The Evidence of Life

“The God Delusion” is a popular book by Richard Dawkins. Recently I responded to Dawkin’s question on Substack Notes asking “What do religious people think I got wrong in “The God Delusion”?

I read the book about 5 years back. If you ask me if I believe in God, my answer is, “Yes, I do believe in God without a doubt.” I couldn’t read the complete book because there were just too many irrational statements in the book which was a turn down.

Below is the thread that I am talking about.

You can read the original thread on Substack here.

When I posted this response, I expected that one thing would happen for sure. That someone would come to counter it. I don’t have problem if one counters rationally. But the problem is about a pattern which I have observed quite frequently. No matter what the context of a discussion, it is sure that the unbeliever will bring it down to this — Give me the proof of God.

Imagine dealing with these types of comments on a daily basis. It is practically impossible to trying to explain to every other person who keeps on asking the proof of God.

The primary motivation behind almost all of them is that “Science has not proved God’s existence. So I don’t believe in a God.”

Science is cool. But simply because science did not prove anything doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. This is not a made-up statement, but a widely accepted principle in both science and philosophy called scientific skepticism or epistemological humility.

This means that just because something hasn’t been proven or observed by science yet, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Here are a few points to elaborate on this:

1. Limitations of Current Science: Our scientific knowledge and technology are continually advancing. There are many phenomena that we do not yet have the tools or understanding to investigate fully.
2. Historical Examples: History is full of examples where scientific discoveries have changed our understanding of the world. For instance, the existence of microorganisms was unknown until the invention of the microscope.
3. Open-minded Skepticism: While science relies on evidence and reproducibility, it also values skepticism and open-mindedness. The scientific method encourages questioning and testing hypotheses, which means being open to new evidence as it becomes available.
4. Philosophical Stance: Philosophically, this concept aligns with epistemological humility, recognizing the limits of our knowledge and understanding that our current evidence is not exhaustive.

In this post, we delve into the intriguing question: Can life itself be used as evidence to prove the existence of God? This exploration will take us through philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives, followed by a critical examination of counterarguments.

Part 1 — The Philosophical Perspective

1. Teleological Argument: This argument, also known as the argument from design, suggests that the complexity and order observed in life and the universe imply a purposeful creation by an intelligent designer, which many interpret as God. The intricacies of biological systems, such as the human eye or the DNA molecule, are often cited as examples of this complexity.

• Photo by julien Tromeur on Unsplash

1. Existential Reflection: Some philosophers argue that the very experience of life, with its sense of purpose, beauty, and morality, points towards a higher power. The inherent drive in humans to seek meaning and transcendence is seen as an indication of a divine source.

Part 2 — The Theological Perspective

1. Religious Texts: Many religious traditions hold that life itself is a gift from God, and the existence of life is a testament to God’s creative power. Scriptures from various faiths often describe the creation of life as an act of divine will.
2. Miracles and Revelations: Believers often cite miracles and personal experiences of divine intervention as evidence of God’s presence in life. These accounts are considered proof by those who experience them, though they are often subjective.

Part 3 — The Scientific Perspective

1. Fine-Tuning of the Universe: Some scientists argue that the precise conditions necessary for life to exist (such as the constants of physics and the properties of the universe) suggest an underlying purpose or design, which could imply the existence of a creator.

Photo by Mark Tegethoff on Unsplash

1. Origin of Life: The question of how life originated from non-living matter is still one of the great mysteries in science. Some argue that the improbability of life arising by chance points to a divine cause.

Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash

Part 4 — Counterarguments

1. Naturalistic Explanations: Many scientists and philosophers argue that life can be fully explained through natural processes, such as evolution by natural selection, without the need to invoke a divine being.
2. Subjectivity and Confirmation Bias: Skeptics point out that interpretations of life as evidence for God are often influenced by cultural and psychological factors. People may see what they want to see based on their beliefs and experiences.

Photo by Anastasiya Badun on Unsplash

Naturalistic Explanations

1. Limitations of Scientific Understanding:

• Incompleteness of Current Knowledge: The assertion that life can be fully explained through natural processes, such as evolution, may be premature. Our current understanding of the origins of life and the complexities of biological systems is still incomplete. There are many gaps and unanswered questions in the naturalistic framework that might suggest the involvement of a higher power.
• Irreducible Complexity: Some biological structures and systems exhibit irreducible complexity, where all parts must be present simultaneously for the system to function. This poses a challenge to gradual evolutionary explanations and suggests the possibility of an intelligent designer.

Blood Clotting Cascade: The process of blood clotting involves a series of complex steps and proteins that interact in a precise sequence. If any part of this cascade is missing, blood clotting will not occur properly. Photo by digitale.de on Unsplash.

Bacterial Flagellum: The bacterial flagellum is a complex motor-like structure that propels bacteria. It requires multiple protein components to function, and the absence of any one component renders the flagellum ineffective.

Eye Structure: The vertebrate eye requires all of its parts, such as the retina, lens, and optic nerve, to work together to enable vision. The absence or malfunction of any part can impair the ability to see. Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash.

Cilium: Cilia are hair-like structures on the surface of cells that move fluid or cells. They require coordinated action of multiple proteins and structures to function effectively.

1. Philosophical Naturalism vs. Methodological Naturalism:

• Assumption of Naturalism: Critics of naturalistic explanations argue that methodological naturalism (the approach of seeking natural explanations for phenomena) is often conflated with philosophical naturalism (the belief that only natural processes exist). This assumption may bias scientific interpretations against the possibility of divine involvement.
• Existential and Moral Questions: Naturalistic explanations often fall short in addressing existential questions about meaning, purpose, and morality. These aspects of human experience are difficult to explain purely through naturalistic means, suggesting the need for a broader, possibly theological, framework.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Subjectivity and Confirmation Bias

1. Subjectivity in Naturalistic Interpretations:

• Bias in Skepticism: Skeptics may also exhibit confirmation bias by interpreting evidence through a naturalistic lens, discounting any possibility of divine involvement. Just as believers may see what they want to see, skeptics might do the same by dismissing evidence that could suggest a higher power.
• Personal Experience: Dismissing personal experiences of divine intervention as mere psychological phenomena overlooks the profound impact these experiences have on individuals. Such experiences often bring about significant positive changes in people’s lives, suggesting that they might hold more weight than skeptics acknowledge.

1. Broader Evidence Considerations:

• Holistic Evidence: The argument that life as evidence for God is subjective and culturally influenced fails to account for the cumulative and cross-cultural nature of theistic experiences. Throughout history and across cultures, many individuals have reported experiences that they interpret as encounters with the divine, suggesting a common thread that transcends individual biases.
• Inadequacy of Purely Empirical Approaches: Empirical science, while powerful, has its limits, especially when addressing questions about meaning, purpose, and ultimate reality. Philosophical and theological perspectives provide complementary insights that empirical methods alone might not capture.

Photo by Vedrana Filipović on Unsplash

Conclusion

While naturalistic explanations and the critique of subjectivity offer valuable perspectives, they also have limitations and biases that must be considered. A comprehensive understanding of life and its implications may require integrating insights from science, philosophy, and theology. Dismissing life as evidence for God based solely on naturalistic and skeptical grounds may overlook important dimensions of human experience and understanding.