A similar committee: Microsoft in 1978

We finally have discovered, beyond any shadow of a doubt, how our universe was been created. No, it’s wasn’t by some all-powerful eternally begotten long-haired hippy. Nor was it from an Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless his holy hooves). It ends up the universe was created by committee.

Doesn’t everything make so much more sense now?

The most extensive analysis yet undertaken of the structure and contents of the universe conclusively proves the universe was created not by a single entity, as has been widely suggested, but by “a fractious and disorganized committee or committees given to groupthink and petty infighting”, according to Drs. Karl Pootle and Yumble Frick, co-authors of the study. The analysis is expected to have profound implications on the theoretical underpinnings of many popular religions….

“Biodiversity is the primary stumbling block,” said Dr. Pootle. “Whoever created this cacophony of species would have had to be infinitely powerful and infinitely creative, but also infinitely schizophrenic to come up with the myriad different solutions to identical problems that the creators of the universe have. Either that, or we’re looking at a different kind of process altogether”….

“If you’re one guy designing a universe, why come up with twenty different ways of tackling the same issue?” Pootle said. “If you’re omnipotent, presumably you know perfectly well whatever the one solution is that will work best, and you go with that. The fact that the world obviously doesn’t work that way is what led us first to the committee theory. The plants and animals that inhabit the Earth show the kinds of random and incoherent thinking that can only otherwise be found in the products of design committees where there’s a lot of CYA and turf protection going on.”

The most logical answer to why God won’t heal amputees is that either God doesn’t care or doesn’t exist. This would also explain the lack of miraculous healings for people with Lou Gehrig’s diseases, long-term quadriplegics, untreated AIDS patients and those with Parkinson’s disease, mental retardation, Down syndrome, and a host of other maladies.

Christian apologists offer different explanations to try to make sense of why bad things happen to good people. Among their explanations for why people who have lost limbs are never made whole by God (also detailed on the “Why Does God Hate Amputees?” website): healings for amputees aren’t part of God’s plan; the lord answers prayers by saying “No”; God needs to remain hidden, and regenerating a limb would display the Lord’s miraculous powers too openly; God has a special purpose for amputees—just the way they are; and God answers the prayers of amputees by having scientists develop artificial limbs.

These explanations remind me of my parents’ answers when I started to question whether Santa Claus was real. How does he get down our chimney when he’s so fat? He can squeeze himself down to fit. How can he deliver presents to every child in the whole entire world in one night? He moves faster than we can imagine. How big does his bag need to get to carry all the presents? It’s a magic, bottomless bag. How can he eat cookies and milk in so many homes? He just does. My parents’ valiant but ultimately weak explanations held off the truth for a year, but eventually, like all children, I had to face the truth.

—William Lobdell, Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America—and Found Unexpected Peace (2009), p. 210-211

109. ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM SHIFTED BURDEN OF PROOF
(1) You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

(source)

It started to bother me greatly that God’s institutions—ones He was supposed to be guiding—were often more corrupt than their secular counterparts. If these churches were infused and guided by the Holy Spirit, shouldn’t it follow that they would function in a morally superior fashion than a corporation or government entity?

In general, I was finding this wasn’t the case. I started to see that religious institutions are more susceptible to corruption than their secular counterparts because of their reliance on God, and not human checks and balances, for governance.

—William Lobdell, Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America—and Found Unexpected Peace (2009), p. 161

Indeed, you would think that God’s institutions would be morally superior to secular institutions — just like you would expect God’s people to be morally superior to be secular folks. But as we all know, that has not been the case. And far too often, the situation is reversed.

Then again, it’s not at all surprising from the perspective that it’s all bunk.

A man decided to check his answer (being “no”), which caused him to be arrested. Here is his email to the authorities:

On Friday 18th September 2009 at 3.45pm I was confronted with a questionnaire which I understand was lawfully pinned to the wall on London Bridge railway station, platforms 1 and 2, inviting members of the public to participate by ticking the appropriate box.

The question, “Does God Exist”, was very straight forward, and “No” was obviously the correct answer. I was particularly concerned that vulnerable people exposed to the alternative answers of “Yes” and “Probably” were at risk of exploitation by individuals who might attach a set of rules and obligations to those who hope that some super-being will take responsibility for their lives, or intervene in some other way.

I felt the offered answer “Probably”, to be particularly sinister. It was for this reason I chose to engage with the questionnaire and ensure that the correct answer was ticked. As a result of responding to this questionnaire I was arrested by a plain clothes police officer. Two other plain clothes police officers were in attendance. I was informed that I had been seen ticking the correct answer on CCTV.

As I sat caged in the back of the police van I counted 6 police officers who were attending this incident, which was presented to me as being criminal damage. My tick was entirely within the specified “No” box, and the questionnaire was not damaged in any way. Interestingly the arresting police officer spent much of his time ticking similar multiple choice boxes on a questionnaire of his own. I understand that I am required to pay an £80 penalty notice fine, or attend court. I am left with little choice but to ask that this matter be dealt with by the court.

If you’d like to take the quiz without being arrested, you can do so on their website.

In the ongoing battle between science and religion, the forces of rationalism have been hampered by an 800-lb gorilla firmly planted in its corner. The question of why the universe exists at all has variously been called “the first of all questions” and the “Primordial Existential Question.” It has been phrased by both Leibniz and Heidegger as “Why is there something rather than nothing?” while Steven Hawking wonders, “Why does the Universe bother to exist?” Religion triumphantly proclaims the answer: because God the Prime Creator made it all. Unable to come up with a counter argument, Rationalists have just shrugged and meekly suggested that the answer may be outside the realm of science.

As long as theism provides the only solution, it will continue to dominate debate and sway the public mind on the question of “creation.” However, I believe we may now be able to provide an entirely scientific and rational answer to this most profound of questions. The article below exposes how the “God answer” falls short and provides a 5-step analysis of how an eternal universe – with no beginning or end – can be understood through application of contemporary science. This revelation describes a universe that “bothers to exist” on its own terms, effectively eliminating the need for God as Prime Creator.

There’s a story that comes down to us from ancient Rome, during the period in which Hannibal Barca was ravaging Italy. Legend has it that the Roman dictator Fabius Cunctator (”Fabius the Delayer”) built a number of temples to beseech the Gods for aid. These included a temple to what we would translate as “common sense.”

To the Romans, this was reasonable. A person would enter the temple and “pray” to common sense, which would focus their thoughts on the virtue. Having been reminded of the importance of the virtue, they were likely to put it into practice at their next opportunity. Their actions would be changed, and this would change the state of the world. What else do you want from a “God”?

If you can grasp this, then you can understand what Edward Correia is doing in his new book, The Uncertain Believer: Reconciling God and Science. He wants to build a (metaphorical) temple to compassion and proclaim that the virtue itself is a God. But while the Romans could be persuaded to find room in their pantheon, most of the West is now monotheistic. Are we ready to give up the traditional personal God for a God that is nothing more — or less — than an idea?

Gods: A Builder’s Manual

Pullquote: “On one hand, the doctrines of organized religion seem unpersuasive or downright silly. On the other, the prospect of a universe without God seems meaningless.” (6)

Correia is writing to those who already have grave doubts about the traditional understanding God, but still find a need for some overarching purpose to their lives. The book attempts to guide these “uncertain believers” through the process of creating their own conception of God that will fill those needs without falling pray to the problems of the traditional model. Correia is forthright about this; humans have always unconsciously created their Gods to fulfill their own needs, now it is time to do so consciously.

He begins this process by considering the classic proofs for the existence of a creator God: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, ID and so forth. He considers the typical arguments for and against, coming to the conclusion that none of the proofs are particularly persuasive. Unfortunately the book is a scant 170 pages, and you could fill up volumes about any of the philosophical proofs. His approach to each is solid, but cursory. Each argument he gives has a counter argument, and Correia doesn’t have the space to deal with them. This isn’t a problem for the person already doubting the existence of a personal deity, but it limits the appeal of his arguments against those theists who already know the pat answers.

Correia then picks through some of the West’s great thinkers looking for insight into the nature of God, from Aristotle to Hegel and especially Tillich. He takes a bit from each, building an understanding of what he wants God to be. The end result of this is a definition of God that survives all of Correia’s objections, but utilizing what he considers best from each individual thinker:

God is the shared ideal of genuine unqualified love for others. To put it more simply, God is love. (115)

Theology is All About Timing

Pullquote: “Acknowledging that we are developing a conception of God does not diminish the importance of God in our lives.” (16)

It is unfortunate that this book should come out now. We’ve seen the New Atheists, we’ve seen the immediate backlash against them, and now we’re seeing a great deal of writing from the middle ground. Karen Armstrong, H.E. Baber, Robert Wright and others have written books and editorials that try to explain God in a way that the modern religious skeptic can accept. The market is probably saturated, and it seems possible that this book will simply vanish into that pool of ink without a ripple.

That would be a shame, since Correia has a remarkably frank and clear-eyed approach to the issue. Many authors writing along the same lines can get bogged down by the poetry or become overly precious with their turn of phrase, like Wrights’s “evolving God.” Metaphor and paradox may be the language within religion, but when talking about religion some clarity is appreciated.

Correia is upfront about the fact that this God is a cultural construction that exists in our collective minds rather than outside the universe, and he’s equally clear that we’re creating it rather than discovering it. I have to wonder if this won’t kill the book’s chances among moderate Christians. Correia may be happy focusing his love on an idea of his own creation, but I’ve always gotten the impression that most moderates would prefer for God to have an independent existence. Watching reactions from the quarter will be interesting.

Among atheists, I suspect that the common response will be bafflement. We can see what he’s doing, but not why he’s doing it. Many of us feel the need for purpose in our lives (and many don’t), but few feel the need to deify this purpose. Using the language of theism simply confuses the issue. It’s useless at best, disingenuous at worst.

But for those people in the middle who have given up on traditional religion but not the experience of traditional religion, Correia has provided a lucid and useful book.

Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.

When I believed in an interventionist Christian God, the universe didn’t make any sense at all. I just had to keep telling myself it didn’t make any sense because God’s thoughts were higher than my thoughts, and somehow it all made sense to him.

Once I abandoned supernaturalism in general, and god concepts as part of that, suddenly the universe made perfect sense. The universe is what it is. It offers no plans, no inherent meaning, and asks nothing of us in return. If a meteorite wipes us all out tomorrow, it won’t be an act of vengeance, or retribution, or any sort of malevolent act of any kind. It will just be the natural workings of well understood physical laws and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This freed me to accept bad things happening with no seeming explanation, and it also inspired me to create what comfort and happiness I can in the people I care about. The universe won’t do it for me.

Well said, Ty!

I’m reading Robert Jensen’s work All My Bones Shake for an eventual review here, but I’d like to discuss one concept now, since I don’t think a full discussion would fit in the review.

A Relabeling of the Unknown

Pullquote: God is what we call all those things about the universe that we don’t or can’t understand.

Jensen describes himself as a Christian atheist, or a secular Christian. I think the “secular” label is most useful, since Jensen is seeking a universal way to be Christian rather than a sectarian way. Part of his mission is to find a way that everyone can participate, even naturalists. To that end, he brings in the concept of “God as Mystery.” As he puts it:

I believe God is a name we give to the mystery of the world that is beyond our capacity to understand. I believe that the energy of the universe is ordered by forces I cannot comprehend. (p. 47)

Jensen is not saying that God is a mystery. Instead, he is saying that God is mystery itself. God is what we call all those things about the universe that we don’t or can’t understand.

Let me put it in a more familiar way. This isn’t a God is in the gaps argument. This is an argument that God IS the gap. God is simply another name for all the gaps.

Poetry and Consequences

Pullquote: There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know.
Donald Rumsfeld

I can appreciate the poetry of it. And it allows Jensen to hammer on an idea dear to my heart: the need for humility in the face of the universe.

To seek to always love God means, from this view, to seek always to accept our place in a Creation that will always be a mystery, no matter how much science teaches us about specific parts of that Creation around us and in us, through physics and biology…. Nothing in this view demands that we reject science, but instead reminds us to be aware not only of what science illuminates but also what is beyond its reach. (p. 48)

As I’ve said before, as an atheist I don’t believe that the universe is under any obligation to make itself comprehensible to us. There are things we don’t know, but that we will come to know. But there are also things which will likely be beyond the ability of our tools to measure, or our minds to understand.

But I do have a couple of problems with the “God as Mystery” idea. I don’t see what we’ve gained by relabeling all the mystery as “God.” Why is the word “mystery” itself not good enough to describe the situation? If nothing else, “mystery” is a better platform for adjectives; we can speak of solvable and insolvable mysteries, and even ultimate mysteries.

Frankly, I can’t think of a word in the English language that comes with more baggage that the word “God.” We’ve spent the past several thousand years associating Gods with big powerful versions of humans living in the heavens. Generations of philosophical theologians preaching that God is beyond human understanding haven’t broken us of the habit of viewing God as the ultimate monarch. Bringing it into the discussion is just begging us to start personifying again.

This seems to be one of those compromises that manages to offend both sides. Christians are being asked to give up their personal, interventionist God, while atheists are asked to obfuscate a fairly simple concept. So while I feel there’s something to admire in the idea of “God as Mystery,” I doubt its going to spark the next Great Awakening.