Defending Bill O'Reilly

Already the title of this blog has me cringing, but in this instance, I feel that Mr. O'Reilly, the Fox News scion of conservative bombast needs someone to agree with him that is not in his camp.

Recently Mr. O'Reilly posted a video commentary positing that the motion of the tides was proof of God's existance. Apparently some people took issue with this statement and called him on it, to which Mr. O'Reilly posted this response:

Bill O'Reilly on the Tides

Essentially, Mr. O'Reilly states that while we know that the moon causes the tides, we don't know where the moon came from, or where the solar system came from or anything.

Well, scientists were quick to jump all over these statements and label them as typical ignorant conservative creationist-theory rhetoric, thus perpetuating the kind of polarizing debate that Fox News and Mr. O'Reilly thrive upon.

But what is missed in this type of black and white, either/or debate is the subtlety that I think Mr. O'Reilly actually was pointing out, which is that while science can indeed explain how the tides are affected by the moon, and provide theories as to how the moon came to exist as a satellite around the earth, the thing that science has yet to explain if the overriding question of "why the universe (and everything within it) exists in the first place."

The universe is a incredibly complex and wondrous place, filled with intricate systems and processes that scientists have been exploring for centuries, and will continue to explore. As humans, we have been endowed with minds that are curious and driven to continually ask "Why?" and "How come?". As we learn more, we also discover that there is ever more to learn.  In addition to our curiosity, humans have also been endowed with a remarkable capacity for faith, in essence faith is the ability to believe in things that cannot be scientifically proven, things like a greater intelligence or supreme being that is the ultimate creator of all things. This idea of a creator of the universe crosses almost all religions and cultures.

So why is it so hard to reconcile these two human capacities? Scientific exploration and faith in a supreme creator? The two are by no means mutually exclusive as some would argue, rather if we look at our scientific curiosity as a way to continually discover the incredibly sublime mechanisms and complexity of a universe that was created by an intelligence far far superior to our own, then these two human capacities of curiosity and faith can be reconciled.

I'll take the analogy down a few levels to where it is more clear for me to understand, maybe it will help. Say I have a natural aptitude for mechanics and come across a vehicle that I have never seen before. Being curious I start to examine the vehicle, even start to disassemble and reassemble it. Along the way I discover that it runs on a certain type of fuel, that it has a navigation mechanism, that it has safety features and other systems that regulate and optimize its operation. In short, I find out all sorts of things about this vehicle except for who made it.

Obviously it was made. Obviously the vehicle exists for me to examine, disassemble and reassemble, and obviously it was manufactured somehow,,,therefore implying a manufacturer. So, even though we are unable to identify the creator of the vehicle through examining its parts, we can imply that the creator exists.

The disconnect seems to come when that same analogy is applied to natural systems and objects. A tree, for instance, has many component parts, utilizes intricate systems that facilitates its growth and development, and the tree interacts with the environment around it, which in turn presents even more intricate systems and interactions. Scientists are still exploring these inter-dependencies and systems...but none of their discoveries identifies who the creator of those systems and inter-dependencies is.

Why then, is it so unacceptable to imply that there is indeed a creator, and then continue our explorations. Nothing is lost by accepting this idea, except that in accepting the idea that there is a supreme intelligence that ultimately created everything, we become humbled and awestruck by the possibility.

This is where the real divergence takes place. Some who are awestruck by this supreme intelligence, then decide that there is no reason or merit in further exploration, and thus shut down the curious part of their minds to just accept that all things were created by God. While others, who see this kind of behavior are appalled that someone would willingly close such a valuable human capacity without question...and thus, in a kind of retaliation, shut down the idea that such a creator can exist at all.

But the divergence does not have to take place. As humans, we are capable of reconciling these two capacities, faith and curiosity, and use both to fuel and drive the other. The more we discover about the workings of the universe, the more in awe we can feel of the omnipotent power of a supreme maker.

And perhaps one of the greatest realities of this reconciliation is that the discovery process is infinite.

So Bill O'Reilly is right, we don't know...but that doesn't mean that we won't keep trying to find out more.

I Believe in God and Science.

I believe in God and Science. I also believe that religion and science are the creation of Man, and thus subject to the motivations and influences of Man. While these institutions may have been born of a profound personal conviction, they are not the definition of God.

So how do I define God?

Basically, I believe that the universe is too complex, too intricately interrelated, too beautiful and spectacular to be the product of mere random chance. I believe in a continuum of intelligence, so that just as my intelligence is greater on that continuum than that of an amoeba, so too must there be a far greater intelligence than my own.

Is it so much of a leap, then, to imagine that this far greater intelligence consciously designed the universe? Why do modern scientists dismiss the idea that complex systems and processes were the product of something greater than random chemical reaction? After all, where did the elements and chemicals come from? Why do they have the possibility of interaction in the first place?

I believe that each of us has been created with a set of tools that we can choose to use as we see fit. These tools include curiosity, intelligence, compassion, discipline, love, ambition, drive, fear, joy, passion and patience. We have the capacity to explore and study and discover the beautiful intricacies of the universe, and then, once discovered, to look for more.

We also have been given choice, and the will to choose those tools that we wish to utilize. I find it sad when someone chooses then to believe only the dogma and doctrine of what is familiar and claim that that is the end of their need to question and explore. That type of choice, to me, is tragically limiting and wastes the gifts that we have been created to use. Too often the constructs of religion and the Church have been used as a weapon to beat down these gifts in order to satisfy the very human need for power and control over others.

That is why I differentiate between Faith and Religion. Faith is that wonderful capacity in humans that allows us to believe in something greater than ourselves, and, perhaps even more important, to dream. What an incredible gift to be given, the capacity to dream and believe that there is always something more that can be discovered? Perhaps then, this ability to dream is the most tangible evidence of God we have. Who else could conceive of giving the product of millennia of innumerable chemical reactions the intangible capacity to feel the presence of an intelligence and power greater than itself?

Religion can provide guidance, solace and direction to a large number of people. In it’s purest form, an organized religion creates a safe and wholesome community that is united by shared beliefs and ideals. Unfortunately, too often religions can fall prey to the baser nature of mankind, especially the hubris, greed and lust for power that can consume even the most devout of humans. When this happens, religion is tainted and twisted into a mechanism for prejudice and hate.

I am not condemning religion, nor am I condemning those who ascribe to any specific denomination. My objection with organized religion is when the very human leadership of these religions too often choose to supress the gifts of imagination, free choice and curiosity that we have been given, and instead choose to further their own agendas of prejudice and hate through twisted doctrine and dogma.

Our lives and existence are truly miraculous things, and to ignore them is to miss a fundamental component of being human. Science may not consider itself a religion, yet it ascribes to the same ultimate purpose as any religion, to explain our own existence and all of the infinite details that that explanation entails. Discovering these details for ourselves does not lesson the greater wonder that these details were there for us to discover in the first place. Why not ask, “Who put these details there?” or, at the very least, admit that this continual cycle of the discovery of new details indicates an order and system to the universe that we have yet to discover the nature of.

Admitting to the wondrous complexity of the universe in no way diminishes our quest to explore that complexity. Admitting that this self-same complexity may be the product of a greater intelligence than our own, merely means incorporating the human capacity for faith into our consciousness and our explorations.