Chapter 16        Part C 

        I was a long time admitting even to myself that by this point I was gradually coming to believe in a thing that was, essentially, a universal consciousness. God.

               

      Fifteen billion light years across the "known" part. Googuls of particles. About ten to the seventy ninth power electrons alone, never mind the hadrons, quarks, and, perhaps, strings. Consistent, aware, and compassionate, all over, all at once, all of the time. And these are the pieces of evidence that we know of. What might be before and after, smaller or larger, or even in the other dimensions that some physicists, in their cutting-edge theories, have postulated?

    Every idea about matter or space that I can describe with numbers is a naive children's story compared to what is meant by the word "infinite". Every idea that I can talk about in any of the terms that name bits of what we call "time" is what I have to set aside when I use the word "eternal". Mathematical formulas and graphs, for far too long, have obscured these points. But most scientists freely admit that there is so much that they don't know. As Newton put it: "I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and 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." (10.)     

               

        What is this ineffable thing that we are trying to grasp? Does God have a consciousness like ours? The evidence of modern Science suggests such a consciousness would have to be as much beyond our kind of consciousness as the universe is beyond us in size. Infinite. Trying to grasp this concept, more now, in the Age of Science, than in any previous time, strikes us numb.   

          

        The belief is no longer trivial in more practical ways as well. If I truly believe in the axiom on which my model of Science rests – i.e. the constancy of natural laws – and also in the two most morally relevant models of reality that Science has led me to – i.e. the “aware” nature of the universe, and the values-driven, cultural model of human evolution – then, to even maintain my sanity, I must live my life in a moral way. I must choose to act in a way that views my own actions as rational, not as the mere wanderings of a deluded, self-aware, absurd animal. That absurd way, truly believed and lived, would inevitably breed madness or suicide. 

   And, to digress briefly, we can say that this view has large implications for Science itself. When I was first mulling over these thoughts, I realized that believing in Science and in the way of thinking that is called “scientific”, also commits us to the fundamental assumptions that first, make thinking in scientific ways possible for individuals personally, and then, more importantly, make the activity called “Science” possible in society. Courage. Wisdom. Freedom. Love.  

   Science wouldn’t exist at all if the people who do Science did not implicitly believe that some of their values connect to the universe they call "real". Courage, wisdom, love, and freedom, in dynamic equilibrium, are not just the values that make democracy work. They are values that the activities and the very existence of Science are profoundly dependent on. 

   Doing Science is just a way of valuing wisdom and freedom. In the larger, tribal view, we value wisdom because it guides us to survive and evolve with more and more vigor and success. In a more subjective, but still essentially consistent, way, every scientist values wisdom and freedom because s/he finds figuring out how the events in reality connect and work exciting and, even more importantly, because s/he knows that sharing findings with other scientists is vital to the continuing existence and growth of the whole enterprise.

    What matters in the largest view is seeing that the excitement of Science is driven by a deeper awareness of, and loyalty to, the value of wisdom (ambiguity intended). Our being able, in a democratic society, to deepen and broaden our store of knowledge isn’t a side benefit to democracy. In fact, people who are seeking real-world wisdom are what make democracy work better than any system that bars people from pursuing their curiosity. 

  

    Seeking wisdom by studying, theorizing about, and experimenting with, physical reality - rather than by studying ancient texts or trying to induce non-replicable, subjective mystical experiences - is what Science does and is. Valuing wisdom in a way that refuses to become attached to any single model or theory, and therefore insists on a free marketplace of ideas, is what Science and democracy are about. Science lives and grows in a society if and only if the majority of the people – not just the scientists, but all the people – live by the values of wisdom and freedom.

   

    Of all of the sub-cultures within democracy that we might point to, none is more dependent on the values of democracy than is Science. Courage to think in unorthodox ways, to outlast derision and neglect, to work, sometimes for decades, with levels of determination and dedication that most people in most walks of life would find difficult to believe. Having the wisdom to listen to analysis and criticism from one’s peers, without letting egos get involved, and to sift what they have to say for the insights that may be used to refine one’s methods and try again. Freedom to pursue Truth where she leads, no matter if the truths that one finds are startling, unpopular, and even iconoclastic. Trust that one's fellow citizens, though they may be upset by one's theories, will love the principles all citizens share even more. Love that makes one treat every human being as an individual, another being whose experience and thought may prove valuable and informative to one’s own experience and thought. 

    Scientists recognize implicitly that no single human mind could hold more than a tiny fraction of all there is to know. They have to share and peer-review ideas and data in order to grow, individually and collectively. 

     group photo at a climate change conference

    A community of thinkers who value and respect each other so much as a matter of course that they have ceased to notice another person’s race, religion, or gender. Under the values-driven, cultural model of human evolution, one can even argue that creating a social environment in which Science will arise and flourish is literally why democracy was invented.     

               

        But for the purposes of this book, all of this digression into the ways in which Science does, in reality, rest on the same values that enable democracy is just that: digression. The main implication of this whole complex, but consistent, way of thinking is more general and profound.   

  The universe is consistent, aware, and compassionate. Belief in each of these qualities of reality is, in essence, a choice, a separate free choice in each case. Modern atheists argue that there is more evidence by far for the first than for the second or third. But they will accept that there is choice involved before each of these hypotheses is integrated into any one person's worldview. 

               

       Therefore, belief in God emerges out of an epistemological choice, the same kind of choice that I make when I choose to believe that the laws of the universe maintain. Choosing to believe, first, in the laws of Science, second, in the findings of the various branches of Science, notably the self-aware universe implied by quantum theory, and, third, in the realness of the moral values that enable Science itself entails a further belief in a steadfast, aware, and compassionate universal consciousness.

  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 problem for the really stubborn atheist, who refuses to make this choice is that he, like any other human being, has to choose to believe in something. We have to have a foundational set of beliefs in place in order to function effectively enough to be able even to do our daily activities. The Bayesian model rules all that I claim to “know”. I have to gamble on some general set of axiomatic assumptions 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, but the wisest, of the epistemological choices before us.

         Notes 

10. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton