If “God” interacts with “creation” (i.e. interacts with the natural world), then “God” can be subjected to scientific testing. If the god you believe in is a god that answers prayers, sends messages, send messengers, and/or sends floods, etc., then qualified scientists have an obligation to subject those god-claims to scientific rigor, just as they do in every other field of human endeavor.
Riley, help me out here. If a god whispers in my ear to do X (assuming for the sake of this argument that I’m not just completely bonkers) and I do X, how could we test for the existence of this god? I was the agent of the action, but that neither proves nor disproves anything about a god “inspiring” me.
Dawkins (and others) argue that the mechanism of evolution shows that no omnipotent god is required. All well and good. But that says nothing about whether such a god exists for if he does, he may well use the mechanisms of the natural world to accomplish his purposes since, according to that set of beliefs, he actually created those mechanisms.
Again, I agree that predictions and claims in regards to the natural world (I only use the term “creation” as a shorthand) can and should be tested. But while these tests may lead us to conclude that certain people who claim to speak for this god are almost surely wrong, how can we say anything about whether this god actually exists? It seems to me, as Gould said, that science and religion are two separate enterprises.
Just as it’s foolish for science to be guided by faith, it seems to me equally foolish for faith to be guided by science.
My assertion is that science is not in the business (nor should it be) of determining either the existence or non-existence of a deity; that, further, science has nothing whatsoever to say about the possibility of the existence of such a being. But Dawkins does insist that religion and science are antithetical and that a proper understanding of science virtually precludes one from believing in a god. That simply is not good logic.
But Hal, science is in the business of determining the accuracy of particular definitions of deities. For example, Christian Creationists claim that a deity exists who caused a worldwide flood sometime in the last 5000 years.
The science of geology determines whether or not such a flood occurred by examining what did happen in that time, regardless of whether geologists intend to or not. And in doing so, they prove that no such act occurred. The Creationists are therefore wrong, no deity exists who caused a worldwide flood 5000 years ago or so. This is an obvious example, but the site “godhatesamputees” has many more less obvious ones.
Hal, what I think you are missing is that any sufficiently clever person can create a mythology. For example, I might argue that the universe is a giant simulation, run inside a massive supercomputer in another universe. I could say we need to learn to hack it with our minds to get the stuff we want (ala “The Secret") and add some other garbage about our destiny and being “saved” and so on. And you couldn’t prove that the supercomputer wasn’t there, on the other side of some unfathomable dimensional wall.
You wouldn’t bother. You would ask “How the hell do YOU know?” and when I told you I heard voices, you would rightly conclude that I’m a madman.
And that is why science and skeptical reasoning demonstrate that God does not exist. Not by proving the negative, but by revealing that the positive claim is without merit.
Very well said Mr. Seth!!! I would only suggest that we say that the best ”philosophical” arguments (rather than “skeptical” or “scientific”) we can give suggest that there is no merit to theistic claims.
Of course I am biased because I am a professional philosopher, but I nonetheless really would defend the idea that the existence of God is a philosophic rather than a scientific problem. Of course many, like Dawkins, want to put the God-question into the ring of science—so it can knock it out. Part of the reason for that is that science’s findings are—unless muddied by political or ideological misinformation—quite authoritative and convincing; whereas the findings of philosophy are thought to be on the level of mere opinion (everyone is a philosopher, right?). Of course, as a practicing philosopher, I find reason, logic, abduction, induction, and general common sense to be weapons that pin a pretty good locus on where the truth is at. All weapons suggest there is no such thing as god; that is what philosophy points to. Just as common sense points to a worldview in which there is no such thing as invisible pink dragons, or faries, or Santa Clauses’, or Leprechauns, or Thors or Zeus’ or Poseidens or Allahs or Odins or Appollos or Shivas or Yahweh’s or Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
Oh wait… It is definitely true--as it has been revealed to me (personally, you wouldn’t know!)--that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does in fact Exist!!!
Of course many, like Dawkins, want to put the God-question into the ring of science—so it can knock it out. Part of the reason for that is that science’s findings are—unless muddied by political or ideological misinformation—quite authoritative and convincing; whereas the findings of philosophy are thought to be on the level of mere opinion (everyone is a philosopher, right?). Of course, as a practicing philosopher, I find reason, logic, abduction, induction, and general common sense to be weapons that pin a pretty good locus on where the truth is at.
I’m in complete agreement with you, PN: the question of the existence of god is not a scientific one, but a philosophical/theological one. That’s my entire point.
I’m in complete agreement with you, PN: the question of the existence of god is not a scientific one, but a philosophical/theological one. That’s my entire point.
Yes, we agree, I do not see how it can be a valid scientific inquiry.
I’m in complete agreement with you, PN: the question of the existence of god is not a scientific one, but a philosophical/theological one. That’s my entire point.
Yes, we agree, I do not see how it can be a valid scientific inquiry.
Best,
PN
Because, first, there are scientific claims made about particular deities that can be tested. Second, science is a method, not a field of knowledge. The philosophy of skepticism is, in large part, dedicated to bringing scientific methods of inquiry to everyday questions. Third, if the universe has different properties if a god exists than it would if no such god exists, these properties should be testable. If the universe does not have different properties dependent on the existence of said god, scientifically this god can be dismissed as utterly meaningless.
To magically take some field of inquiry and say “Here, science may not go” is to build a house of sticks.
Because, first, there are scientific claims made about particular deities that can be tested. Second, science is a method, not a field of knowledge. The philosophy of skepticism is, in large part, dedicated to bringing scientific methods of inquiry to everyday questions. Third, if the universe has different properties if a god exists than it would if no such god exists, these properties should be testable. If the universe does not have different properties dependent on the existence of said god, scientifically this god can be dismissed as utterly meaningless.
To magically take some field of inquiry and say “Here, science may not go” is to build a house of sticks.
Seth, please explain how we can test for the existence of a god. I agree that science is a method; I’m just completely unaware of any tests that could be used to get us closer to the truth. I can see how certain deities could be tested, but a transcendental god that leaves no fingerprints--that’s a tough nut to crack, no?
A pro-Hedges poster or two here is throwing around words like “racist”, “imperialist”, and “orientalist”, and the definition is draining from them with each bland repetition. “Islam” is not a race. I don’t give a damn what their skin tone is; crazy comes in all colors. Islam has had its fair share of imperialism in its past (I name Algeria as just one example), and significant segments of it have imperialist dreams for the future (and not just the terrorists). To blame the West for all the evils of the world is one of the dogmas that the New Atheists fight against. Lastly, there has been a long tradition among Western intellectuals (Voltaire was one of them) of romanticizing foreign cultures such as Islam and the East in order to use them as a criticism against Western Christianity.
There is a clear connection between Islam and suicide bombing that Hedges ignores. For, as Harris and Hitchens have argued, if poverty and politics are the sole cause of things, then why do you not see people of different religions living in the same region under the same conditions not committing the same heinous acts? Why? Hedges also dodged a bullet by saying that people in the Middle East are “frustrated”, but some of this frustration stems from Islam itself: it is the frustration of all-around seeing infidels running the show and advancing in science and technology while the true believers have been left behind. Of course their grievances are not entirely theological, but it would be even less accurate to say that they are entirely economical. Witness, in one recent story, the positively medieval obsession of Islamic scholars asserting that it is “scientifically proven” that Mecca is (or should be) the location of the zero latitude line, not Greenwich (as if “the West” could foist any meaningful imperialism on them through something so subjective and trivial).
A bit of advice to the pro-Hedges posters out there: if you’re going to call out Harris and Hitchens for making over-broad generalizations about Muslims and Muslim sentiments, then throw a bone to consistency and acknowledge that Harris and Hitchens are a bit more nuanced than the Fox News pundits. You are simplifying them like you think they are simplifying Islam.
Oh, and complaining about dogma among Harris and Hitchens supporters and then turning around and calling Andy Thompson a neocon propagandist in what I can only say looked a lot like a political knee-jerk won’t help either.
Seth, please explain how we can test for the existence of a god. I agree that science is a method; I’m just completely unaware of any tests that could be used to get us closer to the truth. I can see how certain deities could be tested, but a transcendental god that leaves no fingerprints--that’s a tough nut to crack, no?
Well, since you are making a claim that there exists something that has absolutely no effect on anything else, I guess you’re right. In that limit case, science can’t help you. But since you can’t--by definition--present any logic or reason to support the existence of something that has no effect on anything else, philosophy, theology, and language are similarly useless tools to dig towards this supposed truth.
But this nut, while tough to crack, is easy to dismiss. Scientifically speaking, something that has no effect on anything else can’t be said to exist. So your god doesn’t exist simply definition of “exist.”
In other words, your trump card is this: “Oh yeah? Well my god doesn’t exist at ALL! Prove that THAT god doesn’t exist!”
Great interview, and I hope you have more contrary subjects on the podcast. We are all contrarians, after all.
I was a little taken aback at Chris Hedges’ narcissism, insisting that he knows everything because of his reporting career, that his experience of violence has educated him in the lack of moral progress we all have made. I would have liked to hear whether he knew that the overall rate of violence per capita has been going steadily down for millennia (Steven Pinker’s recent article in TNR), and that the huge growth in human population is itself a testament to our ability to get along better, which is after all the point of morals. It is not human nature that is capable of improvement, but social structures, habits, and training which can create peace and tolerance out of what is given by biology. And that, of course, is what the Enlightenment was all about.
At any rate, Hedges’ ultimate thoughts on peace in the world, humility, tolerance, and introspection were all well and fine, and indeed far more in tune with the atheists he derides than he appears to know. Making straw men of all the evil atheists who want to drop nuclear bombs on everyone else was not the most scintillating part of the discussion, though I’ll grant that religion does not poison absolutely everything, and that Harris can work himself into atrocious positions.
I appreciate that Hedges believes that comity and tolerance are higher goods than truth (seeing as he appears to be an atheist as well, in a wishy washy way), and that is surely the mark of a humane (rather than utopian) social order, but there is a real barrier to mutual respect if one’s interlocutor believes in fairies. His challenge to see the humanity/humanism through the screen of psychological projections and delusions of others is in the end quite correct, but he himself could have chosen a less intolerant way of making his case.
I got the sense that he has seen a lot of misery in his day and that he felt a bit attacked. But yes, a bit horn tooting. That being said, I think his point was: I have been there, I know more. His greater experience in the mid-east compared to some of those he is criticizing does boost his opinion’s credibility. Though he was really skirting the line of “arguing from authority”.
In the end, I think he made some very good points and it was nice to have someone rock DJ back on his heels a bit. I think he points out a real danger in atheistic rhetoric that can undermine what the “skeptical movement”, if that truly exists, intends to accomplish.
In other words, your trump card is this: “Oh yeah? Well my god doesn’t exist at ALL! Prove that THAT god doesn’t exist!”
Ha! Well said.
What’s all this nonsense about the god the Christians believe in being a god that is outside the universe? The god the Christians believe in is very active in this world right here, and the Christians make all sorts of factual claims about it. It’s just not true that Christians believe in a god that is entirely ‘transcendent’ and outside of nature and beyond our ken. That stuff about being beyond and outside and transcendent is a mere dodge to use when talking to skeptics and unbelievers. It’s also completely beside the point when talking about Dawkins, for instance, because he says very clearly that he is talking about the usual god, the familiar god, the god everyone means when they use the word, the god of ‘God bless America,’ the god that is Jesus’s daddy, the god that gave us the ten commandments.
Hal Helms hasn’t once admitted the tension here, he just keeps insisting that a god of that kind can’t be tested. Of course it can’t, but that’s not the issue.
I’m not setting up a straw man. I’m not suggesting Dawkins asserts that science disproves the existence of a god. My assertion is that science is not in the business (nor should it be) of determining either the existence or non-existence of a deity; that, further, science has nothing whatsoever to say about the possibility of the existence of such a being. But Dawkins does insist that religion and science are antithetical and that a proper understanding of science virtually precludes one from believing in a god. That simply is not good logic.
No. You’re playing bait and switch here. Your ‘such a being’ is the wrong example to be talking about, because it’s not the one that Dawkins and the rest of the ‘New Atheists’ are talking about. It’s not true that ‘science has nothing whatsoever to say about the possibility of the existence of’ that being, because that being is busy and active in the non-transcendent world, and that is the one that the ‘New Atheists’ are interested in.
This is an annoying game, and it’s one that pseudo-skeptics just love to play. They never seem to tire of it, and they never admit the basic fraudulence of it. That’s what makes it so annoying, of course.
[quote author="Hal Helms” date="1210068818]
Seth, please explain how we can test for the existence of a god. I agree that science is a method; I’m just completely unaware of any tests that could be used to get us closer to the truth. I can see how certain deities could be tested, but a transcendental god that leaves no fingerprints--that’s a tough nut to crack, no?
Hal, you are creating a fair amount of tension here. Call me crazy, but I still think you are trying (poorly) to make reasonable statements. As others have said, OF COURSE science cannot prove nonexistence. You ask if a god that leaves no fingerprints is a tough nut to crack. NO, that’s not a tough nut to crack - it’s an impossible, nonexistent nut to crack and SO WHAT.
This comes down to burden. Hal, if you put the burden of PROOF of a god in the hands of those claiming a god, then I’m with you. But if you put the burden of proof that a god exists (or doesn’t exist!) in the hands of science, then I’m staying away!
