This post will not be about the history and/or literature of earliest Christianity per se, but on a more explicitly religious issue. In fact, the religious issue.
Let me preface it by stating two rather obvious things about myself, specifically what I am not. At least the first is obvious to me, and the second is, I’m sure, obvious to everyone who will be reading this.
The first is, I am not a missionary for my particular religious views. I have no particular difficulty with people who *do* want to convert others to their perspectives, but it’s not something I’m much interested in doing myself. I’m an atheist, and if you yourself choose not to be, more power to you! About the only thing I’m seriously missionary about are ideas, views, policies, social agendas, and political figures intent on helping people rather than hurting them (and not just a certain slice of my fellow American citizens). I see all kinds of religious fundamentalism as hurtful rather than helpful, so I oppose them. I also see lots of social and political views, policies, and advocates in that same light – but I try not to get into that much on the blog.
Second is, I am not a scientist. Didn’t see that one coming, huh? But it’s what this post is about. In school I was always pretty good at math, at the low levels I did it. But I never had an interest or ability in any of the sciences. I don’t know why. My neurons don’t seem to work that way. And now I’m at a stage in life where I’m thinking that’s too bad.
One of my keenest interests since I was a teenager has been trying to understand what we might call, in rather, uh, general terms, ultimate reality. On one level, that’s very much why I became so unusually religious. I thought I had found a doorway to the truth and I pursued it vigorously. For decades. It is also why I have always been so passionate about literature (especially 19th century novels); it can help me uncover the “truth.” And some aspects of philosophy (many aspects I can’t handle; but I’ve long been heavily influenced by many of the ancients Plato; Epicurus and Lucretius; Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius; and so on).
But mainly it was religion. I wanted to know the truth about the world, and I believed understanding deeper reality was a matter of understanding the ways of God, as revealed in the Bible, as revealed in nature, as revealed in revelation of all kind.
And now, as I approach 65, I believe I have been barking up the wrong tree.
Some years ago, when I started a meditation practice, I became very interested in the human body as a phenomenon. Despite having no mind for science, I got interested in understanding the basics (the VERY basics) about anatomy. That got me increasingly interested in questions about how humans came about. Evolution, certainly (which I’ve subscribed to since I was roughly 22), but also consciousness. How do we explain it? And life itself.
I rarely read non-fiction in my spare time, since that’s what I do for a living and as a rule I don’t find it relaxing. But I decided to start reading up and thinking about astronomy and physics and … and whatever struck my fancy in the realm of science. I had become a complete materialist many years ago, without understanding the science about it. Suddenly reading some popular level works that explain the science to humanists like me has started to open my eyes and blow my mind.
I started slow (Bill Bryson! The Body; and A Short History of Nearly Everything); I began watching Youtube anatomy videos (among many others, John Campbell: fantastic!); I graduated to some serious physics written at a level I could still grasp, Brian Greene, Until the End of Time. Now I’m obsessed with Sean Carroll, The Big Picture. I have to take it all slowly, because my mind really doesn’t (still) work along these lines. But these last two (both of whom, btw, were recommended by blog members!) are completely altering how I understand the world, the beginning of it all, what it means to be human, and as a result the meaning of life. In a sense it is confirming what I’ve thought without knowing so much why I thought it; it is giving the rationale, established by math and experimentation.
Some of you are scientists, and this is the kind of thing you were thinking when you were 18. When I was 18 I was thinking about the book of Genesis. Big difference.
I bring all this up – without getting into the details – mainly because I am so very frustrated by people who are opposed to science and experts in science, who think that scientists simply have one opinion that is no better than any other opinion. Anything that doesn’t seem obvious to them is discounted simply because it isn’t obvious, or is in fact counter-intuitive.
I think what frustrates me the most is that some people think they can pose an unanswerable question to prove that scientific explanations of the universe are highly problematic and therefore unacceptable, or not as helpful as explanations given in their millennia-old religious tradition. For example, if the entire universe is made up of matter and forces (we’re all a bunch of particles affected by gravity, electro-magnetism, and on on), then how to you explain the emergence of sentient beings, let alone massively conscious ones? Well, who knows? Or, if you think there was a Big Bang, then here’s one for you: what started the Big Bang? Huh? It must have been God! There’s no other answer!
But the fact that a religious answer answers the question doesn’t mean it’s the right answer. I could say the Big Bang wasn’t started by the Christian God but by the preincarnate form of my great uncle on my mother’s side or by an amoeba who now lives happily on the planet Zoas. Those responses too would answer the question, but they would naturally lead to a few questions of its own. As does the hypothesis about God. Having an answer per se is not the way to know if your view is right.
And today a comparison hit me. I don’t know if it’s any good or not. But this is it.
In ancient cultures the idea that the earth could be part of a system of planets revolving around a star would have made ZERO sense. When someone eventually came up with the idea of a solar system, a natural response would have been: “That makes NO SENSE. How can you explain it? Round planets in space?? What’s holding them there?” The person who propounded the idea would have to say, “I don’t know. For us that seems fair enough. So what would we, now, think of the respondents who then said, “Then it can’t be right! BUT I can explain it because we have always known that the earth is the center of all things, because God created it that way”?
Or – there are a million examples – in the ancient world most people thought that if lightning struck, it was a god hurling a thunderbolt. When someone came up with the view that lightning was a natural event that could be could be caused by climatic conditions, and was asked “How is that possible?” he would have had to say “I don’t know.” How would we respond to those who replied – SEE, that shows it must have been hurled down by God!
Most people accept basic views of science that coincide well enough with how they see the world, involving such things as electrons and protons, gravity and nuclear forces, even if they don’t understand really what they are or how they work. But when it comes to things contrary to their religious views, they say that it can’t be that way. And their self-assuring argument is, You Don’t Have an Explanation for it, so it Can’t Be Right.
It just isn’t a satisfying response. I’m not saying the science has to be right. And yes, scientists disagree on lots and lots of things. (So do creationists, by the way: disagreements with others doesn’t mean you’re wrong. Other things mean you’re wrong.) And yes I know there are scientists, some prominent ones, who continue to believe in God and are in fact committed Christians.
But none of that bothers me in the least. What bothers me is what *I myself* am supposed to think. I hope that bothers you too. (Not what I think but what you do.) But it does seem to me that not knowing an answer for why something happened that appears to have happened is not a good reason for thinking it did not happen.
And if the overwhelming view among the professional scientists is that there was a Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago and that the world is made up of particles and forces, and that everything in the world – including life itself — can be explained on the basis of those particles and forces, with nothing else needed, including any external influence of any kind, that should give anyone with religious commitments pause. I said “if” it is the overwhelming view. But in fact it is the scientific view. In that light, what is the rationale for believing there is also a God outside of it all?
I told you this post would be about the religious issue! I welcome your views!
I’ve always felt the same as you. Since I was a kid. Maybe not to a degree of eloquence that you possess but it has occupied my thoughts constantly. My passion has been in running. Existence at its most primal. Using the body, feeling life at its most painful, mile after mile. I turned 65 last Sunday. Thanks
Ah, we’re the same age. Mine’s today!
Hey, it’s my birthday today, too! I’m turning 49. Since I am a great fan of your work, I love the coincidence that we share a birthday 🙂 Happy Birthday, Dr. Ehrman!
Hah, my brother’s birthday is today (the 5th)! I’ve been wondering what to give him; maybe a blog subscription.
Professor Ehrman,
We want to help you celebrate your sixty-fifth birthday Monday with donations for this wonderful blog.
Happy Birthday!!!
Bless you!
Dr. Ehrman, aside from your very astute commentary, I thought a few months ago you decided you were more correctly an agnostic, since you could no more prove a god or lack there-of?
Nope, for a long time I’ve said I’m both an agnostic (since I don’t know if there’s a superior force in teh universe) and an atheist (since I don’t believe there is). If you look up agnostic on the blog you’ll see my discussions of that point.
Judith, a long-time member here and probably the nicest person you’d ever meet on the Internet, has a great idea: in honor of Bart’s 65th birthday on Monday, let’s all contribute to the very worthy charities supported by this blog. Just go down to the bottom of this page and click on the “Donate” button. Every penny goes to help the hungry, the homeless, and those in need of health-care. What could be a more worthy cause?
Bless you my son!
Bart: “But I decided to start reading up and thinking about astrology and physics and … and whatever struck my fancy in the realm of science.”
Please, please, please tell me you meant to write astronomy, and not astrology, when speaking of the realm of science!
Oh, that’s VERY funny. While I was typing that I thought: wouldn’t it be funny if I wrote “astrology” instead of “astronomy”? And then apparently I did. HA!!! I’ve changed it.
But if you wrote “astrology” instead of “astronomy”, even though you were on your guard to not write “astrology”, then there must be a god!
Yup, that proves it!!
Freudian slip?
Even as a non-believer, I still want to believe! You know, man is basically superstitious.
Hi Dr Bart. I am a new subscriber and have read your work for some time now. I love that your work is so elequent and understandable to me. I have been a searcher most of my life and at age 56 here goes my take on some of philosophy’s biggest questions: being here now means I am part of God or Energy or Love or Life. I have nothing to fear as my soul is never ending. I am here to explore expand and experience. There is no right or wrong. Only that which serves the higher good. Never cause harm to life in all its forms (that is the golden rule). It does not matter if I believe in a Creator or not (that which is perfection) does not need my worship or offerings. When I pray it is for my and others benefit. My current life is a reflection of my past life and an indication of my next life. So I will do my best to be kind and generous and thankful. And I will come back in my next life and do it all over again (hopefully smarter next time)
Blessed be you
YES! What you have been pursuing is the TRUE religion: our origins. What intrigues me the most is DNA. How did something that complex come about randomly (and lead to consciousness)? I believe the most recent hypothesis, extremely oversimplified by me, is a simple protein decided to replicate and created RNA which in turn eventually created DNA. But wait, why would a protein “decide” anything? And in the case of the Big Bang, where did the singularity come from and what caused it to explode thus creating everything in the universe? The God answer is too easy but mankind has deployed it and fine tuned it throughout history and then when science answers some portion of the question the God answer gets revised to accommodate and still answer the remaining unsolved mysteries. But to answer those two big questions about the Big Bang and self replicating life, I think many of us still feel that some sort of “intelligence” must have ben behind it. How could those things be random chance? But then where did that “intelligence” come from? Utterly fascinating stuff!
I’ve been reading recently about scientific racism, the work, that is, of pseudo-scientists who seek to prove that certain groups of humans are biologically superior to other groups. It’s quite frightening, really–the way science can be and has been abused to justify injustice and inequity, not to mention faith in such things as eugenics and the “final solution.” Good science is important and while scientific consensus doesn’t necessarily prove a hypothesis is true, it’s pretty persuasive. Bad science, on the other hand, is as scary as biblical literalism, especially when it stands to affect social and political decision-making and lead to pernicious laws, policies and practices. Unfortunately, most of us don’t know enough about science to recognize the difference between the good and the bad, so we respond by accepting what suits us and denying what doesn’t.
In the 1950’s when I was 13 years old I had big argument with my father about how a rocket would work in space. After a day or so my father said to me, “You know, you could be right.” My father was vice president of a large corporation in change of research and I was a kid. That is what is so special about science. I have seen Nobel prize winners admit that to graduate students and on two occasions i have admitted that to undergraduate students.
(I can’t spell or add under pressure so I am talking about serious errors). My wife and I had parents who were very active in their churches and Mary and I ran the Sunday school for a few years. Of late I have been very troubled
to see how Christianity has dealt with criticism. Also, I have become more aware of the holocaust, to the point that on Good Friday, I think of the millions of Jews whose prayers were left unanswered.
Now I think science has the answer. “I don’t know.” That is what research scientists say.
It’s a very good answer. And another good one is, “now we do know”! Science needs both.
It struck me the other day when i was going under a bridge, looking up at the deck with the weight of all the vehicles it carried : Before the very first block was chosen to be laid there, the builders had to know exactly what they were doing. Things don’t just happen. As a general rule, the more organized and complex a thing is, the more thought has to be put into it. Plain common sense. Fabulous universe, fabulous mind. Yup, that simple.
But there is another line of evidence that is often neglected and even mocked: the beauty of this place. Is beauty subjective? No, because all of its observers agree it’s there. Pick your preferred corner of nature and let it sink in. I bet you will choose the most powerful words you can muster up in an attempt to convey what’s going on in your beating heart. That’s God 101. His gentle whisper, inviting you to worship. Why God? Because complexity coupled with indescribable beauty is the mark of a genius. Like poetry is the mastery of language. Poetry doesn’t just happen. Neither does beauty. Skip this one and i think your heart is already closed.
Bridges look like they were designed to me. The natural world does not. In fact, if it was designed, it was designed very badly. 99% of all species that lived on Earth are now extinct. That’s pretty shoddy design. The human body (in fact the bodies of almost ll complex living things) is full of superfluous complexity.
The fact is that scientists have explanations almost all natural phenomena that do not require a designer. The landscape you see was moulded by unthinking natural forces. The organisms that inhabit it are the product of the forces of evolution and natural selection. Your general rule really doesn’t hold at all.
Nature is full of astonishing things, some of which invoke feelings of awe and wonder, but I don’t need to think a god is involved to appreciate beauty.
Mr. Ehrman, I sent you an offer to your email. I challenge you and anyone else to scrutinize, criticize and try to find “Anything” wrong with the Holy Quran, I challenge you to find any little discrepancy. In fact this is the only book that contains such a challenge for its readers.
Best regards.
Islam was written from oral sources, from 650 (40 years after things happened form 610 )and centuries later.
For example
• AD 650, (as late as the 3rd caliphate after Mumammed, Uthman ibn Affan.) The Qur’an was written from oral sources, about 20 years after his death, to meet the demand for an expanding empire to unify an ideology/theology
• AD765 Ibn Ishaq – the first who wrote about Muhammad, but nothing remains
• AD833 Ibn Hisham wrote about Muhammad (biography) (200 years after his death).
• AD870 Al Bukhari (Hadith),
• AD 923 Al Tabari – first to write a commentary / interpretation of the Qur’an (Tafsir)
Al Bukhari sorted out the 600,000 sayings (aqwals), but had to dismiss 98%. He only chose 7397 sayings (only 2%) as valid.
Proving the exact quotations can meet some of the same obstacles for an independent textual historian/critic as Mr. Ehrman refers to in his books.
I’m not interested in continuing to discuss this topic further.
Dr. Ehrman,
I apologize but I am unclear on what you meant in the last bit, “the world is made up of particles and forces, and that everything in the world – including life itself — can be explained on the basis of those particles and forces, with nothing else needed, including any external influence of any kind, that should give anyone with religious commitments pause”. I thought at the heart of the debate was if something was needed to explain those particles and forces. The whole idea of if we can get something from nothing. Am I misunderstanding your thoughts here?
Thanks, Jay
That’s the argument, and I was taking one side of it, supported by many scientists. My recent thinking has been guided especially by physicists such as Sean Carroll.
Related to the study of human belief and inquiry, I highly recommend a movie and three books:
1) The documentary film *Behind The Curve*, available on Netflix. A very empathetic look at a group of people who believe in a flat Earth. The filmmakers never even suggest that there is any chance that the Earth could be flat. Rather, this movie gives valuable insight into the nature of human belief precisely because the beliefs in question are clearly false.
2) The book *Thinking Fast and Slow* by Daniel Kahneman about the heuristics we instinctively use and how they can deceive us.
3) The book *The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Science and Religion* by Jonathan Haidt. Provides a very interesting and apparently useful framework for understanding different human approaches to morality from a Social Science perspective.
4) The book *Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein* by astrophysicist Mario Livio. About several great and deservedly famous scientists, all of whom were human of course and got at least one thing very wrong. It puts the mistakes in context, so we get a look at how science is done and see that some mistakes were quite lucky.
Great! Thanks,
I once heard a periodontist and lecturer tell his colleagues at a meeting in our university, “Forget everything I taught you about this topic. It’s all BS.” Mud on his face, but honesty in his search for truth. Many scientists can’t do that themselves and face humiliation when others point it out in peer reviewed journals. That’s the great strength of science over other attempts to understand our world. When mistakes are made science is usually self correcting. Thanks for listing those interesting sounding books Xanderkastan. I’ll look them up.
“God” is the metaphor we use for that which we cannot understand. A plug in value. God of the gaps.
Interesting. Yes, it’s frustrating not to know and sometimes any answer is better than none at all. There’s also this theory of the “hyperactive agency detector”. Humans are very good at reading other humans and figure out their motives – that there is *someone* behind the face. And when we encounter something we don’t understand, we have a tendency to break out the agency detector and ascribe agency to it. So if we don’t know why lightning strikes, we think there’s an agent behind it – call him Zeus or Jahve or Indra and be done with it.
If you’re interested in consciousness there are a few books I would recommend. Antonio D’Amasio is a neuroscientist who has written two very interesting books called “Descarte’s Error” (on the role of emotions in reasoning) and “The Feeling Of What Happens” (a theory of where consciousness comes from). And Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, has written a book called “The Righteous Mind” on our sense of morality and the evolutionary roots of it.
The Big Bang theory seems plausible, but it doesn’t deny that there was an ultimate cause ( could be called god) that initiated it, which I believe is the case.
Evidence? Only that matter doesn’t come into existence out of nothing, scientists say it can not be created or destroyed, yet it seemingly was created.
I don’t think we can assign any attributes to the creator, such as personality traits or gender. Nor do I believe prayers are necessarily heard much less answered.
To me the big question it’s why the universe was created, and by extension why do I exist, if there’s any reason at all, not whether there’s a creator.
The norwegian philosopher Arne Næss was asked about the meaning of life, he answered don`t look for the meaning of life, look for the meaning in life
Well said, however it is also the reason I cannot call myself an atheist, I prefer not to be dogmatic about what I cannot know/understand. After being raised a fundamentalist, I leave fundamental beliefs alone, so I am agnostic; that does not make me right. If we can learn to live with questions – or even treasure them – a world of wonder awaits. Who knows, maybe in 500 years, what we are certain about today will be considered as stupid as the world being flat.
Bart, Your best blogs are your personal blogs, especially when you try to put “It” all together which is what most of us are trying to do so we need any help with that that we can get.. I suggest “A Brief History of Time” by the amazing Stephen Hawking.
Thank you for this.
Quote – have no particular difficulty with people who *do* want to convert others to their perspectives, but it’s not something I’m much interested in doing myself.
But your books, lectures and blog?
Quote – I see… fundamentalism as hurtful rather than helpful
Jesus was the ultimate fundamentalist. Would you be offended if you met him and all He could talk about was religion?
… came up with the idea of a solar system, a natural response would have been: “That makes NO SENSE. How can you explain it? Round planets in space?? What’s holding them there?”
Genesis 1:1 says that God made
1 – the heavens
2 – and the earth
And in verse 2 you are transported to this early earth, shrouded in clouds, no dry land, a vast sterile water world – as science appreciates. People protesting about planets, molten earth etc can’t accept Genesis is treating us as observers on this earth at a point people could understand. The bible uses symbolic allegorical language to present theological messages, otherwise, as you say, it “makes no sense.”
Yup, that’s right. My books and lectures are not meant to convert someone to my religious beliefs, period. Anyone who thinks they are is misunderstanding them.
Anti religion is itself a form of religion. It seeks to address the issues of how we came to be here; why we are here; where we are going and how we ought to live our lives. This is the religion which is allowed to be taught in American schools – the response to this is not allowed under the constitution.
Science classes aren’t “religious”: they teach what scientists day about various sciences. Classes on the Quran can teach religion and that concept of god like any other religious studies,, but they aren’t science or based on the scientific method.. It makes no sense to teach that airplanes fly because pilots pray and angels lift the airplanes wings. Perhaps there is a God and he does such things. But it is a lot more useful to learn aerodynamics. Why teach chemistry and biology for people interested in health and medicine: won’t god answer prayers and heal the sick and dying, especially children? Almost all the Christians i know take their children and themselves to doctors, who base their work on science (and yes there is still a lot to learn!) and don’t just trust their religion. You can check, but I’m certain more lives have been saved by antibiotics than prayer. So if as you claim, science is “religious”, perhaps compared to others it is the only true one, at least with better results! I would agree that some can be fanatics and turn anything into religious like aspects.
What you’re describing is the “God of the gaps” fallacy. I don’t understand why or how something that I observe can exist or function, therefore God did it. That is an admission that the word “God” means “I don’t know”.
For the past 500 years with the continual rise of empirical sciences like physics, chemistry, biology, etc., these gaps in our understanding have been steadily closing. And at the same time religious belief has been steadily on the wane. Religious belief only advances when ignorance and poverty are prevalent in society.
People with religious beliefs think that some kind of supernatural realm exists “outside” the natural world. There’s no evidence that such a thing exists. It’s fantasy.
Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision in the face of new evidence from the natural world. Religious belief is thought to be completely and unalterably true. More fantasy. More make believe.
Theodore Von Karman remarked: Science discovers what exists. Engineering creates what has never existed before. In fact, only about 10% of physicists are theoreticians like Sean Carroll. The vast majority of physicists are experimentalists with a strong foundation in engineering. My degrees are in Engineering Physics.
flshrP: What you’re describing is the “God of the gaps” fallacy. I don’t understand why or how something that I observe can exist or function, therefore God did it. That is an admission that the word “God” means “I don’t know”.
As a hard-core agnostic, I love the ‘god of the gaps fallacy’ and heartily admit that the word ‘God’ means, “I don’t know!”
In the Christian tradition, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th/6th c) would say it is more true to say that ‘God does not exist’ than ‘God exists’. John Scotus Eriugena (800–877) would say God is nihil per excellentiam, nothingness through excellence. This tradition is embraced by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in his view of the simplicity of God, ie, the inability to define God as a species within a genus. Whereas apologists emphasize his ‘solution’ to this problem with his so-called doctrines of analogy, I consider analogy to emphasize the metaphorical nature of all language about God. It points toward something. What that ‘something’ is or whether or not we will ever be able to account for it is a goal in a continuing search that certainly includes naturalistic scientific method. In this sense a god/goal of the gaps seems legitimate.
“People with religious beliefs think that some kind of supernatural realm exists ‘outside’ the natural world.”
Kurt Gödel’s first Incompleteness Theorem ought to give us pause: if a logical system is consistent, it cannot be complete.
As a thought experiment, expand this idea to the body of scientific understanding. There are gaps in our understanding of the natural world, but there is also a sphere of the unknowable that we cannot know without changing our logical systems of understanding. Religious people and scientists when discussing this often conflate the knowable gaps with the mathematically unknowable gaps, because they are indistinguishable.
I ought to confess I’m a computer scientist and a writer who converted to Christianity (agnostic theist) with a limited view of God, a God of the mathematically unknowable.
Common interests !!
Can I point to another topic related to interest in consciousness(es) and basically the very origin of life, is to study psychology, especially depth psychology.
I have read a lot by Dr. Carl August Jung, the Swiss doctor/professor who founded analytical psychology / depth psychology that unites itself in “Ego”, unconsciousness and collective consciousness. What may be interesting about this perspective and his ideas is that he worked all his life on dreams, visions, inner experiences, etc. and linked them to a deeper level of oneself, unconsciousness and also the collective consciousness that we all share. His study touched on the symbology he claimed originated from myths (all over the world) that we also find in our bible (ie Ezekiel, Daniel and the Acopolypse – Revelation of John), but also the Gnostic Apocrypfs. He claimed that these visions / symbols originate from a deeper part of our interior, (different depths in our psyche, even the collective unconscious and were often presented as “patterns”).
In his views, these visions / dreams (not all) were not pulled out of anyone’s head from a perceived philosophy, theology, but had a much deeper source within ourselves, in the depths of our own consciousness, and occures worldwide, and has always existed .
In this connection I would also like to refer to good 3 researchers who have studied and written a lot about this (from the same perspective)
Joseph Campbell, American professor of literature who worked on comparative mythology and comparative religion.
Edvard Edinger, medical psychiatrist, Jungian analyst and American author who wrote a lot about religious myths, Christian, Jewish and also Hellenistic myths.
James Hillman (PHD) American psychologist. He studied at, and then guided studies for C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich
,,, and this is basically from a medical perspective.
The questions you pose are very fundamental ones. The broad scientific materialistic view is that we have ‘explained’ matter, energy and space. The arrow of time, the origin of everything, the reason or cause of the laws of physics and the big bang and what was ‘there’ ‘before’ are more impenetrable. The broad scientific materialistic view is that we have also ‘explained’ life. Thus, it appears that only consciousness remains as the final frontier to be ‘explained’, that is to say the ‘explanation’ of how consciousness (sensations, perceptions, feelings, thoughts – in short, subjective experience of anything) arises from the structure and function of the material and energy of the brain – the so-called ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ (Chalmers), previously referred to as the ‘explanatory gap’ (between mind and matter).
Actually, there are problems with all of these ‘explanations’. Firstly, if we look at the fundamental ‘building blocks’ of matter – the so-called elementary ‘particles’ of the ‘standard model’ (quarks, electrons, gluons, photons, Higg’s bosons etc), it turn out that they are not as ‘solid’ as we imagine them to be ……..
Solidity only arises at the atomic level due to the laws of Pauli’s exclusion principle and ‘mass’ like all other properties, turns out to be a mathematical property, in this case conferred by Higg’s bosons, which in themselves, like all other elementary particles, turn out to be ‘ripples’ or ‘interactions’ in fields. Even worse, these interactions turn out to be only probabilities of interactions without definite location in space or time. So, the material world, at the fundamental level, appears to be rules, information and mathematics (cf Wolfram project, Tegmark, Penrose, Bostram and Goff). Where do these come from?, what keeps them operating?, in what are they held?
Next, we have life. We actually have no idea how all the thousands of processes in a single cell, all work together in harmony for the homeostatic function and thus survival and thriving of the cell and the same applies to the whole organism (cf James Tour).
And I haven’t even started on consciousness! You will also have noticed that I have used inverted commas around ‘explained’. What is an explanation?…..
More anon ???? …….
Bart, why do you prefer writing capitalized word “God”? Because it has become the norm?
Many atheists suggest to use non-capitalized word “god”, for example: “god Zeus”.
I use the capitalized God when speaking of views in one of the monotheistic traditions. In other traditions I use lower case god.
The last sentence in your post reads: ” In that light, what is the rationale for believing there is also a God outside of it all?” Of course, as your post suggests, many people have rationales for believing in God. You just disagree with them. I look back on your Jan.12. 2020 post “A Revelatory Moment about God,” which I thought was very interesting.
I wonder how an atheist is any different from a fundamentalist—both are convinced they are right and don’t leave room for any humility. All I see is hubris here. How can any of us know there is a God or not? I think the case for agnosticism is compelling. It at least acknowledges that we are human and fallible.
I don’t think I agree. I’m an atheist and I am not convinced I’m right and I work very hard for openness and humility, even though humility is not in my natural make-up.
So you’re an atheist who’s not sure about it? That sounds like an agnostic.
Ah, I don’t think you know how I explain what agnosticism and atheism are. Use a word search on the blog to find them (use either one) and you’ll see some posts where I explain. (I don’t mean what most people mean, and I explain why)
Bart: interesting! re:
“And yes I know there are scientists, some prominent ones, who continue to believe in God and are in fact committed Christians.”
Dr. Peter Dodson teaches anatomy and studies dinosaurs but is also a committed Christian (Roman Catholic). I no longer share his faith but he is fun to read. And he explains things like, how the convoluted pathway of a nerve in the human body is most parsimoniously explained by our descent from fishes!
PETER DODSON, B.Sc., M.Sc., PhD
Professor of Anatomy, Labs of Anatomy, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine
Some astrophysicists have even theorized that our Big Bang was the result of matter entering from a black hole in another universe. In other words, we may be living inside another universe’s black hole. Mind blowing! The NT was written when people believed that the stars could fall from the sky. Some day we may discover scientifically how all this came about, but it will certainly not be the Judeo-Christian God!
Don’t get your hopes up too high that satisfying answers will be forthcoming. Science tells us HOW things work, not WHY they are like they are. The laws of nature are statements of regularities that have been observed in the behavior of the world around us, but they are silent on why those regularities exist. Science can calculate what a weirdly different world it would be if e equaled m x c-cubed instead of m x c-squared, but that doesn’t explain why m x c-squared.
Worse yet, calculus is necessary to fully appreciate what science has to offer. The laws of nature only apply to infinitesimally small–so-called differential–changes, and to add up the tiny changes to describe an actual phenomenon requires integral calculus. Furthermore, scientific “explanations” apply only to MODELS of reality. Hence, the story of the physicist hired by a poultry company to increase productivity: He began his presentation by drawing a large circle and saying, “Consider the spherical chicken.”
So, why bother? Two reasons: First, understanding how things work is no small potatoes. Second, there is the possibility of using the knowledge to do good–cure cancer, or Covid 19, etc.
You are asking the bloggers,” What is the rationale for believing there is also a God outside of it all” ? I am not sure what your asking us to answer that you are not convicted of already ? As a skeptic, I will say this. There is a definite mystery and uncertainty stemming all the way back to our early traditions of our existence and how everything came to be. Religion, Science, Philosophers, Atheists, Poets, and others have come up with explanations/hypothesis along the way, that seem logical and where this progress and evolve has taken us. Truthfully, we may have more to ponder/procrastinate about, but we still don’t have the answers. Or will we ever? Neil De Grasse Tyson said once, ” These are difficult questions to answer, but I have a right to dream that we will know one day”. The human flourishment has intrigued us for thousands of years The mystique, myth, evidence and so on, continues to haunt our understanding and promotes continued divisiveness amongst us , where we wage an all out attack on anyone who opposes our belief, whatever that may be. I am conscious of how we came to exist, and spend……
I grew up in a fundamentalist church with an interest in history – especially xian history – math and then science (with degrees in physics and computer science). I love your writings because they’re a mirror (somewhat reversed) image of mine. I embarked on a career as a scientist with a strong desire as well to understand epistemology as encoded in historic cultures and religions. In a sense I understand you to have made a career of what is for me a hobby with now a strong interest in how science can address epistemology. Or am I reading too much into this? At any rate, I feel a strong connection.
“Why Believe in God?”
Mr Ehrman, have you heard the teaching of why G.od did not start the 10 commandments with for example: “I am the One G.od (you know monotheism) the One that Created everything, the material and the spiritual, the laws of the universes including their sciences, I created you, and everything else, BELIEVE IN ME!!!… etc etc etc”
But instead it is more like (and I say more like because of everything lost in translation): I am the Eternal, your G.od who brought you out of your limits, out of bondage, you shall not have other gods before My face.
If so what are your thoughts about it.. if not I will provide it as best I can and I would love your thoughts on it!
……and spend a reasonable amount of time investigating, listening to those who put in the time in research, reading books, watching debates/podcasts all having some interesting points. I am forced to take a side that seems more compelling,according to my interpretation, than another and thus conforming to that ideology, never knowing the truth, except agreeing on a good thesis/opinion of another. For me, life has an internal source that I cannot grasp. My worth, dignity, compassion/empathy, civility and so on has captured my mind through a history of traditions brought forth and contributed, in some way, to a belief system, whatever that may be, never knowing it’s source. When I consider how distinct man and woman were created as far as reproduction of lives, whatever that source was, strange as it may be, got it right. All animals for that matter, to increase life, perfectly created to do that. How can anyone ever know, how that came to be? Did a God do that? Did the big bang create distinguishing cells to form two different species so they can reproduce? I really don’t know!!!!! “The essence of being human is that one does not seek perfection”. George Orwell. How appropriate.
There very well may be something “out there…aka God…but I have a sneaking suspicion that is isn’t the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If there is an afterlife then we will surprised to discover that only after we die. If there is nothing following death, then that’s ok with me as well. Non-existence does not frighten me regardless of the damage those God-fearing Baptists preachers did to my mind during childhood.
Why do you not call history a science? Granted, it doesn’t rely on mathematics as much as physics does, and it’s not what we like to call a “hard” science. But it still relies on the scientific method: Observation leads to hypothesis which is then tested to see if it works as a theory. When you observe in Paul’s letters certain comments about the law, you form a hypothesis to explain Paul’s attitude toward the law, then you test it against what else Paul wrote, what is known about him, and what other people in his time and after said about Paul and the law. That leads to your theory about Paul and the law.
Because history deals with people and their prejudices, their hidden thoughts and motives, and with incomplete evidence whose providence often can’t be established and which may have been altered, its analysis of the evidence will never yield as definitive a solution as physics does. That does not make less a science.
One other point history has in common with science: Historians follow (or should follow) the evidence where it leads, regardless of how uncomfortable the historian may feel about it. That’s what makes you a scientist.
Normally in an academic setting history is considered one of the humanities, rather than one of the sciences; if it is included among the sciences disciplinarily, it is in the “social sciences,” which, of course, are very different from what you’re calling hte “hard sciences.” My sense is that in general parlance, most people would call a chemist, a botanist, a physicist a scientist, but would not call someone like me, a historian of ancient religion, a scientist.
I think someone once said that “History is a Science just like any other Art”.
Science requires more than observation. It’s hard to put together an experiment to test an hypothesis about history.
Yeah, I tried to prove to my parents where I *really* was that night, but I just couldn’t pull it off….
Regarding your interlocutors who insist that God is responsible for the Big Bang, allow me to quote myself:
“So we cannot entirely exclude the possibility that there was some Being (call it God) that lit the fuse that started the universe–though if so, there is as yet no evidence for it. More to the point: the universe, with its two trillion (and probably more) galaxies spinning and drifting and occasionally colliding, with its continual birth and explosive death of stars (including ours, in another 5 billion years), with the growing number of planets being discovered that can potentially support life, gives no indication whatever that it was designed with a purpose, and certainly not the purpose of being for the benefit of some protoplasm inhabiting the third planet of an average star on an outer limb of a mid-sized galaxy of several hundred billion stars which itself accounts for perhaps one two-trillionth of the observable universe (in other words, us).”
(I think I’ll have to shorten that before it goes out to agents. In the meantime, enjoy.)
Evidence for Cosmic Evolution for those who don’t ascribe to Darwin’s theory, while acknowledging that it was a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitrê who first posited the idea of a ‘primeval atom’.
Science deals with predictable experiments and what we can extrapolate from those experiments: nuclear isotopes decay, produce certain things in ratios in time, and extrapolating we see that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. If we have a god that is messing around too much then you can’t do science because gods are unpredictable.
Therefore science must proceed with methodological naturalism. If there’s something that doesn’t match the theory like say “Lithium is a problem . . In the Universe today, we see an overabundance of the isotope Lithium-6 and an under-abundance of the isotope Lithium-7.” https://www.sanfordlab.org/article/researchers-taking-inventory-universe-have-found-too-much-and-too-little we just assume there is a natural explanation for it and keep working on the problem.
God is therefore in the realm of philosophy–what scientists think about it isn’t completely relevant. One interesting argument is the simulation argument: https://www.simulation-argument.com/ tangentially supported by the Copenhagen Interpretation (the majority view of scientists) of quantum mechanics coupled with the Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser experiment about which Sean Carroll says “from there, the delayed-choice experiment does indeed tend to suggest that information had to go backwards in time to help the electron make its decision.” https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/ (he takes the Everettian view) This does indeed make things look simulated.
I should clarify: the simulation argument only supports a god-like intelligence that created our simulation, not any specific god.
Interesting post and right up my alley. I used to run a blog under the name of Boltonian, which began as a philosophy blog but morphed into anything anybody felt like posting. It stemmed from my interest in the philosophies of science and religion; history; and metaphysics. Like you, I didn’t pay much attention to science at school but have tried to make up for it ever since.
It amuses me when politicians say they are following ‘The science,’ as if it is an incontrovertible truth rather than a process or method. The current crisis is a good example: government scientists here in the UK say one thing and equally well qualified epidemiologists and virologists say the opposite. My approach is to read widely, think deeply, examine the data, and remain suspicious of anybody citing authority as their evidence. Conclusions are always provisional, especially one’s own.
Luckily, I have not had the battles with religion that you have had, either personally (I can’t remember when I was anything other than agnostic) or socially: family and friends are all either agnostic, atheist or at most mildly religious.
Viewing life from on high (like a spider) can give a different perspective, but can be very lonely, and not necessarily edifying.
It would be far easier and more comforting to take a leap of faith, extol higher benevolent powers and just meander through a life, without examining it. However, Socrates would be most disappointed.
As Oscar Wilde said : “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”
Modern scientific observations provide us with challenging new possibilities to the 3 age-old essential questions: who am I, where am I, and what am I doing here?
Thank you for a very stimulating post, which I did broadly agree with. I suppose that until Science can answer the why questions as well as the how, there will still be a place for religion. And Science can have dogmas too. Tectonic plate theory was bitterly resisted and proponents vilified until the evidence became overwhelming. Similarly some non-religious scientists who have queried aspects of Darwinism are often marginalised. Incidentally Bill Bryson is my second favourite writer- after Bart Ehrman, of course ????
In some ways I’m the opposite case. I was steeped in the scientific worldview from a very early age — I remember as a child thinking that if everything is made of atoms, how could the communion wafer become the body and blood of Christ, since it’s still the same atoms, right? But I’ve come to see that materialism as at least incomplete, because what it doesn’t explain is the felt texture of our experience, which is what our life really is, after all. This hasn’t turned me back to any dogmatic religious answer – I stil lof course think that if you want explanations of material phenomena, go to science – but it has underlined the aspect of mystery in being here at all as an experiencing being, and it’s made me sympathetic to the non-dogmatic experiential mystics that are found inside and outside religious and philosophical traditions.
PS. Apologies in advance for this rather personal question, Dr Ehrman, but as we are the same age, like me, you must be experiencing the more frequent loss of loved ones (especially in this accursed pandemic) and I was wondering whether you regret no longer being religious when faced with situations such as funerals where religion does seem to have a more helpful role to play than Atheism?
No, I don’t regret it at all. In fact I do *not* think religion is more helpful than atheism in the face of death. More often I find it very harmful.
Happy 65th Birthday Prof Ehrman. I marked my birthday too yesterday.
An interesting documentary on the subject- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcZ44kQphlo&t=2121s. I see the two in these lights – Religion mystifies,Science sets out to demystify.Religions puts out a hypotheses and Science embarks the journey of testing the hypotheses based on what can be evidently proven.
May be we should just let Science play it role as Science.The problem sets in if religion is employed to answer otherwise scientific questions.In my view, religion should probably emphasize on the intrinsic elements like love, morality,peace,togetherness, help to the suffering etc. On creation origins and understanding the physical world etc., religion should at best create the hypothesis and allow science do the testing. Imagine a world where the religious hypothesis had never been tested. Imagine thinking in this day that sickness was brought solely by demons.
This is how I believe we can make the most from both Religion and Science in our world today. Sometimes, I wonder – given the wars, famines, poverty, orphan crisis etc. of our world, is it worth fighting over whether God is to be called Allah or Yahweh or what have you, when all these are purely faith-based and very much subjective???
Your thoughts, please.
The problem is that religion so often — so very very often — makes claims that do not coincide with what has been demonstrated by science. So I do not think it is easy to separate the two into distinct categories, at least in monotheistic religions.
Thank you for your post. I am a new subscriber and love this blog. I have found some of the deepest insights on religion and spirituality coming from atheists and agnostics. There appears to be a consistency with Jesus’ message in that the opportunity to make our world (universe) a better place through personal transformation and non-violent resistance to domination systems is now.
From Anselm:
The discourse ‘that there is a God”, and the discourse ‘that there is a Universe’ are formally one and the same. We are simply switching labels.
This does not mean that; if we engage in the ‘discourse of the Universe’ (which is essentially everything that natural science consists of), then we would have to accept the existence of a Creator God.
But it does mean that the existence of God cannot be an optional extra to our ‘discourse of the Universe’; either our discourse must be such that there must be a Creator, or our discourse must be such that there cannot be a Creator.
And it means too that, if our discourse necessarily excludes a Creator, we then need to demonstrate some other basis for confidence in the existence of the Universe. On which natural science itself offers no help. Natural science can query the Universe to see if there is a ‘Bart’, but cannot query the Universe to see if there is a ‘Universe’; that would be circular, assuming its own conclusion .
And from Wittgenstein:
“1. The universe is all that is the case.
1.1. The universe is the totality of facts, not of things.”
According to JD Bernal
Ernest Rutherford divided science into “physics and stamp collecting”. Hard science, in his understanding, consists of physics, together with those assertions in other disciplines that can be reduced to propositions in physics. Any discourse that could not, in principle, be expressed as propositions of physics had no better claim to being classifed as ‘science’, than did stamp collecting (or astrology, feng shui, crystallography or mindfulness).
“God” has always been there to explain what was unknown. The more we know and understand, the more he retreats. Part of the problem is treating all theories as equally possible. I could easily explain Jesus as just having been a being from another planet who just happened to have superior technology that appeared miraculous to us primitives. So “just as likely and valid’ as that he existed but stories greatly embellished? Or just as likely as the Bible is true? Well of course it is POSSIBLE, but since we don’t know of any life on other planets, etc. , no basis to give it a lot of support. But we do know from human history and characteristics that we want answers and don’t like unknowns so will create one when necessary. We have to learn that “I DON’T KNOW” is ok. That the scientific method and process is the best we have to find answers, but some things, like in history, may never be known (love to have a time machine!). But as shown through history, just giving blind credit to a “god” without proof of one is not an answer.
I can suggest “Backreaction”, a science blog hosted by a theoretical physicist. Good discussions there and excellent expositions of some basic and also esoteric physics; “popularizations” that are far better than average. Always informative!
‘The fact that a religious answer answers the question doesn’t mean it’s the right answer.’ I’m gonna quote that one. Bart Ehrman said it so it must be right.
Well said, Bart! At a very young feeling 67, I share your views and much of your searching. Glad I found your blog!
The spontaneous origin of life problem is even more improbable than someone who has not taken an intro course in organic chemistry can appreciate; that involves the topic of Stereochemistry and the fact that many molecules have non-superimposible mirror images that behave identically in chemical reactions but not in biochemical reactions. For example, nature–for now known reason–uses only so-called “left-handed” sugars and “right handed” amino acids. The various primordial-soup theories really struggle with this.
When the issue arose in my biochemistry class (usually during the mind boggling complexity of intermediary metabolism) I would tell my students that there must be a third explanation, considering how preposterous both evolution and creation were.
Dr Ehrman – re: “…the overwhelming view among the professional scientists is that there was a Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago and that the world is made up of particles and forces, and that everything in the world – including life itself — can be explained on the basis of those particles and forces, with nothing else needed..”
Leon Lederman – Director of Fermilab, nobel-prize-winner, author of “The God Particle”, and atheist – says, “Unfortunately there are no data for the Very Beginning. None. Zero. We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second — that is, some very short time after creation in the Big Bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up.”
Nobody knows how this universe got here. Period.
re: “what is the rationale for believing there is also a God outside of it all?”
I would think this would be obvious. Creation itself – however it works (once created) – could be entirely dependent on a Creator for it’s existence.
I’d say it’s not *quite* right, even though I’m not a physicist, exactly. But my understanding is that those who are typically think that when the universe reached the mature age of a billionth of a trillionth of a second, it was different than it was before then. That’s why one says it “reached” that “age”. What we can’t know is what it was like before then. But since they’ve discovered that the universe expanding, as I understand it, they believe it was because of the Big Bang. Of course no one knows what was before the Big Bang or what might have caused it. And yes, it coudl be dependent on a Creator. Or it could be dependent on chance. Or on the natural laws of physics. Or, actually, on an infinite number of choices. I just don’t think the default position is “a Creator,” since why *should* that be a natural conclusion?
Thanks Bart for this summary.
As I see it you are right on the big questions; but wrong on the details.
You are right that, if our discourse acknowledges the existence of the Universe, it does not need to acknowledge the existence of “a Creator God”.
And you are right too that, just because coming into being of the Universe is entirely inaccessible to the discourse of natural science, that it does not follows that we are unable to ‘know’ whether there was, or was not, a ‘Very Beginning’.
But your list of possible causes of the Very Beginning includes some duds. The Universe cannot have come into being through the ‘natural laws of physics’ as the discourse of ‘natural laws’ is wholly dependent on the Universe already existing. Equally, the Universe cannot have come into being through the operation of ‘chance’.
For the Universe to be accessible to the discourse of natural science, its existence must be both logically ‘necessary’ (such that it cannot ‘not’ exist); and also ‘mystical’ (such that natural science cannot demonstrate it).
I would say that all valid science rests upon a non-scientific ‘leap of faith’; that there is a Universe,
yes, you’re right about the laws of physics, since they come into existence *with* the Bib Bang. What I meant to say is that the B.B. happened without some kind of outside, external, influence. And yes, scientists to think there is a universe. That is scarcely the same kidn of leap of faith as the belief that there is a God who started it all.
Bart; ‘leaps of faith’ are logically equivalent.
I take you as proposing the scientistic leap of faith in the ‘Universe’ as differing in content from that of a believer in ‘God’ – and that this content matters? That proposition could be developed three ways:
– that faith in the ‘Universe’ corresponds to unreflective commonsense in modern culture; and we should generally privilege commonsense understandings. Many people do believe this; but from your other writings, I don’t think you do?
– that every person is justified in applying those leaps of faith that they prefer. So, all you claim is that you as an atheist, and scientists who share atheism, find faith in God uncongenial?
– that truths can be ‘weak’ or ‘strong’. Post-modernism asserts that all truths are ‘weak’; and that all systems of knowledge – natural science, feng shui, gematria – are equivalently true in their own terms. But most scientists believe that scientific method uniquely gives access to ‘strong’ truths?
Believers may claim that faith in God guarantees the ‘strong’ truths of science. But are you able to guarantee ‘strong’ truth without God?
Sure. The law of gravity has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. Either does any mathematical equation. etc etc.
Just to clarify.
The religious question “Why believe in God?” is not addressed by the discourse; ‘whether the Universe has a Creator’; but requires the further discourse; “whether the creation of the Universe has a purpose”.
The Judeo/Christian/Islamic traditions have commonly asserted that the act of Creation does have a purpose; that the purposes of Creation are accessible within human discourses of value (just as the nature of creation is accessible within the discourses of natural science); that humanity (at least within our neck of the woods) is capable of participating in the unfolding purposes of creation; and that humanity has a responsibility both to understand the nature of creation through natural science, and to respond to the value of creation through participation in positive material actions.
These are all propositions that I, personally, subscribe to; but none of them is ‘required’ purely from my acknowledging the ‘mystical’ reality of a ‘Very Beginning of the Universe’ (as in the Big Bang or other such formulations).
I was just offering one possible “rationale” – not “necessity” – for believing in God.
Considering this: “the world is made up of particles and forces, and that everything in the world – including life itself – can be explained on the basis of those particles and forces, *with nothing else needed*”.
If there is “nothing else needed”, then the universe works entirely “on its own”. And our thoughts themselves are just part of that ongoing process. Which means, then, that the “truth statement” that “the universe runs on it’s own” is just a result of that ongoing and mindless process. It can only be true if it’s empirically verifiable, but, it’s not empirically verifiable: We don’t know how the universe got here, we don’t know if it exists on it’s own or if its existence is dependent on something else, and we don’t know if there is something undetectable to us that makes it work as it does. Thus, all we can truthfully say is that it *appears to us* that the universe runs on its own, nothing else needed”.
And that leaves the door wide open for a belief in a “supernatural”.
I’m not arguing that you should agree with me, but it does seem to me that you are arguing in a bit of a circle. It sounds like you’re saying that one explanation for why things run the way they do is if there is an outside force that is involved, and then you’re concluding that this, then, leave the door open for believing there is an outside force involved. But your conclusion is just re-stating your original statement, so it can’t be used to establish the conclusion. I’m not a professional logician, but that’s how it looks to me!
200 words is not enough to make my previous argument clearly. So, I’m dropping that attempt.
*IF* (and if and if) the universe ran on its own, nothing else needed, and IF ALL things could be explained by what we observe in the universe, then there is no need to believe in God.
BUT – *Science* does not say this. Some *scientists* say this. It is not fact, it is more of an assertion – and one of Materialism. But there are far too many things unexplained – alas, we have no Grand Unification Theory – and inexplicable in a Materialistic manner.
Physicists Peierls, Heisenberg, Davies, Planck, Schrodinger, Wigner, Stapp, Barr, Jeans (to name a few) – would all disagree with the assertion, each arguing (as physicists) that the Materialist view is flawed. All things *can’t* be explained by what we observe. Even Nagel, an atheist philosopher, argues strongly against the Materialist view in “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”
An interesting “if” question, but, it’s not reflective of what is actually known, and has more to do with what some hope to be true.
I believe you are right about that we can’t calculate back to 0 (about 14bn years ago), which neither dismiss or prove the existence of a devine origin. I believe most scientists in this field have opened up for that this 4 dimention (including “Time” as one dimention ) universe might have been an continuations, or a part of a mulitverse with a much larger extentention.
Another question which might be interesting to reflect on is beyond the observable 3 (4 with time) dimentions is the existence/reality of many more dimentions (at least 11, most likely many more) which expand our perseption of “universe” even more.
For example, the most ancient religions, like (for example) Hinduism, and Buddism, along with more esoteric branches of Judo-Christian systems (like Kabbalah, and Gnosticism) involving conciousness, and descending and ascending through levels of conciousness. These system even correlate almost perfectly with science too, for example Quantum physics which even from the beginning (Max Planck) said “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness”.
In addition to that, it even correlates with Dr. Carl Gustav Jung (the founder of Analytical psychology) which based on his emperical science elaborated a lot and wrote extensively about this, the essence of man, the essense of consciousness(es).
I think the “universe” is greater than we can percieve within the 4 dimentions which our carnal system might comprehend
I am 65. For some reason, I thought you were much younger. I’ve considered myself an atheist since I was around 19 or 20. However, recently I’ve begun to see myself as agnostic, mainly because I can’t prove the non-existence of god. Like you, Science wasn’t my bag in school, but over the past 15 years or so I have tried to familiarize myself with Cosmology, Astrophysics and to a lesser degree, ‘particle Physics’. I read Hawking’s A Brief History of Time (twice), though I still didn’t comprehend a lot if it. Paul Davies The Mind of God was harder to get my head around. I like to believe the old cliché, that you’re never too old to learn, so estoy aprendiendo español tambien.
Life and demise.
Science has clarified lots of things throughout history.
Over 1400 years ago, in the absence of technology and scientific sophisticated tools, the Qur’an states “the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder”
*- Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the Earth were meshed together then We ripped them apart? And then We made of water everything living? Would they still not believe?
Basically confirming what scientists/ science has only proven in the last few decades.
Other evidences mentioned over 1400 years ago ( in the absence of modern technology ) such as the expansion of the Universe and its demise or loss of energy.
And We have built the heaven with might and We continue to expand it indeed.
Quran 51:48
“Remember the day when We shall roll up the heavens like the rolling up of written scrolls by a scribe. As We began the first creation, so shall We repeat it, a promise binding upon Us; We shall certainly perform it.”Quran 21:105
The Bible,the Quran and Science by Maurice Bucaille a French doctor and author is a good read.
Dr Ehrman. Why don’t we live on and on without dying? Why do we die?
Well, the one word answer is entropy. Everything dies and will continue to die until there is nothing left but scattered particles in equilibrium (not even planets; not even black holes!)
Entropy suggests unorganized chaos – unorderly. The Universe is hardly that ( which suggests a designer / fashioner ). The universe is finite beginning with a cause / reason. Over 14 Centuries ago, God said we / his creation will turn into dusty minuscule particles… long before the theory of Entropy.
Entropy in fact is not simply the even, systematic, and consistent movement to disorderliness. Quite the contrary. If you’d like to see how it works, I’d suggest trying books by physicists. (My two favorites are Brian Greene and Sean Carroll — both suggested by blog members!)
“Everything dies and will continue to die until there is nothing left but scattered particles in equilibrium (not even planets; not even black holes!)”
For some reason this statement is more liberating then the thought of heaven.. (I will read and listen again to the afterward in Heaven and Hell. Puts me in a good place.)
Dear Doctor Ehrman
Account ends with the phrase What is the reason to believe that there is also a God outside of it all? The problem with that is the question itself, especially with the “out of everything” thing, because it is sustained on the basis of the certainty of an existing god outside of a whole. I think that God, as an immanent cause, cannot be explained in an anthropomorphic way.
So I think the question is wrongly asked
As a physicist, I enjoyed this post a lot. May I suggest a book that you may find interesting: Steven Weinberg’s “The First Three Minutes” (after the Big Bang, that is). Weinberg won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 for his work in unifying the weak nuclear force with electromagnetism and I think he is one of the best minds alive. This BBC conversation with him could be of interest as well: The Atheism Tapes — Steven Weinberg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IZeQ3-ykc0&ab_channel=TheMillerTapes
Brilliant! Thanks. I’ll order it.
I believe religion or belief in a transcendence has become hardwired into the human brain over the 10s, maybe 100s of thousands of years. I used to see this as a kind of proof of God. Now I just see it as a proof that religious consciousness has been beneficial to survival. Belief in the transcendence still doesn’t prove the existence of the transcendence. I believe in objective love, truth, and beauty (borrowed from Frank Schaeffer). I don’t know their ultimate source, but I no longer believe that source is necessarily a transcendent sentient being.
Dr. Erhman,
Nice article. I appreciate it when you get personal.
Three quick comments-
1. For some reason, this article reminded me of the afterward in Heaven and Hell. I have referred to this section several times to the people I know.
2. I just finished reading the God Delusion and I was excited (Yes. That is the appropriate adjective.) to see Richard Dawkins give a brief overview of how in one of your books you “movingly charted your personal educational journey from Bible-believing fundamentalist to thoughtful sceptic.” Surely you have seen this.
3. Take a look at Donald Hoffman if you have not already. Maybe start off with his Ted Talk and delve into his recent book, “The Myth of Reality.” It’s all pretty heavy.
Wes Payne
Thanks!!
Scientists (as Empiricists or Natural Philosophers) are either revealing to us a new form of Gnosticism or re-vitalising old ideas of a deeper hidden meaning behind the Cosmos. Bohr was content with observing what was unfolding on the stage, but Einstein believed we are capable of lifting the curtain and having a look behind the scenes.
His question is built on a materialistic substratum and ignores aspects that even Thomas Aquinas refutes. I use as an example Dawkins’ refutations to the 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas in his book “THE GOD DELUSION”, in them Dawkins refutes the fourth way (which is the most complex and metaphysical) in a shameful way, without understanding that Thomas distinguishes between Mixed and pure perfections, mixed are those that include imperfection or limitation in their nature or definition, the pure ones do not include limit or imperfection in their nature or definition, for example wisdom. And within the pure Tomás speaks of some that are transcendental (such as goodness and nobility), which exist in all entities just to exist, unlike stench (which is the example of Dawkins to refute). The fourth way has nothing to do with comparative grading. And then he refutes the fifth way with the design argument of William Paley, and Thomas makes no reference to living things or that everything that is designed is designed. Dawkins proves not to understand Thomas. In short, the question of “why believe in God” does not make sense and in itself lacks consistency, so it cannot be answered.
Great post – Brian Greene and Sean Carroll are both heavyweights who have a gift for explaining the science in a way the interested lay person can understand (albeit with a little effort). I’m glad you discovered them. I’d also recommend Brian Greene’s “The Hidden Reality” and Sean Carroll’s “Something Deeply Hidden” for even more mind-expanding reading. (an interesting aside – Sean Carroll is an admitted “many worlder” in the Everettian sense, fwiw)
One thing to keep in mind is this – while the laws of physics can explain a great deal about the origin and evolution of our universe, we are left with the mystery of why and where the laws themselves came from.
My sense is that these physicists think they came *from* the Big Bang. But where the Big Bang came from and why it led to *these* laws in particular is all still part of the mystery….
Actually, why our universe’s laws are what they are is *the* fundamental mystery. If any of them were even the tiniest fraction different from what they in fact are, we, other living things, the planets and stars even would not be here. This very fact (along with other more technical reasons having to do with inflation) has led to the recent popularity in multiverse (anthropic) models. We find ourselves here simply because we couldn’t exist in any other universe(!) (Notice here that even these multiverse models rest on an assumed foundation of statistical law, however). 😉
I believe my question was relevent to this post… Why no answer? …. So I will give the teaching as best I can:
Why were the 10 commandments started with I brought you out of Egypt (or your limits) and not I Am the Creator of everything, believe in Me!
Because G.od knows us… Knows that it is not natural for us to love the ones who created us!
It is all good when we are fed, washed, dressed, cuddled.. etc … but what about when we are confronted to the bigger picture, when some things hurt, like in adolescence… How many of us did not say to our parents (or at least thougth): well it’s your fault, you created me! I did not ask for this!!!
When the Sh**t hits the fan, or when we see it on the fan, it is not natural to love the Creator of such a world…
So that is one major reason why the 10 commandments do not start with “I am the one who Created you and everything, believe in me!” … It is “I am the One who brought you out of Mitsraim (your limits) out of bondage… And that for sure G.od does!
Just going to point out a problem or two with your post.
First off, the Jewish people believed the Earth was a sphere and hung on nothing. That’s what the old testament says. The best answer to how they understand that in ancient times would be revelation from God. They had no clue how to come to that conclusion. They couldn’t look at the moon and believe that’s what the Earth was like.
Just because a group of humans believe in our lifetime that the Earth is billions of years old, doesn’t mean they’re right. Lots of humans have had conclusive beliefs about lots of things during world history that turned out to be wrong. All science is built on lots of assumptions, unprovable. Like the distances. They estimate the distance from the earth to the sun and use that measurement for every other distance. It’s all problematic. One thing I’ve learned in life, is that humans are extremely unreliable. Scientists are no better. I find lots of confirmation bias in your post as well.
Furthermore,
I’ve find atheists to be the most clueless people I’ve ever met. You’ve got to be really crazy to look at the world around you and think it’s all a giant accident that happened without any purpose behind it. I truly feel sorry you people. I really do. Atheists tend to be the most joyless miserable people as well.
Really? Do you think I’m clueless? OK then! And if you think I’m joyless and miserable, you should be hanging out with me this weekend. Or most days, actually.
Dr. Ehrman, I always appreciate your thought-provoking posts. As a person of faith, I have to say that I too disbelieve in the sort of God you are describing. The Christian conception of God was never intended to fill in the gaps in our scientific understanding of the world. God is viewed being as the creator and sustainer of the universe. The question should be, are our observations of the material universe consistent with the Christian conception of God?
Here’s one example: The material universe is rationally discoverable. It operates by physical laws that can be expressed as elegant mathematical equations. There is an underlying order down to the quantum level. This kind of organization strongly indicates purpose…a reason the universe exists. This sort of sophisticated order is consistent with the universe being the product of mind, a divine intelligence.
It’s not quite correct to say that things happen because of entropy; what you are grasping for is the 2nd law of thermodynamics:
“For any change of an isolated system (e.g., the universe), the entropy increases.”
Entropy, S, is a property of matter (like mass, energy, etc.). It can increase or decrease, and roughly corresponds to “disorder”. It has units of energy/degree. Classical thermodynamics defines entropy change as “the integral of dq(reversible)/T” while statistical thermodynamics predicts S = k lnW. The variables in these simple-looking relationships defy meaningful simple explanation.
Sometimes we can predict which way the entropy is changing by visualizing the molecules: Crystals at absolute zero have zero entropy because the molecules are perfectly organized, lined up, and holding as still as possible. As the substance is warmed up and the molecules start to wiggle around in their lattice sites, melt, become mobile, and finally evaporate into the air, their entropy and disorder increases. The hotter, the higher the entropy,
Obviously, entropy can go up or down. (Ice happens!) But, we can be confident the entropy of the universe has gone up–as long as it is “isolated” so no matter or energy has gotten in or out.
I obviously do not beleive that *everything* happens because of entropy! If it did, there could be no life in the universe. But eventually it will win out.
Yes, assuming, as with all laws of nature, we are safe in extrapolating from regularities observed around earth to the whole universe. In any event, it does leave you wondering, how the entropy clock came to be wound up in the first place, and, of course, what was it like before then (when time must have been running backwards).
Yes indeed, it’s one of the very big question! But no, time was not running backwrd and there was no “before” then. Time *starts* then.
Hey, the EDIT option is gone!?
don’t know. I’ll look into it.
Should be there now.
Delighted to hear that you’ve been reading Sean Carroll. Two great minds with much to offer each other, and if you’re invited to his podcast, please accept! One topic he covers in The Big Picture is Bayes Theorem, which I recall you’ve been dismissive of in the past, claiming that you don’t use it, although clearly you do use the underlying principle implicitly, as opposed to the formalism. Has Sean’s writing affected your thinking on that topic in particular, and next time a debate opponent tries to bamboozle an audience with misapplied Bayesian formalism, do you feel better equipped to help the audience see through it?
Yes, he provides a very clear explanation. I’ve always found it intriguing that the two people who apply the theorem to the historical Jesus argue, respectively, that the theorem demonstrates that (a) Jesus was raised from the dead and (b) Jesus did not exist. Something ain’t right here, and it ain’t the theorem itself.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
A few months ago I listened to your Unbelievable Podcast debate with Peter Williams. I was impressed not just with your scholarship but with your intellectual and personal honesty and sincerity. Thus, when I recently discovered you had a blog, I thought I had to sign up!
Reading this blog, what are your thoughts on the following question: is Atheistic Materialism only viable/meaningful in an intellectual environment influenced by a historically contingent Western Christianity?
As background to this question, I’m writing a series currently about losing and re-finding my Christian faith (in fact, in part 3, I quote you from the podcast!). Anyway, in parts 4 and 5, I outline why my loss of faith didn’t end up leading me to Atheism. Essentially, it seemed that Atheism philosophically was ultimately rooted in a conceptualisation (strong in Western Christian tradition) that God lies outside of reality, and as you put it above, when science explains physical reality “what is the rationale for believing there is also a God outside of it all?” But what if ‘God’ is less ‘separable’ from reality? Genuinely interested in your thoughts. Thank you!
Link to the blog series if you want to read in more detail:
https://www.honestreflectionsblog.com/blank-page
It’s an interesting idea. I guess I would say that atheism arose from those roots because in the West there were no other roots for it to arise from. I would also say that a more pantheistic idea — which I assume you have in mind — has been around for a very long time, as well (think, for example, of the Logos doctrine among the Stoics); as with all theological claims I should one would need to think of some reasons to think so, and also what actual difference it makes to anything if it is true. (Those are among the kinds of tests for thinking of a transcendant God)
Thanks for your quick reply! In terms of atheism having no other roots, I agree with you, but it begs the question of why it did not arise/’succeed’ in other contexts (some which might seem more natural – e.g. the Carvaka tradition in India).
I think, ‘pantheism’ does some justice to what I’m talking about, but what I really have in mind is more what Gregory of Nyssa suggests when he says “Concepts create idols; only wonder comprehends anything”. It strikes me that the ‘spiritual but not religious’ and ‘secular spirituality’ phenomenon in Western culture, is indication that in some ways Gregory’s ‘God’ – one defined by unarticulatable wonder; something which it is almost wrong to try and even conceptualise (e.g. in religious terms) – is alive and well in many ways. The chief point of difference it seems to me between the ‘religious’ and the ‘non-religious’ is whether we can say we can speak for/know the Divine to a point that it is actually meaningful and should thus dictate our behaviour in life. Do you think that’s a fair suggestion?
I’d say that’s a very large part of it, yes. I’m not sure that behavior is the full story though.