There’s no reason except for wishful thinking to think science will one day find only God could have been responsible for biodiversity. It’s not as though there are currently two popular debated scientific theories, evolution and God, and the evidence currently leans somewhat towards evolution. In such a case, a person could reasonably say that he finds the God theory more likely despite evolution being favored by many experts. He would have to justify why he finds it more likely, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable for him to think further work in biology might show the theory he favors is in fact correct.
But that is not the case. What we have instead is one scientific theory – evolution - a theory about as well established as any other scientific theory; and a tradition stretching back to antiquity that claims God
created all the animals as they are now. There are many traditions that stretch back to antiquity, among them that the Earth is flat; the Earth is the center of the universe; and that everything is made of the four elements fire, earth, wind, and water. We have abandoned those traditions because they are counter-factual. We do not hold Aristotle’s elements and the modern elemental table to be equally valid theories. We do not propose that in the future, we might discover that everything is indeed made of earth, fire, wind, and water.
The phrasing also, once again, presents evolution / God-did-it as a dichotomy. There is an assumption that one of these two must be right, and that if evolution is proven wrong, the God theory is right by default. In reality, were evolution to be proven wrong it would be replaced with another scientific theory. In the history of scientific inquiry, never once has something which was once thought to be caused by supernatural phenomena and shown by scientists to be instead caused by wholly natural phenomena reverted back to being explained by the supernatural. While this doesn’t mean that it will never happen in future, it does mean that there is no good reason to assume that it will. No reason other than wishful thinking.
There is also the fact that evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It merely makes Him unnecessary for explaining biodiversity, just as the germ theory of disease made demons unnecessary for explaining illnesses. The most likely outcome of the religion / evolution debate is that religions will adapt and fit evolution into their theologies. Many moderate religions have already done so. Most fundamentalist religions acknowledge that diseases are caused by germs, yet still maintain a belief in demons. I think it may be only a matter of time before they adapt to theologically acknowledge evolutionary theory.
To scientifically prove God exists, it is not enough to disprove theories that provide naturalistic explanations of the world. There must be actual, positive proof of God’s existence. To prove God is responsible for biodiversity, for instance, it is not sufficient to disprove the theory of evolution and then point to a book that claims God did it. Independent positive evidence of God’s involvement must be provided. Alternatively, if one could scientifically prove God exists, prove God authored the book, and prove that God tells the truth, then we could accept the book’s testimony as to how biodiversity came to be.
As for the implication that the possibility God may be proven by science in the future is a good reason to believe in Him now, well, anything is possible. It’s possible I’ll sprout wings and learn to fly. But until I do, I’m not going to jump off any tall buildings. Using this epistemology it’s impossible to determine what it’s reasonable to believe in. After all, even if right now we have no reason to believe something is true, future discoveries may show that it is. The only rational approach is to look at the evidence we have right now and determine whether, in the light of current evidence, it is reasonable to believe something is true or false. That we might be wrong is an inevitable side effect of our being unable to see the future, but that possibility is not a justification for abandoning reason and arbitrarily declaring things true because, after all, we don’t know the future and maybe someday…
To make things worse, it may actually be impossible to scientifically prove God exists – at least, the idea of God most people hold. Before a premise can be scientifically investigated, it must be rigorously defined, and it may be hard to find a less well-defined concept. Ask ten people for finely-detailed definition of God, and you’ll get ten answers. Even we’re one to come up with a generally-agreed upon definition, nearly all definitions include non-falsifiable characteristics.
For instance, the claim that god always answers prayers. If you get what you prayed for, God answered, “Yes.” If you don’t get what you prayed for, God answered, “No.” It is impossible to test whether God answers prayers by looking at the outcomes because whatever the outcome, it is assumed God heard and responded to the prayer. Therefore it is likely that God cannot ever be scientifically proven. Not because His existence is “beyond the reach of science,” with the implication that science just isn’t up to the task; but because the concept of God is structured in such a way that it is impossible to point to something as a disproof. Yet the impossibility of proving this definition of prayer false is not proof that God answers prayers. After all, the same argument could be used to “prove” that a rock answers prayers, or a chair, or absolutely anything. It’s not right or wrong, it’s not even wrong. Without a concrete definition and falsifiable attributes, we can no more scientifically investigate the question of God’s existence than we can investigate the question of whether the rock answers all prayers with “yes” or “no.”
I think that in the coming chapters the author is going to try to scientifically prove the existence of God. That should be interesting. Maybe I read too much into the title of part two and its accompanying quote and have been tearing down straw-men. I sincerely hope so, but I have a feeling that I’m going to be disappointed.
I've enjoyed watching you succinctly and clearly debunk these arguments. The one you are responding to here is so bizarre it's almost hard to believe someone wrote it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there's also the question of whether or not science could ever "discover that God exists," given that most definitions of and claims about God are designed to be totally untestable, unverifiable, and with no truth conditions. So the most the argument could claim is, maybe at some point in the future science will reach some problem for which it cannot even imagine any natural solution, and that will make scientists go, "it must be something supernatural." And on that note: Yeah. Right. People keep bringing this kind of argument from ignorance in favor of supernaturalism for all kinds of things. For example, moral behavior--but we have pretty good ideas how that works. They bring it up for religious impulses--but we're learning more and have testable theories explaining that as well. Naturalism has a darn better explanatory track record so far than supernaturalism, in short. It's a pretty safe bet.
There are plenty of scientists in the world who believe the evidence for God from science is astronomical.
ReplyDelete-"The Language of God" written by a believer
-"The Goldilocks Enigma" written by a disbeliever
Both books address the how science has now reached a conundrum where its impossible to avoid the question of why the universe is made just right to support life-forms. Intelligent design no longer comes of as pseudo-science, rather its seems militant atheists are avoiding the questions brought from the other side. And science is all about answering questions.
More to the point you use the word "science" too generally without defining what you mean. Your claim that science still has to prove God would only work if your science being described from a Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens perspective.
Until the 17th century when ideas from the muslim world instigated the scientific revolution in Europe, the question of God and science being seperate was not even considered. "Newtonian synthesis" where Newton brought heaven and earth under a common physical microscope remained the leading scientific paradigm all the way from the Renaissance to the 19th century. And in all this science God was still part of the equation.
So the idea that science still has to prove God, much less that God is not a part of science is in itself a relatively new idea. And nor is it something that even enjoys support in all western academia.
And that is the crux right there. Even if you could make the argument that western science has no room for God, you miss the mark that not all of science is western science.
Of course you may now take the approach that anything that is not part of western science is wrong. But consider this. Take chinese medicine. Many of the practices associated with it such as conceptions of chi and so forth do not match any known empirical methods. And yet chinese medicine has been known to cure ailments western empirical based techniques could not. Which at minimum would show that the naturalistic/empiricism alone paradigm that defines western science is not the only paradigm we must consider for ascertaining truth.
Finally you seem to already have addressed that science itself is indeed pretty malleable. And there is the problem right there. Humans cannot put their faith in malleable values. Humans need consistency.
ReplyDeleteWho are we? Why are we here? What is our reason for existing? Where do we come from? Where are we headed?
These are not pseudo-questions. These are geniune questions that must be answered. Science does not answer them. But religion and philosophy very much do.
Quote: "I would love to know the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything."
case in point!
JG
ReplyDelete> The one you are responding to here is so bizarre it's almost hard to believe someone wrote it.
To be fair, he didn’t actually articulate this argument. It was just implied by the section title and the quote he used. Pretty clearly implied, but still…
Shalmo
> Both books address the how science has now reached a conundrum where its impossible to avoid the question of why the universe is made just right to support life-forms.
It’s not. To use Douglas Adam’s example, imagine a sentient puddle looking around and marveling at how well the depression it sits in is molded to its form. We evolved to fit the conditions that exist, not the other way around.
> More to the point you use the word "science" too generally without defining what you mean.
“Science” is the pursuit of knowledge using scientific principles. If you could point out where I use the term “too generally” I’d be grateful for the chance to correct it.
> Until the 17th century when ideas from the muslim world instigated the scientific revolution in Europe
That’s a gross oversimplification. The golden age of discovery in the Islamic world ended in the 1200s when fundamentalist clerics rose to power.
> the question of God and science being seperate was not even considered… And in all this science God was still part of the equation.
So? Through the middle ages, a geocentric universe and Aristotelian physics were also part of science, and were not questioned – in fact, those that did question these principles were often persecuted. Science moved on.
> So the idea that science still has to prove God, much less that God is not a part of science is in itself a relatively new idea.
So are electric lights. What’s your point?
> Take chinese medicine. Many of the practices associated with it such as conceptions of chi and so forth do not match any known empirical methods. And yet chinese medicine has been known to cure ailments western empirical based techniques could not.
No. Just no. “Chinese medicine” is folk medicine. Chi has never been shown to exist. Many folk medicines have effective therapies that use herbs. The herbs have the same active ingredients found in modern pharmaceuticals. The difference is that there is no way to determine the dose when using the raw plants, as opposed to extracting the active ingredient and turning them into pills. Other parts of Chinese medicine, such as acupuncture, gain their efficacy through the placebo effect and regression to the mean.
> Humans cannot put their faith in malleable values.
Isn’t it fortunate then that science doesn’t operate on faith.
> Humans need consistency.
Humans want consistency. Want it very strongly. So what? I already addressed why an illusion of consistency doesn’t equal objective truth in the last post.
> Who are we? Why are we here? What is our reason for existing? Where do we come from? Where are we headed?
These are not pseudo-questions. These are geniune questions that must be answered. Science does not answer them. But religion and philosophy very much do.
First, I don’t know that they “must” be answered. We would like answers. Second, the answers may well be that there is no “reason” for our existence, that we come from chance encounters of molecules and are headed for oblivion. Third, that religion has answers doesn’t mean those answers are objectively true. No answer is better than a wrong answer, for all that the false certainty of religion is comforting. And fourth, philosophy, not religion, is best equipped to answer these questions. Religion’s answer to everything is, “God did it.”
I would like consistency. And I would like to see the religious "why" questions be legitimate and get answered. But, I like truth more.
ReplyDeleteBesides which, there's no such thing as "Dawkins science." Science is science; it's the use of experimental method. There is just an accompanying worldview that either recognizes this as the one best method we have to gain knowledge of the universe, or a worldview that also admits faith/tradition/transcendent experience/whatever. The former worldview far precedes Dawkins et al.
G*3, This post as well as your response to shalmo (among other blogs I have seen you post on) is fantastic. I really appreciate your ability to articulate your position. It is very presise and convincing....ever on a debate team? (dont all yeshivas have debate teams? :)
ReplyDeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteI've never been on a debate team. I just have a liking for logical consistency and penchant for precision that tends towards the pedantic. (And I like alliteration.)