The topic for the debate is “Can we know that there is a Creator”. There are two key words in that topic: ‘Know’, and ‘Creator’, which we are just about to discuss. In my talk I will use the fact of the creation of the universe to help explain why it would not be possible to “know” something supernatural. I will then talk about what we mean by the word “Creator”, and why normal usage implies something supernatural, which we cannot “Know”.
Introduction-The Creation of the Universe
In the beginning, time and space appeared: from where we do not know. They appeared with a Bang, literally. The biggest bang imaginable. This explosion occurred simultaneously everywhere, not only in all space, but creating Space. Nanoseconds after the creation, the universe was an unimaginably dense and hot soup of matter and light that may not have been bigger than a person…
Events proceeded quickly at first, then more slowly. Particles combined into atoms. Atoms collected into clouds, which gathered into galaxies, which gave birth to stars, and thence to us. This is our modern creation story. I find it much more awe inspiring than the one told in Genesis.
And I know that it is true.
How can I possibly make that statement? That I know that it is true? I can make that statement because of the way I define the word ‘know.’
What Can We ‘Know’ About the Universe?
Well, there is ‘knowing’, and there is ‘believing’. I believe that I will live a long life. But I do not know it. To ‘know’ something means that the objective evidence for that something is so overwhelming that there are no reasonable alternatives. In this context, the term ‘objective’ describes information that can be gathered that is independent of any particular observer.
So people used to ‘believe’ that the earth was a sphere. We now ‘know’ it, because of the preponderance of evidence for that fact. Certainly any sane, knowledgeable person on the planet will accept the earth’s sphericity.
Note that there is no absolute certainty in that statement of ‘knowing.’ We ‘know’ that the sun will rise tomorrow, although we cannot make that statement with absolute mathematical precision. By the rigors of absolute certainty, we cannot ‘know’ anything. The universe could have been created a second ago. The earth could turn into blue cheese next week.
But to make such wild statements puts an end to intelligent discourse: we must have some ground rules. And our ground rules are preponderance of objective evidence.
Falsifiability
Note the very important flip side of our definition of knowledge: it must be falsifiable! Since knowledge can be verified by objective evidence, then it must also be falsifiable by the same objective evidence!
This distinction is usually used to separate objective knowledge from religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are not falsifiable by objective evidence. For example, the term ‘creation science’ makes little sense: the beliefs of creationists are not falsifiable, and hence are outside the realm of science.
By our definition, a religious belief is not something that you can ‘know’ objectively. It must be a matter of faith. If it is something that you can ‘know’ objectively, then it is not religion: it is science.
Knowing, and Knowing
Of course, things are not quite that simple. For example, we ‘know’ that the earth is a sphere, right?
Wrong! The earth is not a sphere!
It is closer to a oblate spheriod, but even then, it is not quite right. Many scientists get into extremely heated arguments about the exact shape of the earth.
Does this mean that the ancients were right after all, that the earth is flat? Of course not! The fact that we are debating the fine details of the sphericity does not negate the original knowledge: The earth is approximately spherical.
This scientific statement has been verified so many times, in so many ways, that to not call it a fact is to leave the term ‘fact’ without meaning. We know, absolutely know, that the earth is approximately spherical. One should never confuse debate over the details with debate on the essentials, something that the national media is not particularly good at making clear.
What Can We Not ‘Know’ About the Universe?
Let us return to the creation of the universe.
Just as in the sphericity of the earth, the fact of the Big Bang has been verified so many times, in so many ways, that no rational scientist currently debates this essential point. However, that does not mean that we have the same levels of ‘know’ for the details.
For example, what happened before one hundredth of a second after the Big Bang? The conditions then were so far outside of our experience that nobody can say for sure. It is a matter of deep theoretical debate. A matter of belief, so to speak, that may one day turn into knowledge.
I submit, however, that there are two questions about the creation of the universe that will never turn into knowledge. That are beyond ‘knowing’, in the sense that I have defined.
The first is this: what was going on before T=0, before the initiation of the creation? I believe that we can never ‘know’ that. Any evidence was swallowed up in the initial explosion.
The second question concerns the ultimate meaning of the universe. Nobody can even conceive what evidence one would attempt to collect to answer this question.
I believe that these two questions will never be ‘known’: they will always be a matter of religious faith.
Natural Versus Supernatural
We have talked at length about ‘knowing’. We now need to talk about the ‘Creator’. We must be clear what we mean by the word. If by ‘Creator’, we mean a synonym for the universe, or for ‘Nature’, then of course there is a Creator, or we would not be alive to have this debate. If that is what is meant, then we can all go home in complete agreement.
But wait. What most people mean by the term ‘Creator’ is something a bit different: a supernatural being that controls our destiny in some way.
So we have a definition of ‘Creator’. But what about ‘supernatural’? Supernatural is by definition something outside human knowledge: something that we cannot explain with what we know about the universe.
So let us say that the Creator is supernatural. Then she is outside our knowledge. Literally. We cannot ‘know’ her, in the sense of gathering objective evidence. If we could collect an overwhelming preponderance of evidence of her existence, then she would be ‘natural’. End of debate.
But hold on. Suppose the Creator is outside human knowledge today, but perhaps not in the future! Perhaps, someday, we will understand what forces and fields she uses to shape the universe. At that point, the Creator is no longer ‘supernatural’. She is ‘natural’, and most people would not call a being that we could understand completely a ‘Creator’.
For example, suppose the ‘Creator’ is actually a race of highly advanced extraterrestrials. They would initially be ‘supernatural’, in that they would use powers beyond our understanding. But should such a race be placed in the category of ‘Creator’? I think not.
So we have a bit of a Catch22: either the Creator is supernatural, in which case she is beyond ‘knowing’, or she is natural, in which case we would not call her a Creator. We cannot ‘know’ that there is a ‘creator’. QED.
I have absolutely no problem with this. One should have faith to believe in an ultimate meaning of the universe. Why should a ‘Creator’ be comprehensable by humans?
A Search for Morality
I would like to end my statement on a personal note: the source of my own moral beliefs.
The Columbia Flyer this week had two quotes that bothered me: one from Dostoyevsky, “If God is dead, then all things are permissible.”, the second from Mr. Yaguez, “If we are products of chance, then there are no rules…if we apply evolutionary philosophy, then anything goes.”
There are two fallacies in those statements. The first comes from what has come to be known as the “Anthropic Principle”, which briefly says that we cannot discuss how special and unique our planet is or we are, because if things had turned out differently, we would not be here to admire ourselves.
Suppose only one universe in a quintillion quintillion can support humans. We, of course, must exist in that universe. It would tell us nothing about any possible role for a “Creator” in the universe. Many creation science statements are incorrect because of this logical principle.
What does this principle have to do with the quotes? Just this: I submit that if human society had no morals, we would not be here having this debate: we would be beating each other to a pulp with sticks, or extinct. A highly advanced society is impossible without morality, and says nothing about the possible existence of a ‘Creator’.
The second fallacy is this. Cindy will verify that I am a deeply religious person. I believe that there is an Ultimate Meaning to the Universe, that there are supernatural causes, that there is a ‘Creator’. I believe that humankind is here for a reason, and that we cannot reach our ultimate destiny without a moral society. You do not need to believe in the God of the Christian bible to be moral. People that think otherwise have caused untold misery throughout history.
I have faith in my vision. You have faith in your vision. We both believe in an ultimate meaning. We both believe in morality. We should both agree that one must have Faith, that one cannot prove the superiority of Christianity over other religions and belief systems. I feel that in many respects we are closer to each other than many people would like to think.
Recent Comments