Does God exist?

When we ask this question, perhaps we should first define our terms. What do we mean by God? What ontological framework is involved in our idea of God's existence? A gigantic super-anthropomorphic entity, the creator of the universe -- is that what must exist, for God to exist? Must it be a Someone who is In Charge and who, as the Bible said, has numbered every hair on your head, and knows when every sparrow falls? (And what did the Bible's writers really mean by that?)

If ever there was a question for which the answer is more questions, it was that one.

But let's not be coy about so important a question. (It is, at least, important to many of us). To simply state, "Whether God exists is all a matter of definition" is just another cop-out; just another sophistry.

I don't kid myself that I can speak with genuine authority here. I can only offer opinions which I hope are thought through. And we'll come to those...

Professor Timothy Ferris has written a fascinating book about cosmology ("the science concerned with discerning the structure and composition of the universe as a whole"), called The Whole Shebang: A State Of The Universe Report. It's a good book, written, Ferris thinks, for the layman -- although it's not as layman-friendly as he presumes.

From the preface: ". . .The psychological connections between religion and cosmology probably go too deep to be uprooted, but it may be worth keeping in mind that much of this God-mongering arises from the assumption that God is embodied in a set of equations. . .For a scientist to make such an assumption risks introducing religious controversies into cosmology, a science that has more than enough to do trying to figure out how the universe works without also flattering itself that it is going to tell us why..."

The phrase "psychological connections," in this context, is of great interest. Those connections may have even more to do with our assumption of what God is than Ferris has realized; indeed, our psychological connections should not only call into question what religious orthodoxy thinks about God, but what Ferris and other scientists assume about God. Our ideas about God are largely cultural, and as Joseph Campbell and history have demonstrated, mythology arises from culture impacted by instinct, sociology and psychology. We naturally have a psychological need to see God, or The Gods, as analogous to parental figures; we have a sociological need to perceive God as a lawgiver, a source of orderliness; perhaps we have some instinctive drive toward religiosity, for reasons of sociobiological tribal cohesion, which makes us more survival-prone.

All of this -- and especially psychological factors -- influence our assumption of what God is, and would have to be.

If a scientist asks himself if God exists, he starts with a definition of God as 1) the creator of the universe 2) a controlling, probably benevolent (in the human sense), all-guiding, omnipotent entity. Those definitions are part of our cultural (psychological, sociological, instinctive) heritage. They are unavoidable for most people.

In The Lessons Of History, Will and Ariel Durant admit that no recorded society has long maintained itself without the help of a religion-based moral code. But they ask: "Does history support a belief in God? If by God we mean...a supreme being intelligent and benevolent, the answer must be a reluctant negative...the total evidence suggests either a blind or an impartial fatality...Nature and History do not agree with our conceptions of good and bad; they define good as that which survives and bad as that which goes under; and the universe has no prejudice in favor of Christ as against Genghis Khan..." Their logic, again, is based on a God conceived in rather feeble human terms. If God must exist on the Christian model, it's hard to see his hand at work in a demonstrably impartial universe.

Some Christians would probably respond that puny humanity cannot see the "Supreme Being's intelligent and benevolent" design -- as in the book of Job, in which God asks the rebellious Job "where were you?" when God conceived his Great Plan, when he created the universe. That is, how can Job speak of injustice or meaninglessness when he is a part of a conception he can neither fully perceive nor understand?

But this argument will not be persuasive to a critical mind that notes that it seems to have been constructed to inquire into that very mystery. And the skeptic can point out that an impartial, reasoned examination of the universe not only leaves us in the dark with respect to its guiding intelligence, if any, but generally militates in favor of the sovereignty of random chance. From a scientific point of view, the universe itself seems to testify, like the ultimate expert witness, to the primacy of the random interaction of physical laws.

In one of Ferris's more mind-wrecking chapters, "The Origin of the Universe(s)", he discusses the notion of First Cause, the originating cause of the universe and of Time itself. He mentions the seminal theological notion that one proof of God's existence is that the universe must have had a "prime mover", an originating cause, since it could not have come from "nothing". "But we today," Ferris says, "understand the doctrine of causation to be rather more problematical than was appreciated in the thirteenth century." He goes on to discuss non-singularity cosmogonic theories, involving quantum mechanics, "spacetime foam", theories by Stephen Hawking and others in which the universe is seen as a sort of self-contained system emanating, in some sense, from "a set of geometries".

Hawking maintains that, "...the universe is completely self-contained...there is nothing outside the universe. In a way you could say that the boundary conditions of the universe are that there is no boundary." But as Ferris observes, "Their elected geometries and spacetime foam are not quite the 'nothing' from which a genuine cosmogony would fashion a universe..."

Modern mystics talk airily of the Tao of Physics, of particle physics and quantum physics that supposedly confirm the mystical view of life. To some extent it may do that: it does apparently confirm, among other things, that "All is One" on a certain level of consideration. But glib, self-serving mystics like Deepak Chopra play fast and loose with quantum ideas, fast-talking about the observer who changes the nature of subatomic reality with his observation, and construing the "observer paradox" in ways both superficial and convenient.

Still, it's a fairly easy intuitive leap from the ungraspable implications of quantum mechanics (a universe originating in paradox) to mystics like Meister Eckhart: "Why doest thou prate of God? Whatever thou sayest of Him is untrue." That is, the true nature of God can't be "said". And the Lankavatara Sutra: "Nirvana...is seeing into the state of Suchness, absolutely transcending all the categories constructed by mind..." Ultimate nature cannot be grasped by the conventional human mind, no matter how powerful that mind may be.

In his notes, Ferris mentions the strange conceptions offered in the book The Physics Of Immortality by Tulane University physicist Frank Tipler, who compared the universe to a vast computer and suggested that if the universe is a closed system destined to recollapse, all cognizant beings could be 'resurrected' in a gigantic "computer simulation" -- one which includes God, Grace, and Paradise -- made possible by the convergence of world lines near the end of Time; a simulation that would allow resurrected beings to enjoy a form of eternal life. This may be the last word in elaborate "in denial about death" fantasies. I don't, though, pretend to the capability of refuting or confirming the esoteric mysteries of Tipler's mathematical logic. But I appreciate Tipler's point of view when he says: "...either theology is pure nonsense, a subject with no content, or else theology must ultimately become a branch of physics."

I personally perceive no definite confirmations of the existence of God, per se, in so-called "quantum weirdness", or in the subatomic-physics insight that all matter is also energy, that all things are energy or space, and all things are interconnected in a sea of flux. It's possible, judging from science alone, that this sea of flux could have given rise to isolate intelligences, in its biological complications of itself -- e.g., human beings -- without giving rise to a divine, all encompassing intelligence.

There are some indications that innate in matter may be the tendency to evolve into life. That is, the foundations of matter are so-constructed as to make life more probable, over time, than non-life. To some people this is enough proof of a Divine Designer -- the Cosmic Calvin Klein. They reason that this pregnancy of sheer tendency must have been inserted or devised by some intelligence, by a Creator; or at least it implies that the Universe itself has willed life into being and thus the universe itself is "God".

As far as I can see (not very far), this too is a simple leap of faith. If the universe can have other inherent physical laws leading to other probable outcomes, like the development of star systems, it can have an inherent tendency to life without it having to have been "willed" by something. The life-tendency is suggestive, but not definitive.

Recent studies purporting to provide "scientific" evidence that prayer has measurable, objective results in the material world can be explained away as synchronicity, wishful-thinking in the interpretation of statistics, or "the power of suggestion".

When a mystic hears that scientific reasoning can find no clear-cut evidence of God, she chimes in: but there are other kinds of reason to apply, and other kinds of perception, and these are more than hallucination. Or are they? Not long ago, scientists using Magnetic Resonance Imaging claimed to have discovered an area in the brain associated with both an epileptic's hallucinations -- and with visionary experiences of God: a kind of theological G-spot. The same area of the brain was activated in various people tested during deep spiritual contemplation. The researchers imply that the visionary perception of God is a sort of neurological hallucination, probably wired into us as a sort of socioibiological device for socialization and for a comforting feeling of meaningfulness; something which keeps the hairless ape in question from generally freaking out.

But scientifically observed phenomena are interpreted - like Biblical texts - according to the philosophy of the interpreter. A bishop in England, informed of the "God Spot" discovery, said that it was not at all surprising that God would have wired in a physical receiver for his messages. If we're created by God, in some sense, why wouldn't God create our brains with the ability to perceive divine nature, under certain conditions? And could this God Spot be the legendary Third Eye?

Like so much else in the theological realm, the facts can be handily read either way: the God Spot could be planted in us by a Creator, or could be purely neurological: an evolutionary quirk. I fail to see certainty in either conclusion.

If God -- at least so far -- cannot be confirmed through Science or philosophy's Pure Reason, is there another reliable method of confirming God's presence?

My opinion is -- yes. How do we ascertain what is real, any time? We utilize the senses, and the "theatre" in the brain, the sensorium, wherein input is organized into the sensed "drama" of daily life. In the more modern metaphor, we accept as "reality" a sort of holographic matrix of perceptions, the 3-D "cyberspace" of our own neurological software. Our conclusions about reality are filtered through these tools. We have learned to observe and manipulate the physical world, through these and other tools, and to subject it to experiments - -using the scientific method - to verify our hypotheses about it.

These same tools can be applied to the interior search, the visionary search, for contact with the divine. The same scientific principles of critical-mindedness and verification -- as G. I. Gurdjieff pointed out -- can be applied to the search. SETI is a scientific effort to systematically listen to radio signals from the stars for messages generated by extraterrestrials; it's also possible to mount a sort of interior SETI, to listen for messages generated by God.

There are tried and true methods for verifying, to your personal satisfaction, the presence of God. It is, I believe, possible to achieve an intelligent confidence of divine presence that excludes the possibility that you are "simply hallucinating," or engaging in a psychological phenomenon like wish fulfillment. But unlike experiments confirming the verities of physics, experiments confirming the verity of inner contact with the divine reality cannot be demonstrated in the external world by one person for the benefit of another, in a laboratory setting - -not so far as I know.

I have come to believe that there really are "supernatural" phenomena genuinely associated with spiritual seeking: some gurus really can transmit shakti energy, waves of "good feeling" that wash over followers; diligent seekers may well one day discover they themselves have become telepathic, to some degree. There may be other manifestations. Wise teachers invariably counsel against dwelling on these phenomena, or even encouraging them. Corrupt gurus abound; cult leaders like the late "Osho" achieve some "powers" and a limited level of spiritual insight, and use these minor-league achievements to enslave the foolish and to feed their own rapacious egos; such teachers become frozen on the path, and then begin a tumble very like the legendary fall of Lucifer.

Phenomena like shakti transmission and yogic telepathy are presumed to be the by-products of unknown physical laws. They, in themselves, do not constitute proof that there is a God. They only prove that there is a phenomenon which you have been told is associated with God. It could be a purely physical a phenomenon -- but then, so could God.

Spiritual seekers who've passed out of the "spiritual supermarket", who've put New Age superficialities and the toys of quasi-meditation behind them, eventually find, more or less, the same serious, corresponding method in whatever tradition they work within. Vedanta, Buddhism, Christian Mysticism, Sufism, basic Taoism, the Fourth Way -- whatever authentic methodology in which one works -- one finds an emphasis on: mindfulness; on an inner contemplation polished by humility, and an attitude of non-judgmentalism; on reasonable self control; on unification of the psychological self; on cultivation of objective compassion; on careful efforts to awaken from the selfish "sleep" of day-to-day life; on calm self-observation; on a refined "listening" for Higher input; on an exquisitely honed receptivity; on "being here now"; on a particular kind of detachment. (There are additional methods, of course). Longtime seekers consistently report a Higher Mind that comes into play; an awakened, "unconventional" mind that perceives with the aid of a Self that is more than the individual self, and yet is, paradoxically, the only real "individuality". This higher mind has a capacity to incorporate paradox, since the "truth" involves the apparent contradictions of a fuller dimensionality.

An adjunct to these methodologies is what the Sufis call "discrimination", the capacity to discern the difference between one's fantasy of the divine, and the divine actuality. It's easy to be diverted into the realms of the imagination. How do you know when this digression has happened to someone? "By their fruits you shall know them."

The direct experience of divine reality comes only after one has eliminated false teachers, false paths, and pursued one of the authentic paths. Following the path is long, hard work, for most people - though there seem to be instances of profound spiritual insight given spontaneously as a kind of grace.

In the final analysis, this gnosis, this direct experience of God, is a subjective verification; it may be a variety of science in itself but this "knowing" cannot be admitted into the realm of science in general. Still, there is a quality to it, a verisimilitude, an ineffable certainty, that is as concrete to the experiencer as gritty earth under bare feet. One might glimpse a further confirmation of the divine reality in its impact on the life of the experiencer, who is eventually transported into a state of liberation, of being set free from the fear of death, from compulsions and immoderate desires.

What is the nature of divinity, directly experienced? By all reports, there is affirmation of the Oneness of things; there is a sense of a Self that transcends personality; there is an appreciation of that higher Self's forever taking part in every conscious thing, as if the universe were eternally exploring itself, playing symbolic games with itself through us; there is a perception of a benevolent, intermediary intelligence, which is both our own underlying consciousness and something outside us at once, a nurturing mind that reaches out to us, but is too often prevented from reaching us -- prevented by us, by ourselves. We are in the way of ourselves.

And there is a recognition that it is not necessary for this "God" to have "created" the universe in any humanly comprehendable sense; it is not necessary for this God to have ordained that your Mother died when you were twelve, or that you have chronic arthritis, or that you are prone to drug addiction, or that the Holocaust must take place. It is not necessary for this God to have ordained the course of history, as Will and Ariel Durant expected, to have guided it as human beings think of a "God" that "guides" in the anthropomorphic sense. It is not necessary for this God to be all-powerful and thus all-responsible, at least not as human beings imagine all- powerful intelligence to be.

But does this mean God is uncaring, alien, unreachable pure Mind, only? If the experiencers are to be believed -- no. Although austere, though in some sense distant, God is also ever-present, God is a resource, like a river to be gone to for water, even for transport...

"What is the ultimate teaching of the Buddha?" a monk once asked his Master. The Master infuriatingly replied: "You cannot know it until you realize it."

[To The Skeptical Believer Index]