• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reconciling Faith in God and Acceptance of Science

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
Let me start with a little background introduction. I was born and raised a Catholic and faith has always been a big part of my life. As I grew older and went to school I began to learn science and I enjoyed it. But the two seemed at times to conflict, especially the belief in God the creator and the theory of evolution. Without knowing much about evolution, and feeling that it took away from God somehow, I read about arguments against the theory. No proof of macro evolution, the reliability (or unreliability) of radiometric dating methods, etc. I was strong in my belief when the theory was weak. But then I took a philosophy class (in college) in which evolution was discussed as a topic. I began to see the flaws in my own arguments and realized that if I wanted to weaken the theory of evolution I would have to study the science for myself. That class and philosophy teacher where a big influence on my life. I went on to minor in geology specifically so that I could study the fossil record and evolution. I had another great teacher, a paleontologist. I took a class called ‘life of the past’ and another called ‘evolutionary concepts’ from him. To make a long story short all the walls finally came tumbling down. I had to admit to myself that Darwin was on to something, the evidence was overwhelming. Knowing that there can be no contradiction between science and religion I was stuck with a rather uneasy belief in a creator and a full acceptance of the tenets of the theory of evolution. I knew the two had to be compatible but I just didn’t know exactly how they where. I was not satisfied with this and for the past year or so I have been thinking about how the relationship could be strengthened between these two beliefs. I wanted to have a strong, logical, rational reason for why God created through evolution because I have come to believe that is how it was done.

Finally let me say that what I came up with is no scientific theory or proof of creation. I think that any such thing is impossible because such proof would begin to infringe on free will and that cannot happen. The ideas that I will present represent my own thought on the matter although they are not necessarily new ideas I was heavily influenced by the philosophy and theology that I have studies. I have not discussed these thoughts with anyone and feel now that I have reached a point where I should begin to test these ideas in a public forum, so here goes....

The first thing that one needs is a proper understanding of the nature of God as creator. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. God is the ultimate reality. But if one is to prove that God is creator one must prove that God exists right? I came across the idea that God is not a being but being itself. This made me realize that asking whether God exists or not made no sense. When this question is put forth God is being reduced to a thing in the very asking of the question. If existence is a property that God either has or does not have, then it (existence) is more powerful than God, God becomes subservient to it. And it makes no sense to ask if existence exists since by the very fact that anything exists at all existence must be a necessary property of reality. What follows is that if time exists then it does so by partaking in existence and so existence is not subservient to time and is therefor timeless, eternal. In fact all things that exist, either actually exist or possibly exist from our perceptive, partake in existence. Unicorns have an existence even if it is only as a mental concept and not in physical reality. Existence is everywhere for everyplace that is, exists, even nowhere and nothing exist in some way. Existence is omnipresent So existence would have access to perfect knowledge of all things and by way of the arguments put forth by logical positivism this access would result in total perfect knowledge of everything, existence is omniscient. With total presence and total knowledge total power is not far behind. The more I thought about it the more clear it seemed to me, God does not exist... God is existence. The next question then is how does God give being itself, existence itself, to specific acts of being, specific existing entities like me and you and how does this relate to evolution?

Having existence as the metaphysical root of reality I wondered where essence came into play. I thought that perhaps instead of thinking of essence as something that provided being, that perhaps it was something that merely limited God’s being. Think of essence as a filter through which God/existence flows through into specific being. Existence would flow out of God through the filter of the essence of, for example, our universe to become matter in space and time. Existence would flow through the filter of humanity to become a bipedal biological machine and then flow further through our individual essence, our own soul, to become our own particular act of being. In this way, God is a transcendent, all powerful, ungraspable, reality but at the same time is intimately connected to and personally knows each and every corner of all that is, was, and ever will be. God is both personal and transcendent. God is both creator of all reality and a the same time that which sustains it moment to moment, by continually pouring himself out into our reality. Like the psalm says:

"Of old you laid the foundations of the earth; the heavens are the works of your hands. They perish but you remain; they all wear out like a garment; like clothing you change them and they are changed, but you are the same, your years have no end.
(Psalm 102 26-28)

Let me say again, this is not a proof, it is a logical system of reality that may or may not be the case. It is a philosophical theory of metaphysical reality. But I believe that it provides a solid foundation upon which God as creator is not only compatible with evolution, but necessarily follows from the nature of God as existence and the essential quality of the universe as matter in space and time. Holding a belief in God and accepting evolution, for me at least, is no longer an uneasy alliance of sorts. It seem as if there is no way for God to have created our reality without it being an evolving, constant pouring out of his being into our being. And the more I thought about it the more clear it was that the very nature of this universe is change, that everything evolves in some way. The very purpose of our lives here is to grow and evolve spiritually as individuals and as a species. Everything is on the path of becoming perfected at the end of time when God’s creative act has been complete. God’s act of salvation history is an evolution through Abraham and the patriarchs through Jesus and up to this day and into the future. And since God is so intimately involved in the unfolding of the natural world it becomes very easy to mistake the causal relations therein. One can see that evolution and even the initial emergence of life on earth for evolution to work on will necessarily appear as purely ‘natural’ events because they are! There is nothing wrong with that, it takes faith to see God’s part in this whole drama and it must be this way because as I said before, if we could see God and prove that he is then our free will becomes almost if not totally meaningless.

Ok so what do you think, am I on to something or do I need to check into a mental clinic?!?!?!
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Runlikethewind said:
There is nothing wrong with that, it takes faith to see God’s part in this whole drama and it must be this way because as I said before, if we could see God and prove that he is then our free will becomes almost if not totally meaningless.
very true.

Ok so what do you think, am I on to something or do I need to check into a mental clinic?!?!?!
Only if you want to...........what works for you works for you.:)
 

RUone2

Member
I was also brought up Catholic, it was back in the days when Mass was in Latin, and meat forbidden on fridays. I've never had a problem with the evolution theory, I tend to go along with St. Johns account of creation. In the beginning there was the word and the word was with God and the word was God etc etc. Going on to say that God created all things and nothing was created without God. No mention of on the first day He did this the second that, and after the sixth He rested?? I never bought into the whole Adam and Steve story and believe it was just a way of explaining that God created everything. My God could have done it with one big Bang, or over severel million years. I couldn't care less how He did it, I just believe that God is the creator of all things. I'm sorry that I am not as well educated as gone with the wind or is it fast as the wind I forget, but I had to post this in reply because it's not often I find a Catholic with whom I'm in agreement with, thank you for your post.:shout
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Wow, that's a great post Runlikethewind. I think I've taken a different route but come to pretty much the same place as you. I went into science out of a love of learning and was not particularly religious or even spiritual through my many years of education and work in research. Although raised Episcopalian I was more or less a secular agnostic up until about eight or so years ago.

My research was in plant physiology, genetics, molecular bio, biochem and of course a strong foundation in evolutionary theory and population genetics. As my own spirituality started to awaken again I saw no conflict at all between my scientific understanding of the world and my spiritual nature and relationship to my Creator. If anything my deeper appreciation for the amazing way biology works puts me in even greater awe of God. Like you I have come to conclude God does not exist as a supernatural entity as much as God IS...life, being, love. And More. At the same time it is perfectly natural, because I am a human being who interacts with others via relationship, and it makes perfect sense that I should use the language of and experience the More as a relationship, because it is at least that.

Sorry that's kind of a ramble. Your well-thought out essay above said it much better.

I've been enjoying your posts. Welcome!
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Loved it! :clap

I came to a similar conclusion but without the filter analogy. Instead God was a fiery ball of love that releases energy/matter like the sun. If the sun gets cold, how many things does it affect?

This also flows nicely with the concept of Heaven and Hell. If your heart is cold as ice, then God is too hot for you and his presence would be very uncomfortable to say the least.
 

uumckk16

Active Member
I'll just echo what others have said and say, great post! It's obvious you've thought a lot about this, and I agree with most if not all of what you said.

Did you get your concept of "God does not exist...God is existence" from Paul Tillich?
 

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
uumckk16 said:
I'll just echo what others have said and say, great post! It's obvious you've thought a lot about this, and I agree with most if not all of what you said.

Did you get your concept of "God does not exist...God is existence" from Paul Tillich?

Thanks! I have thought a lot on this matter. As for your question, no I did not get this concept from Paul Tillich. I got it while reading a book by Robert Barron on the spirituality of St Thomas Aquinas (the exact title escapes me). In it he was talking about the difference between a supreme being and supreme being itself. I thought about it and came up with God does not exist He is existence. Certainly this idea has been expressed before but I have never heard it expressed in this manner.

I would like to look into this Paul Tillich now that you have sparked my interest, can you recommend any of his works in particular that would relate to this idea?
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Runlikethewind said:
I would like to look into this Paul Tillich now that you have sparked my interest, can you recommend any of his works in particular that would relate to this idea?

I really liked "The Courage to Be." Very famous popular work by him, from the 60's I think.
 

uumckk16

Active Member
Runlikethewind said:
Thanks! I have thought a lot on this matter. As for your question, no I did not get this concept from Paul Tillich. I got it while reading a book by Robert Barron on the spirituality of St Thomas Aquinas (the exact title escapes me). In it he was talking about the difference between a supreme being and supreme being itself. I thought about it and came up with God does not exist He is existence. Certainly this idea has been expressed before but I have never heard it expressed in this manner.

I would like to look into this Paul Tillich now that you have sparked my interest, can you recommend any of his works in particular that would relate to this idea?
I've never read any of his works, sorry :eek: I've just read a bit about him and I seemed to remember him having a similar theology.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich):
"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
This was translated into English about 1908:

"The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 240)

Regards,
Scott
 

Prometheus

Semper Perconctor
All I can gather from this thread is that God is not an actual entity in any sense but simply is existence itself, correct?

Well...then why call existence God? Why not just call existence: Existence? If you worship God and God is everything then you worship everything. So you might as well pray to a tree.

To cut to the heart of it, there is no real way to define what a "God" is. When you claim you believe in God and yet don't actually believe in a definitive entity then it's bound to confuse people. This is a big problem in religious debate. It's hard to communicate when everyone is talking about "God" while the word itself may be one of the most ambiguous terms there is.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me if I am misconstruing what's being said. I just have trouble wrapping my mind around someone believing God is not a being and yet believing in a religion which accepts the Bible. The Bible seems to make it clear that God is a personage. A highly anthropomorphic one at that.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
You say you have no proof, but the stream of knowledge seems to be headed toward the understanding that consciousness, rather than being an emergent property of energy-matter, is intrinsic to the nature of reality at its most fundamental level: the restless Void. There is empirical evidence and a sound theoretical basis for establishing the fact that consciousness, not energy-matter, is the primary substance of reality.

With so much invested in “scientific materialism,” many scientists, deeply disturbed by the suggestion that consciousness may be involved at the very most basic level of physical reality, unscientifically declare that consciousness has nothing to do with the formation of the cosmos.

Here is a link you may enjoy:

http://www.transcendentalphysics.com/rw_ascent.html
 

Prometheus

Semper Perconctor
You're going to have to clarify three things that you claim for me, Stone.

1) Define "Consciousness." You speak of it as a building block and yet I understand it as no more than a philosophical concept. I am having a lot of trouble understanding how a concept can be the foundation for physical reality. Perhaps you are referring to Panpsychism?

2) You claim there is "empirical evidence" and "sound theoretical basis" for this belief. You'll have to show me it or if it was supposed to be in that link you'll have to dumb it down because I don't understand quantum mechanics.

3) How is claiming that consciousness has nothing to do with the origin of the universe "unscientific?" The current theory seems scientific to me. Where has the current theory violated the scientific method?
 

Runlikethewind

Monk in Training
All I can gather from this thread is that God is not an actual entity in any sense but simply is existence itself, correct?

That is basically what I am getting at

Well...then why call existence God? Why not just call existence: Existence? If you worship God and God is everything then you worship everything. So you might as well pray to a tree.

If what I say is correct then one could almost use God or existence interchangeable. The term God implies more of an intelligent/conscious aspect whereas using the term existence could inadvertently lead into a pantheism which is not what I am claiming. So I think God is the better term to use. This does not mean that one might as well pray to a tree. If that is what you got from what I wrote than I must have failed to express my point. A tree is a particular act of being a particular form of existence it is not existence itself. The tree is in God but the tree is not God so it makes no sense to pray to a tree or rock or whatever in that sense. One should pray to the totality of existence and not anyone form or particular act of existing.

To cut to the heart of it, there is no real way to define what a "God" is. When you claim you believe in God and yet don't actually believe in a definitive entity then it's bound to confuse people. This is a big problem in religious debate. It's hard to communicate when everyone is talking about "God" while the word itself may be one of the most ambiguous terms there is.

I am attempting to clear up some of that ambiguity by showing that God is not a being but being itself. Yes this is confusing but the more one thinks about it the more it can become clearer and an intelligent debate about God can result, at least that is what I hope.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me if I am misconstruing what's being said. I just have trouble wrapping my mind around someone believing God is not a being and yet believing in a religion which accepts the Bible. The Bible seems to make it clear that God is a personage. A highly anthropomorphic one at that.

The Bible tries to make God know in terms that humans can understand. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, its anthropomorphic picture of God does not mean that God actually has human qualities. In fact is that not what anthropomorphism means? To give human characteristics to that which does not have human characteristics? One cannot really make a blanket statement about the Bible in the way it portrays God, each example would have to be taken in context of its appearance in the Bible. Who wrote it? When? Where? To whom? By whom? etc. The Bible might seem to make it clear that God has human characteristics (the hand of God, His mighty arm etc..) but it is not necessarily the case that God has human characteristics, it may only seem that way because that is how the authors chose to communicate their inspiration of God based on the times and understanding from which they live.
 

Prometheus

Semper Perconctor
One should pray to the totality of existence and not anyone form or particular act of existing.

So, can I safely say that people shouldn't pray to Jesus? Jesus would not be God by your definition because he would be an example of one particular act of existing but not all of existence. So there is as much divinity in a tree as there is in Jesus.

Forgive me, but I'm just trying to see how your belief about the nature of God can fit with Christianity.
 

lombas

Society of Brethren
This was translated into English about 1908:

"The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 240)

Regards,
Scott

Exactly. Nicely put.
 

bflydad

Member
Have you read anything by Matthew Fox (www.matthewfox.org) ? He describes a concept called panentheism (different from pantheism) which says that God is in everything but God is also more. One way of describing that "more" would be as a consciousness. This allows for a God that is both immanent and transcendent. God is existence because everything is contained within God but God is also more.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
We can sign in together at the mental institution, Runlikethewind. I've often said that God is not a being but being itself.

If what we believe is true, human personality is an integral part of the Whole and a localized region of dominant characteristics. You use the term "God" for the same reasons I do: to make a distinction between the part and the Whole and to avoid confusing the concept of Divine Oneness with pantheism, which equates the part with the Whole. (For me, there is also the matter of my religious roots; i.e., tradition.) For, as Paul wrote: in him we live, move and have our being.

It's been my experience that when critics are told that God is concieved of not as a being but being itself, they will often say they understand and then insist on proceeding along the lines of God being somewhere "out there." I find it so frustrating that, for the most part, I've given up.

I hope you are more successful.
 
Top