I Think, Therefore I Am God.

Is it possible to prove the existence of God?  Is God merely our own invention?

The Dutch philosopher René Descartes (1596 – 1650) is credited with the philosophical sound-bite:

Cogito ergo sum.

It is a Latin phrase, which in English translates to:

I think therefore I am.

Upon reading his writings, we find that Descartes was searching for truth.  Having been raised with a Jesuit education, he began to doubt all the “facts” that he had been taught.

In his advancing years, he began to devote much time to contemplating reality.  His initial goal was to reduce all that he held as factual to the absolute minimum of what he could indubitably prove, and then build up a philosophical framework.

He describes the process of reducing to the most basic indubitable truth like this.

I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions. …

I … will proceed by casting aside all that admits of the slightest doubt, not less than if I had discovered it to be absolutely false; and I will continue always in this track until I shall find something that is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing more, until I shall know with certainty that there is nothing certain.

His conclusion, as grim as it may seem, boiled down to only one single certainty:

This proposition ‘I am, I exist,’ is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me or conceived in my mind.

His mention of God is not that of a personal, loving God, but rather, something that causes:

Is there not a God, or some being, by whatever name I may designate him, who causes these thoughts to arise in my mind?

He even doubts the existence of his own body since it cannot be proven unquestionably.  One might say, however, that if I were to step on Descartes’ foot that perhaps he would believe in the reality of his body, however, Descartes asserts that he is not feeling the pain of his foot being stepped upon, but rather, he perceives the mental stimulus within his mind that tells him that his foot is in pain.  But, can he trust those impulses?

Philosophers before and since Descartes have argued about the substance and nature of reality.  Their strongest argument that reality is subjective is the phenomenon of dreams.  At night we may dream that we are being pursued by some awful creature only to awake and find it has been a figment of the imagination. 

Plato makes an interesting case for reality in a story that he presents.  In this story, a child is held in a cave.  The child is restrained in such a way that all he can see are shadows cast upon a wall.  He sees his own shadows and that of those around him.  He can never turn his head to see the three-dimensional figures of his counterparts, nor can he see any part of his own body.  Therefore, Plato suggests, after many years of this limited exposure to the world, his reality is that of two-dimensional, shadowy figures.  Furthermore, he would be incapable of comprehending the three-dimensional world if he were to be released to look about.  Plato suggests that he would turn his view back to the cave wall.

Well, a lot of scientific and medical discovery has happened since 1650.  But are scientists any closer to understanding the mind?  Are philosophers any closer to understanding reality?

I think to some degree we should keep in mind that it is not us, but someone else who determines our reality.  I mean God, of course.  We weave a web of self-deception if we believe that what we see and understand about our world is the limit of all reality. 

God, after all, is infinite; infinite in size, infinite in time, and infinite in ability.  He created a physical order which includes length, height, and width, and which is subject to the yet to be understood dimension of time.  We humans were placed within the confines of that physical order, and that has become our reality.

However, that is not the ultimate reality.  We may never understand the fullness of God’s reality, and certainly not unless He chooses to reveal it to us.  Nevertheless, I submit that when we as philosophers choose to set aside this physical order as unsubstantiated (that is – as unreal), then we begin to encroach upon blasphemy.  And it certainly becomes blasphemy if we fail to acknowledge God’s role in defining all things.

This is the world in which God placed us.  This is the reality that we are subject to.  Descartes presumed that reality might be nothing more than mental perceptions – and those perceptions could be real or imagined.  Since he could not prove them, he presumed them to be false. 

The Matrix

Those of you who know me know that I am a science-fiction fan.  Several of my friends suggested that I see or rent “The Matrix.”  Well, I figure if I waited long enough it would come on TV.  Sure enough, it came on last month.  It’s a fascinating movie, and it has been out long enough that I don’t think I will spoil the ending by sharing some of the scenes with you.

In this movie, all humans except for a few are oblivious to the fact that they are merely batteries for “the matrix”; a giant self-sustaining computer that exists to exist.  It is growing humans in little egg like shells.  There, the humans are more or less comatose and have a cable implant in the back of their neck.  Through this cable, the matrix is feeding a “reality” to the individuals.

In other words, the humans were totally unaware of what was really real because the impulses sent to their brains were so overwhelming of a “reality.”

Is this what Descartes was describing?

The God of Mind

The December 2001 Readers Digest features an article called “The Science of God.”[i]  In this article, the author poses questions about why humans are perpetually curious about God and religion.  Vince Rause writes about Andrew Newberg who “has become the leading figure in the emerging science of neurotheology, which explores the links between spirituality and the brain.”[ii]

Rause describes a lunch conversation between the two of them.  In this conversation, the topic of neurotheology emerges and the author explores the topic:

“Does this mean that God is just a perception generated by the brain, or has the brain been wired to experience the reality of God?” I ask.

“The best and most rational answer that I can give to both questions,” Newberg answers, “is yes.”

According to neurotheology, an area of the brain that is mapped to physical perception becomes a little less engaged during meditation or prayer.  This detachment leaves the individual with the sense of something larger.  Eastern religions call it enlightenment.  It is probably this euphoric feeling that convinces practitioners of transcendental meditation that they can levitate during meditation.

This phenomenon has also been linked to near death experiences.  Patients who are in life-threatening situations may lose operation of this part of the brain temporarily which causes them to experience the euphoric sense of floating, flying, or warmth and comfort. 

But does this mean (as the author asks above) that God is merely a figment of our mind?  I’ll come back to that in a moment. 

Meanwhile, Rause lets us in on a little of his personal history.  He was raised catholic and his memories of the church were:

The terrible secret holiness that gathered in the darkest corners of the church.  It was in the candlelight, the music and the ritualistic gestures of the priest.  It was huge, mysterious, sacred.

He goes on to say of himself as an adult:

I thought of myself as a rational guy who had outgrown superstition.

In other words, all that religious stuff is for kids and those unable to free themselves of superstitious mumbo-jumbo. 

Rause goes on to insert some theological points that he believes support his idea that God is only quirky, neurological impulses in our brains—our imagination.

An Islamic mystic says, “We and our existences are nonexistences.”

A Buddhist offers this: “It has never existed.  It has never been nonexistent.”

And the medieval Christian mystic Meister Eckhart notes that God “is being beyond being: He is a nothingness beyond being.”

Let me state that I don’t consider any “mystic” to be in touch with true evangelical Christianity.  Meister Eckhart was a 14th century monk of the Dominican order.  His teachings were called into question and 28 of his articles were condemned by the Pope.  His teachings are also compared with Hinduism and pantheism.

The whole idea of mysticism is that the general populace is not clued in to the real reality.  The mystic claims exclusive insight into what reality is.  Buddhists’ concept of God is that God is all things and nothing at the same time. 

Rause is conceding that if the Islamic, Buddhist, and Christian mystics think of God as nothingness or non-existent, that perhaps they already knew what he and Newberg were deducing—that God, or the perception of God, is merely this area of the brain at work – or (as it were) at leisure.  Finally, Rause wraps up by giving us his concept of salvation.

“My salvation is to hear and respond,” wrote Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk[iii].  “For this, my life must be silent.  Hence, my silence is my salvation.”

And that, I’ve decided, is my new master plan: To forget about being informed or interesting or rational.  To just shut up and listen for a while.[iv]

By the way, Thomas Merton (1915 – 1968) was a strong proponent of ecumenical liberalism. 

His writings reveal a deep familiarity with the tradition of Catholic mystical theology, but he also came under the influence of Eastern Mysticism, particularly that of Zen Buddhism.[v]

He died while on a trip to visit the Dalai Lama in 1968.  He advocated a form of meditation very similar to eastern meditation that he called “Christian Contemplation.”

For [Merton], the task of contemplation is one of self-emptying.[vi]

Again, Rause draws from mystical sources rather than mainstream evangelical Christian theology.

So, according to Rouse, is God merely a figment of our imagination?  If we answer that question with a yes, then we have acquiesced to the theory of evolution, and by extension, we and our physical bodies and all that we can perceive are indeed all there is.  This is the ultimate reality.

If we answer that God is not a figment of our imagination, then we can say that a larger reality does exist.  The question then is how to understand that reality.

I believe that God intended for humans to sense a higher reality.  I also believe that He provided an answer for that question in the form of Jesus.  Jesus Himself invites us into a new reality of God’s salvation and abundant life. 

 (John 10:7 - 10 NIV)  Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.  All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.  I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.  The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

By the time that Jesus spoke these words, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates had tried to explain human existence and the nature of substance.  The Greek philosophers were unable to realize anything more than what they were.  Jesus came and introduced all men to the reality that surpasses human understanding. 

So, what do we make of Newberg’s discoveries?  Well, the brain is an awesome organ.  I believe that God designed it with His purposes in mind.  The research that Newberg is doing is only explaining how the brain – an organ – works.  Newberg’s research is not explaining the human connection to or the need for creating a god.

Yoga, Transcendental Meditation and other eastern religions capitalize on mental relaxation.  No doubt, these religious exercises attempt to achieve that sensory detachment which will cause a euphoric sensation.  But is that really a religious experience, or just a physiological one?

All I can say is that my salvation experience, and many other deeply spiritual experiences, were not characterized by sensory detachment, but rather with a saturation of physical sensation.  It was a feeling that I can only describe as cold molasses being poured out on me from my head to my toes.  I did not feel detached from my body.  In fact, I often feel nothing out of the ordinary. 

To measure one’s attunement with God in terms of these physical euphoric experiences may be dangerous.  For faith is not a feeling, but rather it is a conscious decision.  A person believes in God out of choice, not based on things they can see or prove. 

(Hebrews 11:1 KJV)  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. (Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary)[vii]

I believe it is impossible to prove the existence of God – at least impossible to define God in terms of this physical universe.  It is also impossible to disprove the existence of God.  God is beyond this physical universe and if it were possible to completely define God in terms of the physical universe, then He would not be above it.

God identified himself as the “I am.”  This is a phrase that declares self-existence that goes beyond human comprehension. 

We, then, are subject to Him.  Our inability to comprehend the fullness of God should not relegate us to conclude that God is merely our imagination.