- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
God or gods - if He/She/They exist - is/are way beyond the explanations that can be provided by science, which is, after all, the 'explanation of everything that is NOT God/gods' in this universe; and God is that which is 'beyond science'. Science does not (and should not) attempt to explain what is inexplicable.
On the other hand - to my mind at least - the religious explanations (of every faith, of every colour) have failed even more than have those of science to explain what is/are God/gods. This is not to claim that we should do away with religions: let those who need them have them. But the religions and the religious should not try to enforce their faith on those of no faith; just as those of no faith should not impose their lack of belief on those who do believe.
We could perhaps at best say that God is what lies within the gaps of our understanding. We ceaselessly fill in the gaps (because that is our nature) - and those particular gaps or 'god-spaces' disappear; but new gaps keep appearing.
In that limited sense, Stuart Kauffman is being quite reasonable (to my view): God is simply that which is unexplained (and possibly inexplicable).
Thus, most such debates about God/not-God are just empty argumentation, as we are seeing right here.
If God exists, he probably doesn't...
GSC
