Is It Irrational to Believe in God?

It has been argued, by those who believe God does not exist, that since a belief in the existence of God is merely a matter a faith, and that there is no proof, then this belief is irrational. However, it is just as much a matter of faith to believe that God does not exist, as it is to believe in God s existence. The simple truth is that we do not know, and that goes both ways. We do not know that God does exist, nor do we know that God does not exist. No matter what we believe, on this issue, it is still a belief, not knowledge, so as a belief it is a matter of faith, either faith in existence, or faith in non-existence. If faith is irrational, as contended by those who believe God does not exist, then that faith in God’s non-existence is equally irrational.

Belief and Non-belief are actually the same thing

Belief and non-belief are nothing more than the flip sides of the same coin, therefore a non-belief is the same thing as a belief, simply in reverse. The atheist argument that they do not have the burden of proof for their belief is a cop out. It is nothing more than an excuse to justify their belief without having to prove it. When an atheist says they know there is no God, they overstate their position just as much as when a theist says they know there is a God. It is not “knowing” that either are doing, but believing. To know a thing is to have direct experience, verifiable knowledge that can be measured and/or demonstrated as real. If a concept or idea is not directly known, then it is a belief. Therein lies a huge part of the problem with a great many folks on both sides of this debate. We tend to mistake belief for knowledge. When we sift through all the stuff in our minds and separate our beliefs from our knowledge, we find that in point of fact we know very little. The vast majority of it is a stair step pyramid of beliefs built upon each other. This includes non-beliefs. They too are a part of the pyramid of beliefs, as are theories and hypothesis. Another part of this debate which has an extremely problematic nature is the way some people treat theories. When one treats a theory as if it were a fact that is an error. Theories are not facts, they are a form of belief. They are beliefs, which have a body of evidence to support them. However, as long as any body of evidence could be interpreted with more than one theory, then those theories are not conclusive, thus inconclusive possibilities, and should not be treated as if they were factual knowledge. Theories come and go, based on the acquisition of knowledge. They are often revised or even discarded when new evidence comes to light and factored into the previous evidence upon which they were built. Like any belief, a theory could be wrong, but knowledge is constant and unchangeable. The greatest error that any theoretician can make is to cherish their pet theory so much that when contradictory evidence comes to their attention, they throw that evidence out, cover it up, or label it “anomalous”, and then deny the existence of that evidence. That is the reaction of a dishonest theoretician.

Same logic works both ways

The logic I use is exactly the same logic as the atheist. A belief without proof is irrational. Both beliefs, that God exist, and that God does not exist are without proof, therefore both beliefs are irrational. The only rational position to take is that God may or may not exist, and we in our limited perceptions of reality are incapable of ever knowing with certainty one way or the other. We should, however, consider ourselves free to speculate on the topic profusely, if we are so inclined, and I am so inclined.

Can we fully comprehend the infinite?

In our place here on Earth, with our finite existence, we can never fully comprehend the infinite. We can imagine it, but that is not the same as comprehending it. So, if God does exist, and has an infinite nature, as some beliefs contend, then we will never be able to truly comprehend such an infinite entity.

Can we really comprehend true nothingness?

Conversely, if God does not exist, then God is null, or nothing. We can somewhat mathematically represent nothing as 0, and while the concept of 0 is very simple to us, it does not completely characterize total nothingness. In philosophical circles nothingness has been explored. Even there the scale of that nothingness is limited to “local” levels, delegating the idea of infinite nothingness to the realm of impossible, since observable reality indicates that there is something. Since there is something, including the observer, then we do not have complete nothingness. But the philosopher’s question remains, why is there something rather than nothing? Just as we can not fully comprehend infinity, likewise we can not fully comprehend true nothingness. As a result of this awareness, either way it is a matter of faith, whichever way you believe. Consequently, both beliefs are equally irrational, simultaneously. This is especially true by the atheistic argument, that to believe something without proof is irrational. For just as those who believe in God’s infinite existence, do so without proof; likewise those who believe in the nothingness of God’s non-existence do so without proof. There simply is no proof either way, so no matter which of these options you believe, you believe it without proof. One would think that the opposite of an irrational belief would be rational, yet both beliefs exist without proof, so both beliefs are equally irrational. Such is the paradox of this debate, that each of these opposite beliefs can be equally irrational, at the same time. Make no mistake, there are many pieces of evidence that people on both sides of this debate can give for their arguments, but evidence is not the same as proof. In spite of all this evidence yea or nay, when it comes down to actual proof, there simply is none for either side.

We simply do not know

Taking the rational position, and saying that we do not know whether or not God exists, is not the same as saying that God does not exist, nor saying that God does exist. It simply acknowledges that we don’t know. God may exist or may not, but we really don’t possess any measurable certainty. Bear in mind this position is not agnostic, nor is it atheistic, nor is it theistic, though it does perhaps have some points in common with that aspect of empirical agnosticism which states that God is unknowable. Agnosticism is more about doubting the existence of God or holding a skeptical view regarding the question, while this rationalistic approach is not a form of doubt, but rather an open minded philosophy, willing to see either possibility. Both theism and atheism are beliefs, in existence and non-existence respectively, but rationalism is not about believing either way, while simultaneously considering either could be possible. This rational position is nothing more than the acknowledgement of our ignorance of the reality, whatever that reality might me, coupled with a keen desire to replace that ignorance with knowledge.

Is theism the only approach to a belief in God?

Actually the “traditional” theistic belief in God is not the only way. Among those who do believe in God, there is no single standard. Conservative Creationism, Intelligent Design, Liberal Theism, Deism, Brahman cosmic slumber creation; these are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The list goes on. While there may be considerable physical evidence that some of the specifics of certain beliefs about God cannot be true, conservative creationists beliefs in particular, when we look at the idea of God in general, such as with a deistic approach then none of that evidence holds. With those who believe in a deistic clockwork universe or an intelligent design concept, or even those who believe Brahma sleeps and that we are his dream, all the physical evidence that atheists use to demonstrate a universe of considerable age becomes irrelevant. For deists accept that the universe is ancient. Many intelligent design adherents believe right along with the majority of cosmologists that the cosmos is around 15 billion years old. Brahma could be taking a very long nap.

Along the same lines, atheists sight evolution as further evidence that God does not exist, but deists and intelligent design believers embrace the idea of evolution as part of God’s design, not a contradiction of God at all. Evolution could just as easily be part of Brahma’s dream. Even the father of evolution theory was not an atheist, but rather a deist, seeing no reason for a belief in evolution to disturb those who believe in God. Charles Darwin did not propose evolution as a theory to replace a belief in God, but rather an explanation of how God achieved creation. As a deist, he did not embrace traditional theistic beliefs, but that had more to do with his rejecting the dogma of conservative theological beliefs like the concept of Hell, rather than any kind of incredulity about a God belief in general.

Just how likely is God’s existence?

I have extensively studied cosmology, and evolution. Expanding the horizons of my knowledge is an on going quest. During that quest, I’ve heard many atheists say that since a majority of scientists don’t believe in God, there must not be one. They sight their many pieces of evidence about the nature of the universe, and the patterns of evolution, but as stated above for deists and intelligent design believers they make no case with this evidence. For, there are other scientists who can take all that same evidence, and interpret it as part of God’s design.

Many atheists sight the principle of Occam’s razor also spelled, “Ockham’s Razor”to indicate that since there is no proof of a creator, the introduction of a creator concept complicates any explanation for a cosmological event. Yet, just as there is no proof for a creator, stating the opinion that the introduction of a creator makes things more complicated is not proof for a lack of creator. Being of medieval origin, should this principle still be elevated to such an intricate part of the scientific approach?

Occam’s Razor or Ockham’s Razor

Occam’s Razor, named after the medieval philosopher, William of Occam, (Ockham) can be stated, “Given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest — the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions.” Upon researching Occam’s razor, I’ve found that scientists have many different ways to state this general principle. Here are a few of the most prevalent.

“The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations.”

“The simplest explanation is usually the best.”

“The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.”

This is also known as the Principle of Parsimony or the Principle of Simplicity, and is a criterion for deciding among scientific theories or explanations. The Principle of Simplicity can be stated, “One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.”

Occam’s razor, and the Principle of Simplicity sound fine in theory, but sometimes the simplest explanation does not actually reflect reality. You see, Occam’s razor cuts both ways.

There be order in chaos

For instance, we once believed that such things as the growth patterns of tree branches, and the networks of tree roots, the contours of mountain chains, and the directional meanderings of rivers and streams were random, because that was the simplest of explanations. But with the discovery of fractal geometry, we’ve learned that these natural patterns conform to the mathematical principles of this beautiful geometry. These chaotic patterns were never random at all, but instead so complex in their geometry that they appeared random to us before we understood the fractal mathematical principles governing them. In this case the simplest explanation failed to work. It might usually be best, or most likely be correct, but it is not always best, nor is it always correct. Furthermore, these complex geometric patterns of nature could be seen as indicative of “design”. Since the Universe exhibits such design, that would imply there was a designer. If true, we can not presume to know the nature of that designer, except to say that he/she/or/it must be a real wiz at math.

With any other theory, when it is tested and fails the test, then that theory is either revised or discarded. Occam’s razor failed the fractal test, and this is not the only example of it failing. Prior to the introduction of Quantum Theory, any simplest explanation could never have considered quantum physics. If the originators of Quantum Theory had listened to Occam’s razor, their theories would never have seen the light of day. Considering the extent to which this principle fails to serve, one is left wondering why it remains in use by any self-respecting scientist. Perhaps this tired medieval way of thinking is mainly held onto by atheists, so they can pull it out when they need to drag the debate their way.

Now let’s consider the explanation requiring the “fewest assumptions” or “leaps of logic”, when we compare chance vs. design. With the chance explanation, we have to assume that the imbalance of matter and anti-matter at the beginning of the universe, occurred by chance, so that the universe came into existence as we know it, that the Earth’s orbit fell into just the right place for life to emerge by chance, that a theoretical Mars sized body collided with Earth 1.0 at just the right angle to create the Moon, thus stabilizing Earth’s climate by chance, that the chemicals came together in the primordial ooze to bring about life by chance, that an asteroid or comet collided with the Earth 65 million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs, setting the stage for the rise of mammals by chance, that conditions were right for our ape like ancestors to begin walking up-right by chance, and that additional conditions were just right for those up-right primates to evolve into sentence by chance. That’s a lot of assumptions, by chance. With the design explanation, there is only one assumption, that all those things occurred by a singular grand design. So, looking at it from this perspective it turns out that design is a considerably less complicated explanation than this unlikely listed series of chance occurrences, which is actually only a summary, for the chance explanation includes a great many more chance assumptions than could possibly be listed in this article. Ultimately, creation by a discrete series of unconnected chance occurrences is a more complex explanation than creation by distinct design.

Essentially this illustrates how both sides of this debate can use the same data to support their side. The atheists can use their knowledge and theories of the universe to state that design is more complex than chance, and the advocates of design can take these same facts to demonstrate how chance is more complex than design. Yet both sides are injecting their opinions into the theory, once again on both sides of this debate, it is belief not knowledge that colors the way the data is viewed.

Even still, we really do not know if there was a designer of the cosmos, or if there is any merit in the opinion that it all came about by random chance. But since there could have just as easily been one, as not, then the possibility of there either being one, or not, is on an even par. Ultimately, if we reduce it down to the most basic terms, not even considering any specific religious concepts, there are two possibilities. Either there was a creative force, which precipitated the big bang, or there was not a creative force involved. There are no other possibilities, and since there is nothing we can measure to weigh the chances in either direction, without letting our opinions or beliefs color our view, the chances of either possibility are equal.

Who can we see as an authority on this subject?

Now, as for authority, the fact that the majority of scientists do not believe in God is irrelevant. They are not an authority, qualified to answer the question of whether or not God exist. Their areas of expertise are not capable of measuring any data that is in the least bit relevant to the question. Science makes observations of, measurements of, and conducts experiments in order to gain an understanding of the physical universe. Whether this physical universe was created by an entity, or chance, it is the creation. Everything science measures would be a part of this creation, but not the creator. Science is only capable of measuring the creation, however it is not capable of measuring whether or not there was a creator, an extra-cosmic entity or creative force. The basis of this concept comes from science itself. Cosmologists tell us that the best models of cosmic history can take us back to a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, about 15 billion years ago, but no further back. We can not model the exact moment of the big bang, nor can we see back to before, if indeed there even is such a thing as before the big bang. Cosmologists say that space, time, and matter were all created with the big bang. However, if there was a creative force, which precipitated this big bang, then that creative force is outside of the space/time/matter continuum, and therefore not subject to the limitations of the material universe as we know it. As such, since all of the knowledge of science relates to our material universe, none of that knowledge can be used to determine if there is such a thing as this possible extra-cosmic realm of the creative force, if such a force even exist. Since science can not take us back to before the big bang, then with science we can not see whether or not there was a creative force involved with the process. Science can not answer the question of whether or not there was a creative force. That is why scientists are not authorities on the subject, and it is also why their belief in the non-existence of God is irrelevant.

If there are any authorities on the subject, we might consider philosophers. Throughout history, many philosophers have contemplated the question, and have come to various tentative conclusions, but ultimately none are any more capable of deriving a definitive conclusion than any scientist, or for that matter any person no matter their area of expertise. That’s been my contention from the beginning, in our limited perspective as human beings, we are incapable of answering the question. We can not know the answer, therefore any answer we might think we have is merely a belief, one way or the other. A person either believes there is a God, or a person believes there is no God. No one can know. We are not capable of having certainty on this issue.

If one takes a cross-disciplined approach to the question, blending various sciences, philosophies, and a pan-dimensional examination of psycho-spiritual/religious thought the world over, the conclusion is inescapable. Based on that approach, one can clearly see that no matter how much anyone seeks the answer to this question, certainty can never be found. We can not know, we can only believe in God’s existence, or believe in God’s non-existence. Either way it is a belief, and neither belief can be proven. And going back to the original point, since both beliefs exist without proof, both beliefs are equally irrational.

Acknowledge we do not know, yet expect either could be

Finally, the answer to the title of this article, is “yes”, but it is just as irrational to not believe in God. Both sides of the debate have all of the same facts at their disposal. As long as the facts can be interpreted either way, then no side has an advantage. Those who believe in “intelligent design” see design in the evolution of the cosmos, while those who believe in a Godless universe see random chance. When a scientist says the initial imbalance of matter and anti-matter at the beginning of the universe was a chance occurrence, that scientist does not know it was chance. He is injecting his own opinion into the theory, and that’s bad science. The “intelligent design” scientist can just as easily say that imbalance was planned by the designer of the universe in order that the cosmos could come into existence. Either way, both of these scientists are injecting their opinions into the theory. Both views are in possession of the all the same facts, yet both draw premature conclusions from those facts. The real fact is that we can not conclude whether it was chance or design. We simply do not know, therefore it is arrogant presumption to assume either conclusion. The matter is left inconclusive, and can not be concluded with all of the facts known by all of humanity. What remains is but one reasonable course, admit we do not know, we can not know, and committing to either belief is jumping to a conclusion without proof. Either conclusion is ultimately a leap of faith.

After all, in the end, no matter what you believe, you could be wrong. Reality is whatever it is, regardless of our beliefs. No amount of believing will alter that which reality actually is. Likewise, no amount of arguing about it will alter it either. No matter how much we might wish to, we can not force our beliefs upon reality. If God does exist, then that is reality, regardless of preference. Likewise, if God does not exist, then that is reality, whether we like it or not. Believing either way is just as irrational. So, the only approach to this question in a genuinely rational way, would be acknowledging we do not know, yet expect that either could be equally possible, and keep the quest alive, always searching for greater knowledge with which to replace our abundant ignorance.