The God Debate: A New Look at History's Oldest Argument

Introduction

‘Human reason has this fate that in one species of knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its power, it is also not able to answer.’

Zaid Shakir

IN HIS REVIEW for the Guardian (8 December 2007) of John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Colin Tudge wrote, ‘There is no more important debate than this – science versus religion.’ While the existence of God has always been debated, the present and considerable rise in interest has been stimulated by the ‘New Atheism’. This takes the view that religion in all its forms should no longer be tolerated, but discarded as irrelevant because it is incompatible with science and rational thought. Accordingly, religion must be opposed wherever it has influence. The New Atheists have been vigorously led by a group which has included the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, the author and journalist Christopher Hitchens, the philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel C Dennet, the neuroscientist Sam Harris, and the particle physicist V J Stenger. Theists engaging the New Atheists in the debate include John Carson Lennox, a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University, John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist and theologian and Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge, Paul Davies, a physicist, writer and broadcaster and professor at Arizona State University, and philosophers such as Anthony Flew, Mark C Taylor and the literary theorist and critic Terry Eagleton, Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster.

The main thrust of the debate appears to be the perennial argument between science and religion, but the issues are by no means neatly confined to these two disciplines. While there are eminent scientists who deny the existence of God, there are others who are equally convinced that God does exist, but the same divide is found among scholars of other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, anthropology and history.

An alternative and increasingly respectable position is that of the agnostic. Although the English biologist T H Huxley, who was known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, coined the word ‘agnosticism’ in 1869, the concept has a very long history. From the Greek, the term literally means, ‘without gnosis’, that is, ‘without knowledge’. While atheists regard a belief in the existence of God as rationally untenable, agnostics hold the view that it is impossible ever to know whether or not God does exist. Traditionally, agnosticism holds the middle ground between theism and atheism.

The debate is involved and multifaceted, drawing on many different disciplines. It addresses numerous concepts of God taken from both Western and Eastern religion, it draws on the philosophies of science, religion and history, on theories of knowledge, on psychology and anthropology, but its basic concern is simply stated – is there a God or isn’t there? The arguments set out to demonstrate, one way or another, the absolute truth of an absolute being, or to consign such an idea to the realm of fantasy, myth and superstition. Concepts of gods, or a God, have been with us since the earliest human communities; developed as religion they have had a determining influence on the formation of civilizations and cultures, and on how people have tried to understand the origin, meaning and purpose of life. Originally, as we shall see, the debate was the concern of philosophers and theologians, but the ground has changed to a debate about the nature of knowledge, about how we can be sure that what we claim to know is true or false, and how to demonstrate or prove this. In this process science has taken a leading part, setting out objective principles that can test the truth of anything claimed as ‘knowledge’.

The debate is not only about the existence of one, supreme God, or of many gods, but also about whether anything metaphysical, that is something without material form or substance, can be said to exist. If we want to claim such an existence in any meaningful way, that claim would need to be rationally verified. It is held that ‘real’ knowledge, the kind we can be sure about, is gained only through our sense experience, that is to say empirically, a position philosophy terms ‘Empiricism’. Experience, however, includes those of a religious or spiritual nature. Abraham Maslow, a professor of psychology at Brandies University, suggested that ‘spiritual life is part of the human essence. It is a defining characteristic of human nature without which human nature is not fully human nature.’ If this is true, then the ground of religion is to be found within human nature and Alexander Pope’s counsel, ‘Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is Man,’ would lead us to a knowledge of God, as well as of ourselves. It is a perception shared by certain Eastern religious traditions.

Anyone can claim that their spiritual life amounts to authentic experience and as such argue that it is built-in to human nature. The problem is how to objectivize this. Can the subjectivism of a personal experience be communicated in a way that would convince others of its truth? We might be able to accept that someone’s experience is genuine, but is so only for them; for ourselves to recognize it as genuine, we would need to have a similar experience. Atheists are atheists because they find the claims made for subjective experience of this kind are untenable as a basis for truth. Believers are believers because the experience itself is, for them, sufficient evidence of its authenticity. Austin Farrer, an English theologian and philosopher, wrote, ‘The issue between the atheist and the believer is not whether it makes sense to question ultimate fact, it is rather the question, what fact is ultimate? The atheist’s ultimate fact is the universe; the theist’s ultimate fact is God.’

The current form of the debate begins with this impasse, the conflict between scientific and theological orthodoxy. It is argued that theological orthodoxy narrows the terms of reference in which the debate takes place. To argue, on the one hand, that the Bible is literally true, places the narrowest construction on the points at issue; to claim, on the other hand, that its central stories, for example, the Genesis account of creation, Noah’s flood, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus are myths that contain truth ‘of another kind’, offers ground for a more openended discussion. But it is argued that scientific orthodoxy, particularly its precise principles of proof, also narrows the terms of reference in which the discussion takes place. Atheists consider that theists fall back on the God-hypothesis to fill gaps in their knowledge; but there are considerable gaps in scientific knowledge and important questions to which science, as yet, can make no response. It can tell us about the universe, its origins, character and the laws that sustain it, but it cannot tell us why the universe or ourselves are here; nor can it tell us about meaning and purpose, about values and tastes, about suffering and what is termed ‘evil’, and about whether or not we have some form of free will. Atheism makes a strong case for religion being founded on unverifiable claims, but science also trades on articles of faith as does any source of knowledge. In Sources of the Self, the philosopher Charles Taylor wrote, ‘to hold that there are no assumptions in a scientist’s work which aren’t already based on evidence is surely a reflection of a blind faith, one that can’t even feel the occasional tremor of doubt’.

There are several reasons why the debate is of increasing importance. Firstly, the arguments make us face questions of ultimate significance. For this reason, there is urgent need to see if there are alternatives to the irreconcilable views of atheists and theists. As mentioned above, there is nothing new about this debate; humankind has always been faced with issues of ultimate importance, but it is made urgent in our own times by what biological scientists and astrophysicists are saying about the origins both of the universe and the life of our planet. Until now there has been an uneasy co-existence between science and religion, the former tolerating the presence and influence of religion while pointing to its irrational shortcomings. Religion has either been in denial of the knowledge disclosed by science or, in various ways, as will be shown in the following chapters, has tried to accommodate and adapt to it. Today, the fundamental differences have become more sharply defined. More emphatically than ever before atheists regard religion as a subversive influence, something which in Hitchens’s term, ‘poisons everything’. In response, fundamentalist religion has taken refuge by creeping deeper into its doctrines, holding uncompromisingly, for example, to a creationist view of the origins of everything, while more liberal religious attitudes are reconsidering their understanding of God in the light of what science has disclosed about ‘God’s creation’.

Secondly, the debate is made urgent because of the opposing atheist–theist views about the increasing secularization of society. Atheists would like to reduce, or even eliminate, the influence of religion, especially with regard to the establishment of the Church, politics, education, law and, more generally, morality. The extent of the influence of religion varies from country to country; England retains its established Church of England, with its twenty-six senior bishops, the Lords Spiritual, sitting in the British House of Lords, and religious education remains a core-curriculum subject in state schools throughout the UK. The atheist lobby pushes for a wholly secular society, as exists, for example in France, where there is no established religion and where religious education is banned from state schools in favour of ‘éducation civique, juridique et sociale’. Religious education for children is available within the religious communities, or in private religious schools. Some states in the USA are, in this respect, similar to France.

Thirdly, the debate is important because of the ‘lamentable state’ in which society now finds itself, ‘I mean by lamentable state,’ writes Terry Eagleton, ‘the prevalence of greed, idolatry, and delusion, the depth of our instinct to dominate and possess, the dull persistence of injustice and exploitation, the chronic anxiety which leads us to hate, maim, and exploit, along with sickness, suffering, and despair …’ The New Atheists argue that a secular humanism can better address these issues than can religion; theists argue that only the ethical and moral standards of religion can offer solutions to these problems. Because the lines between the opposed views have become hard-edged and sharply drawn, the debate faces us with a stark choice – which has the better case, scientific rationalism or religion? The debate also requires us to consider if these conflicting alternatives are carved in stone, or if, as the closing chapter of the book suggests, there is a possibility of a broader, more open-minded middle ground which allows both parties to engage in creative rather than polemical thinking.

There are many books that present the arguments of both atheists and theists, whatever their specialist discipline might be. A selected list of these books is given in ‘Further Reading’. There are very few books that, remaining neutral, survey the arguments of both sides; the purpose of this book is not to bring the reader to any specific conclusion, but to outline and discuss the principal arguments and points of view of those who have brought the debate into the media glare.

Having in the opening chapters described what is at the heart of the debate – the concept of God, its origins and meaning – the book continues by discussing the main issues; all the important subjects of the debate are treated, and the underlying concepts such as faith and knowledge, knowledge and belief, and the nature of religious experience are fully explained. Atheism is shown in various conjunctions: atheism v. religion; atheism v. the concept of faith, whether or not that faith is attached to a specific religious tradition; atheism v. God, whether or not that God is the monotheistic God of the Bible, or an indefinable concept drawn from animism, polytheism or a more general pantheism. Atheism is also considered over against the more abstract, non-credal notions of God that lie within mysticism, the Mind–Body–Spirit movements and New Age religions.

Any debate is always more interesting and satisfying when the protagonists are carefully considering, with at least some degree of open-mindedness, what the other has to say. However, the ‘God-debate’ mostly takes the form of strongly presented arguments when nothing is conceded and no ground is given, in which one argument is set against another in much the same way as on the political hustings. There is great and urgent need for a better quality of discussion. There was little conceded in the famous debate on the existence of God broadcast by the BBC in 1948, between the philosopher Bertrand Russell and the Jesuit priest Father Frederick C Copleston. This debate was not between a theist and a scientist, but a philosopher and a philosophical theologian, and it remains a model in as much as due and careful consideration was given by each to the arguments of the other.

It is possible that if the debate continues creatively, what may eventually emerge will be a synthesis of the opposed views, a syncretism of theistic philosophy and scientific theory. Such a synthesis has already been attempted by, for example, the Jesuit philosopher and palaeontologist Teilhard de Chardin, who introduced us to the significance of the ‘noosphere’, the collective interaction of human minds; more recently, Ken Wilbur proposed what he called an ‘Integral Theory’, ‘to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into an interrelated network of approaches that are mutually enriching’. Another interesting and important synthesis is given by the physicist Fritjof Capra in his book The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. The final chapter of this book, Chapter 8, ‘God and a Theory of Everything’, discusses the ideas concerned with these kinds of syntheses.

It may be an urban legend, but there is an account of an 18th-century debate convened in St Petersburg by Catherine the Great. She called together the renowned Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler and the French atheist philosopher Denis Diderot. Both Diderot and the court of Catherine the Great, were astounded when Euler approached the philosopher and said, ‘Sir, (a+bn)/n=x, hence God exists. Reply!’ Diderot was embarrassed; he had no reply and the court dissolved in laughter. If proving God’s existence was that simple, the current debate, like that of Catherine’s court, would be concluded. The atheist lobby does not ask believers to produce a mathematical formula that proves the existence of God, but it does require some form of objective demonstration without which they hold the God-hypothesis to be untenable. The present debate pivots on whether or not there are valid grounds for believing in God’s existence even though no such objective proof can be given.

That the debate takes place at all is testimony to the enduring belief in God’s existence. Despite the demise of traditional religion, it seems that large numbers of people of all cultures either hold to a belief in some form of God, or are engaged in the quest for that belief. It is hoped that this book will contribute to the debate; it is not a polemic, but an overview of the essential issues given in such a way that will allow the reader to assess the strength of the arguments. That done, a stand can be made for or against the God-hypothesis, or on the agnostic middle ground.

Author’s Note

In debating the existence of God, the atheists’ case focuses somewhat specifically on Christianity, and in discussing the arguments of both sides it will be apparent that this book carries a similar emphasis. However, in having such a precise agenda the atheists may well have overlooked some significant issues since Eastern religions, for example, offer radically different concepts of the Absolute and metaphysics than those held in the West. There are also marked differences between Christianity and the other biblical religions. For this reason, where necessary, essential concepts of the debate are drawn from other religious traditions, for example, those of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. It is hoped that these contributions will widen and enrich the discourse. However, to have written about the debate on the Godhypothesis in a way that would do full justice to the philosophies and perceptions of these other faiths, would have required a far longer book.

Chapter One

The God-Hypothesis – Its Evolution and Variety

THE ‘GOD-HYPOTHESIS’ IS SOMETHING of a pantechnicon term carrying an almost unlimited variety of ideas. In the West, ‘God’ is broadly understood, by both believers and atheists, to refer to some form of ultimate, all-powerful being, the creator of everything that exists, who has the familiar attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. For some God exists as a remote and unintrusive presence, while others experience a direct, personal relationship that involves every aspect of their lives. Atheists argue that such a being does not exist; God is a concept grounded in mythology, a subject of fantasy and delusion, at best an extended metaphor used to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Traditionally, atheism is a philosophical rational rejection of belief in the existence of any form of deity, or supernaturalism. Today, the conventional arguments for atheism have been given new impetus by the black-hole, multiple-universe cosmology of the new astrophysics, and the DNA-based evolutionary account of the origin and development of life disclosed by the biological sciences. For scientists, the quest is not for a God but for a ‘theory of everything’, which Stephen Hawking said, if discovered, would ‘be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God’. Both the scientific and philosophical quest for a theory of everything is a hugely ambitious undertaking, but one in which, in different ways, human beings have always engaged.

An account of the origins of the God-hypothesis and the many forms it takes is a subject that has occupied entire books and only an overview can be given here of what are predominantly Western religious concepts, although reference will be made to Eastern traditions and to the very different concepts of God they represent.

The discussion is set out under two headings: From Polytheism to Monotheism, and The God of the Philosophers.

1. From Polytheism to Monotheism

Concepts of a God have evolved along with human society and in that process views that were once held to be valid have been abandoned, to be replaced by alternatives. Greek mythology gave us a huge pantheon of gods – abstract forms that were personified, such as the Titans and the familiar Olympian deities that included Aphrodite, Apollo, Hermes and Zeus, the sea and sky gods, agricultural deities and deified mortals. The biblical account of the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam tells the story of a radical monotheism, of a God who displaced, for example, the gods of Babylonia and Sumer, who were believed to reside in their statues. Gradually, this Old Testament God unseated the polytheisms both of early Israel and of those countries through which the monotheism of biblical religion spread. In evolutionary terms, the success of monotheism is a cultural form of the ‘survival of the fittest’, that is, of a religion found to be fit for purpose in terms of what people considered relevant for a meaningful life and a cohesive society.

Fundamentalism remains a virulent force in most living world religions, but alongside this hard-edged trend there has also been a softer, modernizing tendency. The old personifications of monotheism have come to be understood by many in more abstract terms – expressed for example as the ‘One’, the ‘Divine’ or, in the words of the philosophical theologian Paul Tillich, the ‘ground of our being’. In such terms as these, God is construed as a form of moral imagination or a life-force. In place of the intelligent designer some now envisage an eternal, omnipotent energy. This more abstract concept, of a divinity that in some way pervades our individual spirits or souls, accounts for the best of ourselves, and especially our capacity for selfless love. However, it is possible that human nature itself gave birth to such a belief, and that it is genetically programmed, a mechanism necessary for the survival of our species.

The kind of questions people have always asked relate to the origin of the universe and the life of this planet, the fact of suffering and death, the meaning and purpose of life, and whether or not life continues in some form after death. To ask such questions in the modern world is a very different undertaking than it was for the earliest groups of human beings. It is difficult for us to imagine having to use every moment of our waking life to ensure our physical survival in an environment that was constantly life-threatening, to secure a regular supply of food, adequate shelter and clothing, to keep the fire burning, and to protect the community from both marauding animals and enemies. If our lives were dependent on a migratory herd, then we would be nomadic, undertaking long and hazardous journeys. We would also have to deal with the problems of climate, especially of its extremes, the threat of drought or floods, earthquakes and volcanic eruption. Our lives would have been dominated by fear and anxiety caused by the unpredictability and uncertainty of life.

The first hunter-gathers were necessarily preoccupied with what it was that ensured fertility and determined the safe birth of animals and humans. They wondered about what controlled the wind, thunder, lightning, rain, the sudden and sometimes extreme changes of weather, and the more gradual movement through the seasons, and about what the power was that moved the lights they observed in the night sky. And, most importantly, they would have wanted to know if these powers were beneficent or malign, if they could be controlled, appeased, persuaded, harnessed to their advantage in the gruelling struggle to survive. When, in human evolution, our creative imagination developed, it radically transformed