Recently, at the University of Southern California,
I've found myself engaged in conversations about the nature, or
super-nature, of God. A few weeks ago, I attended a talk for the
evangelical Christian club at our medical school. (The title of the talk was
"Why I Am Not an Atheist" - which, sure enough, raised the hackles of
our atheist medical students, one of whom showed up to complain. "How
would our Muslim students feel," the student asked, "if the title of this talk was 'Why I Am Not a Muslim'?"
A really good question....) The speaker proceeded to give the usual
arguments, unscientific and illogical, but invoking science and logic,
for the existence of a supernatural God. You can look up all these
arguments on the internet. The argument from time, Pascal's wager, the
argument from morality. If any of them were convincing, then we'd all
be convinced... but they aren't, and we're not.
At
the question and answer period, I said, "As a progressive Christian, I
have found a way to experience God without having to go through this
exercise of trying to prove the existence of God.
I don't need to believe in a supernatural God to be Christian, so this
effort to account for such a God through science and logic isn't
necessary. Your arguments fail because they are tautological: effectively they depend on the initial assumption that there
is a supernatural God outside the universe who created it and tinkers
with it from outside, so it is no wonder that they circle back to that
conclusion."
I
have yet to meet anyone who became a Christian or came to believe in
a supernatural God as a result of any of these propositions. I've met
many hundreds of people who became evangelical or fundamentalist Christians
because they came into contact with Christians whom they admired and
with whom they wanted to belong. They accepted the supernaturalist
doctrines of these Christian groups because that was the price of
admission. Seeing later that there were serious logical and
scientific challenges to supernaturalism, some of them sought out
arguments based on science or logic to give support for their beliefs.
But not once have I met a person who started down the Christian path on the strength of these explanations.
A few nights ago our Office of Religious Life hosted a stage performance of "Dangerous Descent",
written by Colin Cox, at USC. It's a dramatization of the debates
between evolutionary biologists and proponents of the "intelligent
design" version of Christian creationism. It pits 'scientism', a
stridently atheistic expression of the evolutionary biology position,
against a supernaturalistic Christian account of the emergence of
life on earth. The play made no reference to the progressive Christian perspective,
which does not posit a conflict between Darwin and faith. But despite and
perhaps because of its polemical nature, the play was a good
conversation-starter for the audience after the performance. The
actors, the playwright, an evolutionary biologist at USC, and myself
were the panel initiating the after-show discussion. Of the
hundred-odd students and staff who attended, it appeared that a handful were
proponents of the 'intelligent design' perspective.
One of them spoke up and said that there was no way that the
complexity of certain features of life could be accounted for by a
process of random mutation, so an intelligent Creator must have formed
those features. I answered: "You are completely entitled to your
religious belief. But in order for your idea to be scientific, you
have to explain how God did what you say he did." 'Intelligent
design' does not and cannot offer such explanations. 'Intelligent
design' rests on the idea that God is supernatural. But to explain the
processes by which such a God creates would bring them into the realm of nature. This would deny the supernaturalism, and thus
the existence, of this God. It's a God whose existence depends on ignorance. As science advances, this God will be in perpetual retreat.
Michael Dowd, author of "Thank God for Evolution!", is the nation's foremost evangelist for celebrating the compatibility of sound science and good religion. In a recent blog, Michael points out the consequences of the biblically literalistic defense of supernaturalism. "Is it any wonder that young people are leaving religion by the millions, if this is the 'good news' they are offered? Is it any wonder that the new atheists continue to ride bestseller lists if religion is equated with such 'supernaturalism'?"
All the arguments for 'intelligent design' are appeals to belief in the "God of the gaps", a supernatural deity who is supposed to account for the existence of things that science can't yet explain. In the "Dangerous Descent" play, the actor advocating for 'intelligent design' constantly complains whenever the actor advocating for evolutionary biology says 'not yet'. But science is all about seeking out explanations for that which has 'not yet' been understood. All that has so far been discovered was once 'not yet' explained. Science thrives on the quest to close the very 'gaps' that supernaturalist Christians invoke as evidence of the existence of their God. The "God of the gaps" has been shrinking toward oblivion for centuries now, as each gap is filled by new discoveries.
But there is a gapless God: the One who is one with the process of evolution and ongoing creation. The One who is one with nature. The One who is a verb that moves from within, rather than a noun that stands outside the universe and gives directions. The One who is existence itself, and thus whose existence is pointless to prove. The One whose presence we feel in prayer and worship. The One who is the essence of the awe we feel when we ponder the natural marvels that surround us. The God we sense in the glow of wonderment, as we consider our knowledge, our ignorance, and our ongoing quest to discover how the universe works.
