Gravity: The middle ground between science and religion

By: Brett Haymaker

Posted: 3/9/07

In high school, I attempted to formulate a theory mending evolution and creationism. I failed miserably. I researched evolution tirelessly, went to Bible study, and dredged through dribbling science journals and long-winded evangelist speeches. To be fair, however, I was not equipped with the tools to achieve this aim so soon. Although my idea was a good one and one I still wanted to achieve, I did not have the expressive equipment to handle this task just yet. Now I come to you to try to achieve it yet again in lieu of the recent publications in The Triangle on this topic.

One often hears, when attending Bible studies, people denouncing evolution, and praising an "intelligent creator" for all that we see on Earth and in the universe, that it is all too beautiful and complex for it not to have a creator.

In response to hearing "a creator," scientists respond as they expectedly would, and denounce it as a blabbering idiocracy. A mental fallacy. However, both sides are correct, except the argument is found within semantics. It boils down to a key error on both sides of the evolution-creationism debate: Each stance completely fills the space for being "correct."

When a religious figure, let's call him Robert, states that God created the universe and created man, he truly believes that God is a being and intended to create the universe. That God is a being that thinks, feels and responds to whatever we, humans, do on Earth.

Of course, this is the same when looking at a scientist; we'll call her Sheila. When Sheila interprets the word God, she too sees it as a supernatural, all-powerful being that intended to create life and the universe. And this is why Sheila disagrees with creationists.

I am by no means saying that all scientists aren't religious. Just bear with me and my generated examples.

Both parties accept that God is a being, an object, a creator and a supernatural creature. This is where our semantics hold us back; when we refer to God as a creator, we instantly think of a person building a house or a garden, a being that has intentions behind their actions. But this semantic error is key in understanding what God truly is. Once we do that, we will truly blend the black and white lines of evolution and creationism, and create the gray universe that pervades human experience and perception.

You ready for it?

God resides in everything. God is the reason why everything is the way it is. When I refer to God, I am not referring to a being, nor am I referring to a creator with intentions, a consciousness capable of performing actions. I am not referring to a God that is pleased with human behavior or moral subjectivity. God does not concern itself with animals or plants or with anything else. God just is.

God is simply a force. A way. A way that is beyond our human comprehension. In order to understand, we must personify it, make it human in some way. We must dumb it down into human experience to connect to it in some way. To relate to it in a way that gives our lives meaning. Because in the human experience, meaning is a fundamental necessity, whereas God, this immense, complex force, has no interest in meaning. It simply exists and governs the universe, completely outside and unaffected by whatever arises and grows as a result of it. So God has no interest in reason, in meaning, in purpose, but we, as humans, have an interest in God as a result of reason, meaning and purpose.

Creationism and evolution are two ways of saying the same thing, one being empirical and rational, the other being symbolic and metaphoric.

The problem arises when our sense of purpose and meaning are threatened. We defend our positions with an empowerment of right and wrong given to us by either science or religion, both of which exist outside of where God truly lies, but at the same time, undeniably exists within its boundaries. Since meaning, purpose and intentions are so integral in our human understanding of the world, it is hard for us to accept that some things exist outside of the realm of intention. That some things just are.

What we need now is to set down our weapons and put some of those defensive resources into our language. For that is what this battle is really contingent upon.

In order to change our view of God to a more accurate one, we must look at the word God as if it were an entirely new word. God, to humans in the modern era, has become something like the word Love. Everyone has a definition of what it means to them, of what is convenient for them at the time, and it is constantly evolving. Scientist, preacher, monk, nurse and schoolteacher alike, the word God often becomes a tool for our human needs, desires and aims, and we change it to mean whatever is convenient for us and our agenda, to argue or defend our own beliefs and what it means for us. Again, the key problem is with our need for meaning and perception of death, and how that influences our sense of God. For example, we do not ask, "What is God?" but rather, "Who is God?" - our bias toward personification. What God truly is, and what we should be referring to when we use the word God are completely different. That is to say, when we say the word God now, an image of a person comes to mind, when in reality, we should really be thinking of wind, or how ice freezes, or gravity, or time. Because God is more like those things than it is like Jesus Christ, Jehovah, angels or any of the other personified deities of our time. When we think of God now, not only is that notion personified, but God is also an explanation, a reason for why things happen. In our new understanding of the word God, it also serves as an explanation for the Universe but it is true in a less specific sense, in terms of our personal lives and experiences.

Poets and philosophers have been contemplating God for as long as we have existed according to the deepest depths of my knowledge and memory. However, they are all reliant upon a false assumption, one that has refused to be challenged for far too long: the assumption that God cares. That God cares about us and our existence. That God somehow has something to do with our lives and an afterlife. Without an afterlife, without a life that will potentially last forever, our lives are void of a large portion of meaning or purpose except to find food, procreate the species, and to form bonds and relationships with those around us. For too long have we, as humans, dabbled in notions of right and wrong, truth and justice, ideals, morality and the afterlife. For too long have they prevented us, purely through glitches in language, from knowing what God is. Just imagine how the world would change if people stopped thinking they were right, that their way of life is superior to another because "their God is the real God" and they will be "saved!" Except God isn't a "being." God is the wind of the Universe!

But, people do not want this. People do not want this belief, to admit that God does not and cannot care about their lives. That God as a force could be true. Because like I said before, we are, as a people, big fans of meaning and purpose and the current God, as a being, a creator, a dictator of right and wrong, a source of empowerment over others, gives us a reason to hold this belief close and kill before we let it go. To criticize, to judge, to feel good about one's life, for that is what it is really about. To feel good about ones life and know that after death, life will continue on forever

In fairness however, the argument that I think is an interesting one is that sometimes the fiction is better than the truth. And in a sense, since we are trapped inside our human perceptions, experiencing the world through human senses and a human body, we will always be influenced by the fiction of existing in a human form. The story being told over and over again.

But alas, I take solace in knowing that this world is so overwhelmingly complex, that in order to appreciate my life; I need to maintain a sense of reverence and grounded perspective of that complexity. And in doing so, I have a reverence, respect and admiration for God.

And it is this that draws us together. It is the gravity of this massive uncertainty that unites us all in this thing they call humanity.

Brett Haymaker is a pre-junior majoring in English and philosophy and is the public editor. He can be reached at publiceditor@thetriangle.org.