The Things Science Cannot Prove

[sethhersch]

I am a philosopher first and foremost, but I am also a theist. Of all of the challenges that I hear, probably the most common is some version or another of the evidentialist objection: "where's the evidence for your god?" By evidence, people usually mean to denote something like the kind of evidence we look for to prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis -- the kind of evidence that is empirical and ordinary in relevant ways. But there are plenty of things that we believe, that we are rational to believe, but for which we lack any sort of evidence in this sense.

 

Here are some examples:

 

1. Logical principles -- i.e. the law of non-contradiction

2. Mathematical axioms

3. Ethical principles -- i.e. [prima facie] stealing is wrong, keep your promises, etc.

4. The reliability of our senses -- how can we trust that we are interpreting ordinary empirical evidence accurately and without adulteration?

 

 

These are all things to which I subscribe. To be sure, there is some dissent about the law of non-contradiction, but for the most part, these are all things to which most people subscribe and they are rational to do so. Furthermore, none of these things is provable in the scientific sense. This gets us so far: some true propositions don't require science for their justification.

 

This is actually significant ground to gain when writers like Dawkins are slamming all that is overtly non-scientific.

 

 

 

Any atheists or agnostics agree thus far? Any disagree?

[ContraBardus]

Well, yes, there are things that Science can't prove.

 

The thing is that Science is not in the business of 'proving' things, but rather is a system created to provide a consistent way to find correct answers.

 

It's also self correcting, and updates itself by it's very practice.

 

The problem is, that a lot of faithful people insist that because Science cannot prove certain specific things, then it is by default faulty and incorrect.

 

To use their own terminology, they toss the baby out with the bathwater.

 

It's not for proving anything. It's simply a rigid systematic consistent method created to find explanations for phenomenon.

 

Just because Science has not yet discovered answers to those things, does not mean it will never happen. It's certainly a lot more likely to find the answers to those questions and unknowns than a religious belief is. It definitely has a better track record for finding real reasonable answers.

 

Religious people are used to extremes of correct and incorrect. They often have no concept of ongoing research, incomplete answers, and partial inconsistencies.

 

For example, the idiots who claim that Global Warming is now debunked completely because of one known instance of falsified or incorrect data.

 

As if that was the only data and source for the research on the subject.

 

At the end of the day, the question ends up being what provides more reliable and consistent answers. The answer is, unfortunately for theist, Science. It works, that's why we use it.

 

It's funny how they decry the 'Theory' of Evolution as 'just a theory', yet completely subscribe to the 'Theory' of Gravity. Even though both used the same methodology to reach their conclusions.

 

In fact, Evolution has more evidence than Gravity. We know how it works, why it works, what causes it, and can even practically apply it.

 

Our knowledge of the workings of Gravity is extremely limited. The only thing we really know about it is that it works.

 

I think the gist of the question you presented is valid. However, I also think that the problem that many people have with Science is really a lack of understanding of what it's really for.

 

It's not meant to prove. It's meant to explain.

 

Theist are so used to 'answers' and 'proof' in relation to their faith, and often try to equate it to Science, as if it is a competing religion.

 

It's really nothing of the kind. If you're taking something on just faith, it's not really Science. If it's just a belief, it's not using the Scientific Method.

 

This is exactly why Intelligent Design should never be taught in Science classes. Not because it's wrong, and I believe that it is, but because -it's not Science-.

 

It has no evidence, it has not been tested, it has not been verified, it has never been peer reviewed. It just doesn't stand up to Scientific scrutiny, regardless of whether it's 'true' or not.

 

If they can put it through the Scientific Method, and have it accepted as a Theory using the system that governs what is and is not Science. I've got no problem with them teaching it in Schools.

 

Not a moment before that though. It doesn't belong, it's not using the Scientific Method, and by definition, is not Science. It's just religion trying to play dress up and hiding in with the real Theories until it does so.

 

Pretty much you're right, but at the end of the day, so what? That's not the point of Science to begin with.

 

Only religion is concerned with absolute proof, and oddly enough, it doesn't have any to speak of anyway. So it's kind of a moot point.

[ContraBardus]

On another note related to your post.

 

The problem with needing 'evidence for your God' is actually rather simple.

 

You're the one making a claim. 'God exists'.

 

The burden of proof lies on those making claims. There is no burden at all on those who ask for evidence of a claim and refute it based on a lack of any.

 

God is an extraordinary claim. As such, it would require extraordinary evidence.

 

Theist have no evidence to support their claim that God exists. Nothing that cannot be explained easily and more reasonably by other means. God is not an obvious answer to any question.

 

God doesn't 'explain' anything. He's just something that requires an extraordinary amount of explaining.

 

God is put in place of gaps in knowledge. The problem is, that he's running out of room to hide in. There are very few things left unexplained that he can 'explain' by being the default answer.

 

The problem with that is, that a lack of an alternative explanation does not prove that the explanation presented is correct on the merit of nothing more than being the only explanation available. That's pretty much what God is, the 'only available explanation'. He's a placeholder for a real answer to fill in later.

 

Unfortunately, he's a bit difficult to root out once an answer has been found. People cling to the idea of 'God did it' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary for many things. Creationism/ID is a good recent example of how it can be a problem.

 

Now, it is true that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

However, there is a bit of an issue. Absence of evidence -is- evidence of Absence when there should be evidence present, but there isn't.

 

You cannot prove a negative. There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence.

 

You cannot prove that Invisible fairies don't make flowers bloom.

 

For example, the absence of evidence of invisible fairies making flowers bloom is taken as evidence that they do not exist. Because if they did, there would be evidence that they did. Someone would bump into them, or step on them and get invisible fairy goo on their shoes sooner or later.

 

God is the same way. If he did exist, there should be convincing large scale evidence that he did exist. He supposedly has quite the influence on the universe, and that should be something we could somehow detect or infer. It's something that should be provable. A being of such large scope and influence would leave detectable signs of presence.

 

The problem is that God is not falsifiable. As such, the idea is cannot be Scientific. One of the most important things in Science is that an idea be Falsifiable. There has to be some way to show that something is or is not true.

 

The invisible and the non-existent look remarkably alike.

 

Put simply, you need evidence of God, because you're the one claiming that he exists.

 

Non believers do not need evidence against God, because negatives cannot be proven. There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence. They have no obligation to provide anything more than a rebuttal and request for evidence for your claim.

 

The burden of proof is on you, because you're the one claiming that there is such a thing.

 

There is no obligation to prove you wrong by anyone else. You have to prove that you're right.

 

That's just how it works, because asking for evidence of non-existence is a blatantly impossible standard of evidence. It's a completely unreasonable request on your part.

 

Here's another way to put it.

 

 

Russel's Teapot

 

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

[sethhersch]

I never asked for anyone to disprove anything, especially not my GOD...that would be remarkably unfair. I'm not sure where you think you read that.

 

First, I agree with your characterization of science: it seems to be in the business of "honing in" on explanations of natural phenomena. The point of the short list I gave was to elucidate some things about which science will always and necessarily be silent. How do I know that science won't have something to contribute to mathematical axioms or logical principles years down the road? Well, because it would be strictly circular to do so: scientists presuppose the law of non-contradiction when they pen a propositional hypothesis. They know that the only way they can narrow down the possibilities is to erect disjunctions and then find the false disjunct. But notice that this requires that they buy into the law of non-contradiction as a starting point.

 

This is not a moot conclusion. What this tells us is that, despite the fantastic job that science has done in the past several hundred years of explaining incredibly complex natural phenomena, there are things about which science cannot inform us on pain of contradiction, circularity, or vacuity.

 

This suggests an interesting question: how do we know we can trust our sensory faculties and our presumption that e.g. the law of non-contradiction is true? I think that these sorts of things absolutely must be basic beliefs. Basic beliefs are beliefs that require no justification or else are immediately justified. Something like the law of non-contradiction might even be "hard-wired," but that's pretty contentious.

 

If we get this far, then we can see that not all of our beliefs require evidence. So it is quite wrong-headed, I think, to say that I have any burden of proof when I claim that GOD exists. Perhaps a better way of making the charge: I would be irrational were I to not have any justification [whether immediate]. This is a WAY different question.

 

There are plenty more examples of these basic beliefs, by the way. I've just given a few that I think are probably most universal to elucidate my point.

 

 

I also quite agree that the notion of GOD is not falsifiable in the same way that ordinary scientific hypotheses are. However, I don't think that this is a problem for the theist. The theist is not out to prove that GOD exists...merely that He probably exists, is the best explanation for the amalgamation of all events, and that it is not irrational to believe in Him. If it were irrational to believe in Him, I wouldn't believe in Him. That's a kind of analogue to the falsification requirement in science: it allows for certain beliefs to be weeded out, namely those that cannot be had rationally.

 

 

 

I'm also unconvinced by another of your requirements: "If he [GOD] did exist...we should be able to detect or infer [that He exists]." This is a silly litmus test -- of course I can and have inferred GOD's existence, but I presume you mean to use this in a very natural sense. But that doesn't make sense. Why would we expect there to be natural evidence for a supernatural being? Are all supernatural things in the habit of leaving their mark in our plain, but incredibly narrow, scope?

 

 

In closing, I never asked for evidence against my GOD. I wouldn't do that. I also am not going to give any sort of "proof" that He exists, because I don't think that there is any in the same way that there is proof of something like the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. But it isn't a detriment...I don't need any such evidence to get a basic belief off the ground. In just the same way, I needn't have any evidence at all that the law of non-contradiction is true for me to be rational in believing it.

[sethhersch]

Also, I'm an analytic philosopher...I know everything Bertrand Russell ever wrote, especially warhorse snippets like the teapot.

[EmperorNortonII]

I am a philosopher first and foremost...

 

The regression argument successfully destroys the tradition of truth. That being K=JTB (and anyone who don't know what that means isn't REALLY a trained philosopher). Frankly, best explanations are the closest we get. As it turns out, scientific method will get you best explanations.

 

Contrabardus, is astronomy science? Testability is not the hallmark of science. Maybe the theoretical testability is...

[sethhersch]

Wow, ContraBardus, that's a lot of stuff that I agree with. However, I think I'll jump straight to the crux of this argument.

 

sethhersch, you seem to be saying that because human understanding and perception is fallible, the atheists and agnostics are no more valid in their arguments against god than theists are in their arguments for god.

 

Am I correct in this assessment?

 

 

Not quite. I'm sorry if I'm not being precise, let me try again.

 

I was trying to come up with examples of things for which we lack evidence but which we are rational to believe to show why science may not be able to speak to the existence of GOD.

 

Your point was interesting, though.

[sethhersch]

I am a philosopher first and foremost...

 

The regression argument successfully destroys the tradition of truth. That being K=JTB (and anyone who don't know what that means isn't REALLY a trained philosopher). Frankly, best explanations are the closest we get. As it turns out, scientific method will get you best explanations.

 

Contrabardus, is astronomy science? Testability is not the hallmark of science. Maybe the theoretical testability is...

 

 

 

I don't subscribe to skepticism, especially not pyrrhonian skepticism, so I don't believe that regress arguments are very helpful. Usually I find them to be a cheap [but avoidable] trick employed by the skeptic to devastate simple propositions like "I know I have hands."

 

I'm a Moorean...of course I know I have hands -- how silly.

 

I do, however, agree with your assessment that Justified True Beliefs aren't sufficient for knowledge. We are an impossibly long leap after that, however, from showing that truth is an unattainable goal. There are plenty of truths that I know.

 

I also agree that many of our best abductive moves [best explanations] come from science, but that does nothing either to demonstrate that there aren't a great many abductive, inductive, and deductive moves that are not scientific but are still sound.

[FiddlingAround]

I lack a strong philosophical background, so I may be biting off more than I can chew in joining this conversation.

 

What struck me as I read your post is that none of your examples seem readily comparable to presupposing the existence of God. Numbers 1, 2 and 4 are functional assumptions. Operating in the world requires this kind of basic foundation. Even if, for example, one believes that the evidence of our senses is merely some kind of mental construct, one has to act as though they reflect a physical reality.

 

Many Christians would argue that a belief in God is required in the same way, but I suspect (hope) that you will not try that argument. The lives of those on this site attest that it is not at all the same.

 

As for morality, I would disagree entirely about it being a foundational assumption. In my mind, the proper root of morality is consideration of the consequences of our actions. Stealing and breaking promises causes harm to others, and to ourselves.

 

Lastly, when I speak of the lack of evidence for God, I am not primarily speaking of testing the idea of God as you would a scientific hypothesis. I am primarily saying that if God exists, and our proper relationship to him is the core question of our lives, why would God leave open the question of his existence at all?

[sethhersch]

I lack a strong philosophical background, so I may be biting off more than I can chew in joining this conversation.

 

What struck me as I read your post is that none of your examples seem readily comparable to presupposing the existence of God. Numbers 1, 2 and 4 are functional assumptions. Operating in the world requires this kind of basic foundation. Even if, for example, one believes that the evidence of our senses is merely some kind of mental construct, one has to act as though they reflect a physical reality.

 

Many Christians would argue that a belief in God is required in the same way, but I suspect (hope) that you will not try that argument. The lives of those on this site attest that it is not at all the same.

 

As for morality, I would disagree entirely about it being a foundational assumption. In my mind, the proper root of morality is consideration of the consequences of our actions. Stealing and breaking promises causes harm to others, and to ourselves.

 

Lastly, when I speak of the lack of evidence for God, I am not primarily speaking of testing the idea of God as you would a scientific hypothesis. I am primarily saying that if God exists, and our proper relationship to him is the core question of our lives, why would God leave open the question of his existence at all?

 

 

Oh, you are absolutely right about the examples being very disanalogous to the existence of GOD. I wasn't trying to conclude "therefore, GOD exists." I was trying for a more modest conclusion: hence, it is rational to believe at least some things without evidence. A conclusion I might try for would not be the existence of GOD, but the rationality of belief in GOD, based on the above argument. Does that make sense?

 

 

As for the question you posed at the end, I think it's the right question to ask, and you asked it in a great way. Why the hell would this being create us, want a relationship with us, then make it inordinately difficult to so much as determine whether he is real!? It's really fundamental to the debate. I don't always think that about supposedly challenging questions, but this is a good one. I obviously am no genius, and certainly I am no prophet, but here's my best guess. Life, being that it is so short relative to the span of time the universe has undergone, must be a sort of proving ground during which we seek desperately to find answers to important questions. That we are curious about the existence or non-existence of gods is no accident -- I think that we are here to find answers, or at least to throw out the toughest questions we've got. If the whole purpose was to access a relationship to which we had full access from the outset, life would either be very boring or very damning. Boring because we'd be following prescriptions we'd know were required, or damning because living in defiance of such an obvious mandate would surely have its consequences.

 

I personally believe that confusion and doubt are perfectly natural, and that there is no reason to be fearful of divine consequences of asking genuine questions. Questions are very central to life.

 

I know that was a vague answer. I promise I'll get more precise when we start getting down to particulars, but that's my initial, shootin-from-the-hip answer.

[FiddlingAround]

Oh, you are absolutely right about the examples being very disanalogous to the existence of GOD. I wasn't trying to conclude "therefore, GOD exists." I was trying for a more modest conclusion: hence, it is rational to believe at least some things without evidence. A conclusion I might try for would not be the existence of GOD, but the rationality of belief in GOD, based on the above argument. Does that make sense?

 

Yes, it does. Thank you. I didn't really think that you were trying to conclude "therefore God exists", only that you seemed to be saying that the question was similarly exempt from the expectation of evidence, which I think would only hold true if it were similarly foundational.

 

I've been reading over your proposed conclusion above, and trying to rephrase it to make sure that I understand. Would "All worldviews hold foundational assumptions" be a fair summary? With the expectation that the conversation would turn to exploring the merits of the worldview based on theistic foundations as a way of exploring the foundations themselves?

 

As for the question you posed at the end, I think it's the right question to ask, and you asked it in a great way. Why the hell would this being create us, want a relationship with us, then make it inordinately difficult to so much as determine whether he is real!? It's really fundamental to the debate. I don't always think that about supposedly challenging questions, but this is a good one. I obviously am no genius, and certainly I am no prophet, but here's my best guess. Life, being that it is so short relative to the span of time the universe has undergone, must be a sort of proving ground during which we seek desperately to find answers to important questions. That we are curious about the existence or non-existence of gods is no accident -- I think that we are here to find answers, or at least to throw out the toughest questions we've got. If the whole purpose was to access a relationship to which we had full access from the outset, life would either be very boring or very damning. Boring because we'd be following prescriptions we'd know were required, or damning because living in defiance of such an obvious mandate would surely have its consequences.

 

I personally believe that confusion and doubt are perfectly natural, and that there is no reason to be fearful of divine consequences of asking genuine questions. Questions are very central to life.

 

I know that was a vague answer. I promise I'll get more precise when we start getting down to particulars, but that's my initial, shootin-from-the-hip answer.

 

I agree completely with the bolded phrase. As for the rest, I'll wait to see how your arguments unfold.

[sethhersch]

Oh, you are absolutely right about the examples being very disanalogous to the existence of GOD. I wasn't trying to conclude "therefore, GOD exists." I was trying for a more modest conclusion: hence, it is rational to believe at least some things without evidence. A conclusion I might try for would not be the existence of GOD, but the rationality of belief in GOD, based on the above argument. Does that make sense?

 

Yes, it does. Thank you. I didn't really think that you were trying to conclude "therefore God exists", only that you seemed to be saying that the question was similarly exempt from the expectation of evidence, which I think would only hold true if it were similarly foundational.

 

I've been reading over your proposed conclusion above, and trying to rephrase it to make sure that I understand. Would "All worldviews hold foundational assumptions" be a fair summary? With the expectation that the conversation would turn to exploring the merits of the worldview based on theistic foundations as a way of exploring the foundations themselves?

 

 

I didn't really intend for the foundational assumptions to be limited to worldviews, but this is going in a good direction. I can definitely say this: your summary is something with which I absolutely agree.

 

I don't really understand where you're going with that last sentence. What do you have in mind?

[FiddlingAround]

 

I didn't really intend for the foundational assumptions to be limited to worldviews, but this is going in a good direction. I can definitely say this: your summary is something with which I absolutely agree.

 

I don't really understand where you're going with that last sentence. What do you have in mind?

 

 

Not so much what I had in mind as what I thought you might have in mind. I assumed that you meant for the conversation to center around/come back to the validity of a belief in God, but just didn't want to approach the question in the usual way. This might have been assuming to much, though?

[ContraBardus]

I only brought up the burden of proof because you mentioned 'where is the evidence for your God?' and your description of evidence.

 

It's an intentionally simple rebuttal that was only meant to point out that 'Where is the evidence for your God?' is a valid question. It's a completely reasonable statement.

 

Though, looking back at it, perhaps I did get a bit long winded about it.

 

While it may be reasonable for you to say 'I don't need it' it is not reasonable to state 'we do not need it'.

 

The needs of the many are not the same as the needs of the few. Belief in God effects many things, very often not in a positive way. Stating 'It's good enough for me, so it's enough for everyone' is projecting one's self too much.

 

I think it is a very important question, and a very dangerous error to put so much trust and faith in something like God. Who, as I mentioned, is remarkably similar in appearance and evidence as something that does not exist.

 

The fact that we cannot or do not 'detect' God is also suspect. Why would he 'hide' from us? Why make the evidence appear to contradict his 'scripture' regardless of what particular faith, be it Christian, Hindu, Islam, or whatever.

 

God does not seem to want us to know it exists if it does. I seriously doubt if such a being does exist, that it cares even the tiniest bit that I doubt that it is real.

 

Why would it? God as portrayed by religion is vain, petty, and very human in nature.

 

Reality indicates that God, if such a thing does exist, is largely indifferent to my personal opinion.

 

I do not expect any sort of eternal punishment or reward when I die. I don't understand how anyone does. It's rather vain and arrogant on the part of humans to think so.

 

I do not believe for a moment that living forever, in heaven or hell, would be a good thing.

 

It's not the vague concept of God I have issues with really. Given any solid evidence I would have no problem believing in a God. A 'personal God' is another matter.

 

Put simply, if the best measuring stick of how good a person I am God has is how much I believed in it, then it's not really worthy of worship to begin with.

 

God is an unusual and irrational claim. There's really no basis for it, and no real explanation outside of human imagination for the concept.

 

In order for God to exist, there just has to be to many 'rules' broken. He's eternal, when nothing really is, he's all knowing, but no explanation for how he learned 'all' is given, he's all powerful, yet evil exists, he's everywhere at once, and yet no evidence of his presence is detectable.

 

I'm assuming you're familiar with Empicurius's argument. It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

I hold God to the same standards of proof as I would the existence of anything else.

 

If you said you had a dinosaur in your back yard, I would not take your word alone, or accept anything less than solid verifiable proof that you did indeed have such a creature in your yard.

 

God amounts to the same thing. It's an extraordinary claim with no validity behind it. There is no reason to assume that it is true. The only reason people believe in any particular God is largely a result of culture and tradition, not any reasonable inference.

 

I'm not much of a Philosopher though I'm not entirely ignorant of the subject. It's not something I've studied extensively.

 

I prefer 'fact' over 'truth'. I like hard science, and while I understand the value of philosophy, and it's role in society and history, I also don't place too much stock in the 'pure thought rationality'.

 

Science uses ideas that work, and discards ideas that do not. Ideas must be functional, falsifiable, or otherwise provide some working model that can be practically applied.

 

Your OP seems to be implying that the lack of absolutes or a hundred percent certainty makes Science more suspect than it really is.

 

There are absolutely no absolutes. Nothing is a hundred percent certain outside of hard Math.

 

There will always be a margin of error in anything be it Philosophy, or Science. It's just a matter of minimizing that margin. Science does a very good job of doing that. It's margin of error is consistently low.

 

Religion on the other hand does not have such a low margin of error. It has no self correcting mechanism. When it is wrong, it demands that it is right until it is forced by overwhelming consensus and evidence that it is in error. It has to be literally forced into admitting that it is wrong, it claims infallibility. It's far more counter productive than Science, which readily admits error and seeks to correct it whenever possible, and also admits that error is possible.

 

@ EmperorNorton

 

'Falsifiable' does not necessarily mean 'testable'. At least not in the sense I think you mean it. It does not imply that something must be repeatable in a lab experiment, or have direct evidence.

 

All theories must be Falsifiable, its a requirement. If it's not Falsifiable, it's not a theory. There are many ways to Falsify things outside of direct experimentation. Math, observation, and even indirect observation. For example, we cannot see black holes, but we know they exist because of how they effect other celestial objects around them.

 

So yes, Astronomy is a Science. It's theories are falsifiable, though not through direct testing and experiments. There's lots of math involved, and observation is probably the most important tool in the field. Not just visual, but by detecting other energies, such as radiation, radio waves, gamma rays, etc.

 

Falsifiable just means that it is possible to prove that something is wrong or in error. Testing is a valuable tool to do that, but it is not the only possible way either.

[Franko47]

Actually, I've never been concerned with whether science can "prove" or "disprove" a god-concept.

 

 

Most of our skepticism comes from the observation of belief itself, the development of theology, and the ideas of various religious dogma. Likely the study of psychology is more relevant to the analysis of religion than pure hard science like astronomy and physics.

 

There are various routine "gimmicks" that are usually observable in a historical religion or theologically based theism. I for one have no problem with a creator-god, a universal consciousness, or a transcendent super-intelligence. It's just that the rational characteristics for such a being are not consistant with most religious views; their gods smack of anthropomorphic idealism, extensions of ancient mythology, and other forms of "magical thinking".

 

Fundamentally, most religious gods fail my test of believability because they are curiously shallow, reckless, confusing, illogical, and to be honest, all too human. An accomplished advanced intelligence is not going to have temper tantrums, or a hideous policy toward lesser beings that is malicious and I would even say deceitful.

 

Even a basic philosopher knows that an advanced being would have sophisticated traits of ideals that we conceive of; the very premise of a violent, tyrannical god with a "worship my ego" fetish goes "poof" right out of the gate. Maybe a human warrior king, but not a transcendent elegant intelligence.

 

Once you come to these conclusions, you can never go back. It's not a matter of "the god I want", that's a counter-strawman argument from religionists. It's a matter of plausibility, and the fact that I can easily consider "gods" greater and more rational than all the ones offered up by those guided by fear and indoctrination, as opposed to those guided by rationalism, truth, and sound intuition.

 

By all means let philosophy be our guide in matters of truth or even metaphysics.

[RankStranger]

1. Logical principles -- i.e. the law of non-contradiction

2. Mathematical axioms

3. Ethical principles -- i.e. [prima facie] stealing is wrong, keep your promises, etc.

4. The reliability of our senses -- how can we trust that we are interpreting ordinary empirical evidence accurately and without adulteration?

 

Others may have touched on this- I didn't read the thread very closely. But with the possible exception of ethical principles, the assumptions that you list can be tested and verified. They're repeatable and falsifiable. I think we can all agree that the same isn't true of any conventional notion of 'god'. Therefore I reckon I have much better reasons to believe points 1,2, and 4 than some bronze-age goatherder concept of a magic skydaddy.

[Ouroboros]

I am a philosopher first and foremost, but I am also a theist.

Interesting. So you're a professor?

[Shyone]

1. Logical principles -- i.e. the law of non-contradiction

2. Mathematical axioms

3. Ethical principles -- i.e. [prima facie] stealing is wrong, keep your promises, etc.

4. The reliability of our senses -- how can we trust that we are interpreting ordinary empirical evidence accurately and without adulteration?

 

Others may have touched on this- I didn't read the thread very closely. But with the possible exception of ethical principles, the assumptions that you list can be tested and verified. They're repeatable and falsifiable. I think we can all agree that the same isn't true of any conventional notion of 'god'. Therefore I reckon I have much better reasons to believe points 1,2, and 4 than some bronze-age goatherder concept of a magic skydaddy.

Agreed.

 

May I add that 1 and 2 cannot be "proven" except as noted above.

 

#3 and #4, however, are subjects that can be investigated. Are there never circumstances when a lie might be preferrable to the truth? Even a little "white lie"? Is stealing always wrong under all circumstances, or could it be justified on occasion? Defining stealing as taking by force, that means collection of taxes under some circumstances. Are all taxes wrong all the time?

 

Lots to discuss with respect to #3 and #4, even "ethical principles." I will be glad to refer you to sources regarding ethics and neuroscience if you need examples of how #4 and #4 can be (and are being) investigated.

[Ouroboros]

Hard science might not be able to explain ethics, but soft science does a pretty good job at explaining where ethics come from, how it develops, and how to figure out what it's supposed to be.

[sethhersch]

 

 

The fact that we cannot or do not 'detect' God is also suspect. Why would he 'hide' from us? Why make the evidence appear to contradict his 'scripture' regardless of what particular faith, be it Christian, Hindu, Islam, or whatever.

 

God does not seem to want us to know it exists if it does. I seriously doubt if such a being does exist, that it cares even the tiniest bit that I doubt that it is real.

 

Why would it? God as portrayed by religion is vain, petty, and very human in nature.

 

Reality indicates that God, if such a thing does exist, is largely indifferent to my personal opinion.

 

 

First, I don't think that 'the evidence' does indeed contradict scripture. If you have some you'd like to offer, I'd be interested to hear it. For argument's sake, let's take the KJV of the Bible to be the scripture.

 

I don't disagree that GOD is oftentimes anthropomorphized by religious people, but really even this hasn't got much scriptural backing. I can understand certainly why a fresh mind might see the OT god as a rather vengeful being, but we are in two dangers making this into the crux of a conclusion:

 

1. Armchair metaphysics isn't going to help us to understand a being that by definition is supernatural and transcendent

2. Petty is hardly an accurate assault to launch -- if we are using the scripture as the subject of argument, GOD smote people and cities for generally pretty good reason [rampant sexual immorality, prostitution, repeated willful ignorance of common decency, etc.]

 

Regarding the first point: I think this is particularly applicable to your last statement above -- what do you mean by "reality?" Do you just mean the things we come to learn in every day life, including those things of which science helps to inform us? If so, we can hardly move from those kinds of learnings to a conclusion as strong as e.g. GOD doesn't care what you think. What have you ever learned from life that would support a conclusion like that?

 

In other words, how do you know GOD would be / is indifferent?

[sethhersch]

1. Logical principles -- i.e. the law of non-contradiction

2. Mathematical axioms

3. Ethical principles -- i.e. [prima facie] stealing is wrong, keep your promises, etc.

4. The reliability of our senses -- how can we trust that we are interpreting ordinary empirical evidence accurately and without adulteration?

 

Others may have touched on this- I didn't read the thread very closely. But with the possible exception of ethical principles, the assumptions that you list can be tested and verified. They're repeatable and falsifiable. I think we can all agree that the same isn't true of any conventional notion of 'god'. Therefore I reckon I have much better reasons to believe points 1,2, and 4 than some bronze-age goatherder concept of a magic skydaddy.

 

 

 

The whole point of these examples is that they aren't verifiable, but that we merely take them to be true to build a sort of intellectual foundation. This is actually a whole branch of contemporary epistemology that we call "epistemic architecture."

 

Take the reliability of our senses, for example. Descartes said that it would be hard [maybe impossible] to prove to yourself that you aren't merely being programmed to have all of your experiences by some evil genius scientist. Everything you experience and interpret as sensory intake is entirely fabricated. How could you verify that your senses are genuine and that this is untrue? Presumable, any such test would require the accurate use of your senses...but those are the things in question!??

 

I don't see how we can verify anything on this short list. I think you are going to have to argue for that conclusion.

 

By the way, I agree that the existence of GOD is not verifiable, either -- at least not by ordinary means to which we are accustomed.

[sethhersch]

Actually, I've never been concerned with whether science can "prove" or "disprove" a god-concept.

 

 

Most of our skepticism comes from the observation of belief itself, the development of theology, and the ideas of various religious dogma. Likely the study of psychology is more relevant to the analysis of religion than pure hard science like astronomy and physics.

 

There are various routine "gimmicks" that are usually observable in a historical religion or theologically based theism. I for one have no problem with a creator-god, a universal consciousness, or a transcendent super-intelligence. It's just that the rational characteristics for such a being are not consistant with most religious views; their gods smack of anthropomorphic idealism, extensions of ancient mythology, and other forms of "magical thinking".

 

Fundamentally, most religious gods fail my test of believability because they are curiously shallow, reckless, confusing, illogical, and to be honest, all too human. An accomplished advanced intelligence is not going to have temper tantrums, or a hideous policy toward lesser beings that is malicious and I would even say deceitful.

 

Even a basic philosopher knows that an advanced being would have sophisticated traits of ideals that we conceive of; the very premise of a violent, tyrannical god with a "worship my ego" fetish goes "poof" right out of the gate. Maybe a human warrior king, but not a transcendent elegant intelligence.

 

Once you come to these conclusions, you can never go back. It's not a matter of "the god I want", that's a counter-strawman argument from religionists. It's a matter of plausibility, and the fact that I can easily consider "gods" greater and more rational than all the ones offered up by those guided by fear and indoctrination, as opposed to those guided by rationalism, truth, and sound intuition.

 

By all means let philosophy be our guide in matters of truth or even metaphysics.

 

 

 

This is really interesting. I don't really want to talk you out of your position. Mine is merely that theism is not irrational, but it sounds like, barring much of the stock religious dogma, that you aren't that far from agreeing with this. It sounds like what you disagree with is not theism but theology.

 

I'm not a theology professor, so I don't have as much to offer in that vein.

 

I will say, though, that [like much classical theology] we run the risk of imposing arbitrary restrictions on what constitutes a transcendental god if we filter everything through a sophomoric interpretation of the god of the OT.

[sethhersch]

1. Logical principles -- i.e. the law of non-contradiction

2. Mathematical axioms

3. Ethical principles -- i.e. [prima facie] stealing is wrong, keep your promises, etc.

4. The reliability of our senses -- how can we trust that we are interpreting ordinary empirical evidence accurately and without adulteration?

 

Others may have touched on this- I didn't read the thread very closely. But with the possible exception of ethical principles, the assumptions that you list can be tested and verified. They're repeatable and falsifiable. I think we can all agree that the same isn't true of any conventional notion of 'god'. Therefore I reckon I have much better reasons to believe points 1,2, and 4 than some bronze-age goatherder concept of a magic skydaddy.

Agreed.

 

May I add that 1 and 2 cannot be "proven" except as noted above.

 

#3 and #4, however, are subjects that can be investigated. Are there never circumstances when a lie might be preferrable to the truth? Even a little "white lie"? Is stealing always wrong under all circumstances, or could it be justified on occasion? Defining stealing as taking by force, that means collection of taxes under some circumstances. Are all taxes wrong all the time?

 

Lots to discuss with respect to #3 and #4, even "ethical principles." I will be glad to refer you to sources regarding ethics and neuroscience if you need examples of how #4 and #4 can be (and are being) investigated.

 

 

I don't want to talk about Cartesian epistemology again. I have a post above that talks about what Descartes said.

 

I don't doubt that science explores the role and reliability of sensory perception, but the Cartesian challenge survives any scientific investigation. I don't think that's a good reason to be a skeptic -- what I am getting at is that the reliability of sensory perception simply has to be presumed to even get scientific inquiry off the ground.

[par4dcourse]

By the way, I agree that the existence of GOD is not verifiable, either -- at least not by ordinary means to which we are accustomed.

And we, or at least the non-theists among us, are making no claims to be verified.

[sethhersch]

Wow, ContraBardus, that's a lot of stuff that I agree with. However, I think I'll jump straight to the crux of this argument.

 

sethhersch, you seem to be saying that because human understanding and perception is fallible, the atheists and agnostics are no more valid in their arguments against god than theists are in their arguments for god.

 

Am I correct in this assessment?

 

 

Not quite. I'm sorry if I'm not being precise, let me try again.

 

I was trying to come up with examples of things for which we lack evidence but which we are rational to believe to show why science may not be able to speak to the existence of GOD.

 

Your point was interesting, though.

 

 

I thought that it was interesting that he honed in on the discussion of the reliability of sensory perception. That was a tiny corner of my argument, but it is interesting to see someone use that to shine a light on another potential argumentative trajectory I could have used. I don't intend to follow that line, but it's interesting all the same.

 

Also, thanks for the warm welcome

 

Welcome to the site.

 

I am interested in this conversation, but it's a bit difficult for me to grasp enough for much engagement as a contributor, so I'll mostly be participating as a curious questioner.

 

I am curious, what was interesting to you about Sam's attempt to restate your argument?

 

Phanta