Sunday, February 8, 2009

God


This essay isn't really about God; it's about atheism, which is about the existence of God. These two things aren't the same, but they are related.

The following is the question I'm addressing: Is it possible to know that God does not exist?

Some definitions: Theism: the idea or belief that there is a God. Agnosticism: the idea that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God; a weaker form of this idea is held by people who say that they personally do not know whether there is a God. Atheism: the idea that there is no God. This is the weak version of this idea. Strong Atheism: There is no God, and in fact God cannot exist, and it is possible to know that God does not exist and cannot exist.

Let's look at the question about why atheism, theism, and so on are important right now. On September 11th, 2001, radical Muslim terrorists carried out devastating terrorist attacks on the United States. Since then, radical Muslims have been carrying out terrorist attacks all over the world. There is also religious strife in Africa and South Asia, and religious persecution in China. Other problems related to religion have occurred throughout history. The place of Christianity in society is a matter of controversy in the United States and many other places.

As a consequence of these recent events, certain proponents of "strong atheism" as defined above, have gone on the offensive. For them, the idea that God exists is a toxic one, and can be shown to be untrue. To them, people carry out violent acts because of their belief in the existence of God, or their belief that God wants them to do certain things. This form of strong atheism is an attack on religion; that's not the subject under discussion here, but it is related.

In the mind of the strong atheist, the idea that God exists or can exist is at best equivalent to believing in the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, at least for an intelligent and educated adult. In their minds, the idea of God is usually much worse.

Sometimes a strong atheist, when speaking with someone who holds the idea of the existence of God to be true or at least possible, will say something condescending such as, "So, your invisible friend wants you to pray for your dead aunt. How nice." Others will say something even more insulting, such as, "I don't believe in your Invisible Sky Wizard. Just because some ignorant desert nomads (they're talking about the Hebrews of the Bible) thought that some imaginary person told them to do something doesn't make it real."

Skeptic and atheist Carl Sagan made a statement to the effect that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think here we have come to the heart of the matter, and need to examine several ideas very closely before drawing a conclusion.

Three Ideas Central To Understanding What "Knowing" Is

Empiricism: the notion that all human knowledge (outside the knowledge of our own minds and hearts) comes through the senses, i.e. hearing, seeing, smelling, etc. I think this idea is essentially true. Methodological Empiricism: the practice, most often used in the natural sciences, of excluding from scientific discussion anything which cannot be sensed, measured, and quantified. In the natural sciences, this idea and practice is very useful, and has led to a great deal of scientific progress. Ontological Empiricism: this is an extension of the idea behind methodological empiricism to all human knowledge. If something cannot be sensed, measured, and quantified, then not only is it excluded from scientific examination, it must be excluded from all discussion by rational people. Furthermore, not only do things which cannot be sensed, measured and quantified not exist, they cannot exist. Among these things God is a member, since by almost every definition of God, God is invisible, beyond time and space, not made of matter, and cannot, by definition, be sensed, measured, or quantified.

This idea of "ontological empiricism" is the central mistake of strong atheism. Ontological empiricism (i.e. the idea that nothing outside the world that we can sense through experience can, even in principle, exist) is so severely broken that it doesn't even qualify as wrong. Here's why, starting with a few examples:

If someone I know were to tell me that he had experienced a dream in which an angel told him to give up all material things, go find a small place in the woods in which to live, and spend the rest of his life praying for the salvation of all people, I would probably wish him well.

Here are a few reasons why I say this. Mainly, I have no way of knowing whether or not the man truly had a visitation from an angel. There is no way for me to measure, sense, quantify, or otherwise examine the angel in question, because by definition angels are not made of matter and do not exist in the same way that the objects of our ordinary sense experience (rocks, trees, dogs, cats, houses, chairs, other rocks, and so forth) exist. Also, I can't examine the contents of another person's dream.

Here's another example. If someone told me that he had experienced a visit from extraterrestrial aliens, and that they had taken him onto their spacecraft and then returned him to his home, I would doubt his claim. Not because I don't think there are any extraterrestrial aliens, nor because I think visits from extraterrestrial aliens can't happen. The real reason is that extraterrestrials can, if they are even remotely like us, be sensed, measured, and quantified. Without material evidence of such a visit, I would say that to accept such a claim as real, I would need something more. Some form of advanced technology which we don't have here would incline me in favor of the claim. A visit from a number of alien spacecraft which other people could see, and which could be examined by the scientific community to rule out a hoax, would almost certainly do the trick.

Conclusion

Strong atheism makes a very serious mistake about what can be known. Carl Sagan said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What he didn't say was that the only things which he would accept as evidence had to be able to be sensed, measured, and quantified.

What the strong atheists are claiming is that anything, including God, which cannot be sensed, measured, and quantified, not only does not exist but cannot exist. I can't see how anybody can place any value in terms of truth and fact in such a statement. It is impossible to sense, measure, or quantify a reality which is beyond our sensory experience. Therefore, it is impossible to know empirically whether or not there is such a reality, including God. This is where ontological empiricism (the central idea on which strong atheism rests) overreaches and becomes ridiculous. Therefore, it is impossible to know that God does not exist.

Hans Bricker