I recently upgraded my cell phone. For the longest time I was against the cellular revolution that basically gave you the power of everything right at your fingertips pretty much all the time. I had a blackberry flip phone forever before I finally upgraded to a Galaxy SII. That only lasted about a year before it went caput. So for the last few years I was borrowing my brother’s old Blackberry curve with 3G. That’s right I did the impossible by going from not having the internet on my phone, to having it, to back to not having it well having 3G to me was the same as not having it. Actually it was not that hard at all, but I am weird. Anyways I now have a new Samsung phone and it came with the app Flipboard, which I really like.
When you first open it up you scroll through a massive list of your likes, basically all the categories the app will search the internet for you and bring you articles that fall under those interests. That is how I found these the two articles for the post today. It is a two part article and both parts can be found here and here.
I think this is pretty interesting and warranted a post. I don’t think I would have ever found these articles had it not been for the app, so that is why I made mention of that. The articles talk about how does God, or what we think of as God fit into the scientific age that we find ourselves in. The author of the articles does make some interesting points about how our idea of God has evolved throughout the ages, and she puts forward the idea that maybe it is time again to change what we call God. She puts forward the following list, stating that a God that was real would have to adhere to these rules and criteria:
These are characteristics of a God that can’t be real:
God existed before the universe.
God created the universe.
God knows everything.
God intends everything that happens.
God can choose to violate the laws of nature.
While I mostly agree with these I think there could very easily be an exception to this and I will explore that in a second. First the point of this post is not to prove or disprove the existence of a God (which I believe to be irrelevant either way), but to merely look at the idea of such a being. The above list, in keeping with what we know to be absolutely true (we do not know if God exists, for those of the upmost righteous faith, I assure you that your guess is as good as mine). So based on what we know about the universe the things mentioned above are impossible, and I would agree with that. The thing that she did not clarify is if the God was a magical God, meaning that the being existed outside any and all of our scientific criteria, basically we will never know or understand such a being. I would argue that if that is the case then why are we obsessed with this idea? If the “magical God” is unknowable then why waste ones time worshiping and trying to figure he/she/it out. For believers, anything would be possible for this being and this is the all knowing all seeing all powerful God that I think most believe in. The only issue I have with this is that is it truly a God or is it just some ancient being that has mastered the universe and laws of nature.
Remember Author C. Clark said that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”Which I agree with, so we could go around and around about his all day where believers would say He is God he can do anything, which they may not be wrong, but I would argue is this being truly God or again just someone who has super advanced technology or understands the universe on a different level than we do.
Let’s say that there is a being, perhaps a 4th dimensional being out there. I think that that being could potentially do some of the things listed as “impossible” in the above list. Still if that being existed, I do not think anyone would call it “God,” yet it could violate our laws of nature quite easily, remove tumors imbedded in someone’s brain without breaking the skin by lifting it into the 4th dimension, walk through walls with ease, perhaps they would even view time differently which could let them see events that have not happened yet. Also depending on where it came from it could have existed before our universe and was just passing through for whatever reason. I guess the point I was trying to make is that a being that could accomplish some of the above tasks and meet the criteria, would we call that being “God?” I don’t think so, then that raises the question, would we really know God if we saw him/her/it? We have such a specific idea of what God is or should be perhaps we could not be further from the truth.
While that is interesting and all, it is near impossible for a 4th dimensional being to exist. In a 4D universe planets would have very erratic paths around their stars making it almost impossible for life to come about. So while it may be possible it is very highly highly unlikely for this being to exist. So again back to the articles. The author at the end of the second part says that our idea of God needs to change with the times we now live in.
I also found this article and thought it was interesting. The author of this one states that Materialism is false and that quantum mechanics could eventually prove the existence of God. The author states that because science cannot explain exactly how the brain works or creates thoughts and consciousness that that must be the soul or something that God made specifically for us humans. Basically he is saying, at least I think, that because science cannot explain something that it must be the work of the divine. I follow his logic and if scientists could eventually prove or disprove God is irrelevant in my opinion, the problem I have with his argument is that just because we cannot explain something at this time does not mean an omnipotent being is responsible.
While consciousness is a tricky subject, I honestly think that we will eventually figure it out. I feel mostly confident that our technology and advancements will eventually explain a great many mysteries in our universe closing the gap of what a God or omnipotent being is responsible for.
While I think there will always be mystery surrounding life and death, the need for a God will wane and be less necessary in the future. That is just my theory as for now what we do not understand gets lumped into the realm of the supernatural. Thousands of years ago people worshiped the glowing ball of light in the sky and they thought it was their god. Now we know it is the Sun, a massive star that “burns” its hydrogen fuel and gives us light and heat. That same idea can be applied to so many other ideas that were once in the supernatural realm but have now come back over to the scientific world where there is a perfectly logical explanation.
Again as the article states I agree that we need to change our perspective of what we call God. Whether or not he/she/it exists in any form in my opinion, as I have already said, is irrelevant. For that reason I have a hard time worshiping such a being for the reasons that our organized religions state. However there will always be a need for a belief in God psychologically. I have read numerous articles that regardless if scientists prove the existence of said being, that people who believe would continue to do so, because it is comforting. I think this awesome, because I don’t think the proof or disproof would change my beliefs either way.
I have read and reread what the author is saying and I cannot quite understand what she is proposing the new idea of God be. To me I think it is that we are closer than ever to figuring out the universe and to me that is my God, I want to know how nature and reality work and understand the universe on the most basic level. Sadly we do not even know that yet. So maybe it is different for each person, or perhaps the author is saying that our dreams and aspirations are what we should be worshiping. Maybe my aspiration to know the unknowable is what I worship and I am ok with that. So I will leave us with this question, what are your aspirations?