By Mano Singham
The arguments took a familiar form and went something like this:
- We cannot prove that god does not exist.
- Hence it is rational to believe that god exists.
- Scientists should stick to the world of data and not venture to question god's existence since that enters the realm of philosophy, not science.
The author states that if a scientist is asked: 'In your scientific opinion, does God exist?' the proper answer should always be, 'I don't know. I don't have any data on the subject.'
I will readily concede the first point, and in fact have done so previously (See here, here, and here.)
But the other two statements do not follow from the first. Just because we cannot prove, using data, the negation of some entity does not mean that it is reasonable to believe in that entity. Scientists constantly make judgments in the absence of data and act on those judgments. In fact, it is essential that they do so, as science could not proceed otherwise.
The only time that you can prove a negative is if you have the ability to do an exhaustive examination of every possible situation. As an example, I can prove to everyone's satisfaction that no unicorns exist in my office because I can search every nook and cranny and show that none are there. But I cannot similarly prove that no unicorns exist anywhere on the Earth or elsewhere in the universe.
I also cannot prove the non-existence of magic unicorns in my office, that only materialize when I am not present and are capable of hiding all evidence of their visits before they disappear again. It seems to me that arguments for the existence of god are of this nature.
But there is another point about the word 'proof' that needs to be emphasized. When scientists use the word 'proof' they use it in a slightly differently way from the way mathematicians use it. In mathematics, a proof is a construct based on an agreed set of axioms and rules of logic. If someone challenges the validity of any of the axioms or one of the rules, then the proof is also called into question. But since the axioms are usually few in number and do not necessarily have to be based on data, mathematicians can agree on the validity of more things as working hypotheses than scientists can.
Scientific 'proofs' do not have the same level of rigor as a mathematical proofs because the axioms themselves are not simply assumptions but are also expected to justify based on evidence. Also there are far more explicit assumptions that go into scientific conclusions than go into mathematical proofs, thus opening them up to far more challenges. This greater degree of challenge that scientific assumptions receive makes scientific 'proofs' different from mathematical proofs. So although I and other scientists use the word proof frequently, we do understand that it is being used in a slightly different sense than a mathematical proof. The word proof is used to signify a reasoned judgment based on the merits of the evidence.
But just because scientific proofs do not have the same status as mathematical proofs does not mean that scientific conclusions cannot be extremely robust. Let me give an example. Most people readily accept that there are just two kinds of electric charge, positive and negative. This is about as well-established a 'fact' as one is likely to find in science. This is one of the most firmly held beliefs in all of science and the entire modern world is constructed on the basis of this two-charge model. No one even thinks of questioning this fact. (Note that 'positive' and 'negative' are just labels and the charges could just as well have been called things like 'green' and 'blue'.)
The interesting question is how it is that we are so certain that there are just two kinds of charges that we base our entire society on it. Do we have certain proof that there are only two kinds of charges? Do we have direct data that no more charges exist? Have we looked everywhere and convinced ourselves of this? The answer to all three questions is no. So how is it that we are so sure that only two kinds of charges exist? It is because of the absence of certain kinds of data.
Here's how that argument works. Suppose you have three charged objects A, B, and C. What scientists find is that if the charges are such that A and B attract each other and A and C attract each other, then it is always found that B and C repel each other. This set of three observations can be explained by (1) postulating that there exist just two kinds of charges, and (2) adopting a rule that says that like charges repel and unlike charges attract. No data has ever been seen that contradicts the consequences of these two assumptions.
Because of the absence of any data that contradicts any predictions based on those two statements, scientists will say that they are extremely confident that there are only two kinds of charges and this is all the 'proof' they need. But note that they haven't actually proved it in a mathematical sense. It is just a powerful inference based on the absence of certain kinds of data, but it is sufficient proof to convince scientists.
Notice though that even this 'proof' can be challenged. After all, we have done such experiments with just a few sets of charges. We have not exhaustively repeated them with every single charge that exists in the universe because it would be impossible to do so. As a result, someone can come along and say that scientists are wrong, that there does exist a third kind of charge but that either it has not been found yet or that it does not interfere with the experiments that scientists do. There is no way that scientists can prove this person wrong. How could they? But what they will do is ignore this argument as not worth responding to because that kind of argument has the same standing as magical unicorns in my office or a god who is determined to avoid leaving evidence of his/her existence.
A belief that has no observable consequences is of no use to scientists and they will work on the assumption that this third charge does not exist and that would be perfectly rational behavior. A person who clings to the belief in a mysterious third charge that has no observable consequences will be treated as somewhat eccentric.
Historians and philosophers of science have long pointed out that there is no proposition in science, however idiotic, that cannot be made immune from refutation by the addition of a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses to shield its weaknesses. But if you want to convince scientists that something like a third kind of charge exists, you will have to provide positive evidence, some actual data that cannot be explained by a two-charge theory. For scientists, the absence of such evidence or data is taken as evidence of absence.
It seems to me that the arguments put forward by believers for the existence of god are of the same kind as those that might be put forward for a third charge: It exists but its effects cannot be observed. But just as scientists are perfectly justified in rejecting as irrational that kind of hypothesis when applied to a third charge and confidently proceeding on the basis that it is false, so it is that we can confidently reject the arguments currently given for the existence of god.
So although you may not be able to prove exhaustively that god does not exist, you cannot obtain a stronger scientific proof than what we currently have.
So if someone should ask me 'In your scientific opinion, does God exist?', I would answer 'No' with the same degree of confidence that I would say 'No' to the question as to whether a third type of electric charge exists.
A minor point re vocabulary
A minor quibble over a parenthetical comment you made in this excellent and sensible article. You say:
"(Note that 'positive' and 'negative' are just labels and the charges could just as well have been called things like 'green' and 'blue'.)"
While this is certainly true, it is (as you know) useful and consistent to use the terms 'positive' and 'negative' -- for the simple reason that these terms conform to how the equations of electromagnetism describe the related fields and forces. Indeed, we could reverse what we call 'positive' and 'negative' without doing deep damage to this metaphoric relation, but it is clearly useful to name them in a way that connects to the mathematical representations.
HangInThere
signs of charges
HangInThere is quite right. There are a huge number of advantages for assigning the labels plus and minus to the two kinds of charges and these advantages are immediately apparent to anyone who actually uses the mathematics of the theory of electromagnetism.
But some non-scientists tend to confuse labels with intrinsic properties and I was trying to separate the two.
Mano Singham
Two sides.
Intrusting to see complete dogmatism from two apposite sides:
Religious unreasonable dogmatic:
1. We cannot prove that god does not exist.
2. Hence it is rational to believe that god exists.
vs. Scientist Reasonable dogmatic:
So if someone should ask me 'In your scientific opinion, does God exist?', I would answer 'No' with the same degree of confidence that I would say 'No' to the question as to whether a third type of electric charge exists.
Best response is from:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=231
...The fact that the universe is developing and not just standing still certainly makes the questions of how it started, where it's going, etc. very relevant, and a lot of people might find a place for God in trying to answer those questions....
However, there is absolutely no reason to question "whether a third type of electric charge exists".
How can one compare the two questions?
All the best.
Silly reasoning
When someone says: "We cannot prove that god does not exist, hence it is rational to believe that god exists," I have to laugh to myself. Using this type of reasoning, one may rationalize the existence of anything:
Evidence is the lacking feature here. It is a matter of simple statistics: Abundant evidence increases the chance that something exists, while lack of evidence (or no evidence at all), decreases that chance.
evidence...
I am surprised that author had chosen the most idiotic religious argument...
Regarding "lacking Evidence" , there are different opinions on the subject...
As an example:
A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism (search) for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141061,00.html
...
Mano - Since you are willing
Mano - Since you are willing to allow that labels are somewhat arbitrary and are chosen for *reason* of their usefulness, in the case of charge - usefulness in working with the related mathematics, maybe you could apply a similar reasoning to other vocabulary choices.
I'm thinking of the use of the word "irrational" when it comes to discussions of atheism, religion, and those who seem to want to argue about such things. Maybe the very effort to convince people one way or another is itself irrational, as in nutso? That might make me the Chief Ringer in the Belfy of Chapel Bats. And it might explain why I always seem to come back from the market with two shy of a six-pack... :)
In any event... Another *reason* might be to further *conversation* (and not mere argumentativeness) among people with widely varying points of view?
If your word choice gives the people you're discussing reason to think you don't respect them, and if you *know* you're going to have this effect, then are you really engaged in a conversation, or are you preaching to *your* choir? Is a mere echo chamber that readily agrees with you really what you want?
You don't seem like the kind of person who would say yes to this question. If I'm correct in this, then don't you have the burden, and yes it's a burden, of making your language as palatable as possible to those who disagree with you.
I'm most certainly *not* saying you should be false to your viewpoint. But surely you'll agree that the map isn't the territory. The menu isn't the food. The words we use aren't the things that are being discussed.
So it seems to me (again - only if I'm correct about you) that selecting your words in ways *calculated* to cause pondering rather than dispute would be of value. I think I've seen you make such an effort. I haven't read enough of your essays to know if you do so all the time. And most certainly, there are other players here who *don't* do so.
But if the game is conversation and not merely praise-in-the-echo-chamber, shouldn't this be the objective all the time?
Kind Regards,
Bal
=========
The all-important thing to me are the Questions. Not your answers. But the Questions. And if you have no proof - no evidence, then all you've got are opinions. End of story. (Or is it?) :)
Anthony Flew
If you have seen Anthony Flew recently, it's pretty obvious that he's gone senile. see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted...
Relevance
I do not believe in any kind of God for a lot of the reasons mentioned in this article and others. However, I would not try to argue against the existence of God with someone who does believe. As was said in the article: "A belief that has no observable consequences is of no use to scientists...". It is, however, of use to the believer. Many find comfort in "knowing" that there is someone watching over them, or that death is not really the end. Who are we then to try to rob them of that comfort.
People who believe do not bother me at all, people who govern others based on their own personal beliefs is another thing. I don't think the holy wars and other atrocities connected with religion should be blamed on religion itself but on the people and the greed and selfishness that comes with being human. By trying to prove that God does not exist I'm only trying to reassure myself. To the believer my proof will have no value. The existence of God is therefore irrelevant - in my opinion - and arguing about it will always be fruitless. We should instead focus on what it means to believe and try to convince people that belief is very much a personal thing. If that idea is accepted, maybe people will learn to a bit more tolerant toward others with different beliefs. That's what really matters, isn't it?
The Problem
The problem here is that religious belief is the cause of much death and destruction in the world. As author Sam Harris said: "That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion – to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources – is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity."
The Solution
I agree, that is the problem. I just don't think that trying to prove that God does not exist will do any good. My girlfriend sometimes says that see knows some things to be true and yet she does not believe in them. I would argue that if one knows than surely one must also believe. I thought about this and I have formed the opinion that to believe is to hold something to be true whatever anyone or anything else says. By arguing with, and observing, true believers the validity of my opinion is only strengthened. Whatever happens to a true believer, he/she will trust that it was for the best and part of the divine plan. If a proof of Gods non-existence would be discovered it would probably have been provided by God to test the faith of his people or something along those lines.
Doing Nothing
I'm afraid that doing nothing simply maintains the status quo. Non-believers *must* be active and resolute. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my community atheist meeting....
A false analogy?
I can understand where you're coming from, but it seems possible that you are using a false analogy.
Most of your argument was perfectly easy to understand. You seem to think that believing in God is like believing in an invisible pink unicorn, a common analogy. We should doubt its existence until given unambiguous data otherwise. My doubts, however, stem from the fact that this analogy contains plenty of assumptions that can themselves be questioned.
First, it is helpful to notice how unreliable analogies are. ALL analogies presume that two things are meaningfully similar and can be compared usefully. Another problem is that an unexplained analogy hides more than it shows. Suppose someone was to say that 'belief in God is like belief in Leprecauns.' This is all very well if I already agree, but if I doubt the analogy I need an explanation. 'Like belief in Leprecauns in what way? Are you saying that God is Irish?' 'But Leprecauns live in Ireland, whereas God lives everywhere.' My point is that these seemingly innocent, simple, convincing analogies unpack into reams of reasoning and discussion, that can in turn be doubted. Far from answering our questions, analogies can give rise to more. Analogies look innocent only because they hide more reasoning than they show.
To deal with your 'Pink Unicorn' analogy more directly, it seems to imply the following:
- God is merely a myth, like Unicorns.
- There is no evidence for God, as there is with Unicorns.
- By default, we should be sceptical of God for the same reason that we are sceptical of Unicorns.
- Like a Unicorn, God is complex. (I'm less certain about this one; I'll admit that it's an uncertain interpretation.)
What I'm trying to illustrate is how loaded this, and all, analogies are. They cannot take the place of real, explicit reasoning. Most of your agument did not deal directly with God, but with analogies about God, and this can never be rationally preferable. There's plenty of reasoning about Unicorns, all hinging on the premise that God is more or less the same. Is that safe?
I also have a few doubts about the four bullet points above. For instance:
- The belief that 'there is no evidence for God' may seem perfectly safe, but it is actually very interpretative. What you really mean is that 'there are no events that should require God as an explanation', but this already looks less certain. What evidence is 'evidence FOR' depends on how you interpret it, not that some interpretations are not better than others. What would 'data about God' be like, in your opinion? Whatever your answer, it implies an undertanding of God. One point I think you missed is that God is often intended to function as an ultimate explanation, not a proximal one (look up Aquinas for an influential example.) Many people think that the world itself is evidence for God; that this evidence is not specific things in the world, it IS the world.
- A common response to this notion is that God is a bad explanation for the world in some way. One problem (for certain atheists, at least) is that this already delves into Theology, every atheist's least favourite subject. If you think that God is a bad explanation for the world, why? Is God complex? Then we need analysis that shows this. Is it that we should prefer 'natural', rather than 'supernatural' explanations? Then what do these words mean? I've read an excellent essay recently that suggests that they mean nothing at all. Are there 'better' explanations available? How are they better? You can bet that any answer to these questions will contain yet more assumptions.
- Probably the biggest assumption in the argument is that we should be equally sceptical of God as we are of Unicorns until there is data. Is this necessarily true, however? I would argue that a simple item like Gravity requires less scepticism than a complex one like the Flying Spagetti Monster. Which one you think God more closely resembles, is, again, a matter of Theology.
Also, I would argue that there are profound differences between God and Unicorns that render the 'Unicorn' analogy demonstrably unreliable. (Similarly for leprecauns, the Tooth Fairy, etc...) Unlike a Unicorn, God is not made of a large number of cells arranged in space, does not have a horn, is infinite rather than finite... you probably get the idea. What's more, I think that evidence for God would have to be of a very different character from evidence for Unicorns. Exactly what character is something I'm trying to figure out. When the object of your search is omnipresent, it cannot be pointed to, and it's no use looking in any particular place for it either. Think of the claim 'I don't believe in Gravity. I've travelled all over the world and I've never seen it.' My point is that belief in God is far more like belief in Gravity than it is in a Unicorn. Gravity, like God, is omnipresent and arguably displays a kind of limited Omnipotence as well as infallability. It may sound odd to apply theological terms to a force of Physics, but it's not unfair. We find gravity not by looking in certain places, but by interpreting the world as a whole. God is not something you find, it is something you recognize. Notice that this follows inevitably from understanding what 'Omnipresent' means - it is not a controversial piece of Theology, a claim to have seen God, or even an implicit claim that God exists because it can be hypothetical as well. Comparing God to Gravity seems a far fairer analogy to use, and I've also tried to reduce the ambiguity by explaining it.
Overall, my problem is that your approach from analogy will only satisfy people who largely already agree with you, and your implicit Theology to boot. The purpose of reasoning and philosophy, however, is to make the implicit explicit.
Definitions
This whole thing comes down to the definition of "rational" (or even more importantly "not rational").
Since one can't prove that God does not exist, that makes it not irrational to believe in him.
Does "not irrational" exactly equal "rational"?
To the person making those logical steps it apparently does. To many of us though, it doesn't. It's only rational to believe in something if there is evidence (not even "proof" mind you, just evidence).
So the rationality of belief in God, even short of proving God, should be based on presentation of evidence.
Then of course you get into the definition of "evidence". Any time I've had this conversation, the "evidence" I get is mostly personal feelings and emotional responses that would certainly not pass as evidence to most rational people.