To What Do We Leap?
If you haven’t picked up on it yet, the main purpose of this blog—though we stray down rabbit trails from time to time—is to lay out an intelligent, honest, and logical progression of thought that reveals a worldview grounded in the idea that existence stems from The Intelligent and Personal Self-Existent One.
For some reason, over the last century or so, it has been driven into the public consciousness that the above idea is a relic of the past and something to be done away with. As a consequence of this, there are generations who have never considered this idea in any reasonable and intellectually honest way. Generations unaware of the many brilliant philosophers, scientists and intellectuals who came before them; who found the idea at hand to be both intelligent and logical, if considered honestly.
It was briefly mentioned in a previous entry that the idea of faith has been tainted over the years by the baggage of religious dogma. I would like to suggest that religion does not have a monopoly on dogma. When those who have received the custodianship of the scientific method insist that, in order to be considered “scientific”, one must begin with the so called axiom that there is no God and arrive nowhere else in the end, then dogma is alive and well in the scientific community.
While there are many important discussions to have at this point, let’s continue our discussion about the inevitable leap of faith we all must take. As we have previously discussed, while we may not all agree on the existence of God, one thing we can hopefully all agree upon is that I am not God and neither are you. That truth leaves us face to face with the unavoidable necessity of faith. We do not, nor can we know everything; nor can we be everywhere at all times. No one of us is the primary source of all knowledge. By our very nature, we must believe things . . . we must leap.
We must leap from fact to fact and when the facts come to an end, we must take that final leap. Many in the, so called, scientific community insist that we leap into nothingness. The funny thing is, they speak of nothingness as if it were something. They have used sleight of hand again and switched out terms like universe for the seemingly much more inclusive term multiverse. Ironically, universe is a term that was originally all encompassing, meaning it refers to everything that exists. When they wound time back to the singularity and looked out to the edge of existence and found they did not have the infinite time necessary for randomness to order itself into the vastly complicated reality we enjoy, they made a leap of faith to an imaginary reality that somehow exploded to be our universe. I use words like “faith” and “imaginary” for good reason. By their own admission, the laws of physics by which we observe such things break down as their philosophical models approach what they call the singularity (the original singularity, not the cyborg invasion they are looking forward to in the near future . . . but I digress), making it impossible to observe or even define the beginning.
The point is, both sides of this debate have no choice but to use vocabulary that assumes a pre-existent reality. One side insists that information magically coalesces out of randomness, given enough time; and when probability mathematics reveals that idea to be in the category of the absurd (not a slight against them, an actual term in philosophy), they go searching for more time, but never for God. Well, not God per se, they never look for an intelligent and personal God but are content to find some sort of infinitely existing “stuff” from which we come. Concepts like the multiverse only delay that conclusion because one must ultimately ask the question, where did the stuff from outside our universe that exploded into our universe come from? At some level, they concede that something is infinitely existent, even if it is the universe itself, expanding and contracting forever into infinite versions of the universe.
This is where the antagonistic question, where did God come from, falls flat . . . because both sides of this debate ultimately concede that there must be something that is infinitely existent. The real question is, where did information come from? The very definition of information is the absence of randomness. If you come across a book and can decipher its language and the meaning behind the language, you must assume that there was an intelligence behind the organization of that book. To assume otherwise would be absurd. There are many examples of information in nature, both in physics and biology. It is not absurd to assume intelligence behind the four digit, error correcting code we call DNA . . . the very language of life. DNA, very literally, is the instruction manually for building an organism. It is the transmission code of order.
Through observation, we see that order evolves into disorder. This is generally not disputed. Without intelligent intervention, things naturally flow towards disorder. It is not unintelligent, uniformed or illogical to come to the conclusion that intelligence is inherent to the infinitely existent reality to which both sides have conceded.
It is my hope that we move beyond dogmatic assertions on both sides and consider that, perhaps, it is easier to explain the existence of information and even the existence of sentience by including intelligence and personhood in our understanding of that which has always existed. Is it really more intellectual to insist that something came from nothing and that information comes from randomness than to suggest that personhood and intelligence are inherent to the, so called, pre-existent reality that both sides concede to?
Forgive me for plagiarizing myself, but since we were getting back to the discussion of We All Leap, let me end with the same conclusion . . .
When we wind existence back to the singularity in the thought experiment of our philosophical worldview and the data comes to an end, there is an inevitable leap of faith. Some chose to leap to nothing. I do not happen to see that as the logical choice.
Those who live life according to their purpose recognize the necessity of faith in The Self-Existent Cause.