Oorspronklik geskryf vir publikasie in "Die Vrye Weekblad"
It has been said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man - Alexander Vilenkin.
Geloofskwessies het al ‘n paar keer hier in VWB ter sprake gekom. Ek meen meer vanuit ‘n geloofslose of geloofslosse rigting as andersom. Hierdie is seker nie die beste platform om te wil evangeliseer of om die geloof in ‘n Opperwese te wil verdoem nie, maar ‘n klompie gedagtes oor die gesprek tussen gelowiges en ongelowiges (by gebrek aan ‘n beter term) en ‘n ligte evaluering daarvan maak tog sin.
Laat ek reg aan die begin my eie posisie duidelik maak, dan is dit uit die pad. Ek is ‘n Christen-gelowige, uiteraard met gebreke en sekerlik ook nog ‘n paar klonte daarby. Ek is deeglik bewus van die foute en oortredings van gelowiges van alle gelowe en denominasies en wil nie ‘n feëverhaal voorhou nie. Maar hierdie stuk leun uiteraard oor na die geloofskant toe.
Ek was al in ‘n hele paar gesprekke met geloofsloses, ateïste, post-teïste, agnostici, ens, betrokke. Gesprekke wat selde vreeslik produktief was en wat by meer as een geleentheid neerhalend en kru uitgedraai het. My afleiding daaruit was dat ‘n gesprek tussen oortuigde gelowiges en ongelowiges op die regte plek moet begin as hulle op ‘n beskaafde manier wil uitvind waar hulle paaie van mekaar wegdraai. En dit gebeur nie by almal op dieselfde plek nie.
As ons hier praat van geloof dan gaan dit eerstens oor geloof in ‘n Opperwese wat die wêreld geskep het. Die ander aspekte soos sonde, verlossing, verdoemenis, ‘n lewe na die dood, reïnkarnasie, ensovoorts is eintlik ‘n tweede fase van die gesprek. My ervaring is dat die gesprek dikwels by aspekte van hierdie tweede fase begin en dan in ‘n tirade of verdoemenis vanuit enige van die twee kante ontaard, wat ‘n sinvolle hantering van die kwessie van Heelal en Skepping kelder.
Ek het nie juis kennis van ander gelowe as die Christelike geloof nie en wil my dus nie oor hulle besondere eienskappe uitlaat nie. Die kern van die Christelike geloof is Skepping, Sondeval en Verlossing. Dit is nie objektief en rasioneel bewysbaar nie en probeer ook nie wees nie, hoewel die Rede ‘n duidelike rol in die proses speel (sê ek). Die argument wat ek die meeste vanuit ateïstiese kant teëgekom het is dat die bestaan van ‘n Skepper of Opperwese nog nooit bewys is nie en dat rasionele bewys vereis word. En dan ook dat die bewyslas op die gelowige berus. Met ander woorde, die Rede is supreem. Omdat die bestaan van ‘n Opperwese nie bewys kan word nie, bestaan dit nie. Daar is natuurlik ook ongelowiges wat ‘n meer gesofistikeerde proses volg.
Die Rede is uit die aard van die saak een van die kernelemente van menswees, van wetenskap en kosmologie. Maar die stelling dat die Rede absoluut bepalend is en universeel geld, hou nie water nie. Immanuel Kant se argument oor die Rede as
supreem is deeglik deur die Nederlandse regsfilosoof Herman Dooyeweerd gekelder toe hy in sy 1953 werk A New Critique of Theoretical Thought aangetoon het dat Kant se gebruik van die Rede om te bewys dat die Rede supreem geld, ‘n sirkelredenasie is. Die belangrike punt hier is dat alle teoretiese denke uiteindelik ‘n geloofsuitgangspunt het. Nie soseer geloof in religieuse sin nie, maar in die vorm van ‘n vertrekpunt buite die Rede. Subjektiewe voorkeur, afkeer en aannames, met of sonder meriete en soms selfs totaal verspot, speel dus ook in wetenskaplike denke ‘n beduidende rol. Die huidige vaksine-sirkus met selfs slim wetenskaplikes as die hansworse, is ‘n goeie voorbeeld.
Die bestaan of nie-bestaan van ‘n Skepper kan nie bewys word nie. Net so is daar aspekte van die wetenskap wat nie bewys kan word nie, maar wat in die vorm van teorieë of hipoteses met ‘n bepaalde graad van waarskynlikheid of onsekerheid bestaan. Hierdie teorieë word deur die subjektiewe aanhangers daarvan verdedig op grond van persoonlike aannames en voorkeure. Ek dink hier aan die Nobelpryswenner Roger Penrose se teorie oor “ons” Big Bang as ‘n beginpunt van ‘n Heelal, eerder as diè beginpunt van diè Heelal. Hy teoretiseer oor ‘n herhalende proses eerder as ‘n eenmalige begin van alles.
Roger Penrose se naam is redelik bekend by die algemene publiek - ‘n Britse wiskundige en fisikus wat hordes toekennings en pryse gewen het. Onder andere die 2020 Nobelprys en die 1988 Wolf Prize wat hy met Stephen Hawking gedeel het vir hulle werk oor “singularities”. Ek noem dit spesifiek omdat Hawking en ander fisici nie sy teorieë oor opeenvolgende heelalle steun nie. Die Amerikaanse fisikus Ethan Siegel het bv ten spyte van sy respek vir Penrose, hom op 8 Oktober 2020 in Forbes.com skerp hieroor gekritiseer.
Stephen Hawking het wel in sy boek The Grand Design, die gedagte van parallelle heelalle (sonder ‘n skepper) gesteun maar dit ook duidelik gemaak dat ‘n heelal met natuurwette wat die ontwikkeling van lewe moontlik maak, ‘n hoogs unieke verskynsel is met ‘n bitter klein waarskynlikheid van herhaling.
Die relevansie van dit wat hierbo genoem is, is dat dit aantoon hoe die voorste wetenskaplikes se rasionalisering dikwels verskillende uitgangspunte en ook verskillende bestemmings het. Die Rede kan nie die hele job doen nie. En eenduidige wetenskaplike gevolgtrekkings is nie so algemeen of robuust as wat soms voorgegee word nie.
Nou wil ek onmiddelik ook sê dat sommige, of dalk baie gelowiges aan ‘n soortgelyke siekte ly en by een Bybelvers of voorkeur kan vashaak en dit tot die Waarheid verhef, sonder ‘n behoorlike konteksbeskouing. My punt is, of jy nou gelowig of ongelowig is, verstaan die beperkings van jou bronne en metodes as dit kom by die bewys van ‘n saak.
Wat die bewyslas betref is dit ook nie so eenvoudig om die bewyslas net in die skoot te wil gooi van die een wat beweer dat iets wel bestaan nie. As dit gaan oor die oorsprong van alles dan is daar twee moontlikhede. Daar was ‘n Ontwerper, of
oorsaak of daar was nie Ontwerper of oorsaak nie. Ek sou sê die las om te oortuig lê aan beide kante.
In ‘n debat oor die bestaan al dan nie van ‘n Skepper kan daar nie iets wees soos ‘n eenduidige 1+1=2 antwoord nie. As dit so was sou begrippe soos geloof of ongeloof geen betekenis gehad het nie. Dit sou gegaan het oor ‘n wete wat van kennis afgehang het.
Gelowiges se kosmologiese vertrekpunt en redenasie oor die Skepping kan redelik eenvoudig opgesom word: Daar is ook ondersteuning vir die Skeppingsuitgangspunt te vind in die kompleksiteit van die Heelal, onder andere die kompleksiteit van die lewe en van die onderskeid tussen die mens en ander lewensvorme, veral die mens se vermoë om te kan glo - iets wat geen ander lewensvorm besit nie. Afhangende van die definisie van geloofsvermoë kan dit seker ‘n debatteerbare aspek wees. Daar is ‘n kosmologiese saak daarvoor uit te maak dat as die kompleksiteit van ‘n saak sekere grense oorskry, natuurlike ontwikkeling minder waarskynlik is as ontwerp van buite.
Die hele redenasie kan nog verder gevoer word om aspekte soos Goed en Kwaad te betrek en dan natuurlik die groot vraag wat wetenskaplikes ook oor kopkrap, naamlik die sin van alles.
In The Grand Design probeer Stephen Hawking die kwessie van die sin van alles aanspreek. Na my mening nie baie oortuigend nie. Hy begin deur op bladsy 171 te sê dat die natuurwette ons kan leer hoe die heelal opereer, maar nie waarom daar iets in plaas van niks is nie, of hoekom ons bestaan nie, of hoekom daar hierdie stel natuurwette is en nie ander nie. (Hy het op ‘n keer nogal opgemerk dat hierdie aspekte die meeste grond onder die voete van die geloofsargument plaas, hoewel hy nie self daaraan wil byt nie.) Maar hy gaan nou verder deur te sê dat die antwoord binne die bestek van die wetenskap lê. Eintlik ‘n weerspreking van wat hy net tevore gesê het.
Die kwessie van kompleksiteit en replisering sonder die rol van ‘n Skepper verduidelik Hawking aan die hand van die Game of Life van die wiskundige John Conway. Die doel van Conway se werk was om aan te toon dat ‘n model met eenvoudige reëls tog selfonderhoudende en selfrepliserende objekte kan huisves of ontwikkel. ‘n Baie interessante model wat Hawking in sy boek verduidelik. Maar hy kom nie in die proses werklik op ‘n oortuigende wyse by die vraag oor die beginpunt en die sin van alles nie. Hy kom nie verby die punt van ‘n “spontane skepping” nie.
Een van die groot foute wat sommige gelowiges, teoloë ingesluit, na my mening maak en wat die geloofsaak baie skade doen is, is die aanhang van ‘n jong aarde- teorie (eintlik ‘n jong Heelal-teorie) en daarmee saam die ontkenning van die rol van ewolusie in die verloop van sake. Dit kom meestal vanuit fundamentalistiese kringe en is gebaseer op letterlike eerder as kontekstuele interpretasies van die Bybel. Ek is self baie meer ten gunste van die siening dat die wêreld wetmatig geskape is, met
ander woorde onderworpe aan natuurwette wat verdere ontwikkeling orden - sonder die ontkenning van die rol van wonderwerke.
Kortliks een of twee dinge oor wat ek die tweede fase van die gesprek noem, nl sonde, verlossing, goed, kwaad, lyding, ens. Een van die kwessies wat telkens in geloofsgesprekke opgehaal word is die wreedheid, pyn en lyding wat deur die eeue deur die mensdom ervaar is. Die vraag hier is, hoe kan ‘n almagtige en liefdevolle God dit toelaat? ‘n Almagtige God kan dit mos eenvoudig uit die weg ruim. In sy boek God? Is daar ‘n ander antwoord, haal Dr Ben du Toit dit ook op as een van die groot vraagstukke wat hom op sy pad van gesiene teoloog na ‘n bestemming van post- teïsme (‘n ander woord vir ateisme) gelei het. Die Amerikaanse teoloog Tim Keller behandel die kwessie van pyn en lyding deeglik in sy boekWalking with God through Pain and Suffering,maar ‘n boek soos hierdie werk net vir iemand wat oop is vir oortuiging in daardie rigting.
Dit is ‘n komplekse saak. Die filosofiese verklaring lê in die feit dat Goed nie in hierdie lewe betekenis het sonder Kwaad en Lyding nie. Die omvang wat Kwaad kan aanneem en die diepe lyding waaraan mense soms onderwerp word, maak dit ‘n moeilike kwessie. Oortuigde gelowiges worstel ook soms hiermee. Ek het by twee geleenthede gehoor hoe predikante in ‘n preek vertel het van hulle geestelike worsteling nadat hulle onderskeidelik ‘n kind en ‘n kleinkind verloor het. Die een het mettertyd vrede gevind in sy aanvaarding daarvan dat as hy alles kon verklaar, dan was hy gelyk aan God. Ek stem saam met sy redenasie, maar weet ook dat as dit my sou oorkom, die rasionele verklaring nie oornag vrede sou bring nie.
‘n Verwarrende komponent in die debat is dat die meriete van geloof dikwels aan die optrede van bepaalde gelowiges of die kerk beoordeel word. Die geloof word aan die hand van die gelowige se gebrekkige uitleef daarvan beoordeel. Dit wil lyk asof een van die dinge wat Dr Ben du Toit na ‘n post-teïstiese rigting aangehelp het, die NG Kerk se omgang met Apartheid was. Die kerkgemeenskap se afdwaling van hulle eie geloofsbeginsels het dus daartoe gelei dat die geloof self onder skoot gekom het. So ‘n skoot na die verkeerde teiken gebeur redelik maklik dink ek. Ideologieë is uiteraard groot verleiers en word maklik met ‘n geloofsousie versier. Nasionalisme, patriotisme en etnisiteit het hulleself deur die jare ruim hieraan gehelp. Meestal sonder deeglike beredenering.
Die debat oor Verlossing, Verdoemenis en ‘n Ewige Lewe is eweneens kompleks. Dit draai om ‘n lewe na die dood. Die rasionele argument ten gunste van ‘n lewe na die dood berus op die sin van alles. ‘n Menslike lewe wat by sy dood op ‘n totale niks uitloop, maak minder sin as ‘n lewe wat nie totaal aan ruimte-tyd gebonde is nie. Of mens hiervoor kies of nie, hang daarvan af of ‘n bestemming van geloof of ongeloof vir jou wink. Dis nou as jy nie reeds by daardie bestemming aangekom het nie.
Die oortuiging van geloof of ongeloof kom meestal nie oornag nie. Dit is dikwels ‘n bestemming aan die einde van ‘n reis. Damaskus-ervarings soos wat Paulus beleef het, is nie die norm nie. Ek meen dat die bestemming hier ter sprake, dalk onbewustelik, vroeg reeds wink. Dr Ben du Toit maak dit byvoorbeeld duidelik dat hy
‘n lang reis na post-teisme ervaar het. Op dieselfde manier vind mens dat mense wat jarelank los van die kerk en geloof was, of dalk binne die kerk was maar sonder ‘n aktiewe geloofsbelewenis, soms wel ‘n geloofsbestemming vind.
Originally written for publication in "Die Vrye Weekblad"
It has been said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man - Alexander Vilenkin.
Matters of faith have come up a few times here in VWB. I think more from a faithless or non-believing direction than the other way around. This is probably not the best platform for evangelising or for condemning belief in a Supreme Being, but a few thoughts on the conversation between believers and unbelievers (for lack of a better term) and a light evaluation thereof does make sense.
Let me make my own position clear right at the outset, and then it is out of the way. I am a Christian believer, naturally with shortcomings and certainly a few lumps besides. I am thoroughly aware of the errors and transgressions of believers of all faiths and denominations and do not want to present a fairy tale. But this piece naturally leans towards the side of faith.
I have been involved in quite a number of conversations with the faithless, atheists, post-theists, agnostics, and so on. Conversations that were seldom terribly productive and that on more than one occasion turned condescending and crude. My conclusion from this was that a conversation between convinced believers and unbelievers must begin in the right place if they want to discover in a civilised manner where their paths diverge. And this does not happen at the same place for everyone.
When we speak here of faith, it is firstly about belief in a Supreme Being who created the world. The other aspects such as sin, salvation, damnation, an afterlife, reincarnation, and so forth are really a second phase of the conversation. My experience is that the conversation often begins with aspects of this second phase and then degenerates into a tirade or condemnation from either side, which torpedoes a meaningful handling of the question of Universe and Creation.
I do not have much knowledge of faiths other than the Christian faith and therefore do not want to comment on their particular characteristics. The core of the Christian faith is Creation, the Fall and Redemption. This is not objectively and rationally provable, nor does it try to be, although Reason clearly plays a role in the process (I say). The argument I have encountered most from the atheistic side is that the existence of a Creator or Supreme Being has never been proved and that rational proof is required. And also that the burden of proof rests on the believer. In other words, Reason is supreme. Because the existence of a Supreme Being cannot be proved, it does not exist. There are of course also unbelievers who follow a more sophisticated process.
Reason is naturally one of the core elements of being human, of science and cosmology. But the claim that Reason is absolutely determinative and universally valid does not hold water. Immanuel Kant’s argument for the supremacy of Reason was thoroughly demolished by the Dutch legal philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd when he demonstrated in his 1953 work A New Critique of Theoretical Thought that Kant’s use of Reason to prove that Reason is supreme is a circular argument. The important point here is that all theoretical thought ultimately has a faith starting point. Not so much faith in the religious sense, but in the form of a point of departure outside of Reason. Subjective preference, aversion and assumptions, with or without merit and sometimes even utterly absurd, therefore also play a significant role in scientific thought. The current vaccine circus, with even clever scientists as the clowns, is a good example.
The existence or non-existence of a Creator cannot be proved. Equally, there are aspects of science that cannot be proved, but which exist in the form of theories or hypotheses with a certain degree of probability or uncertainty. These theories are defended by their subjective adherents on the basis of personal assumptions and preferences. I think here of Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose’s theory about “our” Big Bang as a starting point of a universe, rather than the starting point of the Universe. He theorises about a repeating process rather than a once-off beginning of everything.
Roger Penrose’s name is fairly well known to the general public – a British mathematician and physicist who has won hordes of awards and prizes. Among others the 2020 Nobel Prize and the 1988 Wolf Prize which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their work on “singularities”. I mention this specifically because Hawking and other physicists do not support his theories about successive universes. The American physicist Ethan Siegel, for instance, despite his respect for Penrose, sharply criticised him on this matter on 8 October 2020 in Forbes.com.
Stephen Hawking did support the idea of parallel universes (without a creator) in his book The Grand Design, but also made it clear that a universe with natural laws that make the development of life possible is a highly unique phenomenon with a very small probability of repetition.
The relevance of what is mentioned above is that it demonstrates how the leading scientists’ reasoning often has different starting points and also different destinations. Reason cannot do the whole job. And unequivocal scientific conclusions are not as common or robust as is sometimes suggested.
Now I also want to say immediately that some, or perhaps many, believers suffer from a similar ailment and can latch onto one Bible verse or preference and elevate it to the Truth, without a proper contextual consideration. My point is, whether you are a believer or unbeliever, understand the limitations of your sources and methods when it comes to proving a case.
As far as the burden of proof is concerned, it is also not so simple to want to dump the burden of proof solely on the one who claims that something does exist. When it concerns the origin of everything, there are two possibilities. There was a Designer or cause, or there was no Designer or cause. I would say the burden of persuasion lies on both sides.
In a debate about the existence or otherwise of a Creator, there cannot be something like an unequivocal 1+1=2 answer. If it were so, concepts such as faith or unbelief would have had no meaning. It would have been about a certainty dependent on knowledge.
Believers’ cosmological starting point and reasoning about Creation can be summarised fairly simply: Support for the Creation starting point can also be found in the complexity of the Universe, including the complexity of life and of the distinction between humans and other life forms, especially humanity’s capacity to believe – something no other life form possesses. Depending on the definition of the capacity for faith, this could certainly be a debatable aspect. There is a cosmological case to be made that when the complexity of a matter exceeds certain thresholds, natural development is less probable than purposeful ordering from beyond.
The entire argument can be taken further still to involve aspects such as Good and Evil and then naturally the big question that scientists also puzzle over, namely the meaning of everything.
In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking attempts to address the question of the meaning of everything. In my opinion not very convincingly. He begins on page 171 by saying that the laws of nature can teach us how the universe operates, but not why there is something rather than nothing, or why we exist, or why there is this set of natural laws and not others. (He once notably remarked that these aspects place the most ground under the feet of the faith argument, although he himself does not want to bite on it.) But he then goes further by saying that the answer lies within the scope of science. Effectively a contradiction of what he had just said.
The question of complexity and replication without the role of a Creator, Hawking explains with reference to the Game of Life by the mathematician John Conway. The purpose of Conway’s work was to demonstrate that a model with simple rules can nonetheless harbour or develop self-sustaining and self-replicating objects. A very interesting model that Hawking explains in his book. But he does not in the process convincingly arrive at the question of the starting point and the meaning of everything. He does not get past the point of a “spontaneous creation”.
One of the great mistakes that some believers, theologians included, make in my opinion, and which does great damage to the case for faith, is the adherence to a young earth theory (actually a young Universe theory) and along with it the denial of the role of evolution in the course of events. This comes mostly from fundamentalist circles and is based on literal rather than contextual interpretations of the Bible. I am myself much more in favour of the view that the world was created in an orderly fashion, in other words subject to natural laws that order further development – without denying the role of miracles.
Briefly one or two things about what I call the second phase of the conversation, namely sin, salvation, good, evil, suffering, and so on. One of the issues that is repeatedly raised in faith conversations is the cruelty, pain and suffering experienced by humankind through the centuries. The question here is, how can an omnipotent and loving God allow this? An omnipotent God can surely simply remove it. In his book God? Is daar ‘n ander antwoord, Dr Ben du Toit also raises this as one of the great questions that led him on his path from esteemed theologian to a destination of post-theism (another word for atheism). The American theologian Tim Keller addresses the question of pain and suffering thoroughly in his book Walking with God through Pain and Suffering, but a book like this only works for someone who is open to persuasion in that direction.
It is a complex matter. The philosophical explanation lies in the fact that Good has no meaning in this life without Evil and Suffering. The extent that Evil can assume and the deep suffering to which people are sometimes subjected makes it a difficult question. Convinced believers also sometimes struggle with this. On two occasions I heard ministers in a sermon tell of their spiritual struggle after they had respectively lost a child and a grandchild. The one eventually found peace in his acceptance that if he could explain everything, then he would be equal to God. I agree with his reasoning, but also know that if it were to befall me, the rational explanation would not bring peace overnight.
A confusing component in the debate is that the merits of faith are often judged by the conduct of particular believers or the church. The faith is judged on the basis of the believer’s flawed living out of it. It appears that one of the things that helped Dr Ben du Toit towards a post-theistic direction was the Dutch Reformed Church’s dealings with Apartheid. The faith community’s deviation from their own faith principles thus led to the faith itself coming under fire. Such a shot at the wrong target happens fairly easily, I think. Ideologies are naturally great seducers and are easily garnished with a sauce of faith. Nationalism, patriotism and ethnicity have generously helped themselves to this through the years. Mostly without thorough reasoning.
The debate about Salvation, Damnation and Eternal Life is equally complex. It revolves around a life after death. The rational argument in favour of a life after death rests on the meaning of everything. A human life that at death results in a total nothingness makes less sense than a life that is not totally bound to space-time. Whether one chooses this or not depends on whether a destination of faith or unbelief beckons. That is, if you have not already arrived at that destination.
The conviction of faith or unbelief usually does not come overnight. It is often a destination at the end of a journey. Damascus experiences such as Paul underwent are not the norm. I believe that the destination in question, perhaps unconsciously, beckons early on. Dr Ben du Toit, for example, makes it clear that he experienced a long journey towards post-theism. In the same way one finds that people who were for years removed from the church and faith, or perhaps within the church but without an active faith experience, sometimes do find a destination of faith.