It does not seem to me that there is a rational basis in claiming that there is no God. If the existence of an entity identifiable as a “God” seems improbable, then how should we consider the probability of life existing? We believe in life because we experience it, because it is all around us. Some would say the same of God, though they would obviously not be referring to a man with a beard. The disagreement often seems like a matter of language, where the word “God” is used as a metaphor for something that we all experience, for something that we can not disagree upon. But even when we manage to pull ourselves above this confusion and agree upon a certain definition of “God”, conflicts may remain. This is because there are genuine disagreements on what is “rational” and “irrational”, “true” or “false”, “good” or “harmful”. These disagreements, I find, lack the beauty of tolerance and make a good display of people’s assumptions. It is difficult to have a constructive discussion when we rely on different assumptions and focus on attacking the opposite position rather than understanding it as the other side understands it.

The concept of a God — a God such as the one Einstein believed existed — is not “irrational” from a scientific point of view. It’s merely a concept. Indeed, it has no proper evidence to back it up, but it is still a concept that can rightfully be considered. Just like some scientists are biased in favour of string theory, some are biased in favour of a God theory. The God concept is worthy of investigation and speculation from a purely rational point of view. The concept of “God” could be attributed to an alien life form, a secondary reality or even an equation. It all depends on how God is defined. Perhaps, in a post-religious world, the subject of a well-supported theory might end up being called “God” because this word would be most apt at describing it. I do not find this particularly implausible.

Now, to view the question of God from another perspective: does the concept of a God serve a useful purpose in our society? After all, we do not live believing in what is pure and true so much as in what is useful to our well-being. For example, if we look at the free will versus determinism debate, it is quite clear that, though, from a physicist’s point of view, determinism is no doubt the rule (just like God might seem like an unreasonable assumption), in our daily life it is very important that we operate believing in free will (just like some find it very important to operate while believing in God). This is because belief in free will is useful to us.

So, even if a person subscribes to rather dubious interpretation of “God”, such as the one that can make a rain of frogs and turn water to wine — an interventionist God –, it is possible that this belief in God is useful to the individual and perhaps to the larger society. Sociologists and anthropologists could agree that the concept of God has been a useful one to many societies at least at some stage. It seems almost certain that the formation of religion, the belief in God, spirits or even goblins in the forest has been a natural step along our societal evolution. In this sense, to say that belief in God is irrational would seem as relevant (or irrelevant) as saying that it’s irrational for us to need love. Perhaps it is clear that there is no reason for a physicist to believe that there is such a thing as a God out there, but that does not tell us whether a human should or should not believe in “God”.

Then, we must wonder, for those in our modern society that hold such beliefs: is the concept of God harmful? Is it of benefit? That is a question that science can try and has tried to answer. So far, there is no clear answer, though it is clear that there are some differences between religious and non-religious people. Some of these differences suggest that religiosity is of benefit, others, that it is harmful. I expect that, if we look at subgroups amongst religious and non-religious people, that some people will be of such a nature that belief in God is of benefit while, for others, that it will be of harm. We should investigate the matter, but in the end, we must trust people with their decision. As long as there is no compulsion in religion — as is the case in our modern society –, then we should respect people’s choice to do so-called irrational things such as dress in fancy ways, comfort themselves with God and what not.

Thus, we are left with God from a physicist’s point of view, which is just one unproved concept amongst many, a concept that can, at the very least, be constructed in a rational manner, even if it is perhaps not rational to be convinced that this concept is true. Democritus, for example, relied as much on reason to explain the existence of atoms as many do to explain the existence of God; I don’t see why we should characterise his belief in atoms “irrational”. Then there is the anthropological point of view, where it seems that belief in God is simply part of the path that any human society evolves upon. And finally we have the psychological point of view, where the evidence makes it hard for us to draw conclusions either way.

Is it rational to believe in God? It all depends on how you define “rational”, “believe” and “God”.  Is it rational to believe that there are more words that start with the letter K than words that have it as the third letter? No, but it seems quite useful in terms of efficiently storing data in our mind. And efficiently storing data in our mind, even if it leads us to false conclusions, could be called “rational”.

Is it rational to believe that the reason a certain girl never called you back is because she probably lost the number rather than because she just wasn’t interested? Is it possible to believe, on one level, that it’s because she lost the number (or other comfortable explanations) while, on another level, admitting that this is improbable and that it’s impossible to form a concrete explanation of what happened?

Attacks on religiosity seem to lack the nuance that would lend them credibility. I describe myself as an atheist, though there are definitely moments where I have made use of the belief in God for positive ends (when I was seven or so years old and lived thoroughly difficult times, even though I was never raised with religion, the thought of a God sustained me and gave me hope). I see something wrong with being convinced about the existence of a God, but the problem I see here is precisely the same I see in a diversity of descriptions people, including myself, use to explain all the different facets of this world. I don’t see the obsession with criticising beliefs as personal as those behind religion.

-Dussault

1 Comment »

1. Great article. Still don’t know if it is rational for me to believe in God but a really great read.

   Comment by VIRGEL — September 28, 2009 @ 5:03 PM

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website