Reading: Creation, Incarnation, Self-Evidence & Logic

Last time, we concluded our discussion on the nature of religious belief. We delved into the reasons for accepting the age-old definition, the first of its kind, proposed by Anaximander roughly 600 years before Christ. It posits that the core of religious belief is a faith in something perceived as divine.

This divine reality is characterized as self-existent, not contingent on anything else, without a beginning or end, uncaused, and simply is. I mentioned that the most concise description might be "unconditionally non-dependent." Logically, I believe that this encapsulates the essence.

Whatever fills this role is the divine reality, and all that is not divine is dependent upon the divine. I also mentioned that there are secondary interpretations of religious belief. These revolve around how the non-divine relies on the divine, the way humans relate to the Divine, and specific conceptions of the Divine. Essentially, religion is a belief in divinity.

The primary reason for introducing this topic is the central thesis of this course: the theories of reality and knowledge inherently presuppose divinity beliefs. These religious beliefs guide them, and subsequently, influence theories that emerge in various disciplines, spanning the natural and social sciences.

Next, we will classify different religious beliefs. One intuitive approach, based on our definition, is to categorize religions by how they perceive the non-divine's dependence on the divine.

For example, using a dotted line to represent the non-divine reality and a solid line for the divine reality, pagan or naturalist religions might be depicted as having the Divine as part of the natural world. In this schema, the natural universe is shown by dotted lines (things that aren't self-existent) and depends on the self-existent Divine. This Divine might be physical matter for a materialist, or perhaps a combination of physical matter and logical laws.

There are numerous religions that hold such views. Paganism, for instance, believes in a supernatural power inside the universe, alongside a natural one. These powers were named differently across religions; the ancient Romans, for example, called it "Numen." The Roman Emperor Octavian, also known as Caesar Augustus (meaning "augmented"), claimed to possess an abundance of this Numen, setting him apart as almost divine.

This pagan supernatural is distinct in that it doesn't abide by the laws governing the natural world. It operates by its own unique principles, rituals, and mantras.

In contrast, monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam view a singular divine entity—God—as the creator and sustainer of everything else. In Christian theology, there's an added layer: the Incarnation. This doctrine posits that God incorporated the created human nature of Jesus Christ into His divine essence.

A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking discusses how one can approach the question of the origin of the universe through scientific theory and exploration. He questions the role of God in the creation of the universe, and whether the universe began with a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature. Hawking doesn't outright dismiss the concept of a creator but rather approaches the topic with a rational, scientific perspective. He raises the idea that if the universe is entirely governed by deterministic laws, then it would be redundant to invoke God as the creator. For Hawking, and many like him, reason and science serve as primary tools for understanding the universe and its origin.

However, others believe that religious belief and reason can coexist. They argue that reason and faith can complement each other, with faith providing a broader context or meaning to our rational findings. This perspective emphasizes that religious beliefs provide the foundational framework or worldview, upon which rational inquiry and theory-making build. In this view, faith and reason are not at odds but work in tandem to offer a fuller understanding of reality.

Regardless of one's stance, the relationship between religious beliefs and theories remains a complex and debated topic in philosophy, science, and theology.

Hawking says, "Even our best explanations of the universe, the inflationary model, do not tell us why the initial configuration was not such as to produce something very different from the world we observe. It will be difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of God who intended to create beings like us."

So, in "A Brief History of Time", that's the position that he takes.

We've investigated the universe and found that at some point just after the Big Bang, space expanded enormously, and all the rest of the matter expanded with it.

And that inflation took place in just the right way. So, under just the right conditions, it produced living creatures, and then us.

As a matter of fact, had that rapid inflation of the universe taken place just a fraction differently—point 000 (with 29 zeros following) 1—if it had taken place only that much faster, no life would have been possible. And if it had taken place that much slower, no life would have been possible in the universe.

That's why Hawking said in that book, "The only explanation for something with that minuscule chance of happening is that it must be that God wanted to produce human beings."

That's an example of a rationalist view, taking that to be a piece of reason, a part of the theory. We discover this about the universe, and we hypothesize to explain it.

However, by the time he wrote his last book called "The Grand Design", he changed his mind. On rational grounds, he says, "You can't get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. And this means there's no possibility of a creator because there's no time for a creator to have existed in."

Here again, he's giving a rational ground. "I gave up that belief because if there was no time, how could the Creator act?"

Of course, this reason is given in complete ignorance of the fact that Jews, Christians, and Muslims have always said that God transcends time because He created it. Scripture itself states that God created time and existed when there was no time. God's existence is independent of time.

So, apparently, he didn't know that and he gives this weak argument. But you understand reason is the decider here. Reason proposes all the theories and proposes the theory of reality that relates to the Big Bang, and reason decides whether or not to include God in the picture. Thus, religion is one of the things decided on purely rational grounds. You have Hawking giving his rational grounds, both for and against.

Bertrand Russell had expressed a similar sentiment years earlier.

Russell says, viewing the universe's creation and its eventual end, "Man is the product of causes that had no pre-vision of the end they were achieving. His origin, growth, hopes, fears, loves, and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collections of atoms. No fire, heroism, intensity of thought, or feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave. All the labors of the ages, their devotion, inspiration, and the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined for extinction in the vast death of the solar system. All these things are so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand."

"That's his opinion about what reason gives us in its judgment on the future of the universe, humans, and of course, on the topic of religion. From that point of view, religion is just bunk — merely one silly, irrational belief.

For instance, the Christian version posits that Jesus Christ will return to Earth, averting a vast heat death of the solar system. Heaven will descend to Earth, the dead will rise, and the Kingdom of God will reign forever.

This arises from a Christian religious belief, just as Russell's belief in what he labels the omnipotence of matter does. To him, everything is determined by the random configuration of atoms. This is his divine belief — his religious faith.

But there isn’t just that view on how religion relates to theories; there's another.

This perspective envisions a wall of separation with religious beliefs on one side and rational theories on the other. I term this irrationalism.

A proponent of this view was the famous theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher. Many of you might recall him from the theologian bubblegum cards collected in childhood — trading two Schleiermachers for a Kierkegaard and so on. Schleiermacher, an influential 19th-century theologian, believed that religion was a matter of feeling, unconnected to doctrine. To him, doctrines were extraneous growths from these feelings. He felt that doctrines obstructed true religion. Religion, he said, was the sum of all our higher feelings. By "higher," I assume he referred to more noble emotions, such as love and goodwill towards others.

Then there's another perspective, represented differently, termed 'scholasticism.' This viewpoint, prominent in the Middle Ages among university teachers called 'schoolmen,' likens reality to a two-story house. The ground floor represents nature, explored by reason through various theories and scientific explanations. The upper story, however, embodies the supernatural — the realm of God, angels, and departed souls. A metaphorical stairway connects the two, allowing reason to glimpse the supernatural realm, albeit briefly.

A key proponent of this perspective was Thomas Aquinas. Many regard him as the foremost thinker on scholasticism. He presented five proofs of God's existence. While they don't elucidate much about God, they argue for a being far surpassing any known entity. One of his arguments posits that things change and don't instigate their own transformation. This line of reasoning concludes that there must be an initial, unchanging instigator — which we recognize as God.

Many Christians align with this viewpoint, but I find it flawed. One major flaw I identify is its reliance on the principle of sufficient reason, which essentially assumes God's existence to prove His existence.

Another concern I have with this argumentative style is that it attempts to subject God to logical proof. The New Testament informs us that God created everything, both visible and invisible. This includes the very laws of logic. If God crafted these laws, it's erroneous to subject Him to them.

A common counter to this perspective is that if God isn't bound by logic, He could commit logical absurdities, such as creating five-sided triangles. My contention isn't that God can violate logical laws, but rather that these laws don't apply to Him. He doesn't violate them because they simply aren’t relevant to His nature.

Consider a law stating that for anything in my garden to be healthy, it must receive adequate sunlight, oxygen, and water."

Okay,

Do the rocks in my garden violate that law?

No, no, the law just doesn't apply to them. They're not living things.

So rocks don't need

Sunlight, air, and water to be healthy, because they're not healthy or unhealthy at all.

And that's what we're saying about God. God has created all the laws that govern His creation.

They don't apply to Him because He's not a creature.

They apply to all the creatures God made.

The universe and everything are subject to the laws of logic and other laws.

Because God's the lawgiver to creation, don’t then take the laws, turn around, and try to apply them to the Creator, and claim they show that the Creator's existence is the cause of change, or whatever.

Whatever can be proven would thereby not be God.

That is the conclusion we ought to draw there.

So, have one last look at my little schema there?

Is it true that there's a realm of nature

And a supernatural realm?

Sure.

This, the Scripture calls Earth, and this, the Scripture calls Heaven?

Is it true that the souls of the departed, the dead, are in Heaven? Sure.

Is it true that God has a presence in Heaven? Yes, and God has a presence on Earth as well.

God transcends both stories of the house;

This is the Creator of it all.

But what I deny here is that reason has this stairway whereby I can go up and take a peek and give us proofs. There's an upstairs of the house.

That's known only because God reveals it.

Not because we can discover it without revelation.

That's my objection to this.

So I hope this is reasonably clear. We can have

A rationalist position about the relation of theories and reason to religious belief, an irrational supposition, a scholastic position, or finally,

We can have

The position that I'm holding, which is divinity beliefs

Are assumed by, are the basis of,

Divinity beliefs are the basis of a doctrine

Theory of reality, theory of knowledge,

Which in turn, affect the theories

In the sciences.

So that's the viewpoint that I'm going to take. As we go through the rest of the course, as we consider the specific theories of people who propose the theory of reality, theory of knowledge, we'll

Point out

Where the divinity belief operates, what it was,

How we know that they held it, and so on. In most cases, they admit it.

In the ancient world, people were much more aware of doing that, and more forthcoming about it. In the present day, many people who are materialists like to disguise what they're doing and say, this has nothing to do with religion, I, I reject all religious belief, and they go ahead and regard, say, matter and energy as purely physical and divine.

Well, we're not going to let them get away with it, we're gonna call them on it,

And make them own up to what they're really doing.

So, again, I remind you, reading lectures, reading, that's the way to get the most out of this.

I just wish that I could take your questions. I wish I could hear them. No, that's not possible. What we will do next time is that I will explain to you a little more about how I see the viewpoint that I just explained as my own, how I see that working.

Objection to this,

To the idea that somehow religious beliefs lie behind a view of reality and knowledge which lies behind how you construe the sciences.

The objection to that goes like this: Look, pal, one plus one is true for everybody. It doesn't matter whether you're a Buddhist, whether you're an atheist, whether you're a materialist, whether you're a Jew or Christian,

One plus one is two. So don't give me the stuff that religious belief is going to make any difference to that.