THE GOD QUESTION
We conceive of the universe as having a beginning, hence, a moment of birth, or creation. Such a scenario implies a creator. But we may think in terms of cause and effect, beginnings, because that is our milieu. Our brains evolved in an environment steeped in birth, in beginnings.
The concept of something eternal is simply not part of our thought process. We may posit a deity to set the universe in motion, but what about a universe that has always been here? Why can’t that be true, without a prime mover? If we insist on perceiving an original moment of creation, we merely perpetuate the conundrum: if creation is the way all things begin, how was god created? If god is an exception, why can’t the universe be an exception?
Consider how many different competing conceptions of how the world began are to be found in the religions of the world. Consider how fervently adherents to these faiths propound their particular creation stories, and all the other precepts. Yet, how testable are these beliefs? One thing can be known: insofar as they each claim their own exclusively true account of how the world began, they must all be wrong, with the possible exception of one. If we select just one of these stories and claim it to be the one true account, how likely are we to be correct?
All of this should leave us with one abiding perception: when it comes to matters of god and our metaphysical plight, we should be humble. We may feel as though we we know, but we should not claim to know. This humility should not be so difficult to come by, for the simple reason that we do not know. Being brought up to believe one story or another is not knowing; it is simply the belief that we know.
There is something else. There is a kind of metaphysical bravery in accepting that we, ourselves, may be the ultimate arbiters of our own lives.
ScienceBlog.com has no paywalls, no sponsored content, and no agenda beyond getting the science right. Every story here is written to inform, not to impress an advertiser or push a point of view.
Good science journalism takes time — reading the papers, checking the claims, finding researchers who can put findings in context. We do that work because we think it matters.
If you find this site useful, consider supporting it with a donation. Even a few dollars a month helps keep the coverage independent and free for everyone.