There are two possibilities for theists here.

1) There is a god who is transcendent, outside of nature, outside of the universe.

2) There is a god who is descendent, inside nature, inside the universe, who makes things happen in our world.

There are different things to say about each. About 1, nearly everyone would agree that it’s not possible to offer evidence that such a god does not exist. But theists fail to draw the rest of the obvious conclusion: for the same reason that it’s not possible to offer evidence that such a god does not exist, it’s not possible to know anything at all about such a deity, therefore there is literally nothing to say about it. If it’s outside, it has nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with it, and there’s just nothing to say. There’s fantasy, of course, but fantasy can be about anything and everything, and most theists don’t consider theism to be fantasy.

About 2, agreement is much less likely - but that’s mostly because theists smuggle in aspects of 1 in order to defend their belief system. They hang on to 2 by claiming (literally nonsensically) that 2 has the attributes of 1 but is still the god of 2. Well, that’s a cheat. You can have 1, or you can have 2, but you can’t have both in one. You can’t combine them. It’s not like blending carrots and ginger to make soup. Your god has to be either 1, or 2; it can’t be both.

Once that is realized (and that of course is the snag, because theists and pretend-skeptics simply refuse to realize it), then it becomes clear that 2) is in fact entirely subject to all sorts of empirical inquiry. It’s also subject to common or garden skepticism, in which one declines to believe every blagger who claims there is an invisible magical being up in the sky answering prayers and punishing sinners.

First off, we all agree that Dawkins does not assert that science disproves the existence of a god, he asserts that science proves that there is an extremely low probability for the existence of “God”. Second, “God” in Dawkins’ analysis, is not just any concept of a supernatural being that you might dream-up. “God” is a personal God that among other things interacts with nature. This is essential, because that interaction with nature makes “God”, by definition, directly subject to scientific inquiry.

To carry on from Ophelia’s well made points, even if a person were to make a claim about something completely outside the realm of scientific inquiry (case 1), a claim like: there exists a pink elephant outside our realm of existence, science could still be used (appropriately) to examine the reasons and basis for that claim. Because that person’s testimony and reasoning is the ONLY source anyone has to go-on to support the claim, discrediting that testimony and reasoning would be positive proof to discredit the claim. Let me be clear, when I say “positive evidence” or “positive proof” or I don’t mean 100% certain proof, I mean that science offers a positive case against the likelihood that the claims being made are factually true. 

So, even if the claim involves something completely from another realm, science is not simply limited to presenting negative arguments (e.g. there is no evidence to support the claim that there exists an other-realm-ly god or pink-elephant), science can still be used (appropriately) to make positive arguments against such claims. (e.g. how do you know this other-realm-ly thing exists? You feel it? Maybe we can replicate that feeling and show how that feeling originates from another natural source ... etc.)

seth manapio - 05 May 2008 11:56 PM

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!”

LOL. I’m actually making no assertion at all about the existence of a god. It just bugs me that Dawkins et al. use science for something it’s not meant for and thereby empower the fundies. Not that the fundies are persuadable, but their arguments can infect young minds, something I’d like to see avoided.

Ophelia Benson - 06 May 2008 05:46 AM

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.

Ophelia, I’m not sure what tension you’re referring to. Do you mean the notion of a god who is both transcendent and active in the universe? If so, I certainly acknowledge that. But that is what some Christians aver. I think it completely fair to take them on with philosophical tools. Science is just the wrong tool.

BTW, as much as I dislike Dawkins et al. (IMHO) misusing science for their own ends, I utterly detest it when the Christian fundies do that—and to a far greater degree than Dawkins would even be tempted to. Maybe I’m too much like the ancient Greek who was looking for an honest man to hold his lamp—it seems that too often winning trumps radical honesty.

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 07:32 AM

[...]I dislike Dawkins et al. (IMHO) misusing science [...]

Ophelia Benson - 06 May 2008 06:13 AM

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.

You seem to have made your mind up about me, Ophelia. Any protestation that I’m being genuine will probably only serve to further convince you of my disingenuousness, so I’ll only suggest that someone else (not the wicked me that’s being fraudulent) might, actually, have the same concerns I raise and that it would be helpful to be able to consider them.

I am not saying there is any proof or reason to believe the god I’ve described exists—only that science is no more an appropriate tool for determining the truth value of the assertion than would be a poll.

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 07:25 AM

LOL. I’m actually making no assertion at all about the existence of a god. It just bugs me that Dawkins et al. use science for something it’s not meant for and thereby empower the fundies. Not that the fundies are persuadable, but their arguments can infect young minds, something I’d like to see avoided.

You make two claims, first, that science is not “meant” to inquire into the existence of deities, and second, that to do so empowers fundamentalists.

Your first claim is simply not true. Science is a way of learning about the world. Religions make claims about the nature of god that have implications. When science shows that the claims of religion are not reflected in reality, it casts doubt on the existence of god.

Why? Because as I said earlier, it clearly shows that the people making god claims are absolutely ignrorant about the nature of god, and these ignorant claims constitute 100% of the evidence that such a being exists. So science shows that there is no credible reason to believe in any gods, regardless of whether we want it to or not.

Your second claim is more interesting. Do you have evidence that Dawkins has empowered fundamentalists? What is the nature of this evidence, what do you mean by empower?

traveler - 06 May 2008 06:18 AM

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.

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!

Thank you for helping me out. I obviously have done a poor job of making my point. With you, I absolutely reject the idea that science (or anything else) has to shoulder the burden of proof that a god does not exist. People making extraordinary claims (and the idea of a god is pretty extraordinary!) are the ones required to argue for their position. Otherwise, we could make no progress. I’m further saying that neither proof nor disproof is possible. I thought that issue had been settled a long time ago, which is why I’m surprised that bright people like Dawkins would want to revisit it.

I think if you go back to my early posts, you’ll see that my only point that I did an apparently bad job making was that atheists are wrong to use the tool of science to argue against religion. There may be other, effective tools—psychology and philosophy come to mind--but not science.

As for the tension, that does fascinate me. Why would someone disagreeing with the (possibly) majority view cause others consternation, sometimes leading to an attack on the person? It’s obvious that such a dynamic exists in virtually every community, but why? This is where I think Hedges had it exactly right: there’s nothing to fear from atheists, but a great deal to fear from people who aren’t aware of these very human impulses. We’ve rightly learned to be skeptical about many things. Perhaps we should extend that skepticism to our own emotions.

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 07:40 AM

I am not saying there is any proof or reason to believe the god I’ve described exists—only that science is no more an appropriate tool for determining the truth value of the assertion than would be a poll.

Hal, Here is the flaw in your argument in a nut-shell:
You assert that science is necessarily mis-used when applied to the topic of “God”. But you (apparently) completely miss the fact that the god being evaluated by science is not the god that you define when you claim that science is being misused. The god that is subject to positive scientific inquiry is not a god that exists completely outside the realm of the “created”.

Ophelia Benson - 06 May 2008 07:14 AM

There are two possibilities for theists here.

1) There is a god who is transcendent, outside of nature, outside of the universe.

2) There is a god who is descendent, inside nature, inside the universe, who makes things happen in our world.

There are different things to say about each. About 1, nearly everyone would agree that it’s not possible to offer evidence that such a god does not exist. But theists fail to draw the rest of the obvious conclusion: for the same reason that it’s not possible to offer evidence that such a god does not exist, it’s not possible to know anything at all about such a deity, therefore there is literally nothing to say about it. If it’s outside, it has nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with it, and there’s just nothing to say. There’s fantasy, of course, but fantasy can be about anything and everything, and most theists don’t consider theism to be fantasy.

About 2, agreement is much less likely - but that’s mostly because theists smuggle in aspects of 1 in order to defend their belief system. They hang on to 2 by claiming (literally nonsensically) that 2 has the attributes of 1 but is still the god of 2. Well, that’s a cheat. You can have 1, or you can have 2, but you can’t have both in one. You can’t combine them. It’s not like blending carrots and ginger to make soup. Your god has to be either 1, or 2; it can’t be both.

Once that is realized (and that of course is the snag, because theists and pretend-skeptics simply refuse to realize it), then it becomes clear that 2) is in fact entirely subject to all sorts of empirical inquiry. It’s also subject to common or garden skepticism, in which one declines to believe every blagger who claims there is an invisible magical being up in the sky answering prayers and punishing sinners.

That science can show that there is no evidence that a ‘god’ is responsible for anything within nature, or that it is reasonable to hold to something such as Mary’s virgin birth, does not say 1 and 2 are held to be separate. Also, saying that once it is realized that 1 and 2 can not be combined means that 2 is subject to empirical inquiry, does not follow. 2 is subject to empirical inquiry regardless of 1 (with regards to natural events, and belief). Being outside nature and acting within nature is a long held belief. That 2 is subject to inquiry, and I hold that 1 and 2 are held to inquiry with regards to belief, does not show they are not equally held beliefs.

Ophelia Benson - 06 May 2008 07:14 AM

There are two possibilities for theists here.

1) There is a god who is transcendent, outside of nature, outside of the universe.

2) There is a god who is descendent, inside nature, inside the universe, who makes things happen in our world.

You can have 1, or you can have 2, but you can’t have both in one. You can’t combine them. It’s not like blending carrots and ginger to make soup. Your god has to be either 1, or 2; it can’t be both.

But that’s just what many Christians do claim: that their god is outside the universe yet able to act upon it. It may be outrageously unlikely, but I don’t see any logical contradiction in what they claim. But all this, I think, is a bit moot since few people admit proofs (or disproofs) into their theological calculus. The determination of truth occurs at another level—at least that’s been my observation.

Riley - 06 May 2008 07:15 AM

First off, we all agree that Dawkins does not assert that science disproves the existence of a god, he asserts that science proves that there is an extremely low probability for the existence of “God”. Second, “God” in Dawkins’ analysis, is not just any concept of a supernatural being that you might dream-up. “God” is a personal God that among other things interacts with nature. This is essential, because that interaction with nature makes “God”, by definition, directly subject to scientific inquiry.

I agree with 90% of what you said, Riley. The only thing I’m having trouble with is seeing how “God” is “directly subject to scientific inquiry.” I think that’s not right, but the rest of your post I’m in complete agreement with.

Hal Helms - 06 May 2008 07:32 AM

Ophelia, I’m not sure what tension you’re referring to. Do you mean the notion of a god who is both transcendent and active in the universe? If so, I certainly acknowledge that. But that is what some Christians aver. I think it completely fair to take them on with philosophical tools. Science is just the wrong tool.

Once the claim is made that a god is active in the universe, that god ceases to be wholly transcendant and become empirically testable. That is, some claim is being made about the sorts of activities that god engages in. If these claims are true, there should be some evidence of this activity. Science is one correct tool to search for this evidence with.

You seem to have made your mind up about me, Ophelia. Any protestation that I’m being genuine will probably only serve to further convince you of my disingenuousness

Hal, no no, I saw your direct answer above, and I don’t think it was disingenuous.

Now to answer it.

Do you mean the notion of a god who is both transcendent and active in the universe? If so, I certainly acknowledge that. But that is what some Christians aver. I think it completely fair to take them on with philosophical tools. Science is just the wrong tool.

Science is the wrong tool for 1, but why is it the wrong tool for 2? I don’t think it is. Christians aver a lot of things, but some of the things they aver are open to scientific examination of various kinds.

Hal, how can a god be outside the universe yet still be able to act upon it and within it? Christians, after all, also claim that Jesus is God, and he rather conspicuously was not outside the universe. How can one be outside the universe and inside it? Why don’t you see any logical contradiction in that? It looks like just P and not-P, to me.