Thursday, 15 July 2021

 

                                                 Outro: Farewell

 

Thus, the philosophical argument of this book closes.

But I will add a creative bit of writing at the very end. It isn't expository in style. It is a short dialogue that attempts in a more creative way to capture the whole case this book has tried to make. A brief one act play, if you like, with almost no physical action, but a great deal of the mental kind.

I hope you enjoy. Farewell.  

 

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

(A scene in a sidewalk café in Vancouver, Canada, where two characters meet and have a Socratic dialogue. University of British Columbia graduate student, Titus Flavius, known to his friends as Flux, is drinking coffee and relaxing in the sunshine. His friend, Evo, another grad student, strolls past. Flux recognizes him and calls out.)

 

 

Flux: Evo! Evo, you subversive element! Over here!

Evo: (Drawing near.) Well, well. The quarry you see when you don’t have a gun. What mischief are you plotting now? Wait. I’ll get a coffee. (Goes to counter.)

Flux: (Muttering to himself.) Hmm. Just the guy I wanted to see. I think.

Evo: (Approaching with his coffee in hand and sitting.) So, what’s up, bro?

Flux: The truth is … I’ve been getting more and more obsessed in the last few weeks with the whole debate over the existence of God. And moral relativism, and whether we need to believe in God to be good. Whether people in general do, I mean. Not you and me. We’re so good we’re excellent. That’s an axiom.

(Laughs awkwardly.)

Evo: (Glancing at a girl going by.) I can resist anything but temptation. Wild Oscar said that. But seriously, folks.

Flux: (Looking glum.) It is serious, actually, this moral thing. These days, I can’t seem to think of anything else. Almost everyone I talk to at UBC despises religion, but none of them have a way of deciding what right and wrong are. It’s all relative, they say. Then I say they’re committing humanity to permanent warfare, probably annihilation, when they say things like that. They shrug and tell me to grow up. We’re doomed, my friend. Humanity is doomed, even if it is a nice day. (Slurps his coffee. Laughs darkly.)

Evo: Are you sure you want to start this conversation? I have a lot to say on the subject, you know. And, after all, I am older and wiser than you are. (Laughs.) 

Flux: Ah, be serious. But … yeah, I know you’ve thought about this one. Which makes me ask – if you’re okay with talking about it – you still believe in God?

Evo: I do.

Flux: When we talked about this before, your answers didn’t really work for me. But you’re saying you still believe?

Evo: Yes. (Pauses.) I don’t buy most of the world’s religions, or priests, or holy books. But the answer is, basically, yes.

Flux: Still.

Evo: More than ever. When did we last talk about this stuff? At that party at the lake?

Flux: Yeah. That was it. And you haven’t changed your mind? At all?

Evo: No. (Pauses.) The short answer is “no”.

Flux: What’s the long answer?

Evo: (laughs) How much time do you have?

Flux: It’s Friday afternoon. I got no place I have to be till Monday morning. Come on. Seriously. The whole issue is weighing me down.

Evo: Well, how about you ask questions, and I’ll try to answer them.

Flux: Alright, so be it. So, do you really believe in God, in your most private heart of hearts?

Evo: Yes.

Flux: What was the crucial moment or crucial logical step, or whatever you call it, for you?

Evo: No one moment. No one step. No epiphanies. I came to it gradually for a bunch of reasons, backed by logic and evidence. Later, it did get personal. It’s in my “heart of hearts”, as you put it. I call my own kind of religion theism, which isn’t a very original term. But I need to be clear that I think each of us has to work out his or her own way of conceiving of God and relate to that personally in their own good time. I came to believe that moral beliefs can be based on what Science is based on – the facts of empirical reality. That’s moral realism, and it led me gradually to think we have to design a moral code that’s acceptable for all people, and then live by it …and learn to live together. Gotta do that if we’re gonna survive. I got motivated to think hard for a while. I came to two conclusions. First, that moral values do name things that are real, and second, that the core belief in the moral code that will allow us to survive …that core belief is theism. In other words, moral realism logically entails theism.

Flux: All right, wait a minute. Realism? You’re saying values are real like this cup is real? I’m not gambling on whether this cup of coffee is in my hand right now. It’s there. It’s real. I’m certain of it.

Evo: No, actually that statement isn’t a certainty, even if you think you’re certain of it. Human senses can be fooled. That’s what the movie The Matrix is about. And Descartes talked about it four hundred years ago. And more.

Flux: Hmm. Okay. I take your point.

Evo: Every belief is a gamble, even our belief in Science and the scientific method. The smartest of smart gambles is theism. Believing in God. Not so I can improve my odds of getting into some dimly imagined afterlife, but so I and my kind can survive. Here. On Earth. So we can handle what the future’s going to throw at us. Navigate the hazards. Once I proved my version of a universal moral code to my own satisfaction, from there it was a series of small steps to the core belief in God.

Flux: But you must have periods of doubt? Surely.

Evo: I used to. But they’ve almost gone. Mostly because I keep answering the doubts inside my own head. Over and over. I’ve seen the doubters’ best moves. I can whip ’em. And don’t call me “Shirley”.  (Laughs.)

Flux: So …what then? Your belief, in your head  ̶  your theism, I mean – is constantly fighting for its life?

Evo: Pretty much. All beliefs in all heads have to fight to survive.

Flux: But you don’t worry that one day the theism in your head is going to lose?

Evo: I don’t know for sure that I’ll never lose my faith, but the signs are that it’s pretty durable.

Flux: And yet you love Science?

Evo: Absolutely. Science is God’s way for us. For humans in general, I mean.

Flux: Were you ever an atheist?

Evo: Oh, sure. I look back on it now as a phase I had to go through. Everyone does. Some people don’t ever get to the other side, that’s all. Other side of that atheist phase, I mean.

Flux: You don’t worry that what you see in the real world is …only what you want to see?

Evo: I see Science and the theories of Science, Flux. Testable. Repeatable. They and all the experimental evidence that supports them keep telling me, more and more, that God is there. Here. Real.

Flux: But you did have periods of doubt?

Evo: Oh, yes. For fifteen years. And then I only came around a few years ago to believing I ought to believe in God. That it was a smart gamble. And that everything in life is a gamble in the end. Even the most basic things you trust – not just Science, but even believing your hands are at the ends of your arms because you see and feel them there. Sense data. Things you sense. But for a long time, that smart theistic gamble wasn’t personal. Not personal like you love Marie or your mom and dad. It was only cerebral. I believed in believing in God, but I didn’t believe – like – primally, if you get my meaning.

Flux: Yeah, I get your meaning. So what changed?

Evo: I started meditating. Every day. Half an hour or so. Sometimes, twice a day.

Flux: Did you take a course?

Evo: Yes.

Flux: Which one?

Evo: It doesn’t matter. Check around. Find one that works for you. Then it’ll feel like it’s yours.

Flux: Hmm. Okay. That’s fair. And then what? God just arrived?

Evo: Basically, yes. I realized one day that I was hearing an inner voice. Not a great way of putting it, but close enough. During the time when I was trying to control every detail in my life, I was going nuts. Then I learned to accept handling just the details my conscience – God’s voice in my head – told me were mine to handle, my responsibility. It was like, I became “response-able” – able to respond – and then I got good solutions just as I was coming out of my meditation, or right after. It was a way of thinking about God that made sense to me. Let God – the universe, if you like – talk to me. Then I’d get some quiet, excellent answers. Like a presence was hovering by me, nurturing me. That’s not very dramatic. But it’s how I experience my personal sense of God. Like I love my kids. Or my dad. Personal. First, for large, evidence-backed reasons, and then, second, for internally felt ones.

Flux: (Studying his friend) And it still seems like a rational decision to you?

Evo: More than that, Flux. I think as a species we’re all going to have to come to some form of Moral Realism, then theism, if we’re going to get past the crises that are coming. Getting rid of nukes. Fixing the environment. Moral realism is the only option that has any chance of working. Nobody trusts the so-called sacred texts or priests anymore. Most of us don’t trust personal epiphanies either, no matter how intense the event feels. We know it’s too easy to see what you want to see. First, we want models that fit our observations of empirical evidence, over and over. And Moral Realism, for me, is that kind of true. It’s a model of reality that fits the facts of History and life …every day.

Flux: You think Science proves that God exists? I know people who’d laugh out loud at that.

Evo: They don’t see History or Anthropology as sciences. And don’t analyze Science itself. If they did, they’d reconsider.

Flux: So, tell me. For you, what moral values are grounded in empirical reality?

Evo: Sure. For example, humans have gradually evolved responses to entropy, over billions of people and thousands of generations. The cultures that emerge may vary from era to era and place to place, but every culture seeks a balance of courage and wisdom. Those values are our big-scale responses to entropy, the “uphillness” of life. Courage and wisdom. Other balanced sets of values built around freedom and love are our responses to quantum uncertainty. All four values – courage, wisdom, freedom, and love (checks them off on his fingers) – inform the software of all nations that survive because they shape how people in those tribes behave. In other words, their values connect them to reality. And those basic traits of adversity and uncertainty, remember, are built into our universe down to the atoms. They’re all over, all the time. We learned to handle entropy and uncertainty, not as individuals, but as tribes, over centuries, by building our societies more and more on those four values.

Flux: Well, I gotta say you sure have your spiel down. But those are some pretty vague moral principles to build a culture on. A lot of radically different societies could be constructed that all claimed they were brave and wise and so on.

Evo: Which is only to say how free we truly are, Flux. But notice my system is way different than saying moral values are arbitrary tastes, like a preference for vanilla shakes over chocolate, or Irish Spring soap over Ivory.

Flux: I think I see where you’re going with this line of thought. Actually, in theory, we could build an ideal society or something pretty close, couldn’t we?

Evo: We’ve been working our way toward that realization for two hundred thousand years.

Flux: These moral values, the way you describe them, must have been worked out over a long time, and also with a lot of pain then …right?

Evo: Pain and death, Flux. Which is why we’re taught to respect our values so much. Our accumulated wisdom keeps telling us not to re-do our past mistakes.

Flux: Here’s a mental leap coming at you. How would the kind of society you envision — brave, wise, free, tolerant — right? – how would it evolve, without war or revolution? How would it resolve an internal argument over …say …a controversial social issue?

Evo: Yay! A smart question. An issue like capital punishment, say?

Flux: Whoa! Quick answer. But, yeah. Not the one I had in mind, but a good example, actually.

Evo: Reasoning and evidence. Consensus-building. Scientific studies. Calm persuasion. The facts say it doesn’t work, you know. Capital punishment.

Flux: How so? It seems to me that it solves a problem permanently.

Evo: Countries that get rid of it see their murder rates go down, not up. It doesn’t deter potential killers. Just the opposite. It makes them determined to leave no witnesses. To any crime. And then capital trials drag on and on ’cause juries don’t want to make a mistake. In the end, it costs more to execute an accused killer than to lock him up …for good. Long-term studies say so.

Flux: What if he lives a really long time?

Evo: In my system, barring exceptional circumstances, he’d stay locked up. But most of them die in under twenty years. They’re mostly people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Junk food. Drugs. Smoking. Hate exercise but keep getting into fights. They don’t last long, in prison or out. On average, I mean.

Flux: But even if, say for the sake of argument, they only last twenty years in prison, it’s a long time. Guards to pay, meals, meds, entertainment – Christ! Entertainment yet! – it’s gotta add up.

Evo: Not as much as killing him does by, like, nearly three times. The studies say so. On average, killers only live about sixteen years after they go to prison.

Flux: I’ll look it up later. But to get back to our point …you think we can solve all our disputes by debate and compromise?

Evo: Based on reasoning and evidence, the answer is yes. And patience. Just not war. The Soviet Union went from being an unstoppable superpower to gone in my lifetime. With no global war. I’ll never doubt the power of patience again.

Flux: I think I’m beginning to see your point a bit. You see moral …rules …maybe, guidelines is better …as being grounded in facts of physical reality?

Evo: Not in all lands. But they should be. I’ve made that case for myself and some others many times over. Entropy and quantum uncertainty are built into reality. As long as I’m in this universe, life will be hard and scary, so courage, wisdom, freedom, and love will always be virtues. That picture – for me, anyway – is more reliable than my senses. It’s eternal. I’m 99.99 percent sure.

Flux: And that proves for you that God exists?

Evo: That and a couple of other main points. It takes a sort of faith even to believe the universe stays consistent from place to place and era to era. No one can prove the future will go like the past. But we take it as a given that the universe has that kind of consistency. Science wouldn’t make any sense under any other first assumption. Then, I get direction from cutting-edge Science – namely Quantum Physics. All the particles in the universe are what physicists call entangled, you know. Which means the universe has a kind of awareness.

Flux: What, like I’m aware?

Evo: As far beyond your and my awareness as the universe is beyond us in size. Yeah, that’s a hell of a statement. I know full well what I’m saying. But look at the evidence. Let me say it all at once, as plainly as I can. The first step to theism is believing in the consistency of the universe. The second is believing the universe is aware. The third is Moral Realism, which means believing that courage, wisdom, freedom, and brotherly love steer us into paths through matter, space, and time. These three beliefs – in the consistency of the universe, in its aware nature, and in universal moral truth, when they’re added together, tell me this universe is a single, aware, caring thing. “God,” if you like that term. If not, that’s okay. Call it by whatever name works for you.

Flux: Cold sort of caring, don’t you think? There are a lot of cruel things in life.

Evo: No, it just looks that way to us sometimes. But it’s unreasonable and unfair for me to ask God to pardon me from getting cancer or meningitis or whatever …if the dice roll that way. God loves it all, all the time. God loves the avalanche that buries the careless skier who skis out of bounds. God loves malignant cells and meningococcal bacteria just as much as God loves me. We may learn how to change the odds, to cure meningitis or prevent cancer, but in a universe that is balanced and free, those scientific advances are up to us. Our brains evolved to solve puzzles exactly like those ones.

Flux: You know there are people who get the consistency-of-the-laws-of-science idea, even the quantum-entanglement-awareness one, but leave you right at that moral realism step.

Evo: Oh, I know. They keep trying to find another way to base moral principles in the natural world. A lot of people don’t want God. They wanna be in charge. Nietzsche said God couldn’t exist, because if he did, Nietzsche could never believe he himself wasn’t God. Something like that. What a child! (Laughs)

Flux: Other species like chimps and squirrels find altruism on their own, you know. Sometimes, one of them will do something for the good of the community and even get killed because of it. Trying to save others. From a weasel, say.

Evo: The next thing to ask is: What kind of a universe rewards those animals’ practicing altruism? People finding altruism in nature and saying that means they don’t need to believe in God in order to be decent …that dodge is no dodge at all. It only delays answering the question. Why is being altruistic – what they call “good” – a desirable way to be for squirrels? So the tribe survives? If so, we have to ask: what does that say about life in this reality? 

Flux: All right, I see why you say that. Hmm. You aim to find moral values that would be moral even to aliens from other worlds, don’t you? Do you dislike people who keep, as you say, “dodging” the moral realism question?

Evo: Not at all. As long as I can see that they’re trying to live lives of courage, wisdom, freedom, and love, I love them. They may get old and die and never say that they believe in anything like God, but I don’t care. I still love them. Hey, if they try hard to live decent lives, for me that’s enough. But believe in God? By the evidence that shows on the outside of them – which, by the way, is all Science cares about – they actually do. Do believe, I mean. They just choose a lonely existence inside. Which is their choice, of course. But I still love them.

Flux: They’d tell you that viewpoint is pretty condescending.

Evo: They have, many times. It’s still okay. We can live together in peace. And evolve and survive. That’s all that really matters. (Pauses) But we must choose to live. Surviving is not a given. So, we need a system of ethics in order to decide even simple things, minute by minute, day in and day out, about every object and event we meet up with. Good or bad? Important or trivial? Take action or not? What are my action choices? Which one looks like the best gamble in this situation? An efficient moral code will be one that’s laid out so our decisions are quick, accurate, and effective. Consistent with the facts of reality, short and long term. A central organizing concept – a belief in God – is just efficient. At least to start with. It’s only after a lot of change inside yourself that it becomes personal. But first of all it’s just efficient. It enables timely action. It gets results.

Flux: Your picture isn’t very comforting, you know, Evo. The mental space it offers to live in is pretty bare.

Evo: I know. I’d be a liar if I offered you easy grace. You first have to choose to live free – responsible for your own life. Then so many other challenges come. But they’d come anyway. It’s just that if you choose to live unfree, to bow your head and take the beatings tyrants dish out, without trying to figure things out or act to improve your odds of happiness, your life’ll be even worse. You have to choose to choose, and even then life is going to be rough. God’s a hard case. But I’m okay with seeing God as a pretty hard case. To make something out of nothing, he has to be. It takes a balance of forces to make something out of nothing. And in that picture, God made us free, Flux. Whether we choose to rise to the challenge, to live bravely and creatively, is up to us. Out of the labor and struggle, we make ourselves – and then our society – what we call “good”. If we’re really good, we teach our kids to do the same. Hopefully, even better.

Flux: You don’t believe in miracles, do you?

Evo: “Only in a way” would be my answer there. I think events that look miraculous happen. Things that look like exceptions to the laws of Science. But they turn out to have scientific explanations. For me, everything I see all the time is the miracle. What’s it doing here? Why isn’t there just nothing? And then the living things in the world are more miraculous, and then …my baby’s smile …you know what they say. It doesn’t get any better than that.

Flux: Is there a church you could belong to? Are you pulled to any of them?

Evo: Unitarians, maybe? Nah, that’s another question that you need to answer for yourself.

Flux: Any you hate?

Evo: Honestly? Nearly all of them. Priests make up mumbo-jumbo to take away people’s ability to think for themselves. It’s easy with most people ‘cause they don’t wanna think. They want security. But there’s no such thing. Not in this lifetime. That one I’m sure of. Maybe they don’t consciously make up the b.s., but they do make it up. Priests do, I mean. Religion gets them a slack lifestyle so they gravitate toward making up ways to protect that. Over generations, the lies just keep getting worse. No, I’m not big on organized religion.

Flux: Would you call yourself a dreamer? A starry-eyed optimist?

Evo: I seem that way to some people. My view of myself is that I look at the long haul. I’m most interested in that. Then, what energy I have left over I give to the confusing ups and downs of everyday life. You could call me a dreamer. But cynics are cowards to me. It’s the dreamers who have courage. And once in a while they turn out to be right, you know. (Laughs.)

Flux: I better let you go, Evo. I’ve kept you long enough. I was just feeling …down …you know.

Evo: You’re not keeping me from anything that matters as much as this talk does, bro.

Flux: Alright. I’ll take that as being sincere. Actually, knowing you as long as I have, I know it is. Thank you. I’m feeling …I don’t know …hopeful, somehow, right now. (Pauses.) Actually …I think I get it.

Evo: Welcome home, Flavius, my friend. Welcome home.

 

 

 


                                                 Korso, Krokso, Sandon

                               (credit: Arald Vagen via Wikimedia Commons) 

 

 

 

 

Here the Great River Now empties into the sea;

Here the babbles and roars of Duality cease;

Every echoing gorge, every swirling façade

Is dissolved in the infinite ocean of God.

 




Wednesday, 14 July 2021

 

Chapter 20     The Theistic Bottom Line

 

The three large principles summed up in the previous chapter are enough. The universe is coherent, conscious, and moral. Having established these principles, we have enough to conclude that a consciousness exists in our material universe. Or rather, as was promised in the introduction, we have enough to conclude that belief in God is a rational choice for an informed modern human being to make, a rational gamble to take. More rational than any of its alternatives.

And that’s the point. Belief in God is a choice. It is simply a more rational choice than its alternatives, and it arises naturally once we understand the key ideas of the main branches of science – entropy, uncertainty, and evolution – and then further see that our moral values integrate us into the ways of the real world.

Our values are grounded in empirical reality. And seeing that values are real is the key step that enables us to cross from skepticism to a modern theism.

But now in this chapter I will examine many pieces of supporting argument and evidence that give this case for theism a sense of both universality - it fits the facts of physical reality - and immediacy - it speaks to each of us in ways that feel personal. Heartfelt, as a belief must be if it is to endure. Its carriers must care about it, and live by it, if it is to be transmitted to the next generation.  

At this stage of our discussion, it is also worth reiterating two other points made earlier: first, we must have a moral program in our heads to function at all; second, the one we’ve inherited from the past is dangerously out-of-date.

But this chapter so far has only summed up the case we have already made.

I can now give a more informal explanation of the argument we have assembled, then even more arguments whose special significance in this discussion will be explained as we go along. We will make the case personal and also try to answer some of the most likely reactions to it.

Let's get more deeply into this last chapter by revisiting a vexing problem in Philosophy mentioned in Chapter 4, a philosophical problem that is nearly three hundred years old. The solution to this problem drives home a main point on the final stretch of the thinking that leads to theism. Although it is a gamble to believe the universe is a single, conscious system, it is a rational gamble.

Many scientists claim that Science, unlike the other branches of knowledge that came before the rise of Science, does not have any assumptions at its foundation and that it is instead built from the ground up on merely observing reality, forming theories, designing research, doing experiments, checking the results against one’s theories/models, then adjusting the theories, and doing more hypothesizing, research, and so on. Under this view, Science has no need of foundational assumptions in the way that, say, Plato’s philosophy or Euclid’s geometry do. Science is founded only on hard, observable facts, they claim.

But in this claim, as has been pointed out by thinkers like Nicholas Maxwell, the scientists are wrong.Science rests on some assumptions that are extremely basic, ones that may seem indisputably obvious, but that are still assumptions.

 

 


         The book that told the world how Science should work: Novum Organum 

                              (credit: John P. McCaskey, via Wikimedia Commons)




The heart of the matter, then, is the inductive method normally associated with Science. The way in which scientists can come upon a phenomenon they cannot explain by any of their current theories, devise a new theory that tries to explain the phenomenon, test the theory by doing experiments in the real world, and keep going back and forth from theory to experiment, adjusting and refining – this is the way of gaining knowledge called the scientific method. It has led us to many powerful insights and technologies.

But as David Hume famously proved, the logic this method is built on is not perfect. Any natural law we try to state as a way of describing our observations of reality is a gamble, one that may seem to summarize, and bring order to, whole files of experience, but it is a gamble, nonetheless.

A natural law statement is a scientist’s claim about what he thinks is going to happen in specific future circumstances. But every natural law proposed is taking for granted a deep first assumption about the real world. Every natural law statement rests on the assumption that events in the future will continue to steadily follow the patterns followed by events in the past. But we simply can’t know whether this assumption is true. We haven’t been to the future. Thus, we must allow for the possibility that at any time, we may come on new data that stymie our best theories. Therefore, we must accept that every natural law statement, no matter how well it seems to fit real data, is a gamble. It gambles on the belief that the future will go like the past.

Science is made up of a large group of terms, concepts, claims, and records that are all gambles. Some very likely to be true, some very speculative, the rest somewhere in between these two extremes.

 


 

 

                     Albert Michelson  (credit: Bunzil, via Wikimedia Commons)            

                      




                        

   

                                    Edward Morley  (credit: Wikimedia Commons)




Science makes mistakes. For scientists themselves, a shocking example of such a mistake was one in Physics. Newton’s model of gravity and acceleration was brilliant, but it wasn’t telling the full story of what goes on in our universe. After two centuries of taking Newton’s equations as their gospel, physicists were stunned by Michelson and Morley’s experiment in 1887. In essence, it showed that Newton’s laws weren’t adequate to explain all that was going on in reality, especially at very high speeds or with very large masses. 

Einstein’s pondering these new data is what led him to the Theory of Relativity. But first came Michelson and Morley’s experiment, which showed Newton’s shortcomings, and also showed that the scientific method was not infallible.

Newton was not proved totally wrong, but his laws were shown to be only approximations, accurate only for smaller masses at relatively slow speeds. As masses or speeds become very large, Newton’s laws become less useful for predicting what is going to happen next.

Nevertheless, it was a scientist, Einstein, doing science who found the limitations of the theories and models specified by an earlier scientist. Newton was not amended by a clergyman or a reading from an ancient holy text.

Thus, from the personal standpoint, I have always believed, I still believe, and I’m confident I always will believe that the universe is consistent, that it runs by laws that will be the same in 2525 as they are now, even though we don’t understand all of them yet. Yes, the future – not in every detail, but in the big ways – will go like the past. Entropy. Uncertainty. My choice to gamble on Science is a good Bayesian gamble, preferable to all superstitious alternatives.

As a believer in Science, I also choose to gamble on the power of human minds, sometimes alone, sometimes in cooperation with other minds, to see through the layers of irrelevant, trivial events and spot the patterns that underlie large sets of data. In short, I believe we can figure this place out and gradually gain more and more power to move about in it without getting hurt or killed.

The alternative to believing in the power of human minds – individually or in cooperating groups – to figure out the laws which underlie reality is to abandon reason and instead gamble on forming our beliefs around something other than observations of facts. Once again, we have the evidence of centuries of history to look back on. All the evidence we have about what life was like for the cowed, superstitious tribes of the past suggests that their lives were – as Hobbes puts it – poor, nasty, brutish, and short. People who were willing to think about the real world they could observe, experiment with it, and learn from it, made the society we enjoy today. Even the most obstinate Luddites who claim to despise modernity don’t like to go two days without a bath or a shower.

My first point in this final chapter on the path to a personal kind of theism, then, is that belief in the consistency of Science – i.e. of the laws of the universe and the power of human minds to figure them out – amounts to a kind of faith. Yes, faith. Belief in ideas that are so basic that they cannot be proved by some other more basic ideas. For Science, there are no ideas more basic than the ones that say the universe is a single, coherent system and that we humans can figure out how that system works. The rest of Science rests on those assumptions.

Atheists say these beliefs can’t be called “faith” at all. They certainly don't lead to a belief in God. They just enable atheists and theists alike to do Science. To share ideas, theories, models, and research in their branches of Science with anyone who’s interested. But these are still beliefs in the long-term validity of concepts that can’t be directly observed. And that is a kind of faith.  

Now let’s add some other powerful ideas to this personal case for theism. If we truly believe in Science, then we are committed to integrating into our thinking all well-supported theories in all the branches of Science. In this century, that means we must try to integrate Quantum Theory into our world view. 

Earlier we saw that extrapolating from the quantum model led us to see that the values we call freedom and love are real. People who live by these values practice behaviors that suit the probabilistic nature of reality and, thus, they improve their society’s survival odds. Live by both freedom and love. Then as a consequence, you’ll live, and likely, your kids and grandkids will. And so on.

The best of our ancestors lived by the values implicit in the quantum worldview, the free will view, centuries before there was any scientific research to show us that the universe is founded on probabilities, not Newtonian chains of cause and effect. But we now have a model supported by research – the quantum model – to fit together with the moral code that tells us to practice freedom and love.

From Physics, we get quantum uncertainty, and from Moral Philosophy, freedom and love. Quantum Theory supports Moral Philosophy and vice versa; the concepts fit together; they fit human minds and cultures into reality as Science describes it for us. Taken together, they make a sensible gamble. 

                                                                                  

                                     

                             


                                    Erwin Schrodinger (credit: Wikimedia Commons)

 

 

However, the quantum worldview, if we choose to follow it, comes with some startling corollaries. Quantum entanglement, and the experiments testing it, have shown us that particles all over the universe are in instant communication with each other all the time. This model implies that the universe is conscious. 

The universe is not, as pre-quantum science pictured it, totally Newtonian and local. It is capable of what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance,”. In fact, it works that way all the time.5 Schrodinger said: “There seems to be no way of stopping [entanglement] until the whole universe is part of a stupendous entanglement state.”6 

Why does the quantum view matter so much to our case for theism? Because if we think distant parts of an entity are in touch with one another (in the case of the universe, instantly), it is entirely reasonable to further postulate that there must be an entity, a “thing of some kind”, connecting the stimulus change of one particle to the response change of another particle in a distant location. 

The universe is a single, coherent entity that feels. 

This way of seeing the universe as being a kind of aware is my second big idea in this final, personal chapter of my argument. It is well known to scientists, theist and atheist alike. They admit that understanding entanglement does move us a bit closer to believing that some sort of a God may exist.

                                                 

 

                    


                                Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel Prize–winning physicist

                                                 (credit: Wikipedia)



But according to science-minded atheists, these ideas –  about how the universe is a single consistent entity and how it seems to have a kind of awareness – even taken together, only add up to a trivial belief. A proposal we can consider, but then drop because there is too little evidence to support it and, in addition, it leads nowhere. It does not enable human minds to imagine any new models of reality, nor to any new way of testing such models. Physicist Murray Gell-Mann went so far as to derisively call this way of thinking “quantum flapdoodle.”7 

In other words, we may have deep feelings of wonder when we see how vast and intricate the universe is – far more amazing, by the way, than any religion of past societies made it seem. Our intuition may even suggest that for information to travel instantly from one particle in one part of the universe to another particle in another vastly separated part, a consciousness of some kind must be joining the two. But these feelings, the atheists say, don’t change anything. According to science-minded atheists, the God that theists describe doesn’t answer prayer, doesn’t grant us another existence after we die, doesn’t perform miracles, and doesn’t care a hoot about us or how we behave.

 

                            

 


       Pierre-Simon de Laplace (via James Posselwhite, via Wikimedia Commons)



In the atheist view, believing in such a God is simply excess baggage. It is a belief that we might enjoy clinging to as children, but it is extra, unjustified weight that only encumbers the active thinking and living we need to practice if we wish to keep expanding our knowledge and living in society as responsible adults. Theism, the atheists say, hobbles both Science and common sense. Or as Laplace famously told Napoleon, “Monsieur, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

                                                          

 

 


                           William of Occam, English philosopher and theologian 

                           (credit: Andrea di Bonaiuto, via Wikimedia Commons)

 

 

Centuries ago, William of Occam said the best explanation for any phenomenon is the simplest one that will do the job. Newton reiterated the point: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”8 If we can explain a phenomenon by using two basic concepts instead of three or four, we should choose the two-pronged tool.

According to atheists, belief in God – or at least in a God that might or might not exist in this coherent, entangled, apparently self-aware universe – is a piece of unneeded, dead weight. In our time, under the worldview of modern Science, the idea has no useful content. It can and should be dropped. Or as the sternest atheists put it, it is time that humanity grew up.

 

       


 

                                         Starry Night at La Silla Observatory, Chile  

                                    (credit: ESO/H. Dahle, via Wikimedia Commons)

 



The model of cultural evolution developed in this book undoes the cynicism of such atheists. Under moral realism, values are real, we are going somewhere, and whether we behave morally or immorally does matter, not just to us in our limited frames of reference, but to the consciousness that underlies the universe. That presence, over millennia, helps the good to thrive by maintaining a reality in which there are lots of free choices and chances to learn, but also a long-term advantage to those who strive to perform their actions in ways that balance courage, wisdom, freedom, and brotherly love.

This is the third big idea in my overall case for theism: moral realism. First, we see the universe as a consistent, coherent system; second, we see it as conscious; third, we see our values as being connected to the universe in a physical way.

Why does this third insight matter so much? Because it refutes everything else atheists claim to know. Under the moral realist model, our values are the beliefs that maximize the probability of our survival. The moral realist model guides us to formulate and live by values that work. Trying to be good matters. 

Thus, moral realism is not trivial. It is vital. How you act is going to contribute in real ways to the survival odds of you, your children, and your species. The way to act if you want to improve the odds of all of those things surviving begins by informing your thinking with the large values of courage, wisdom, freedom, and love. Ergo, decency and sense are embedded in the particles of reality itself.  

The inescapable implication of seeing moral values as being arbitrary and trivial is seeing one's own existence as trivial. And for real people living real lives, that just is not how life works, makes sense or, more basically, feels. 

Belief in the realness of values is not trivial just as belief in the consistency of the universe is not trivial. Both beliefs have an effect – via the kinds of thinking and behavior they cause in us – on the odds of our survival. In the long haul, Science is good for us. So is Moral Realism. People who carry these programs in their heads outwork, outfight, outbreed, and outlast the competition. Moral Realism's worldview does describe reality. Our reality. 

Thus, belief in the realness of our values enables us to see that the presence that fills the universe doesn’t just stay consistent and even have a kind of awareness. It also favors those living entities that follow the ways we call “good.”

It cares.

In my own intellectual, moral, and spiritual journey, I went a long time before I could admit even to myself that by this point I was gradually coming to believe in a kind of deity. God.

Fourteen billion light years across the known parts of the universe. Googols of particles. 1079 instances of electrons alone, never mind quarks or strings. And all integrated into a single thing -- consistent, aware, and compassionate, all over, all at once, all the time. 

And these claims describe only the files of evidence we know of. What might exist before or after, in smaller or larger forms, or even other dimensions and alternate universes that some physicists have postulated? We can’t even guess.

And it cares.

Every idea about matter or space that I can describe with numbers is a naĂŻve children’s story compared with what is meant by the word infinite. Every idea I can talk about in terms that name bits of what we call “time” must be set aside when I use the word eternal. For many of us in the West, formulas and graphs, for far too long, have obscured the big ideas, even though most scientists freely admit there is so much that they don’t know.

Isaac Newton said: “I seem to have been only a boy playing on the seashore, diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”9  

And it cares. 

With beliefs in the coherence shown by Science, in the Universal Awareness we see in Quantum Theory, and in Moral Realism firmly in place, Wonder arrives. 

This way of living resolutely by moral guidelines whose consequences may take generations to arrive is exactly what is meant by the word faith. Belief in things not seen. 

This theistic view, when it’s widely accepted in society, also is utterly consistent with Science. A general adherence in society to the moral realist way of thinking is what makes communities of scientists doing Science possible. 

Consciously and individually, every scientist should value wisdom and freedom, for reasons that are uplifting, but even more because they are rational. Or rather -- to be more exact -- rational and uplifting, fully understood, turn out to be the same thing. As Keats told us, beauty is truth, truth beauty.

Scientists know that figuring out how the events in reality work is personally gratifying. But more importantly, each scientist should see that this work is done most effectively in a free, interacting community of scientists functioning as one sub-culture in a larger social ecosystem where freedom and love reign.

Many of us in the West have become deeply attached to our belief in Science. We’ve been programmed to feel that attachment. We believe our modern wise men – scientists – doing and sharing research are vital to our survival.

Of all the subcultures within democracy that we might point to, none is more dependent on moral realist values than is Science.

Scientists have to have courage. Courage to think in unorthodox ways, to outlast neglect, even ridicule, and to work, sometimes for decades, with levels of dedication that people in most walks of life find hard to believe. (Yes, decades. Many, even after decades of research on the particular problem they have chosen to study, die with that problem unsolved.)

Scientists need the profoundest form of wisdom. Wisdom that counsels them to listen to analysis and criticism from their peers without allowing egos to cloud their judgement, and to sift through what is said for insights that they may use to refine their theories and methods and try again.

Scientists need freedom. Freedom to pursue Truth where she leads, no matter whether the truths discovered are unpopular or threatening to the status quo. 

Finally, scientists must practice love. Yes, love. Love that causes them to treat every other human being as an individual whose unique experience and thought may prove valuable to their own. Science is only viable in such a community.

Scientists recognize that no one human mind can hold more than a tiny fraction of all there is to know. They must respectfully share and peer-review ideas and research in order to advance, individually and collectively. 

Scientists do their best work in a community of thinkers who value, respect and love one another, so automatically, that they cease to notice another person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.. Under the cultural evolution model, one can even argue that democracy’s largest purpose has always been to create a social environment in which Science can flourish.

But these are just pleasant digressions. The main implication of the moral realist way of thinking is even more personal and profound, so let’s return to it.

The universe is coherent, aware, and compassionate. Belief in each of these qualities of reality is a separate, free choice in each case. Modern atheists insist that far more evidence and weight of argument exist for the first than for the second or third of these three beliefs. My contention is that this is no longer so. Once we see how our values connect to reality, the theistic choice becomes a reasonable one and an existential one. It defines who we are.

Therefore, belief in God emerges out of an epistemological choice, the same kind of choice we make when we choose to believe that the laws of the universe are consistent. Choosing to believe, first, in the laws of Science, second, in the self-aware universe implied by quantum theory, and third, in the realness of the moral values that enable democratic living (and Science) entails a further belief in a steadfast, aware, and compassionate universal consciousness. God.

Belief in God follows logically from my choosing a specific way of viewing this universe and my integral role in it: the scientific way.

The biggest problem for stubborn atheists who refuse to make this choice is that they, like every other human being, have to choose to believe in something.

Each of us must have a set of foundational beliefs in place in order to function effectively enough to move through the day and stay sane. The Bayesian model rules all that I claim to know. I have to gamble on some set of axioms in order to move through life. The only real question is: “What shall I gamble on?”

Reason points to the theistic gamble as being not the only choice, but the wisest choice of the epistemological choices before us. I’m going to gamble that God is real. As far as I can see, I have to gamble on some worldview, and theism is the best gamble. It makes all my ideas come together into one coherent system that I can follow readily as I make choices and implement them in all aspects of life.

Theism - belief in a single, conscious, compassionate entity that is present in all the universe all the time - is simply more efficient than any competing way of thinking ever could be. Theism makes effective, timely action possible.  

The best gamble in this gambling life is theism. Reaching that conclusion comes from looking at the evidence. Following this realization up with the building of a personal relationship with God, one that makes sense to you as it also makes you a good friend – that, dear reader, is up to you. Do it in a way that is personal. That is the only way in which it can be done truly, if it is to be done at all.

To close in an unashamedly personal way, then. 

Once one truly believes in the theistic conclusion, does life remain hard? Of course. Adversity is an inherent feature of life in this universe. But we evolved to work. If life got easy, we would long for challenge. And please note that, in the past, life has been safe for some people spoiled by inherited riches. For a while. But those who don't know challenge, know ennui. Look at the evidence. 

Will life remain scary, uncertain, if one sees that theism really does make sense? Of course. But seeing the whole picture also affirms for us that the upside of living in a stochastic universe is freedom. Uncertainty/anxiety is the  price of freedom. The joy and the fear of conscious existence. The best response to such a realization is more than just work. It is imagination. Creativity. Best of all, we realize that permeating this whole way of thinking is the knowledge that love is real. Love will triumph if we practice it well. That's how reality is built.    

 

 


Notes

1. Nicholas Maxwell, Is Science Neurotic? (London, UK: Imperial College Press, 2004).

2. “History of Science in Early Cultures,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

Accessed May 2, 2015.

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

3. Mary Magoulick, “What Is Myth?” Folklore Connections, Georgia College & State University. 

https://faculty.gcsu.edu/custom-website/mary-magoulick/defmyth.htm#Functionalism.

4. “Pawnee Mythology,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed May 2, 2015.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawnee_mythology.

5. “Quantum Entanglement,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed May 2, 2015.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement.

6. Jonathan Allday, Quantum Reality: Theory and Philosophy (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009), p. 376.

7. “Quantum Flapdoodle,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed May 2, 2015.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism#.22Quantum_flapdoodle.22.

8. “Occam’s Razor,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed May 4, 2015.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor.

9. “Isaac Newton,” Wikiquote, the Free Quote Compendium. Accessed May 4, 2015.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton