Becoming a Blank Canvas: No Biases Allowed
The environment and surroundings in which we grow up, the education we receive (if any), the social, political, philosophical, religious, and other influences to which we may be exposed, and our positive and negative life experiences contribute significantly to shaping our self-perception and our understanding of reality.
to shaping our self-perception and our understanding of reality. As we accumulate ideas and experiences, it is natural to develop biases and in-clinations towards accepting or rejecting certain viewpoints. However, if these biases hinder our willingness to listen to opposing views or prevent us from acknowledging what is evidently right or wrong, they transform into detrimental barriers, undermining sincerity and honesty in the quest for truth.
Biases originate from diverse sources, including personal aspects like ego, pride, and self-interests, as well as one’s national, racial, po-litical, and religious affiliations. These biases often blind many people to rational and empathetic thinking, forcing us to justify unthinkable absurdities and evils.
Even seemingly harmless biases can cause the most brilliant minds to deny glaring truths. For example, the great theological minds of Galileo’s era rejected the obvious truth presented to them by the great scientist. Similarly, Einstein’s bias in favor of a static universe initially led him to dismiss the notion of an expanding universe, despite his equations strongly suggesting it. Staying unbiased while analyzing any-thing is a challenging task, but it is essential because the more we curb our biases, the greater the likelihood of arriving at the correct conclu-sion. Even if the conclusion turns out to be incorrect, if one reaches that conclusion without any biases through a sincere inquiry, then such an error falls within the realm of genuine mistakes. Genuine mistakes made with sincerity should reasonably merit unconditional forgiveness by both humans and God. Hence, the sincerity and honesty of the in-quiry matter more than the conclusion itself.
The human tendency toward bias is more conspicuous in matters of God and religion. This tendency leads individuals to uphold and defend the beliefs they were born into without critically examining them. On the other side of the spectrum, there exists a resistance among many toward organized religion, which makes them refuse to entertain any possibility of evidence supporting the existence of a supernatural creator who has ordained a specific religion or way of life.
During my formative years, I realized the destructive potential of biases. I committed myself to vigilantly monitor this tendency and fol-low wherever the evidence might lead with all my sincerity and honesty. I resolved not to let my personal attachment to any idea prevent me from rejecting it if the evidence contradicts it. Simultaneously, I pledged not to let my aversion toward any idea obstruct me from accepting it if the evidence supports it.
In Matters of God and Divine Accountability, Simplicity Should Lead to Truth
Exploring ideologies and philosophies that attempt to elucidate the existence of God and divine accountability often leaves seekers feeling overwhelmed amid the multitude of options. The abundance of infor-mation about atheism, agnosticism, theism, deism, and the plethora of religions and philosophies—accompanied by a labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments—can lead many to lose interest in the subject entirely. I experienced this firsthand as I delved into a vast array of literature, contemplating different viewpoints, schools of thought, and endless discussions, feeling adrift without a clear path forward.
When I inquired—particularly within religious communities—many clerics told me that to genuinely comprehend my origins and purpose in relation to God and divine accountability, I would need a lifetime of dedication and rigorous study. This is a daunting task for a layperson like myself, who simply seeks answers to fundamental ques-tions without aspiring to become an academic or scholar.
Both proponents and opponents of the existence of God provide an overwhelming amount of information, making the quest for truth about God and divine accountability seem like an insurmountable, exhaus-tive task. However, an epiphany encouraged me to alter my approach in searching for truth. Consequently, I discovered that the simplest method led to the ultimate truth. I came to realize that if any truth exists regarding the possibility of a God and divine accountability, it must be simple yet capable of addressing basic questions clearly, while also allowing for deeper scholarly exploration. Let me elaborate.God and divine accountability concern all of humanity—everyone’s eternal destiny is at stake. Most individuals cannot spare extensive time and energy from the basic struggles and duties of life to immerse themselves in complex literature and discussions. Hence, a simple conclusion can be drawn: if a God will judge all humanity for their actions in this life and has created this present worldly existence with its demanding com-mitments, then fundamental answers regarding our origins and purpose should be easily accessible and comprehensible to all—both laypeople and scholars alike.
While complexity naturally arises in various fields of human knowl-edge, if a God exists and holds mankind accountable, the basic essentials should be easily graspable by everyone. It is contradictory to conceive of a God who would create humanity with a purpose yet make under-standing the basics so complicated that it becomes an onerous task for most people.
Hence, if a God created me and intends to hold me accountable, then all fundamental knowledge about this matter must be easily and unambiguously discoverable, understandable, and communicable by ev-eryone. After recognizing this, I decided to simplify my inquiry, which led to a pivotal realization.
Humility Is Imperative
There is a disturbing trend among many individuals, especially regard-ing existential matters. They often assume their worldview, beliefs, opinions, and conclusions are indisputably true, viewing those who differ from them as simply wrong and in need of correction. This leaves no room for discourse aimed at understanding each other’s point of view and potentially learning from one another.
Whether within the atheist and agnostic camp or the camp of those who believe in God and religion, it is crucial to recognize the presence of knowledgeable and accomplished people—scholars, academics, and sci-entists—across the spectrum in all camps, each presenting well-formed arguments and counterarguments. For this reason, it becomes impera-tive to maintain humility, staying consistently open to the prospect of fallibility and being receptive to learning. We need to move away from the “debate” culture where winning the argument is the sole objective, and instead engage in discussions aimed at exchanging ideas and shar-ing knowledge. Acknowledging that “I can be wrong” is something that fosters the necessary humility needed to uphold such an attitude.
A Note About Inference
Conclusions are primarily drawn in two ways. The first is through di-rect observation—such as seeing a tree in front of us and concluding its presence. However, what distinguishes us from many other creatures is our remarkable ability to make highly advanced and intricate inferences, which is the second way we reach conclusions.
For instance, Newton observed an apple falling from a tree and inferred the existence of a force causing the apple to descend toward the ground. This oversimplified example explains what ‘inference’ entails: it is a conclusion drawn based on available evidence and reasoning. In courts, judges usually render decisions using inference, and in our daily lives, we frequently infer situations—like noticing a friend walk by in school without smiling and inferring that something might be wrong with him. Our inferences can be valid or invalid, resulting in conclu-sions that are right or wrong based on subsequent direct observation or measurement. Nevertheless, from our routine experiences to the biggest scientific discoveries, our ability to infer remains our most vital faculty in pursuit of any form of truth.
Science’s Contribution to Understanding the Existence of a Divine Being
Throughout history, from the remarkable scientific advancements of the Islamic Golden Age to the contributions of Western scientists like Galileo, Newton, Schrödinger, and Francis Collins, it is evident that many religious individuals have excelled in science. Historically, science was not viewed as fundamentally opposed to the divine. The widespread contemporary belief that science has disproved the existence of a per-sonal god and an afterlife is a relatively modern perspective. Science has undoubtedly helped to dispel dogmatic beliefs originat-ing from both theism and atheism—for instance, it has corrected certain religious groups’ misconceptions that the Earth is flat and the universe revolves around it. Conversely, science has also corrected the past belief held by some atheistic and areligious groups that the universe is static, eternal and unchanging.
Often, I hear people state that “science confirms there is no God” or, conversely, that “science asserts the existence of God.” Both state-ments are flawed. Science, as a field of knowledge, does not directly delve into the question of the existence or nonexistence of the Divine. It merely presents facts about how our reality operates. A scientist’s role is to provide these facts, but both scientists and laypeople are on equal ground when interpreting whether these facts point towards God or not.
Science: One Tool Among Many
It is crucial to note that in the pursuit of answers to existential questions, science is just one of several faculties one can utilize—but it is not the only tool. One can also employ other equally important tools, such as philosophical inquiry, historical analysis, personal testimony, and argu-ments derived from ethics and morality.
Understanding “How Something Works” Does Not Negate the Possibility of Its Being Created by God
In the realm of science, the prevalent belief that understanding how and why something works eliminates the need to consider an intelligent origin is misguided. This misconception stems from the belief that if we know how something functions, we don’t need “God” to explain it. This falsely suggests that if a divine entity is involved, its actions must be beyond our comprehension—supernatural and unintelligible. However, understanding “how” or “why” something works should not automatically categorize it as a “natural explanation” devoid of intel-ligent intervention. I disagree with this perception. Perhaps certain religious segments have contributed to this notion by portraying God as primarily a miracle worker whose actions are inherently beyond our comprehension. Nonetheless, the idea that knowing how something works negates the possibility of its creation by an intelligent force is flawed.
The Absence of an Explanation Does Not Invalidate the Explanation
Not having an explanation for the explanation does not render it invalid. To illustrate, if we were to find a wooden chair and table on Mars, we would logically infer that some intelligence is responsible for their creation. We would make this inference despite not knowing who that intelligence is or how they created these items. Not knowing who the intelligence is and where it came from would not be a reason formidable enough to reject the intelligence hypothesis altogether.