Part 4 - The Tripartite Model

I was chatting with a friend, and she asked “Do you believe in God?”

“Yes,” I said.

“Does God exist?”

“I believe so.”

She continued, “How do you prove that God exists?”

Well, as they say in the US, that’s the $6 million question. But not only is it a difficult question, it’s also a delicate, sensitive one for scores of people.

I said, “That’s a tough one. Honestly I don’t know, yet. I’m still thinking about it, and working on it.”

(image credit)

Quandary of science vis-a-vis religion

Science has been hard-pressed to prove the existence of God. I imagine that in some sectors of science, physicists don’t believe it’s a worthwhile endeavor or, if they do, they focus on the physical universe, instead. Here, they have worked centuries to understand exactly how nature works and how it all began.

The announcement from CERN, in July 2012, about the discovery of the Higgs boson is phenomenal, largely because it may well explain not just how matter began (e.g., stars, planets, and life itself), but also more importantly how the universe was created. In fact, some have dubbed the Higgs boson as the “God particle.”

It was well-known physicist Stephen Hawking, who remarked in 2010 that "it is not necessary to invoke God," because physicists could now explain how the wild-and-wooly cosmos began. That is, the physical universe, through physics.

Before I tell you my reaction to the esteemed professor’s remark, let me say that the Wall Street Journal published a well-argued debate between two thinkers, Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins, essentially pitting science against religion.

We all seem to love a debate, and as is the nature of such, we are expected to take clear position and defend that position. Fine. Constructive debate is good. Such discussion allows for a sharper, more enriching knowledge about a subject.

But my question is, Are science and religion necessarily antithetical? In other words, are they innately at odds with one another and maybe even mutually exclusive? 

God expects us to reason

I lived in Dubai for many years, and was coaching a Muslim colleague on her leadership development. In part, our conversation focused on Islam and the expectations of God. Muslims are not just expected to have faith in Allah’s will, she explained. They’re also expected to think, to reason, to analyze and apply logic.

Put differently, both science and religion are critical in the day-to-day lives of many people.

My reaction to Prof. Hawking’s remark about God not being necessary? I took umbrage at it. I thought it was a foolish remark. Millions of people, from all sorts of religion, most certainly believe that God exists and, yes, God is necessary.

Different religions have varying views of God, but many do believe that God created the universe. That humankind began with Adam and Eve, which many Christians believe.

Is this to say that the evolutionary process that Charles Darwin expounded on is suspect or, worse, sacrilegious? Some people would say so.

We can forgive Prof. Hawking, I think, for falling into the common trap of either-or. That is, the common tendency to take a side on something and dismiss other sides. Indeed his work on the physical nature and origins of the universe has been a brilliant, illuminating effort.

But even with a modestly open mind, we may consider the possibility that God indeed created the universe.

(image credit)

Northwestern University, where I studied for my PhD, subscribed to the scientist-practitioner model for clinical psychologists. As part of years of training in diagnosis and therapy, we were duly schooled in the scientific method. So I have a fundamental understanding for how science works and fully appreciate its power to help us understand everything from ourselves to the wider milieu that Hawking and Einstein focused on.

But as any scientist is expected to cover in a publication, limitations are part-and-parcel of writing about their findings. For example, Where were the shortcomings in their methodology?  Up to what point do their findings speak, beyond which more research is required? What questions warrant further studies?

(image credit)

Reconciling science and religion

The Tripartite Model aims to reconcile science and religion. It recognizes the importance and power of both in our day-to-day lives and our professional endeavors. It also reminds us to put these in their proper perspectives, that is, how far they can reach and beyond what point they are limited.

Here’s what I told my friend, with whom I was chatting, more specifically.

Proving the existence of God is outside the purview of science. So how do we prove this?  We have to use religious, not scientific, frames of reference, methodology and language. I believe that faith is one key method for proving the existence of God.

So let me relate a personal story.

I worked for a manager, who was the number two leader in our big department. My younger colleagues looked at her with a combination of disdain and fear. I saw her as a troubled lady, who sometimes acted in an immature, unprofessional manner.

In one very tense episode with her direct boss, the head of the department, she angrily and repeatedly shouted at him. Her voice reverberated past the closed door, and some colleagues were so disturbed that they walked out of the office.

Personally I prayed that she go away, perhaps get fired.

Literally a week and a half later, a good friend of mine in the department called me, and said off the bat, “Ron, there is a God.” In an instant, I knew exactly what she meant, and I exclaimed, “Oh, my God!” That number two manager just resigned, she said. My face felt flush, and I was astounded by the notion of God indeed answering my prayer.

I mentioned nothing about my prayers to my good friend, as it was a private matter, really. But the fact that the very first thing out of her mouth was “Ron, there is a God” floored me. It was as though she had read my mind, and heard my prayers, without knowing it!

Now, of course, there can be a host of understandable, logical explanations for this. It doesn’t require a whole lot of thinking to reason that this unprofessional manager was in career jeopardy in the organization and that she was not going to last long in her position.

But this is just one of several instances, where God answered my prayers. So, without diminishing alternative explanations, I can tell you that my faith through prayer is one way I know that God exists.

The Tripartite Model 

The Tripartite Model houses a trinity: Besides science and religion, art is very much part of what we have to take into account to understand ourselves and our universe.  Art assumes the third vertex on the triangle I showed earlier.

Some of us make the choice to devote our lives and our career on one ‘camp.’ This is perfectly well-and-good, of course. They do a ‘deep-dive’ into a particular field, and perhaps assume a singular focus on certain issues.

But regardless of how brilliant and tectonic a discovery the Higgs boson is, for example, this, and the very science on which this was ultimately spring boarded, can explain only so much. That it is, after all, just one explanation. There are other explanations about the origin of matter and life from different platforms of knowledge and learning.

The Tripartite Model aspires to be a complete epistemology. ‘Deep-dive’ specialists, notwithstanding, the more holistic understanding of ourselves and our universe requires, I posit, analytic (scientific) | creative (artistic) | spiritual (religious) perspectives, methodology, and terminology.

For now, let me suggest the following queries to help reconcile these three, and tap into the richness of such an epistemic framework.

Art → Science  ▪  Can the creativity of Mozart or Picasso help shed new light into quandaries that physicists face?

Science → Art  ▪  Can poets benefit from a more analytic, technical review of their verse and a more systematic approach to writing poetry?

Religion ↔ Science  ▪  Can we allow faith and reason not just to co-exist, but also to complement one another and shed light on areas that the other cannot?

Religion → Science  ▪  Can we allow scientists to bring their personal beliefs and religious worships, for example, in some way to their endeavor?

Science → Religion  ▪  Can some religious practices be subjected to the rigors of science and to more systematic forms of inquiry?

Art → Religion  ▪  Can we revise our long-held depictions of God, Jesus, saints and angels, in other fresher, more creative ways?

Religion → Art  ▪  Can painters create works that exalt the religious Zeitgeist of an era, the beliefs and practices of their patrons and neighbors (rf. Caravaggio)?

From the imagined, to the unimagined

As you see, there is quite a lot more to think about and work through. This is an introduction, and The Tripartite Model is a work in progress.

© 2013 by Ron Villejo, PhD