experiences and data that I call my life that has informed my decision.
I was raised in a very post modern family with a strong, modern, scientific rationale. I was taught to believe that truth is verifiable, and I do still hold this to be fact. How then is it that I can believe in God? Does this mean that I can show you unquestionable proof? No more than I can show you quarks. But it does mean that I have faith that this proof is available due to the indications and reports of my own experience and those transmitted to me by others. I believe that the things that we refer to as atoms, protons, DNA and black holes exist. I have not personally experienced the undeniable presence of these objects, but I have had experiences that are best explained by the reports of experiments, calculations, theories and observations of others who have attempted to verify the existence of such things. The same can be said for my new found belief in god. I now believe that it is a verifiable truth.
The ability to 'objectively' measure and 'prove' the existence of something as widely accepted as an atom is by no means innate or readily available to everyone. This is a learned skill that is the product of thousands of hours spent over many years learning specific techniques, vocabularies, logical rules and other technologies that lead one to a point where they are capable of designing a falsifiable experiment that will bring them to a conclusion that the sensations that they have experienced are the product of something that they will never see with their naked eye. The same is true of my new found belief in god.
All scientific data is ultimately personal experience; neurological activity if you will. The point is that it is verifiably repeatable by yourself and others, and so it serves a purpose. It seems to facilitate our ability to function in the world. By this measure a belief in god has been far more rigorously tested and affirmed than any current scientific belief. My belief in god in no way conflicts with my belief in science. The two coexist. One does not prove or disprove the other.
There is another book written by Ken Wilber called 'Quantum Questions'. This book tells the stories of some of the worlds most profound and respected scientific thinkers. This includes Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli and Eddington. The shocking truth that all of these leading minds in rational thought consistently bump up against is that there is an element to life that modern science has never been able to explain. At some point in their explorations of the hard, cold facts of the universe, these men all became mystics. Men who were on the absolute leading edge of science at their time all came to believe that there was an element to existence that is better described by god than science. This book uses their own words to show this.
So why do I think that I was correct in calling myself an atheist throughout the vast majority of my life? I do not think that the problem was in my observations of the religious world in which I was raised. I do not believe in that god. I have always had, and in some ways continue to have, a problem with the idea of god as something outside of me; something looming over me; something with an absolute knowledge that is outside of my grasp; something that I am being judged by; something disempowering. My belief that these ideas are dangerous and outdated remains. That god is dead to me. The problem was that in needing to kill that particular god, I ended up killing the possibility of any god all together. This was short sighted of me.
We need to get the fuck out of flatland. There is no rigid ‘religion’ or ‘spirituality’ which can be believed or denied. A belief in god is as fluid and evolutionary as a belief in ‘science’. We are drawing our lines in the sand here. I do not believe that the vast majority of the history of god rings true to me today. But would anyone say anything different about the vast majority of the history of science? Everything from the world being flat to Einstein’s theory of relativity to our understanding of the fundamental building blocks of the material world is debatable and constantly being re-interpreted. The question is whether or not there are useful theory’s which can now explain our existence better than any other current explanations.
It is similar to asking a Catholic about Greek gods. Of course they will chuckle at the mythology of many gods with many individual powers and domains. This god is dead to them. It does not explain the experience of the world that their life presents to them. This does not mean that their current god is any less real, just that they should recognize that in the course of history human the understanding of god has grown, evolved. So why would this stop now? Because we have so much science and science can answer every question about existence? The simple truth is that it can not.
I could ask you now what science has to say about beauty. It does not say much. You have been discussing what science has to say about morals. While we are now understanding scientifically a few things about interconnectedness and its implications for survival, religions have been providing this (in ever evolving forms) throughout. Selfishness is meaningless when we are one.
Regardless.
The truth, is that modern science does not in any way account for the presence of life. With all of our hypothesis and dissections we still have absolutely no idea what distinguishes that which we call alive, from that which we call dead. In times past we have had much more of a sense of what this line may be than we can claim to have now. We now understand that nothing is solid, everything is comprised mostly of 'empty' space and that nothing is stationary. Everything, from rock to metal, is a constantly shifting 'soup' of energy that is endlessly being transferred from one object to another. There seems to be intelligence in everything. Even bacteria communicate.
Don't get me wrong here. I am not claiming that Quantum Physics proves the existence of god. I have heard these claims, and the explanation that I find much more convincing is that the quantum realm is leading us towards an understanding of subtle energy's. This may push us ever closer to the asymptote that is god to me, but it is not the proof that I need. A belief in god is experiential, not anecdotal.
There are experiments that people from every corner of the earth, encompassing all of the major belief systems of the world, have been conducting for many hundreds of years. These experiments require thousands of hours over many years to prepare for. These experiments prove to them the existence of God. One version of this ‘scientific’ injunction goes something like this: Most people are capable of focusing their attention on one single thing for little more than 40 seconds. This time is negotiable. By training this specific ability one can quite readily train themselves to harness their focus and keep it trained on one specific thing for 30, 60 minutes or much more. This training is typically begun with breathing, mantra, prayer, and/or other techniques. If, once cultivated, one then takes this focus and turns it inwards with the intention of understanding the true nature of their experience it is widely agreed that one will find god.
The fun thing is that the path is riddled with clues and a deepening understanding of the accounts of others who have had this experience. Much like going to high school and taking a science class which allows one to look through a microscope or attending a class that explains the fundamentals of calculus or physics grants one an appreciation of the deep science that is being done; by taking it upon oneself to explore the curriculum of the mystics we can each come quite readily to an understanding of the truth which these beliefs, specifically one of God, illuminate.
Do trees and dogs have a spirit? No. But Spirit is present in all things. If you are dividing it into mine and yours than it is not the spirit which I am talking about. This hints at what is valuable now in a belief in god. There is no escape from responsibility in god if you are a mystic.
I’d like to state here that there is significant truth in the post-modern realization that reality is relative. However, I do not think that reality is completely relative as the post modernists suggest. I think that there are fundamental aspects of reality which can be interpreted from many different perspectives. It is accurate to say that much of what is true for one group of people is not true for another, but often times the signs still point in the same direction. Perhaps there is a reason why every major faith, including modern western science has had mystics.
So why is god useful to us?
I believe that Dave has hit upon something when he mentions the word interconnectedness. There is a degree of ‘connection’ which the very word connection does a disservice to. All words do. To state a connection implies an initial state of separation where there is not one; but it must be said somehow, and this may be the best that we can do. The realization of our true nature as god is arguably the most uplifting, healing, energizing, life affirming, morality giving recognition that we can experience. Science can not yet bring us there. This is where we need to be. God, the Divine, Spirit, One Taste, Union, Gnosis, call it what you wish. The implications of recognizing this are staggering. Given all of the effort afforded scientific inquiry it seems quite short sighted and lazy not to explore the possibility of this claim as well. Reading is not enough. Have you tried to experience it?