The interesting thing for me in the theist view is it implies that there is another world, subject to rules different from those that apply to this world. Such a world need not be subject to natural laws of physics as we know them, but could be metaphysical. It is here that I see the hub of the God debate. The fundamental argument around the existence of a God or Gods, is not the semantics around the definition of the character of such a God, but rather hinges on the existence of a world beyond that which is not necessarily manifest in our day-today physical existence. For the sake of simplicity I will refer to this other world a metaphysical realm.
The crux of the debate is the existence of a metaphysical realm, because if it exists, the existence of a supreme being, God or Gods (however the hierarchy turns out in that realm) is but a small and reasonably likely step. So does the metaphysical realm exist? On the one hand we have a lack of absolute scientific evidence that this realm exists, and on the other hand a large body of anecdotal evidence that it does. While a scientific approach would dismiss a theory proved to be wrong, in a true quest for knowledge we should be seeking an explanation for that which we cannot explain, rather than blindly saying if we can’t prove it exists, it does not. Indeed clinging to unpopular beliefs is the source of many of our greatest scientific discoveries. Certainly we do not yet have the knowledge to be certain of the existence of a metaphysical realm or not – and why should we?. We can’t prove it does exist, nor can we prove it does not exist, so we have to recognise the anecdotal evidence as all we have for now. After all, initially there was only anecdotal evidence that death camps existed under Hitler’s rule, but then …
Atheistic argument is that because of the wide diversity and sometimes contradictory opinion regarding the nature of God or the metaphysical realm amongst the religions they can’t all be right. Atheists argue that since they can’t all be right but they could all be wrong, they must therefore all be wrong. This seems to dispose of a good baby with some rather dubious bath water. Being true to the scientific method one should argue that there are many possible conclusions and that since a large body of people believe that there is a metaphysical realm complete with a supreme being (i.e. a God), but disagree on the nature of the realm and/or God, then there should be more exploration of the nature of the realm rather than dismissing it’s existence out of hand. This is indeed what modern theists appear to be doing, refining their view of who or what God is and how God fits into a metaphysical realm – a perfectly valid scientific thing to do. It is the proper scientific approach to the question.
7 comments:
Hi akakiwibear,
You wrote:
On the one hand we have a lack of absolute scientific evidence that this realm exists,
We lack absolute scientific evidence for anything. Scientific evidence might be very strong but it is never absolute. It's always possible to update scientific knowledge as new evidence arises. The thing is, though, that we lack strong evidence that this realm exists.
[...] and on the other hand a large body of anecdotal evidence that it does.
I'm sorry, but lots of bad evidence doesn't make any good evidence. There's a reason that scientists try to control their experiments; it's to try to avoid introducing biases into the results. Without those controls it's easy to make a mistake and reach the wrong conclusion.
Peace, Neil.
Hi akakiwibear,
There's another thing. If you have anecdotal evidence for some sort of phenomenon but it goes away when you study it scientifically then that indicates that the phenomenon is a result of being in an uncontrolled situation. In that case, it's highly likely that the phenomenon is just the result of some sort of bias - one of the biases which you're eliminating by performing a controlled experiment.
Of course this doesn't rule out the possibility that God is playing hide and seek with us, but I don't have the time for such a God. He's bound to be far better at hiding than I am at seeking.
Peace, Neil.
Hi Neil,
I like your hide and seek analogy!
We lack absolute scientific evidence for anything. Agree, perhaps we talk in terms of ‘acceptable’ and ‘conclusive’ rather.
I'm sorry, but lots of bad evidence doesn't make any good evidence.
Is this the same quality of evidence debate?
If you have anecdotal evidence for some sort of phenomenon but it goes away when you study it scientifically then that indicates that the phenomenon is a result of being in an uncontrolled situation … or that the approach to studying it is in appropriate.
Interesting though is that while physical evidence for the existence of God can be challenged and labelled as acceptable or not there can be no physical evidence to prove the negative. The negative case hinges only on argument, while the positive case can appeal to both argument and evidence.
The real issue though is that there is no conclusive evidence one way or another – I don’t think we disagree on that. So we are left with what we may consider to be acceptable.
At some point we have to either:
a) take a leap of faith one way or the other and decide there is or is no God OR
b) stay on the fence maintaining a pure “on opinion” position. – I suggest that this is a very difficult position.
Atheists are sometimes inclined to argue that if God had existed he would have revealed himself to us. Theists argue that He has but atheists won’t admit it by recognising the evidence. The atheist reply is then often that He should have revealed Himself to us in an indisputable way.
Why? The revealed teaching of God is that a state of grace (however each religion defines it) has to be sought out through faith and choices made. Indisputable evidence of God’s existence would shift the choice into the ‘no brainer’ category and obviate the need for faith.
Yes that is a very convenient argument for theists to adopt – it does leave no room for the atheist to attack the lack of conclusive evidence, but it happen to be the theist position based on the theology – yes it is a circular argument, you just have to get over it! It is logically consistent with theist belief.
To require conclusive evidence is to deny the freewill to believe or not implicit in theism. But equally if God can be conclusively proven then real freewill in all areas of morality is also removed – if there was indisputable (conclusive)proof that there is a God, who would be dumb enough not to follow His teachings.
Hi akakiwibear,
You wrote:
"Atheists argue that since they can’t all be right but they could all be wrong, they must therefore all be wrong."
That's not the way I see the argument. The key point is that we're using the same method (anecdotal evidence) to arrive at several contradictory conclusions. There are a large number of conclusions but only a small number can be right. This shows that the method we're using is unreliable. It doesn't show that all the conclusions are wrong. It just means we should be open to the possibility that they are all wrong and that we need to use a better method to find out which ones, if any, are right.
"or that the approach to studying it is in appropriate."
Inappropriate in what way? What would cause the phenomenon to stop occurring when we studied it scientifically? I can't think of any reason for that happening except that the original evidence is spurious.
"Interesting though is that while physical evidence for the existence of God can be challenged and labelled as acceptable or not there can be no physical evidence to prove the negative."
Of course. Like there's no physical evidence that there's no unicorn in my garden. What's your point?
"So we are left with what we may consider to be acceptable."
Exactly. I don't consider anecdotal evidence to be reliable. Neither does a court of law. I accept scientific evidence as very reliable. So does a court of law. What forms of evidence do you consider to be reliable?
"At some point we have to either:
a) take a leap of faith one way or the other and decide there is or is no God OR
b) stay on the fence maintaining a pure “on opinion” position. – I suggest that this is a very difficult position."
How about saying "I've not seen any evidence that God exists and on the face of it I would expect evidence for things which exist, so I guess God doesn't exist"? Is that too much on the fence?
"The atheist reply is then often that He should have revealed Himself to us in an indisputable way."
The atheist reply is usually in response to "believe in God or be damned". In that scenario it would be unjust for God not to reveal himself to us. The atheist would be damned for discounting evidence which seemed unreliable - something which is perfectly reasonable. But I don't think you're saying "believe in God or be damned".
"Why? The revealed teaching of God is that a state of grace (however each religion defines it) has to be sought out through faith and choices made. Indisputable evidence of God’s existence would shift the choice into the ‘no brainer’ category and obviate the need for faith."
Wouldn't you still be able to have faith in God? You wouldn't need to have faith that God exists, but I don't see the value in that sort of faith anyway.
"Yes that is a very convenient argument for theists to adopt – it does leave no room for the atheist to attack the lack of conclusive evidence, but it happen to be the theist position based on the theology – yes it is a circular argument, you just have to get over it! It is logically consistent with theist belief."
Well inventing logically consistent Gods is pretty trivial. For example, there's a God called Steve who's got red hair and he watches the world while drinking beer and doesn't interfere with it at all. However, we don't know if Steve exists or not. The onus is on the theist to show that their particular God does actually exist.
"To require conclusive evidence is to deny the freewill to believe or not implicit in theism. But equally if God can be conclusively proven then real freewill in all areas of morality is also removed – if there was indisputable (conclusive)proof that there is a God, who would be dumb enough not to follow His teachings."
And having people not follow his teachings is a good thing because...? We'd still have freewill to choose how to follow his teachings. We'd still make mistakes and have to learn from them. And I think that actually there would be some people who were dumb enough to follow his teachings.
Peace, Neil.
Of course, I meant "And I think that actually there would be some people who were dumb enough not to follow his teachings."
Peace, Neil.
Hi Neil, I had intended a do a point by point but got distracted by the thought that you and I have most likely been exposed to much the same argument for and against God and we both seem bright enough to have actually understood both cases and if honest will admit to discarding some arguments on both sides and being engaged by others …
… so how come we end up at different places?
Next thought ..
And having people not follow his teachings is a good thing because...? We'd still have freewill to choose how to follow his teachings. We'd still make mistakes and have to learn from them. And I think that actually there would be some people who were dumb enough to follow his teachings.
I ponder this thought of yours – deep thinking today?
If we knew for certain (absolute) that there was a God would we be arrogant enough to disagree, would we deny God a vastly superior knowledge, would we reduce God to human dimensions.
Think about it, atheists often say that as people we needed God hence we created God. What you are saying is that if we had God we would deny God.
I think that is quite profound and if true may explain a lot.
Thanks for the thought; I am not sure it takes me yet ….
Hamba kahle - peace
Hi Akakiwibear,
I wrote elsewhere about by background so I'll address your other points here. I think it's quite easy for arguments to get lost in this sort of discussion. I do try to address arguments rather than discard them so please do challenge me if I do seem to be discarding an argument. It might be that I've misunderstood it.
"Think about it, atheists often say that as people we needed God hence we created God. What you are saying is that if we had God we would deny God."
Humanity isn't uniform. Some people rebel against any laws imposed from the outside. Other people seek leaders to rule over them.
I do take your point though. Most people would obey God in the face of conclusive evidence that he exists and so freewill in the area of morality would be reduced. I don't understand why this would be a problem though. One of the important features of our justice systems is that they provide a deterrent in order to protect this innocent and this leads to a stable society. Can you explain why freewill is more important than protection and stability?
Peace, Neil.
Post a Comment