Life in Silico

One idea drilled into our heads is that God can neither be proved nor disproved, and it’s entirely an act of faith, and thus every opposite opinion is also necessarily an act of faith. It’s a very pervasive cultural meme, an intellectual fashion. But the provability of an idea depends on its properties, not “’cause I said so”. What about God, then?

The biggest problem in any discussion involving God is that nobody can agree just who this God person is. The differences in thinking can be very big - the big three monotheistic religions only superficially worship the same God - or much smaller - compare the multitudes of Christian denominations. Even a single person often holds more than one God in his head, but doesn’t care to make any sort of distinction. It’s most frustrating talking to such people, since they appear to shift their views constantly. So the first thing you do - make sure you know which God you’re talking about.

Now, provability. You can prove something either logically (a la mathematics) or empirically (a la physics). I’ll labor on the second method, since it is strangely a huge point of contention. A short introduction: the prerequisite for empirical proof is interaction. We prove that things exist (and act in a certain manner) by showing how they interact with the world in ways that would not be expected if they did not exist (or acted differently). This method is successfully used in science, but predates it by at least a few thousands of years - God used it constantly all over the Bible. Miracles are precisely that - God’s interactions with the world in ways which would be unexpected had He not existed. Now, if something does not interact with the world at all, it cannot be proved or disproved empirically by definition. So, does your God interact with the world?

This is actually a question more important than most would like to admit. Most folks worship God because they expect good things to happen if they do, and bad things to happen if they don’t. Those good and bad things are God’s interactions. It is possible to define them in ways that would actually make them a non-interaction - for example, if they only applied to the after-life. But most people expect a bit more from God.

If God interacts, He is legible for empirical proof. If He does not interact, He indeed cannot be proven. But notice that a God that does not interact is also by definition an impotent God. Having even a slightly potent God makes him vulnerable for proof or disproof, by definition. You must decide - you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Still, there are a number of tricks one can employ to make God appear potent yet impenetrable to empirical proof. I think they can all be reduced to one of the three options below:

* The Chameleon - God interacts, but is camouflaged by natural processes. Ever seen Jesus in an omelet? Ever heard a story of someone who was cured from a fatal disease merely by prayer? In all such cases, the outcome is probabilistic, and God is found in the improbable. The problem here is that if you cast a million-sided die a billion times, you expect it to fall on any one side more than once. Prepare enough omelets, and you’ll see more than just Jesus. Examine enough patients of the above disease, and you’d expect some to be cured regardless of their religious beliefs. The Chameleon is only as potent as its background - probability. But, by definition, a world with The Chameleon is indistinguishable from a world without any God whatsoever. At this point Occam’s Razor is usually invoked.

* The Trickster - God interacts is a super-strong way. Usually employed by scriptural literalists - every piece of evidence that goes against some scripture was planted there to test the believer’s faith. God does cure the sick - when He wants to. And He doesn’t cure most of the faithful sick by miracle-working because, well, His ways are mysterious. But The Trickster is also indistinguishable from no God at all. Occam’s Razor, anybody?

* The Universe - God is the entirety of interactions in the universe. He is manifest in every atom collision, every species extinction, every supernova, every word I type. This is pantheism, and Einstein allegedly believed in such a God. But this is only a verbal trick - such a God is not aware of us, indeed he is not aware at all. He is simply the universe in its entirety, no more, no less. Reminds me of a Russian saying (pardon the translation): call it a pot if you like, just don’t put it in the oven. Worshiping such a God is completely pointless. Believing in Him is synonymous with believing in reality. It would make you an atheist, just a more poetic one than most. Indeed, Einstein rejected any notion of a personal God, and took a lot of flak for it.

I will not discuss Occam’s Razor (the final assault on the educated believer) - it is merely a logical rule of thumb. But a God reduced to its mercy is for all practical purposes impotent. He is not the God of the Bible or any other scripture. I think the word “God” itself is misapplied and misleading in this case. If you still want to believe in such a deity, well… good luck. But you should be honest with yourself, and don’t drag anybody else into your religion under false pretenses.