It's often claimed that theism is untestable, but that seems to me mistaken. Surely we should expect significant differences between an atheistic universe and one guided by a supreme being that is all-powerful, knowing, and benevolent. Indeed, this is precisely why the problem of evil is such a powerful anti-theistic argument: it rests on the idea that the world is not how we would expect it to be in light of such a being's existence. We would expect God to create the best possible world, which ours does not seem to be. That's one failed prediction for theism, and thus a count against the theory.
The argument from divine silence rests on a similar inference. If the Christian God existed, he would surely let us know this. Perhaps each Sunday he would light up the skies and speak to us in a booming voice, or something along those lines. But of course nothing like this actually occurs. At present, the epistemic situation of many individuals provides them with little or no reason to believe in God. This is not something we should expect to be the case if God really existed. (Indeed, I think it makes traditional Christianity completely ludicrous - see my argument from hell.) Thus we have a second failed prediction for Christianity, and another serious count against the God hypothesis.
Now, it must be granted that these failures do not conclusively falsify theism. But then, I'm not sure that empirical evidence can ever conclusively falsify anything. Suppose I posit the existence of a black hole near our solar system. Others might cast doubt on this by showing how the standard predictions we'd make from this hypothesis fail to match up with our observations of reality. But I could always respond by claiming a measurement failure on their part, effectively denying their observations; or I might suggest that they have misunderstood the nature of black holes, thereby disputing the legitimacy of their predictions; or I might simply say that extraordinary circumstances allow for the possibility of the black hole's existence no matter how unlikely it may seem given our evidence. (Evidence can be misleading; improbable events may still occur.) The same responses are open to the theist. But of course they are unconvincing in either case.
These problems might be avoided by reverting to an extremely weak notion of 'God' as a causally inert being that makes no difference to the universe. As in the case of my positing a causally inert blob that likewise 'is nowhere' and 'does nothing', we surely have no reason to believe in such a pointless entity. Ockham's razor can safely shear it away.
But I'm sure most theists do not conceive of their God in such a useless way. So Ockham's Razor, or complaints about 'unfalsifiability', should not be the atheist's first line of attack. I think much stronger arguments can be made by taking the God hypothesis seriously, i.e. as making testable predictions about the world, and then pointing out how dismally those predictions line up with reality.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
29 comments:
Visitors: check my comments policy first.
Non-Blogger users: If the comment form isn't working for you, email me your comment and I can post it on your behalf. (If your comment is too long, first try breaking it into two parts.)
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Richard wrote:
ReplyDelete"Others might cast doubt on this by showing how the standard predictions we'd make from this hypothesis fail to match up with our observations of reality. But I could always respond by claiming a measurement failure on their part, effectively denying their observations; or I might suggest that they have misunderstood the nature of black holes, thereby disputing the legitimacy of their predictions; or I might simply say that extraordinary circumstances allow for the possibility of the black hole's existence no matter how unlikely it may seem given our evidence. (Evidence can be misleading; improbable events may still occur.) The same responses are open to the theist."
actually, the theistic argument is like suggesting that there is a black hole within the solar system -- in fact right here on the planet -- but it is of a special nature, one which makes it impossible to see, taste, feel, hear or in any other way detect. essentially, God is like ether.
hey Don, Jr
ReplyDeleteits the theistic explanation of the world that makes no sense to me. for example, how can God speak through the prophets? does he use radiation of some sort (akin to radio waves) to stimulate a special detector in the prophet's brain, and if so: could we detect the waves in some way? is there interference (resulting in prophetic mispronouncements)? or -- how can He hear our prayers, especially silent ones? do we have a broadcasting device in our brains? and if so, can our broadcasts be interfered with? spied upon? and if so, would God know if they are -- and how?
the most puzzling aspect of theism to me is omniscence. in view of the fact that photons (our source of information about location of electrons) interfere with eletrons when they strike them, and therefore we can only know a particle's position OR its momentum but not both (so called "uncertainty principle"), how can God know everything? what does he use to KNOW where things are? and how come THAT does not interfere with that which it measures?
just a few little questions about the theistic theory i have... ;-)
best regards
Hi Donjr! happy new year!
ReplyDeletei am not sure i understand the fine point you are putting on things. an explanation to be even a remotely good one has to be internally consistent AND consistent with what we know of the world. there is a serious inconsistency between a God who acts in the world (by communicating with us, or creating the world, or effecting miracles within it) and what we know about the way the world works. (creation offers similar problems -- how does a will exist without a material medium and how can sheer unmediated will effect, say, a big bang? or anything?). perhaps you are leaning towards a theory of God prposed by Richard elsewhere, which is of an undetectable God who does not interact with the world or us, indeed has no impact on any of it. this theory would be consistent, but unfalsifiable. material for occham's razor, i suppose. i am not sure how you feel about occham's razor?
best regards
tried to post before and it seems to have failed anyway the summary is
ReplyDelete1) you disproved certain kinds of gods
a) it would be od for a god to be a "booming god" because that implies that is the best way for hin to get things done. One would expect the best way would be either
i) just setting the preconditions of the universe to make what he wanted.
ii) constant changing to the point whee the universe seemed to have no rules at all.
2) bad use of ockham's razor - it is a way to simplify things not to disprove other things.
It seems to me if you are going to raise the "God hypothesis" one must obviously point out that the hypothesis must deal with all the conceptions of God. That's always been the flaw with the problem of evil. It presupposes a particular concept of God (the one incompatible with evils we see) for all God. But even if one disproves this hypothesis of God it doesn't follow logically that one has disproved the God hypothesis proper. Just one particular line of it.
ReplyDeleteI think this is why many atheistic arguments against God fail, even on an intuitive level. One is simply left wondering if a strawman isn't being argued against.
genius is right about occham's razor. though, i wasnt disproving the existence of God thereby, only just wondering about possible uses of the theist hypothesis of an impotent, undetectable God with whom we cannot interact. i suppose we do have to weed theories on some basis. unfalisiability would be one. explanatory uselessness would be another.
ReplyDeletehm, don jr, i wonder what makes you think that God is the best explanation of the world? (i tried to suggest to you that most theories of God are incoherent).
ReplyDeleteon the other hand you seem to suggest that we should believe in the existence of antlantis because to disbelieve the existence of antarcitca would be foolish. i think the evidence in favor of the existence of antarctica is overwhelming. the evidence in favor of deist explanations is non-existent.
When one chooses to have faith in god(s), none can reason that individual out of it. My definition of faith is: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
ReplyDeleteI choose that definition because many who have faith resort to "I just have faith" after their logical arguments have been breached. When one chooses not to have an open mind and be willing to question their beliefs in a logical manner that is based on objectivity and evidence, there is no ability to reason with that person.
Faith and ignorance often go hand in hand. Those are the double edged sword of our current society.
Don, you misunderstand the sense of 'useless' that is being employed here. We commonly call something 'useless' if it makes no salient difference to our present concerns (e.g. Antarctica?). But I'm not talking about that. In my sense, an entity is 'useless' if it makes no difference whatsoever to the universe. These are the sorts of entities that get shorn away by Ockham's razor. It clearly does NOT include Antarctica, since the existence of a gigantic icy continent makes an actual causal difference to the world. Not so for the kind of 'useless' God which doesn't impact upon the universe in any way whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteClark, I'm happy enough to argue against the standard conceptions of God. If someone wants to propose a different "God hypothesis", then they're welcome to do so, and we could consider it independently, on its own merits. But I have no patience for those who would defend theism by playing an indefinite 'bait and switch' game, whereby for any particular atheistic argument they offer the facile response "oh, we can invent some variant of theism which that wouldn't apply to". Let's fix down a particular theistic position and deal with that. I say the considerations mentioned in my main post rule out the most common contenders, at any rate.
While I aplaud the sentiment (i.e. tying things down so they can be debated) we should not forget that "science" (as opposed to theism) plays the bait and switch game also.
ReplyDeleteFor example If I disproved a random science fact very few people would abandon science as irrelevant even if they accepted my proof of a flaw in their model (they would jsut change the model).
Thinking that they should is the sort of error creationists make ie "you cant explain the formation of the human eye (lets say) so evolution didnt happen."
Besides - even if they could prove that it CANNOT HAPPEN in nature you would probably go for the aliens hypothesis over the god one right?
What is a problem is when you prove two ideas are inconsistant and then you hear them repeating those same two ideas together later.
I'd second "genius" point. It seems grossly unfair to criticize a particular and take it as entailing much about a generality. This isn't just an issue of theism but of logic in general. That's why we have a fallacy named for this behavior.
ReplyDeleteYes it makes life harder, but it really isn't a bait and switch issue. It's simply a fact of life when falsifying theories.
"But I have no patience for those who would defend theism by playing an indefinite 'bait and switch' game, whereby for any particular atheistic argument they offer the facile response "oh, we can invent some variant of theism which that wouldn't apply to"."
ReplyDeleteHow is this 'bait and switch' different than any other hypothesis. I propose some theory, you argue it doesn't work because of X, Y, and Z, I change my theory so it is immune to X, Y, and Z, and so on. Isn't this how philosophy has worked for a very long time now?
Oh sure, it's fine if you actually do change your theory. I had in mind the sort of theist who just uses the existence of variation as an excuse to ignore atheistic arguments that fail to cover every possible theistic alternative (even if it does refute the particular conception they hold to).
ReplyDeleteThe divine silence argument targets specific conceptions of God as a being that wants us to worship / believe in him. Clearly it would be unreasonable for such a being to refrain from giving us any indication that he exists. And it would be downright immoral of him to punish us for our subsequent (reasonable) disbelief. (That is the point made in my linked "argument from Hell".)
ReplyDeletehello donjr!
ReplyDeletei suspect you are not discussing specifics because this is where every theory of God runs into trouble!
best regards
tom
> The divine silence argument targets specific conceptions of God as a being that wants us to worship / believe in him.
ReplyDeleteI dont think it works.. but explaining might be a bit hard...
And I might upset some theists but lets wander down the path (note we are assuming some degre of benevolence, omnicience and omnipotence)...
FIRST
1) The god could also "implant beief in him in our heads (actualy thisis to an extent the case but he could do it so you CAN'T disbelieve)
2) Or he could boom out every evening "I'm here" (also makes it damn hard not to believe)
3) Or he could say nothing
If 2 then why not 1? 2 seems an odd method of achieving what you want anyway. I suggest you either use 1 or 3.
SECOND
An omniscient god knows the outcome before the test. So it is more like you are being weighed and measured rather than tested from that perspective. So that changes the perspective on "unreasonable".
A god could then punish you without being immoral. The problem is that a human would normally need to see somthing in your actions (like you killing someone or whatever) but a god doesnt need an action as an indicator for a trait - he can see the trait directly.
hello donjr!
ReplyDeletewell, you are probably right, i must not understand what you are saying. perhaps, in the spirit of charity, you should make it easy for me, then, and tell me: what makes you think that God is the best explanation of anything?
best regards
gawain
I bet (if this progresses) we end up in trouble with the definition of "best"
ReplyDelete'We would expect God to create the best possible world, which ours does not seem to be.'
ReplyDeleteThe God Hypothesis, 1st Jan 2006
...and what exactly would be 'the best possible world'? According to whose definition?
The simple fact that the universe is not 'perfect' does not in any way count as an argument against the existence of, for want of a better term, god.
If god had created a world where everything worked out just the way us lowly humans wanted it to, where nothing ever went 'wrong', where 'evil' did not exist, - well, what would be the point in that? Where would be the endless opportunities to learn, grow, escape boredom (because in a perfect world that is what we would all be - bored out of our minds)???
Evil only exists in contrast to it's opposite number, 'good'. Like black and white, one cannot have one without the other. Evil is a concept that is very human, very theological (i.e. religious) in any case, and as such does not have any true existence outside of human society.
'We would expect god' - such insolent pride! God has no reason to apologise for not creating a universe that caters to the whims and fantasies of your typical upper-class Californian teenager! If this is the best 'evidence' you can come up with for the non-existence of god, well then you had better try much harder next time.
Pambrus, I discussed that sort of objection in my linked post on the problem of evil. Please read that and respond there if you find the argument lacking. Also, you're an ignorant fool if you think there is no worse suffering in the world than the thwarted "whims and fantasies of your typical upper-class Californian teenager". Shame on you for trivializing the pain and suffering inflicted on sub-"upper class" persons all around the extra-Californian world.
ReplyDeleteDon, you might be interested in my post on why supernatural explanations are no explanation at all.
A similar argument is that if you believe in a god that interacts in any way you would assume that this would show up in statistics. Lottery winners should congregate in strong christian/moslem etc areas.
ReplyDeleteSame with hurricanes/wars/health they should cluster according to faithfulness and the correct religion should be obvious.
The fact that these events are properly random shows that god if he exists does not interact with the world. If he doesn't interact why bother believing in him
Sorry I haven't relly read it completely, but could I bother referencing to my blog - jpknight.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteBut why are people making evil a point for/against a benelovent god? Isn't it a purely anthro-centeric position, to bequeth great value on our suffering? It is not a question of defining 'best', but one of admitting the extremely obvious observation of the subjectivness of suffering/evil (though that does raise points against the a god of objective evil).
excellent, donjr, by refusing to be pinned down you prevent disproof of your arguments! i would congratulate you except that religious people have used this way of arguing for several millenia now. it's no way to win arguments, but it does work! (see: http://heaventree.blogspot.com/2005/12/jeremiah-vs-tales-of-miletus-or-debate.html).
ReplyDeletebest regards!
One argument for deciding between religions is that maybe god interacts in a very weak sense in such a way that a religion that he favoured should slowly spread over time. this means maybe islam or christianity or possibly budhism.
ReplyDelete> The fact that these events are properly random
I think you are putting the cart before the horse, I dont think anyone has done this experiment - at least not properly. You may well be right of course - just that I dont see how you could KNOW you are right.
If someone wants to propose a different "God hypothesis", then they're welcome to do so, and we could consider it independently, on its own merits.
ReplyDeleteOk, I'll posit the God or Higher Power of a 12 step program.
Studies show that whatever that God or god is, he/she/it/etc. gets better results than a twelve step program without a reliance on a higher power.
Hello, all. I hope I don't attract too much fire as a) a newbie, b) a non-philosopher, and c) a subject-changer. This is just the closest discussion thread I could find to the subject I wanted to introduce. If there is a better one, I would welcome directions to it.
ReplyDeleteOK: that said, it seems to me that no one ever talks about the language that theists use (and that non- or a-theists use in talking back to them). To wit: take a (fundamentalist) christian proposition repeated from scripture like "god created the world in six days." The most important words in that sentence - "god" and "created" - recede into swamps of non-meaning. Who or what is god? If he is defined by his actions, well, what exactly did he do in creating the world? How did he do it? The answer is beyond our comprehension, presumably. We end up with the proposition "a being I cannot conceive did something I cannot comprehend at some point in the past I'm not sure of." Ah. Glad we cleared THAT up.
My larger point is this; if we engage theists in arguments referring to entities and events that no one claims to understand, how is this rational discourse? It ends up being more like two seagulls squawking at one another on the beach than it does "discourse" or "argument."
Again, if I am missing any obvious points or should post somewhere else, let me know. Thanks!
Hi John, I've started a new Open Thread for you, so hopefully others will respond to your argument over there.
ReplyDeleteI agree that theism is testable through experience and reason, but I do not think it is a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis uses experimentation and observation to test process, not being. Thus, I can scientifically test the boiling point of water and even its constituents (since this is a process itself, the combination of hydrogen and oxygen), but I cannot scientifically test if I really am myself, if God exists or what it is like to be a cow. Similarly, science can tell us nothing about reason and logic.
ReplyDeleteOn to your arguments against theism, or Christianity in particular. I agree, that the problem of evil is a difficult issue. But I think there are sufficient philosophical and theological answers to satisfactorily deal with it.
In terms of divine silence, I think you have presented the issue incorrectly. The inference: "If God exists, He will certainly let us know" is based on an important assumption. It is this: "If God exists, He will certainly let us know in a way which I find acceptable". I find this highly presumptious. It is like saying: "If my dog exists, I should expect it to bark to me every five minutes".
Rather, the argument from divine silence should run: "If God exists, we should expect a certain amount of evidence for His existence". If we do have a certain amount of evidence for His existence - and I contend we do, such as: the origin of the universe, objective morality, reason, the incarnation through Christ, etc. - then I suggest we don't have a viable argument from silence.
I know I am rather late to this game, but I would like to point out that negatives can be proven and are proven (definitively) all the time. One of the easiest ones to disprove: "There is no highest prime."
ReplyDelete1. For there to be a "highest" prime, there must be a finite set of primes.
2. It is proven that there is an infinite set of primes.
3. Therefore a highest prime cannot exist.