dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Historically and cross-culturally, “God” was most often thought of as something beyond human comprehension and unknowable in full. Thus, at a minimum, a belief in “God” is merely the humble recognition that there is value in knowledge that transcends our awareness and/or understanding.

If we accept this ancient perspective, we are then always open to learn and reevaluate our knowledge during our quest for truth and wisdom. We can also imagine how this ancient conception of God became personalized as the benevolent “father” because historically it was the father, the wise elder, that we would consult when we were confronted with experiences that transcended our knowledge and understanding.

In contrast, proclaiming that there is no God invariably leads to “hubris,” a foolish and dangerous overconfidence that one already knows everything. While most would agree that scientific discourse should be constrained to questions that are testable, many “scientists” undermine their own credibility by making definitive statements about the nature of God or the presumed absence thereof. Like their counterpart, the religious fundamentalist, they are blinded by hubris and have imprisoned their mind within walls of dogma.

Ironically, few scientists are even aware that a central component of the scientific method owes its origin to the field of Theology. For example, testing of the "null hypothesis" in modern science is rooted in the via negativa, otherwise known as "negative theology" or “apophatic theology," which describes God in negative terms by what God is NOT. As Plotinus wrote when discussing "the One”: “We say what is not, but what is, we cannot say.”

Therefore, a true scientist is agnostic by being open minded to that of the unknown, while the religious fundamentalist and the atheist are both threatened by any potentiality that may exist outside their fortress of dogma. After all, “the impossible” could ultimately undermine their delusion of control.