What is this ineffable thing we are trying to grasp? Does God have a consciousness vaguely 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 era—strikes us numb.

The belief is no longer trivial in more personal ways as well. If I truly believe in the axiom on which my model of science rests—that is, the constancy of natural laws—and also in the relevant models of reality that science has led me to—that is, the “aware” nature of the universe and the values-driven, cultural model of human evolution—then to maintain my claim to being rational, in my own eyes, 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 world view, truly believed and lived, would inevitably lead to madness or suicide.

And the theistic view, when it is widely accepted in society, has large implications for the activity called science. A general adherence in society to the theistic way of thinking is what makes sub-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 logical. Scientists know that figuring out how the events in reality work is personally gratifying. But much more importantly, each scientist should see that this work is done most effectively in a freely interacting community of scientists supported within a larger democratic society.

Most of us in the West have become emotionally attached to our belief in science. We feel that attachment because we’ve been programmed to feel it. Tribally, we have learned that our modern wise men—our scientists—doing research and sharing findings with one another is helpful to the continuing survival of the human race. Of all of the subcultures within democracy that we might point to, none is more dependent on the basic values of democracy than is science.

Scientists have to have courage. Courage to think in unorthodox ways, to outlast derision and neglect, to work, sometimes for decades, with levels of determination and dedication that people in most walks of life would find difficult to believe. Scientists need the most sincere form of wisdom. Wisdom that counsels them to listen to analysis and criticism from their peers without allowing egos to become involved, and to sift through what is said for insights that may be used to refine their methods and try again. Scientists require freedom. Freedom to pursue truth where she leads, no matter whether the truths discovered are startling, unpopular, or threatening to the status quo. And, finally, scientists must practice love. Yes, love. Love that causes them to treat every human being as an individual whose experience and thought may prove valuable to their own.

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

 

                                                 pluralistic group at a climate change conference

Scientists do their best work in a community of thinkers who value and respect one another, who love one another, so much as a matter of course that they cease to notice another person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. Under the values-driven, cultural model of human evolution, one can even argue that creating a social environment in which science can arise and flourish is the goal toward which democracy has always been striving.

However, the main implication of this complex but consistent way of thinking is more general and profound, so let’s now to return to it.

The universe is consistent, aware, and compassionate. Belief in each of these qualities of reality is a choice, a separate, free choice in each case. Modern atheists have long insisted that more evidence and weight of argument by far exists for the first than for the second or third. My contention is that this is no longer so. Once we see how values connect us to reality, the choice, though it still remains a choice, becomes 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 obtain. 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 democratic living (and 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 stubborn atheists who refuse to make this choice is that they, like every other human being, have to choose to believe in something. We have to have a foundational set of beliefs in place in order to function effectively enough to just move through the day. 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 choice, but the wisest, of the epistemological choices before us.

The best gamble, in this gambling life, is theism. Reaching that conclusion grows out of analyzing 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, eternal friend—that, dear reader, is up to you.

* * *

And now, to close, I would like to present a scene in a sidewalk café in Vancouver, Canada, where two characters meet and begin a Socratic dialogue. A University of British Columbia graduate student, Flavius, known to his friends as Flux, is having coffee and relaxing in the spring sunshine. Serendipitously, 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 to order.)

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?

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 over 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. 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 make remarks 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. (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’m older and wiser than you are. (Laughs.)

Flux: Ah, be serious. You’re six months older than I am. But … yeah, I know you’ve thought about this one. Which makes me ask—if you’re okay with talking about it—do 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: How much time do you have?

Flux: It’s Friday afternoon. I have 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: All right. 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 lot for reasons, backed by solid 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 every person has to work out his own way of conceiving of God and relate to that personally in his own good time. I came to believe 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 these things if we’re going to survive. So I got motivated to think very hard for a while. I arrived at two conclusions. First, that moral values do name things that are real, and second, that the core belief in the moral code that’ll enable us to survive is theism. In other words, moral realism logically involves, or entails, theism.

Flux: All right, wait a minute. Realism? I’m not gambling on whether my 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.

Flux: 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 thinking. Over and over. I’ve seen all the doubters’ moves. I can whip ’em. (Laughs.)

Flux: So … what, then? Your belief, in your head, your theism, 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 don’t ever get out 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. Replicable. They and all the experimental evidence that supports them keep telling me, more and more, that God is there. 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 end of your arms because you see them 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 primally, if you get my meaning.

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

Evo: I started meditating. Every day. Half 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: 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 and 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 only then, second, for constant, internally felt ones.

Flux: (Studying his friend closely.) 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 the priests anymore. Most don’t trust personal epiphanies either, no matter how intense the events feel. 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 of daily life.

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, Flux. And they don’t examine the basic foundational assumptions of science. If they did, they’d reconsider their opinions.

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

Evo: 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 one of them is a balance of courage and wisdom. Those values are our big-scale responses to entropy, the “uphillness” of life. Other balanced systems of ideas and morés 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 a nation behave. And that connects them to survival. And those basic qualities of adversity and uncertainty, remember, are built into our universe right down to the atoms and quarks. Those qualities are everywhere, all the time. We’ve learned to respond to them, not as individuals, but as tribes, over centuries, with societies built on those four prime values.

Flux: Those are some pretty large and vague moral principles to build a culture around. A lot of radically different societies could be constructed that all claimed they were brave, wise, and so on.

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

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

Evo: We’ve been working our way toward that realization for, arguably, two million 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 more importantly, death. Which is why we’re taught to respect values so much. Our accumulated wisdom keeps telling us we don’t really want to revisit some of our really bad mistakes.

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

Evo: 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. Gradual consensus-building. Scientific studies. Calm persuasion. The facts say it doesn’t work, you know. Capital punishment. I mean.

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 thirty years. Long-term studies say so.

Flux: What if he lives a really long time?

Evo: In my system, barring exceptional circumstances, he’d still stay locked up. But most of them die in under twenty years. They’re the kind of people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Fattening foods. No exercise. Booze. Drugs. Cigarettes. Fights. They don’t last in prison or out.

Flux: But even if, say for the sake of argument, they only last twenty years in prison, that’s a long time. Guards to pay, meals, medical supplies, entertainment … it’s gotta add up.

Evo: Not as much as killing him does by, like, nearly three times as much. The studies say so. On average, the killers only live about seventeen years after going into prison.

Flux: I’ll look it up when I get home. But back to our point. You think we can solve everything by debate and compromise?

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

Flux: I think I’m beginning to see your point a bit. You see moral guidelines as being grounded in the physical facts of reality?

Evo: I’ve made that case for myself and some others many times over. Entropy and quantum uncertainty are built into the fabric of reality. As long as I’m in a universe that is hard and scary, then courage, wisdom, freedom, and love will be virtues. That picture—for me, anyway—is more reliable than my senses. It’s eternal. I’m 99.999 percent sure.

Flux: And that proves for you that God exists?

Evo: That and a couple of other main points. Even assuming the universe stays consistent from place to place and era to era is an act of faith. 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 today’s cutting-edge science—quantum physics. All the particles in the universe are what physicists call entangled, you know. Which just means that the universe has its own 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 in the awareness of the universe. The third is moral realism, which means believing that courage, wisdom, freedom, and brotherly love—the Greek word agape—steer us into harmony with the particles of matter, from quarks to quasars. Those three big beliefs—in universal constancy, universal awareness, and universal moral truth—when they’re added together, tell me this universe is a single, aware, caring entity. This aware universe is “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 assumption, even the quantum-entanglement-awareness one, but leave you right at that moral realism step.

Evo: Oh, I know. They keep trying to find some other way to extract principles of good and bad from the natural world. A lot of people don’t want God. They want to be in charge. (Laughs.)

Flux: Other species—chimps, squirrels, and so on—find altruism on their own, you know. Sometimes, one of them will do something for the good of the community and get killed because of it.

Evo: Then the next thing to ask is: What kind of a universe rewards those animals’ finding and 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 moral question. Why is being altruistic – what they call “good” – a desirable way to be? So the tribe survives? Well, if that’s the case, then we have to ask again: what is that telling us about the basic nature of reality? 

Flux: All right, I see why you say that. Your moral values would seem moral to aliens in other worlds. 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 a bit. 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 sentence themselves to 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 still make progress and survive. That’s all that really matters. (Pauses.) But we must choose to live. Surviving’s not a given. So we need a system of ethics in order just 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?  The most efficient moral code will be the one that’s laid out so our decisions are quick, efficient, and accurate. Consistent with the facts, 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 work in yourself that it becomes personal. But it’s first of all just … efficient. It gets results.

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

Evo: I know, I know. I’d be a liar if I offered you easy grace. You first have to choose to be responsible for your own life. Then so many other challenges come. But they’d come anyway. It’s just that if you choose to bow your head and take the beatings fate dishes out, without trying to figure things out and improve your odds of happiness, your life will 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. A balance of forces makes 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, we make ourselves – and then our society – good, and 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 later they turn out to have scientific explanations. For me, everything I see around me 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 much more miraculous, and then … a 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 because 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 it up, but they do make it up. The priests, I mean. It gets them a slack lifestyle so they gravitate to rationalizing 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, I’m sure. 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 can give to the small, confusing ups and downs of everyday matters. I guess some would 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.

  

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.

(Author unknown)

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.