Knee-jerk Atheists and Their Bad Answers

Posted by Ryft

Apr 5

THE QUESTION

There is a web site that I enjoy visiting on occasion called "Ask a Philosopher" [1], which is operated by the International Society for Philosophers. I find it fascinating, the wide range of questions that people ask, but of greater interest to me are the answers provided to those questions. The following is, in my estimation, a very poor answer to a rather common question. An individual named Francis asked a philosopher [2]:

Can you prove that God does not exist?

The answer came from a gentleman by the name of John Brandon. He likened the question to someone asking whether or not unicorns exist, invoking the view of Alfred J. Ayer by telling Francis that it is not really proper to invent something "simply to prove that it does not exist." He feels that this is somewhat backwards; that is, the burden of proof lands squarely in the lap of whoever posits a God:

There is no need to build up an image of God simply to knock it down. The onus is on the believers to prove that there is a God.

Nevertheless, he goes on, if one does wish to go about proving that God does not exist, then it could be accomplished merely by showing that arguments for the existence of God are invalid. As an example, Mr. Brandon said, the fine-tuning argument could be invalidated by asserting that "there are other explanations for order in nature, which could be backed up by scientific argument."

And he could not be more wrong.

THE CRITICISM

First of all, one could invalidate every single argument for the existence of God but it would not prove that God does not exist. It would only prove that the arguments are invalid. Consider the issue from a different angle. If I offered three logically flawed arguments for proving that life exists on other planets, is it rationally sound to conclude that such life therefore does not exist? Certainly not, because it does not follow. You see, even if there were no good arguments for his existence, God could nevertheless exist. Mr. Brandon is encouraging his audience to commit a categorical error, for the proposition "I have good reason to believe X exists" is categorically different from the proposition "X exists." The logical flaws in my three arguments pulls the rug out from under the former, but has no relevance to the latter. The former comes under the jurisdiction of epistemology, while the latter comes under the jurisdiction of ontology. Different philosophical categories. My coffee cup in front of me exists even if Mr. Brandon has no reason to believe it does; my coffee cup’s ontological state is unrelated to Mr. Brandon’s epistemic state about it.

Second, providing a competing explanation for the apparent order in nature, which is all Mr. Brandon suggested doing here, does nothing to invalidate the proposed explanation. The sense Mr. Brandon left his audience with was that fine-tuning arguments could be invalidated by simply asserting "that there are other explanations for order in nature." But he is quite mistaken. Although he may assert that evolution is "a series of fortuitous accidents," asserting that does not somehow undercut intelligent design arguments. Opposed theory B does not magically invalidate proposed theory A just because someone asserted it. The two theories simply compete with one another, and one will enjoy better support than the other.

Third, the mere existence of a competing explanation does not provide someone with any reason to accept it. Describing a competing view is one thing; providing reasons for why the competing view is preferable is quite another task altogether. There is a significant difference between stating your case and making it, so Mr. Brandon is wrong when he tells his audience that all one has to do is "say that there are other explanations." No, sir, one has to do more than simply say so.

Fourth, although Mr. Brandon claimed that some alternative explanation could be "backed up by scientific argument," no amount of scientific jargon would ever help in an explanation for order in nature. And scientific "jargon" is all he would have. Why? Because the entire discipline of science presupposes the order found in nature. Science assumes it and uses it but it does not account for it, fundamentally because it cannot account for it since it lies beyond the scope of science. The closest science can come to explaining the order found in nature is by pointing at the physical laws of the universe. And although the physical laws of nature appear to be uniform and finely tuned, that uniformity and fine-tuning cannot be accounted for scientifically. Our scientific observations can provide us with good reason to accept that nature’s laws are uniform and the exquisite degree to which they are finely tuned, but it cannot account for that. The reason for the uniformity of nature’s finely-tuned physical laws lies somewhere back at the very beginning of the universe, beyond the Planck threshold where the entire fabric of spacetime was tightly curled up in a singularity that defies scientific comprehension. We can only account for things scientifically with uniform natural laws in place, because science requires them in order to get off the ground.

Fifth, science has no relevance to the issue of God’s existence anyway. Why? Because God transcends the fabric of spacetime and its phenomena, while the empirical nature of scientific enterprise means that it is restricted to the confines thereof. Science deals with nature. It is metaphysics that deals with reality. Science is incapable of answering questions about things that lie outside the scope of nature because science only deals with observable spacetime phenomena. Science has nothing to say about the nature of truth or the existence of numbers or normative ethics, etc. These are metaphysical issues. Now, one might be tempted to assert that the natural world is the sum of all that exists, but such would be a metaphysical conclusion, not a scientific one. Mr. Brandon might be content with sitting back and claiming "that science will eventually come up with an answer," but others may not be comfortable with such ridiculous faith, recognizing that there is more to the world than science can explore.

THE ANSWER

So what about the question Francis presented? What should the answer be? Francis wanted to know if one can prove that God does not exist. If one looks at the question thoughtfully, one might recognize that he is really asking, "Is there an argument for strong atheism?"

Why do I specify "strong" atheism? Because weak atheism makes no assertions about the existence of God. As I had described earlier, there is a difference between the existence of X and having sufficient warrant to believe that X exists. Weak atheism takes an epistemic position and has nothing to say about the ontological question. In other words, a weak atheist is someone who refuses to affirm the existence of God because he has not encountered sufficient reason to. But nor will he affirm the non-existence of God, and for the same reason. A weak atheist is someone who would answer Francis by saying, "I doubt anyone can prove that God doesn’t exist."

A strong atheist disagrees. Strong atheism does have something to say about the ontological question. While a weak atheist would say, "I don’t believe God does exist," a strong atheist would say, "I do believe God doesn’t exist." Strong atheism takes an explicit stance, affirming the non-existence of God. And it is reasonable for Francis to ask the strong atheist to justify that position, to answer the burden of proof; i.e., to show the reasoning which produces such an explicit position.

Is there an argument for strong atheism? "Can you prove that God does not exist?" Francis asks. The answer is rather short and quite simple:

"No."

THE CHALLENGE

I invite any strong atheists out there to falsify my answer; that is, show me that one can indeed prove the non-existence of God. Use the Comments field below to submit your answer to this challenge. By default setting, all comments are held for moderation on this web site. (It is the most effective way of dealing with spam.) Instead of authorizing the answers to this challenge, I will retain them and answer them in a separate article, which will of course link back to this one. If you have any comments or questions about this article that are not an answer this challenge, I will release them into the Comments field and respond in kind.

Most Commented Posts

Filed under: Atheism, Philosophy

http://havard.awegasm.net/ Hermiene

David, you call yourself a Christian, so presumably you don’t exactly believe in a God that is entirely outside the universe. Presumably you believe that He occasionally extends His Divine Tendrils into the universe to tweak things (such as making a virgin conceive and a son eviscerate sin from mankind). You say that “God transcends the fabric of spacetime and its phenomena” which seems to be a contradiction.

To be fair, I don’t know much about your specific beliefs. I’ve gathered from elsewhere that you don’t believe in the damnation of non-believers, for instance, which surprised me a bit when I learned of it. So what is it? Can God work miracles, or not?

As for your challenge, I’m afraid I can’t meet it. I already accept that you can’t disprove the existence of anything, which includes gods.
http://www.aristophrenium.com Ryft

That is a fascinating objection you raise, Havard. It really grabbed my attention because it never occurred to me that an objection could lurk there. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure why a Christian cannot believe in "a God that is entirely outside the universe," because it was my understanding that God exists in that way necessarily. In other words, it is not that God just so happens to transcend the universe but, rather, that it is logically impossible for him not to. The scriptural argument notwithstanding, a logical analysis of the relevant propositions demands it, beginning with the proposition about God as creator of the universe. For example, if God was said to exist as part of the universe then we have the logical contradiction of God pre-existing himself in order to create himself (existing and not existing at the same time and in the same respect).

The existence of God being logically prior to the existence of the universe—which is not the same thing as being temporally prior—results in the attribute of transcendence or existing independent of the universe. I appreciate the way William Lane Craig succinctly illustrated what transcendence means when he said, "If God did not exist, the universe would not exist. If the universe did not exist, God would nevertheless exist." That is what transcendence means (and the contingency of our world’s existence being a product of the necessity of his).

Do Christians believe that this transcendent God interacts with the physical universe? We certainly do. Is this a logical contradiction, as you contend? It does not appear to be, in any obvious way. If highly limited entities such as ourselves can interact with dimensions beyond the four spatio-temporal dimensions at which we exist, then surely there is no logical obstacle to an unlimited entity doing the same thing. (Think about the advances made by theoretical astrophysicists in the last fifteen years, the counter-intuitive discoveries at the quantum level, the experiments being planned for the LHC in Geneva, etc.) There is no obvious contradiction to God existing at one dimension while interacting with other dimensions. If there is a contradiction, it is being produced by a hidden premise that should be flushed out.

Incidentally, I actually do believe in the damnation of non-believers. That is a fundamental tenet of the gospel, the rejection of which is unmitigated heresy in virtue of being a direct attack on the justice, righteousness, and glory of God. Somewhere along the line you misunderstood something. I believe you are referring to my conversation with Rufford, but what I revealed there was my rejection of the doctrine of eternal torment in hell. I affirm the damnation of non-believers and I posit hell and its fires as being something real. What I vehemently deny—for a score of reasons—are the ideas that (i) hellfire is eternal and (ii) the damned live forever. No, the fires of hell will be temporally finite and the damned will perish therein. When there is nothing left to burn, the fires will go out. Fire is kind of like that.

The Bible is rather explicit about immortality being something that only believers will one day receive; i.e., no one possesses it now as if inherently, and only a specific group receives it. We are all by nature mortal, i.e., corruptible and perishable. The Bible specifies a time when mortality gives way to immortality and it is given only to God’s children. In other words, the damned stay mortal, subject to perishing in the fires of hell. One ought to notice that when the Bible talks about "perishable" giving way to "imperishable," the subject is God’s children only. Ergo, the damned remain perishable. They can and will die. That is their lot. "The wages of sin is death" and all that.

(It might also be noteworthy, and pointedly relevant, that I obviously reject the idea that man inherently possesses an immortal soul. Such an idea arose from Hellenist influences, being foreign to Judeo-Christian communities before then. The Bible talks about man being a composite of physical matter and the breath of life from God; indeed, it talks about all animals in such language. Upon death, the breath of life returns to God and the body decomposes back to the Earth. Where was the soul? In the creation narrative, at no point do we find it being said that God gave man a soul. Rather, it says that man "became" a living soul. We do not have souls; we are souls.)
http://wineofwisdom.wordpress.com/ Pierre

Dismantling the arguments as relating to the existence of god, do not touch on the subject of its existence itself. True. And the same could be said of Zeus, Thore and the infinite number of other deities. (And nothing is yet said as to the nature of the deity which you perceive as “metaphysical reality). But, the bulk of the matter is that where once certainty ruled supreme, a great vacuum lurks, filled only by doubt and skepticism. And now faith must bite its teeth in the very flesh of reason, as Kierkegaard puts it: faith and reason stand on opposite poles. You could quote the words of the teacher himself: blessed be who believe without seeing (I’ve translated from Arabic so it’s not accurate).

The reduction of god to a notional statement, in accordance with the scientific spirit of the enlightenment, lead to the death of the deity. At least the belief in a god became unbelievable. But then again, this was exactly the difference between mythology and religions which attempt to historicize and rationalize the myth, thus killing its vitality and continuance.

Science as a human invention, as an outcome of evolution, as a tool for survival, does not propose an answer to anything, no more than language does, but is simply content with an anthropomorphic description of reality, hopelessly within the human perception of it. There is no way to gain a pure ontological view of reality, no more than there is a way of jumping out of our skin.

Now, I do not understand the New or the Old Testament as scientific documents. Historical perhaps, though one has to dig deeply within their layers. But they echo and par excellence the rich near eastern mythological bed from which they came to be. An example of which I will quote here from the Secrets of the Bible People by Kamal Salibi:

In the opening chapter of the Genesis story, Joseph’s ‘gem-studded tunic’ features with particular prominence. First, we are told that his father, who preferred him to all his brothers, made it for him as a sign of his special love. Second, we are told that when he caught up with his brothers at Dothan, they first stripped him of the tunic, then cast him into the waterless pit, before selling him as a slave for twenty shekels of silver. Third, we are told that Joseph’s tunic was dipped into the blood of a slaughtered kid, then sent to his father, to deceive him into believing that his favorite son had been eaten by a wild beast. Then we have the story of Joseph in Mizraim, where he starts from humble beginnings to achieve great prominence. This tale is remarkably reminiscent of other stories told about the fertility of gods of the ancient Near East (e.g. Adonis, Osiris) who die or who are taken to have died in one place, only to reappear again, alive and triumphant, elsewhere. What is involved, it seems to me, is a passion story, in a way much like that of Jesus, who was betrayed by one of his own disciples for thirty pieces of silver; who was made to wear the purple robe of a king before his trial; and whose ‘garments’ were subsequently divided by casting lots among those who were charged with his crucifixion. Fine garments, one might say, make fine gods. Joseph’s ‘garment’ features again in the story of his problem with Potiphar’s wife, which ended with long imprisonment—his second passion. This time it is a bgd, which can be any kind of garment, from the rags of a leper to the ceremonial robes of kings or priests. Potiphar’s wife, in this story, seizes Joseph by his ‘garment’, which remains in her hand when he flees her adulterous advances; she uses the same ‘garment’ to charge him with attempted rape, and so have him thrown into prison.

For me, the relevant frame of thinking the entire matter, is man’s fall from nature, man’s awareness of himself as something different from nature, as a being that transcends it without being detached from it, his desperate longing for a primordial oneness now forever lost, and his waking to an alien universe in which he apparently finds no ultimate purpose, no consolation except that which he makes with his own life. Within the first phases of this awakening, man still saw himself within the natural kingdom, as such regarded other animals as other peoples, worshiped them as a means of asserting his will over them. Later yet when his consciousness of himself was yet more certain and clear, he entered the realm of abstractions, god or gods became the very reflection of man’s ego and will.

But I do believe that religion does not offer a reconciliation with life, but at most offers a narcotic in the wait for the promised life. Instead of explaining, it explains away by submitting to the “mysterious ways” in which the deity operates. The important questions of “freedom of will”, “morality”, the problem of “evil”, and religion as invested in the social sphere as to keep the hierarchical lines intact are yet to be addressed.

I follow Hermiene’s lead in asserting that this is not a response to your challenge, nor an argument for or against in anyway, but merely a general outline of my own thinking. I am an Agnostic as a general philosophy, and when it comes to the matter of faith or the lack of it I quote Camus: I do not believe in God and I am not an Atheist.

(ever heard that song by ACDC, Highway to Hell)