>ALL MY LIFE I HAVE WONDERED WHETHER GOD EXISTS. NOT WITH OCCASIONAL INTEREST, BUT WITH CONSTANT CONCERN. EVEN NOW, AFTER STRUGGLING THROUGH FIVE DECADES OF HOPE AND DOUBT, ALL I KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT MOST PEOPLE CLAIM TO KNOW WHETHER GOD EXISTS, BUT I DO NOT. I DO KNOW ALL THE ARGUMENTS. I HAVE HEARD THE BEST FROM BOTH SIDES. GOD EXISTS. GOD DOES NOT EXIST. AND I FIND FLAWS AND FALLACIES IN BOTH SIDES. SO NOW I STEP AWAY FROM ARGUMENTS ABOUT GOD AND I FOCUS ON METHOD AND PROCESS. HOW TO APPROACH GOD'S EXISTENCE. HOW TO THINK ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE. I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT HOW. I'M LOOKING FOR NEW WAYS TO THINK ABOUT GOD. SO I BEGIN IN CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS AT THE HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL WITH PHILOSOPHY THEOLOGIAN, PHILIP CLAYTON. PHIL'S NEW THINKING IN RELIGION IS GROUNDED ON THE BEDROCK OF SCIENCE AND HE IS NOT AFRAID TO CHALLENGE TRADITION. PHILIP, I AM DEEPLY INTERESTED IN THE QUESTION - DOES GOD EXIST? IF I COME TO YOU AS A PHILOSOPHER, ASKING YOU HOW SHOULD I THINK ABOUT THIS QUESTION - WHAT IS YOUR ADVICE? >>I SUPPOSE I HAVE AN ANSWER THAT WILL SEEM SURPRISING FOR A PHILOSOPHER WHO IS ALSO A THEIST. I APPROACH THE QUESTION FROM THE PROBABILITY THAT THERE IS NO GOD. I DON'T HAVE TO SAY TOO MUCH ABOUT THAT FOR PEOPLE IN A SCIENTIFIC AGE, THERE SEEM TO BE MANY REASONS TO DOUBT THAT WE COULD KNOW THERE IS A GOD. THERE IS A PROBLEM OF EVIL WHICH MAKES US WONDER HOW ALL THE EVIL AND SUFFERING OF THE WORLD IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. YET, AS HUMANS, WE SEEM TO BE PRE-OCCUPIED WITH THIS NOTION. A GOD, A HIGHEST REALITY BRACHMAN IN THE HINDU TRADITION. CONSCIOUSNESS. MAYBE THE IDEA OF GOD EXISTS JUST BECAUSE IT SERVES A FUNCTION. IT EXPRESSES THE IDEA OF MORAL PERFECTION PERHAPS, IT EXPRESSES THE IDEA OF THE COMPLETION OF REASON. ALL THESE FUNCTIONS THAT THE NOTION GOD MIGHT HAVE. AND THEN AT THE VERY END OF THE DAY, I WOULD SAY, HMMM, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS IDEA OF GOD IS SOMETHING MORE THAN A MERELY FUNCTIONAL IDEA? COULD IT BE THAT UNDER THIS WORLD AS WE FIND IT, THERE IS SOME SORT OF DEEPER REALITY? WE SEEM TO BE AN ANIMAL THAT IS PRE-OCCUPIED WITH THIS POSSIBILITY. WE THINK ABOUT LIFE, WE THINK ABOUT QUESTIONS OF DEATH AND SIGNIFICANCE AND MORAL STRIVING AND SO FORTH AND I THINK IT'S OUR FATE, OUR HERITAGE AND OUR GREAT PRIVILEGE AS HOMO SAPIENS TO RAISE THIS QUESTION. ACTUALLY I DON'T THINK THAT PHILOSOPHY IS A TECHNICAL DISCIPLINE AT ALL. I THINK EVERY ANIMAL THAT KNOWS IT WILL DIE, EVERY ONE OF US, HE OR SHE, IS A PHILOSOPHER AND RAISES THIS QUESTION - COULD THERE BE A DEEPER DIMENSION OF REALITY? >SO, YOU ARE SAYING THAT IT IS THE AWARENESS OF DEATH, POTENTIALLY, THAT IS THE KEY ENERGIZER IN THE HUMAN LONGINGS TO ASK THE GOD QUESTION. QUESTION - HOW, IF AT ALL, CAN WE NOW MAKE THE STEP FROM THE LONGING TO THE ASSESSMENT? IS THERE ANY PROGRESS THAT CAN BE MADE? >>FOR ME, THE INTERESTING DEBATE ABOUT THE QUESTION OF GOD WOULD BE TO TAKE ALL THE DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND TO ASK, ONE BY ONE, DO WE SEE IN THIS DIMENSION ANY -LET'S CALL IT "INTIMATIONS OF TRANSCENDENCE". SCIENCE, MORALITY, BUT ALSO AESTHETICS. THE HISTORY OF ART AND CULTURE. IT'S A FANTASTIC QUEST AND I THINK IT IS SO DEEPLY INTEGRATED WITH OUR HUMANITY THAT I CAN'T IMAGINE BEING HUMAN WITHOUT RAISING THIS QUESTION, WHICH I WOULD CALL "THE QUESTION OF GOD". >PHIL'S NEW THINKING ABOUT GOD, REJECTS GOD IN ORDER TO FIND GOD AFRESH. HE DOES THIS BY EXPLORING HUMAN EXISTENCE, THE CERTAINTY OF DEATH, HINTS OF TRANSCENDENCE. HE THEN SEEKS GOD AS THE GROUND OF THAT TRANSCENDENCE. PHIL IS CRITICIZED BY BOTH SIDES. THEOLOGIANS CLAIM HE IS TOO DEFERENTIAL TO SCIENCE. SCIENTISTS CLAIM HE IS WASTING HIS TIME WITH RELIGION. PHIL, GOOD FOR YOU. BUT WHY DO MOST SCIENTISTS DISMISS ALL RELIGIOUS RAMBLINGS? IT'S TOO SOFT AND TOO CREDULOUS THEY SAY. THEY DEMAND EVIDENCE, HARD AND SURE, THAT IS THEIR METHOD. I LIKE EVIDENCE, SO I VISIT ATHEISTIC PHYSICIST, VICTOR STENGER, WHO HAS MADE IT HIS MISSION TO DENY AND DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. >>WELL, FIRST OF ALL, AS A SCIENTIST, I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. THE ONLY REALLY SERIOUS WAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DISCOVER THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY IS GETTING THAT KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION ABOUT REALITY, IS BY OBSERVATION. BY THE OBSERVATIONS OF OUR OWN TWO EYES AND ALSO BY THE OBSERVATIONS WE MAKE WITH OUR SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS. AND IF GOD IS A CENTRAL FIGURE OF ALL EXISTENCE, THAT MANY BELIEVERS THINK HE IS, THEN YOU WOULD IMAGINE THAT YOU COULD FIND OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE FOR HIS EXISTENCE. >IS IT NATURAL TO SUBJECT SOMETHING THAT BY DEFINITION IS IMMATERIAL TO THE TECHNIQUES AND METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE WHICH IS FOCUSED ON THE MATERIAL WORLD? >>YEAH, I THINK SO BECAUSE BASICALLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS YOU ARE STILL LOOKING AT MATERIAL THINGS. YOU ARE STILL USING WHAT IS CALLED "MYTHOLOGICAL NATURALISM" WITHOUT ASSUMING AN ANTHOLOGICAL NATURALISM, WITHOUT ASSUMING THAT THE REALITY BEHIND IT IS NECESSARILY MATERIALISTIC IN NATURE. THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENT THAT YOU HEAR FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS THAT YOU CAN'T SEE HOW ALL OF THIS COULD HAPPEN NATURALLY, SO THEREFORE IT MUST BE SUPERNATURAL. THAT IS THE GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUMENT. THE ARGUMENT THAT SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING AND HERE IS THIS PARTICULAR GAP IN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, SO THEREFORE YOU CAN FIT GOD IN THERE. IT IS KIND OF AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. JUST BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO EXPLAIN SOME PHENOMENON NATURALLY, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT SCIENCE MIGHT SOMEDAY NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT. RIGHT DOWN THE LIST YOU CAN FIND EXAMPLES OF WHERE GAPS IN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE HAVE EXISTED AND AT THE TIME, WE ARE PLAUSIBLE SOURCES OF GOD'S INTERVENTION AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN THEY HAVE BEEN CLOSED BY SOMEONE, BY PEOPLE LIKE DARWIN. WE DON'T BELIEVE IN BIG FOOT JUST BECAUSE BIG FOOT IS POSSIBLE. WE DON'T BELIEVE IN HIM BECAUSE THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR HIM. LOCKNESS MONSTER AND SO ON. WHY IS GOD ANY DIFFERENT? >VICTOR IS A SCIENTIST. A SCIENTIST REQUIRES EVIDENCE. AND AS FOR GOD, VIC SAYS, ALL THE APPARENT EVIDENCE HAS VANISHED OR WILL VANISH. I CANNOT DISAGREE. WHAT USED TO PASS FOR PROVING GOD, HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG. SO WHY THEN CAN'T I LEAP TO THE LOGIC OF, THEREFORE, GOD DOESN'T EXIST? SOMETHING IS MISSING, I SENSE. I AM NOT ALONE, MANY SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD. WHY? WHAT IS THEIR METHOD? TO FIND OUT, I GO TO BERKELEY TO ASK ROBERT JOHN RUSSELL, A MINISTER WITH A DOCTORATE IN PHYSICS. BOB, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SOPHISTICATED PHILOSOPHERS, THEOLOGIANS WHO BELIEVE IN GOD? WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS THEY ARE USING TODAY? >>IN SOME WAYS THEY ARE USING THE ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT - THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS THE BEST EVIDENCE FOR GOD. A LOT OF THEM ARE USING SCIENCE. TO SAY, LOOK, SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES CONCLUSIVELY THE RATIONALITY AND INTELLIGIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSE. IT ISN'T JUST THAT IT EXISTS, BUT IT EXISTS IN A WAY THAT WE CAN KNOW IT. AND THAT ITSELF IS AN ASTONISHING FACT. >SO LET'S EXPLORE THAT AND WHY THAT WOULD PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS. I MEAN, IT IS ALMOST A TAUTOLOGY AS WE MIGHT SAY, TO SAY THAT WE UNDERSTAND IT, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS. >>THIS IS NOT A PROOF, BUT IT IS A KIND OF ARGUMENT FOR INFERENCE TOWARDS THE BEST POSSIBLE EXPLANATION. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN MAKE A CASE THAT THE BEST POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF ANY UNIVERSE EXISTING IS GOD. WE HAVE NO EYEWITNESS TO GOD'S EXISTENCE. WE HAVE CHARACTER WITNESSES. IF THE UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE THE KIND OF THING THAT GOD WOULD HAVE CREATED, THAN IT'S A REASON FOR TIPPING TOWARDS GOD VERSUS AWAY FROM. >IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE MAKING A PRE-SUPPOSITION THAT GOD EXISTS AND THEN LOOKING AROUND TO SEE THINGS THAT CONFIRM THAT PRE-SUPPOSITION AS OPPOSED TO STARTING WITH A BLANK SLATE AND SEEING WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE ENTAIL. >>WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THE BLANK SLATE IDEA IS A KIND OF MODERN VIEW WHICH DOESN'T GET FAR BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BLANK SLATES. YOU ALWAYS START WITH PRE-SUPPOSITIONS. YOU BEGIN WITH A FAITH ASSUMPTION, A PRE-SUPPOSITION, GOD EXISTS OR GOD DOESN'T EXIST. AND THEN YOU LOOK TO SEE HOW MUCH OF THE WORLD AS YOU KNOW IT, THROUGH EXPERIENCE OF HISTORY AND LIFE AND SCIENCE, TENDS TO PROVIDE CONFIRMING OR SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. HOW MUCH GOES AGAINST THAT. SO AGAIN, NOT JUST THAT THE UNIVERSE EXISTS, BUT IT IS FINE TUNED AND IT'S INTELLIGIBLE, ARE ARGUMENTS THAT PEOPLE TYPICALLY BRING ABOUT IN THE SENSE OF INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION. OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE COUNTER ARGUMENTS IS THE PRESENCE OF EVIL AND SUFFERING AND WHY BAD THINGS, TERRIBLE THINGS, HAPPEN TO DECENT PEOPLE AND WHY GOOD THINGS HAPPEN TO TERRIBLE PEOPLE. AND SO THERE IS A STRONG BODY OF EVIDENCE - IT'S NOT EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM IN SOME CONCLUSIVE SENSE, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS CONTRAVENING EVIDENCE AGAINST THE GOODNESS OF THE UNIVERSE AND US BEING HERE. AND THAT IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM FOR THEISTS. I WANT TO GO TO AN ARGUMENT OF JOHN HICK, A DISTINGUISHED PHILOSOPHER AND ABOUT, HE CALLS IT EPISTEMIC DISTANCE. HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE WORLD HAS TO BE FINELY BALANCED. YOU WALK OUT ON THE PLAYING FIELD AND THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST GOD. IT HAS BE A WORLD WITH RANDOMNESS. GOOD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD AND BAD PEOPLE. THE WORLD WE ARE EXPOSED TO. THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY THE WORLD YOU NEED BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WORLD IN WHICH YOU COULD REALLY GROW AND MATURE AS A PERSON OF CONVICTION. WHETHER THE CONVICTION IS GOD OR NOT GOD. OTHERWISE YOU WOULD BE A PUPPET. I MEAN, IF GOD WERE SO SELF-EVIDENT IN EXISTENCE, THERE WOULD BE NO RELATION OF LOVE, OF COVENANT, OF CHOICE. IT WOULDN'T BE FREE, IT WOULD BE FORCED. >EVEN IF YOU WERE LITERALLY FREE TO DO WHAT YOU WANTED BUT GOD WAS SO OBVIOUS THAT YOU KINDA COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. >>EXACTLY. SO WHAT HICK IS SAYING, IS THAT THIS WORLD IS ACTUALLY JUST ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IF IT WERE A WORLD IN WHICH GOD CREATED IT WITH THIS AMBIGUITY BUT BECAUSE GOD WANTS US TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, THE CHALLENGE TO MORALLY GROW. TO SPIRITUALLY GROW. >AND YOU CALL THIS "EPISTEMIC DISTANCE". >>RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE IS A DISCONNECT. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD'S EXISTENCE IS DISCONNECTED FROM THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE OF THE WORLD. IT'S VERY SUBTLE. I TEND TO SAY, THAT IS WHY SCIENCE EXISTS. SCIENCE IS POSSIBLE IN A WORLD WITH EPISTEMIC DISTANCE, SO THE TRICK IS, GOD CREATES THE WORLD FOR MORAL OR SPIRITUAL REASONS WITH EPISTEMIC DISTANCE, BUT THAT ALSO GIVES YOU THE POSSIBILITY OF SCIENCE. BECAUSE SCIENCE IS BASED ON METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN STUDY THE WORLD WITHOUT IT BEING TO GOD. SO IF THE WORLD IS EPISTEMICALLY DISTANT, THAT IS, IF IT'S THIS AMBIGUOUS PLAYING FIELD, IT'S ALSO ONE IN WHICH YOU CAN LEARN ABOUT THE WORLD THROUGH SCIENCE AND SCIENCE DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE GOD IS ACTOR ON THE WORLD. >BOB BELIEVES THAT THE WORLD IS ORDERED SO AS TO ENABLE HUMAN STRUGGLE AND PROGRESS. AS A SCIENTIST WHO BELIEVES IN GOD, BOB SEES SCIENCE AS A PATH TO GOD, NOT A WAY. NOT AS PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE, BUT AS CORROBORATION OR CONFIRMATION. THAT IS THE PROCESS BOB FOLLOWS. EMOTIONALLY, PERSONALLY, I'M WITH BOB. ANALYTICALLY, RATIONALLY - HELP, I NEED A SKEPTIC. ONE OF MY FAVORITES IS MICHAEL SHERMER. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF SKEPTIC MAGAZINE WITH A DOCTORATE IN HISTORY OF SCIENCE. WHAT I LIKE ABOUT MICHAEL IS THAT HE WORKS TO UNDERSTAND THE METHODS AND PROCESS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS. >>OUR POSITION IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS, THAT THERE IS NO GOD AND THE BURDEN IS ON THE BELIEVER TO PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND SO OUR POSITION IS THAT OF THE SCIENTIST. >SO, HOW DO YOU ENGAGE IN THE DEBATE? >>I THINK THERE IS TWO APPROACHES. ONE, YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR SPECIFIC CLAIMS ARE AND THE EVIDENCES FOR THEM AND THE BEST ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE AND THEN I WILL RESPOND TO THOSE. TWO, I THINK THERE IS POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE IDEA THAT HUMANS CONSTRUCTED GOD AND RELIGION, NOT VICE VERSA. AND SO WHAT ARE THOSE EVIDENCES? AND I POINT TO THE SOCIOLOGY RELIGION, ANTHROPOLOGY RELIGION, THE PSYCHOLOGY RELIGION AND THE FACT THAT HISTORICALLY WE HAVE CONSTRUCTED ALL SORTS OF RELIGIONS AND GODS AND TO ME, THERE IS POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THAT. AS OPPOSED TO EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL BEING. >HISTORICALLY, THEOLOGIANS AND PHILOSOPHERS OF THEOLOGY HAVE PUT FORTH A SERIES OF ARGUMENTS. DO YOU LIKE ANY OF THEM? >>IF YOU ALREADY BELIEVE THEY ARE REASONABLE ARGUMENTS, IF YOU DON'T, THEY ARE NOT. AND THEY ARE JUST INTERESTING APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING THESE ULTIMATE KINDS OF QUESTIONS THAT I THINK OUR HUMAN BRAIN IS BIG ENOUGH TO CONTEMPLATE AND ASK, BUT NOT BIG ENOUGH TO ANSWER. >SO YOUR OWN VIEW SOUNDS TO ME MORE AGNOSTIC THAN AFFIRMATIVELY ATHEISTIC. >>IN THIS SENSE, I'M AGNOSTIC AS HUXLEY MEANT IT. THAT GOD'S EXISTENCE IS NOT A SOLUBLE PROBLEM BY SCIENCE. SCIENCE CANNOT ADJUDICATE THE GOD QUESTION ON THE TERMS OF EXISTENCE. > DO YOU THINK THE GOD QUESTION IS A LEGITIMATE ONE? THAT WE SHOULD FACE IN SOCIETY? >>OH SURE, PERSONALLY I THINK EVERYONE MUST CONFRONT THE ULTIMATE SORT OF STATE OF BEING. WHY AM I HERE? WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? THAT SORT OF THING. ANY THOUGHTFUL PERSON SHOULD AT LEAST THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS. BUT ALSO READ WHAT ALL THE GREAT MINDS HAVE SAID ABOUT IT AND WHEN YOU DO THAT, TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE, WOW, NO ONE HAS GOT THE ANSWER. THERE IS JUST A WHOLE BUNCH DIFFERENT POSITIONS AND I THINK AS A QUESTION OF FAITH, IT DOES COME DOWN TO A PERSONAL CHOICE THAT CANNOT BE RESOLVED THROUGH SOME COLLECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR SET OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. >BUT IN REALITY THERE IS ONE TRUTH. >>YEAH. I WOULD BE SURPRISED AT THIS POINT IN MY LIFE IF THERE WAS A GOD. SO I ASSUME THERE ISN'T AND I'M A NON-THEIST. I WOULD BE SHOCKED IN FACT, IF WHEN I DIED, THERE IT WAS, THE GATES - THE PEARLY GATES, THE GUY WITH BEARD - I WOULD BE, OH MY GOD, OKAY, GEEZ, I WAS REALLY WRONG. I REALLY SCREWED UP. BUT FRANKLY, COME ON, LET'S BE HONEST. IT'S SO ANTHROPOCENTRIC. IT'S SUCH A HUMAN STORY THAT THE CHANCES OF THAT BEING THE CASE ARE, I DON'T THINK, TOO GOOD. >MICHAEL AND I THINK SO MUCH ALIKE. HE WOULD ALMOST CONVERT ME. YES, I CANNOT RID MYSELF OF AN INTUITIVE SENSE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING MORE TO EXISTENCE THAT GOD OR SOMETHING LIKE GOD MAY EXIST. BUT IN THIS ULTIMATE HIGH COURT IS INTUITIVE SENSE, ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE? THAT'S A RABBINICAL QUESTION. SO I GO TO NEW YORK TO YESHIVA UNIVERSITY. TO MEET DAVID SHATZ, A RABBI AND A PHILOSOPHER. IF I REMAIN RATIONAL, I ASK DAVID, CAN I BELIEVE IN GOD? >>THERE REALLY ARE TWO KINDS OF RATIONALITY. ONE IS YOU CAN CALL COGNITIVE RATIONALITY OR EPISTEMIC RATIONALITY, WHERE YOU BASE YOUR BELIEFS UPON THE EVIDENCE THAT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU. BUT THERE IS ALSO A DIFFERENT KIND OF RATIONALITY AND THAT IS PRAGMATIC RATIONALITY. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT SORTS OF ENDEAVORS WILL BRING YOU THE GREATEST REWARDS? AND THAT IS TO SAY THAT THE REASONS TO BELIEVE IN RELIGION ARE PARTLY ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS ALSO PARTLY ABOUT THE BENEFITS THAT RELIGION OFFERS TO YOU. THERE IS A POWERFUL, POWERFUL ESSAY BY WILLIAM JAMES - THE WILL TO BELIEVE, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY A CLASSIC OF PHILOSOPHY. JAMES' ARGUMENT IS THAT SOMETIMES IN LIFE YOU CONFRONT THE FOLLOWING KIND OF SITUATION, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO BELIEF SYSTEMS. IT IS A CHOICE IN WHICH THERE IS SOME APPEAL THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE TO YOU AND IT'S AN OPTION THAT HE CALLS FORCED, IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU DECIDE TO SIT ON THE FENCE, THEN YOU HAVE SORT OF MADE A DECISION THAT IS GOING TO BE JUST THE SAME AS IF YOU HAD DECIDED AGAINST IT. IT'S LIKE YOU SEE SOMEBODY DROWNING AND YOU SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I CAN'T DECIDE WHETHER TO GO AND SAVE THEM. WELL, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE PERSON IS GOING TO DROWN, THAT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF YOU NOT GOING IN TO SAVE THEM. AND JAMES SAYS, WHENEVER YOU HAVE THESE - THIS COMBINATION, LIVE, MEANING THAT THE OPTIONS HAVE SOME APPEAL. MOMENTOUS, IMPORTANT. AND FORCED. THOSE THREE CATEGORIES. YOU HAVE WHAT HE CALLS A GENUINE OPTION. HE LAYS OUT VERY NICELY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SCIENTIST AND THE BELIEVER. THE SCIENTIST IS VERY AFRAID OF ERROR. HE DOESN'T WANT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING FOR WHICH HE DOESN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. THE BELIEVER IS FULL OF HOPE. AND THEREFORE, THE BELIEVER WILL OPT TO BELIEVE IN GOD. THE SCIENTIST WILL OPT TO BET OTHERWISE. WHAT JAMES IS SAYING IS THAT BOTH THE SCIENTIST AND THE BELIEVER ARE REALLY WORKING FROM AN EMOTIONAL OR PASSIONAL STANCE. AND AS HE PUTS IT BEAUTIFULLY, HE SAYS, "DUPERY FOR DUPERY, WHAT PROOF IS THERE THAT DUPERY THROUGH HOPE IS SO MUCH WORSE THAN DUPERY THROUGH FEAR?" BOTH THE SCIENTIST AND THE RELIGIOUS PERSON ARE REALLY ACTING ON THEIR EMOTIONS, ON THEIR PASSIONS. >SO WHAT DO YOU DO? WHAT IS HE SAYING? THEY ARE BOTH LEGITIMATE? THEY ARE BOTH ILLEGITIMATE. >>IT IS LEGITIMATE TO DECIDE BASED ON YOUR PASSIONAL NATURE, SO REALLY THE OPTIONS ARE BEFORE YOU AND YOU CAN DECIDE ON THE BASIS OF YOUR OWN PRAGMATIC CONSIDERATIONS. BUT THE BELIEVER IS CERTAINLY JUSTIFIED IN MOVING AHEAD, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, HE DOES THINK THAT THE BENEFITS THAT RELIGION BRINGS ARE FAR GREATER THAN THE BENEFITS THAT YOU GET IF YOU DON'T INVOLVE YOURSELF WITH RELIGION. >BUT ISN'T THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT IS A COMBINATION OF WISHFUL THINKING AND SORT OF PSYCHOSOMATIC ENGENDERING OF EMOTIONAL WELL BEING AND NOT TIED TO SOME ULTIMATE REALITY. >>RIGHT, RIGHT. SOME PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY CALLED THIS ABOUT THE WILL TO WISH. THERE IS A VERY DIFFICULT LINE TO DRAW BETWEEN WHAT IS WISHFUL THINKING AND WHAT IS LEGITIMATE THINKING. BUT IT'S A LEGITIMATE ISSUE. >SO IS MY INTUITIVE SENSE OF GOD JUSTIFIED OR JUST RATIONALIZED? PERHAPS I HAVE ONLY SUCCEEDED IN FOOLING MYSELF. I FEARED FOOLING MYSELF. THAT IS WHY I GO TO NOTRE DAME TO ASK PETER VAN INWAGON, A TOUGH MINDED METAPHYSICS PHILOSOPHER WHO, EVEN THOUGH A BELIEVE HIMSELF, REJECTS ARGUMENTS FOR GOD THAT DO NOT WORK. HOW DOES PETER THINK ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE? >>SO WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOD WHEN I LOOK AT THE WORLD AND IT DOESN'T FORCE ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS GOD, OR IT ISN'T OBVIOUSLY THE BEST EXPLANATION. I WOULD JUST HAVE TO ASK WHAT THE GENERAL EPISTOMOLOGICAL RULE IS HERE. THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE IN SOMETHING UNLESS YOUR EXPERIENCE FORCES THIS HYPOTHESIS ON YOU IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE TRUTH? I DON'T SEE WHY, IF IT'S ALRIGHT SAY, TO BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE FOR THIS POLITICAL PARTY EVEN THOUGH THIS ISN'T FORCED ON YOU BY YOUR EXPERIENCE, THEN WHY ISN'T IT ALRIGHT TO BELIEVE IN GOD WHEN IT ISN'T FORCED ON YOU ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE? >BUT ISN'T GOD'S EXISTENCE SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN ALMOST ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN THINK ABOUT, POLITICS, ART, OTHER KINDS OF THINGS? WE ARE DEALING WITH TRYING TO GET TO SOME FUNDAMENTAL REALITY, NOT JUST AN OPINION OF WHAT IS GOOD OR BEST. >>SOMETHING, SOME BELIEF THAT YOU HAVE, EITHER GOES BEYOND THE EVIDENCE OR IT DOESN'T. I DON'T SEE IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT IT'S ABOUT OR WHAT IT'S CONTENT IS, EITHER THERE IS A RULE THAT SAYS YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE THINGS THAT GO BEYOND THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE OR THERE IS A RULE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT GO BEYOND THE EVIDENCE. >SO WHAT FOLLOWS FROM THAT? WHAT CAN WE THEN INFER TO THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER GOD EXISTS? >>WELL, I DON'T PRESUME TO TELL ANYBODY ABOUT HOW TO THINK ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT I HAVE A COUPLE NEGATIVE ADMONITIONS, ONE OF THEM WOULD BE, DON'T HAVE THIS DOUBLE STANDARD. THAT IS, DON'T TELL PEOPLE THAT IT'S WRONG TO HAVE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT GO BEYOND THE EVIDENCE, BUT OKAY TO HAVE SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS OR POLITICAL BELIEFS OR PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS THAT GO BEYOND THE EVIDENCE. OBVIOUSLY ALMOST ALL BELIEFS THAT MY FELLOW PHILOSOPHERS HAVE MUST HAVE BELIEFS THAT GO BEYOND THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEY ALL DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER AND THEY ALL HAVE ACCESS TO MORE OR LESS THE SAME - WHATEVER EVIDENCE MAY BE IN PHILOSOPHY I GUESS, ARGUMENTS, PIECES OF PHILOSOPHICAL TEXTS, THEY ALMOST GO BEYOND IT. I DON'T SEE WHY THAT ISN'T ALLOWED TO PEOPLE IN RELIGION AS WELL. I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T WANT THAT LICENSE OR LIBERTY TO BE DENIED THE PEOPLE IN THE CASE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ALONE. >IT WASN'T LONG AFTER MY BAR MITZVAH, THE JEWISH TRADITION OF BECOMING A RESPONSIBLE ADULT AT AGE 13, THAT GOD GOT MY ATTENTION. NOT AS SOME RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE MIND YOU, BUT AS AN INTELLECTUAL SEARCH. FOR DECADES, I HAVE ENJOYED ALL THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST GOD. BUT AFTER ALL MY STRIVINGS, I AM FEELING STILL AT SEA WITH WOBBLY LEGS ON THE BATTERED BOAT OF MY BELIEFS. THAT IS WHY I SHIFT TO, HOW TO THINK ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE, BUT WHAT I FIND IS DISCOURAGING. SMART SINCERE PEOPLE BELIEVE OR DISBELIEVE UNRELATED TO SOUND METHOD OR CLEAR PROCESS. RATHER, THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY ALREADY ASSUME TO BE TRUE, THEIR PRE-EXISTING BELIEF SYSTEMS. SO HOW DO I THINK ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE? I DO NOT FEAR TO HOPE BEYOND EVIDENCE, BUT I DREAD CONTORTING EVIDENCE INTO SUSTAINING FALSE BELIEF. ALL I REALLY KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT PURSUING GOD'S EXISTENCE RELENTLESSLY IS SOMETHING I CANNOT NOT DO. STILL FOR ME, THAT'S CLOSER TO TRUTH.
